TRURO — Complaints that campaign signs were removed from private property are based on misconceptions about where property lines are, Town Manager Darrin Tangeman and DPW Director Jarrod Cabral both said this week. The town’s right-of-way sometimes includes sections of roadside where residents have fences and stone walls, they said.
Candidate Tim Hickey continues to maintain that some of his signs were removed from private land. “It’s a fact,” he said this week. At least two residents complained to the police, who say they are investigating.
The town stopped enforcing its temporary sign bylaw because of the controversy.
Cabral said this week that approximately 20 signs had been removed by DPW staff. All were signs for Hickey, who lost his bid for select board in the May 29 election, or for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, Cabral said, adding that he had been directed to take down signs in the public right-of-way by Tangeman.
DPW staff took photos of each sign before removing it, Cabral said. Those photos, he said, showed that signs had been removed from Shore Road, South Highland Road, Truro Center Road, Town Hall Road, Fisher Road, and Route 6, and one from the Great Hollow Beach parking lot.
Tangeman said he ordered the removal because the signs blocked drivers’ view when making turns. “If it obstructs the sight triangle, that’s usually considered a safety issue,” he said.
Cabral maintained that town- and state-owned rights-of-way often encompass walls and fences.
“No one realizes that,” he said. “When we mow the roadsides, we usually do about three or four feet in. If folks have their lawn ornaments out, we try not to mow them over.”
Cabral said South Highland Road is an example of a street with more public land than residents realize. The town’s right-of-way is about 60 feet wide, he said, but the pavement is only about 30 feet wide.
In an email to the Independent, Hickey wrote, “Town employees trespassed and removed Hickey signs from private property” and “the DPW Director indicated to at least three people that this was ordered by a Select Board Member to the Town Manager.”
Hickey declined to name the three accusers or the select board member who allegedly directed the sign removal.
“I do not recall any select board member calling me,” Tangeman said this week. “I was driving home, and I saw signage in the public right of way.”
Cabral said he was not aware of any select board member being involved in the directive to remove signs. He said he had printed out GIS maps to direct DPW staff in sign removal.
“The staff is aware of where the boundaries are,” said Tangeman. “They mow the lawns regularly.”
Tangeman said last week that 12 people had yelled at him about the signs at his coffee hour. This week he corrected himself, saying that 12 people had attended the session but only two of them had yelled.
Police Reports
Residents filed complaints with the police about the removal of signs on four separate occasions between April 9 and May 1. One was Marie Tanguay of Fisher Road, who reported that Hickey signs were taken from her lawn on April 9.
“She states that when she went out to her porch, she saw that the signage was missing and a town DPW truck was driving away,” Officer Anthony Camilo wrote. Tanguay is married to Jack Riemer, clerk of the Truro Planning Board.
In an April 22 report, Officer Patrick Belliveau described an encounter with Connie Mather of Fisher Road. “I explained to Ms. Mather that the town DPW had been removing signs if they were on the town easement,” Belliveau wrote. “Ms. Mather was adamant on charges being pressed, and I informed her that we would not be able to take out charges as this is a civil matter between her and the town.”
An April 23 report by Officer John Carr, also regarding sign removal from Tanguay’s and Riemer’s property, contains eight redactions. “Ms. Tanguay provided me with photos of an individual carrying multiple signs off their property in an orange sweatshirt,” Carr wrote. The name of the person with the signs is redacted. Police Chief Jamie Calise said the name was being withheld because the case is under investigation.
As of June 1, Hickey said he was “not sure” whether he planned to retain counsel and press charges related to the town’s removal of his signs. “If the town comes clean with the truth, I will have no reason to do so,” he wrote.
A public records request by Keith H. Bensten of Day Pitney LLP was submitted on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. It asks for 12 categories of documents, including permits, internal practices, and communications regarding the town’s sign code. It also requests sign code-related messages sent to or from select board and planning board members as well as any political or election sign-related communications.
Bensten asked that any fees related to the request be waived. Tangeman told the Independent that the town does not waive records access fees. “We don’t waive the fee because we have such a small staff,” he said. “The town is under immense pressure with public records; we lose a lot of money and time over them.”
As of June 4, Bensten’s firm had agreed to pay the town’s $175 estimate of the cost, town officials said.
“We would also like to start a dialogue with the Town as soon as possible to discuss our concerns and find a solution without the need for litigation,” Bensten wrote. Tangeman said on June 4, “Town counsel is speaking to their attorneys, so there’s a conversation.”
