First hearing in MacGinnis v Chester perplexes judge

By Shawn Cunningham
© 2026 Telegraph Publishing LLC

WOODSTOCK

For most of the status conference in the lawsuit that Kirk and Michelle MacGinnis have brought against the Town of Chester, Superior Court Judge Kerry Ann McDonald-Cady struggled to understand what the plaintiffs wanted and whether the type of action they brought was the right one.

Kirk MacGinnis has been demanding that the town discontinue the Class 4 road that runs through properties he has on both sides. At Select Board meetings, MacGinnis has, in a confrontational style, asserted that his private land was “under siege” not only by deadly crime and accidents as well as illegal dumping and burning, but by unpermitted work by the Chester Conservation Committee to build bridge over the stream. He has made numerous public record requests in addition to filing his complaint. The MacGinnises are representing themselves in court.

The Rule 75 action brought by MacGinnis gives an aggrieved party an avenue for appealing a decision or a lack one by a state agency or a town where there is no specified process for appeal spelled out in state law. But while the motion made in MacGinnis’s 106 page filing is to “Transparently Discontinue Wyman’s Falls Road Segment,”  what is clear is that while the board did not vote to adopt a policy on Class 4 roads, it asked Hance to provide more information on the process so the board could better understand it. 

Against this backdrop, Judge McDonald-Cady questioned what decision MacGinnis was actually disputing. She also said that considering that he was looking for a specific action she didn’t think Rule 75 was the right to go about it. She noted that the second of the two documents in his complaint is “a little harder for the court to decipher.”

MacGinnis said he wanted the town to “certify the record” regarding bridge building on the road.

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘certify the record,’ ” the judge replied.

MacGinnis said that the town “should have some grounds giving them (the conservation committee) the go-ahead” to build the bridge. He noted that his deed does not show the town having a right of way “through my driveway.”

McDonald-Cady said that particular request would be more in line with a civil action outside of the narrow scope of a Rule 75 review.

Representing the town, attorney Jim Carroll that he also found the MacGinnis complaint confusing. He noted that, under statute, a petition signed by 5 percent of the voters is required to trigger a mandatory road discontinuance hearing by the Select Board and an individual cannot force such a hearing on his own.

Carroll also said that the town did receive MacGinnis’ request to discontinue the road and while counsel was reviewing it, the Rule 75 action was filed bringing everything in the matter to a stop. Carroll also said that despite MacGinnis bringing the suit, the town has continued to respond to his records requests, including 109 documents.

Carroll also said that if the question is whether the road is actually a road, Rule 75 is the wrong route to take since Rule 75 is only about whether the town made – or didn’t make – a decision. Carroll then offered to speak with the MacGinneses to agree on a schedule and clarify the issues. “I would love to have clarification of the issues that would be addressed on a motion for summary judgment,” said Carroll.

McDonald-Cady proposed that they either schedule a new status conference after the parties had clarified the issues and agreed on a discovery schedule or she would create a limited discovery schedule while the MacGinnises  amend the complaint to clarify what they are seeking.

The judge then spelled out some of the topics that an amended complaint would need to address to show how it falls under Rule 75. Specifically, she wanted them to say what date the Chester Select Board either made a decision or failed to make a decision that is the cause for their appeal.

Kirk MacGinnis agreed, then asked the judge to order that the situation with the road remain “status quo,” in effect stopping the town from doing anything with the road, including allowing the conservation committee to build the stream bridge. McDonald-Cady said that was not possible since that authority doesn’t fall within the Rule 75 proceeding at this point.

The Telegraph asked MacGinnis and Carroll for comment on Monday’s proceedings. Carroll said he agreed with Judge McDonald-Cady. “Hearing what has transpired, the pleading needs to clarified, it’s very hard to understand.

A call to MacGinnis was not returned by the publication deadline for this story.

Class 4 road policy comes back to the board

At the same time this is going on, the Class 4 road policy is about to come back to the Chester Select Board after a review by Carroll.

His suggestion was to combine that policy with the town’s road regulations so there are no mismatches between them. But noting that the board has said it would not go any further with a discontinuance request by the owners of Adams Farm until the policy is adopted, it may stand to reason there might be hesitance toward adopting it until the MacGinnis suit is over. The board has a review of the Class 4 policy on its agenda for Wednesday March 18.