Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Private Roads Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears clash over bill allowing construction on private and Class 6 roads
Summary
Witnesses and municipal representatives told the Senate Commerce Committee that House Bill 296 would shift maintenance costs and liability to towns by allowing building on private and Class 6 roads; bill proponents said it expands property rights.
House Bill 296 would allow property owners to build on land located along private or Class 6 roads, the bill's presenter told the Senate Commerce Committee.
Representative Dumont introduced the measure, saying HB 296 "allows property owners the ability to build on land located along private or class 6 roads. The bill empowers them and enhances their property rights." He described the proposal as "very simple" and similar to a companion Senate bill previously recommended by committee.
Opponents focused on costs and liability that could fall to municipalities if new construction increases wear or requires infrastructure upgrades. Dawn Merryman of Raymond, who serves on the town's board of selectmen, said the town had recently been forced into court over such issues and that the town incurred "thousands and thousands of dollars" in legal and repair costs after private-road development and a washout. Patricia Bridges, chair of the Raymond Board of Selectmen and ex officio planning board member, said the town had paid "hundreds of thousands of dollars" after private-road failures and urged the committee to "allow the wards to take this where it is and let handle it locally."
Bernie Deshaies, representing the New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA), described statutory language in RSA 674:41 and warned that the bill's draft could turn a municipal permission structure into a mandate. Deshaies said the bill's insertion of a clause that a building permit "shall be issued" when a road is built to town standards could preempt existing subsections that allow towns to record notices limiting municipal liability, and could require towns to issue permits without providing notice that they will not maintain a road or accept liability.
Committee members asked local officials about typical municipal protections, whether water and sewer are commonly available on Class 6 roads, and whether towns use waivers or other acknowledgements to signal to buyers they should not expect municipal services. Merryman said such waivers and court orders had been part of Raymond's recent experience and stressed that local boards better know their own infrastructure and risks.
The committee closed the hearing after NHMA asked for statutory clarifications and for corrections to typographical errors in the draft. No vote on the bill was recorded during the hearing.
Ending: The committee did not vote on HB 296 at the hearing. Committee members and municipal witnesses urged changes to the bill's statutory language; NHMA asked for amendments to avoid creating a mandatory statewide permit rule and to preserve existing notice and liability provisions for towns.
