Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rural Development Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SB 281 would let owners build on Class 6 roads after notice; municipal association urges caution
Summary
Sen. Murphy’s SB 281 would allow property owners to receive building permits for lots on Class 6 (unmaintained) roads after recording a notice; proponents say the change removes arbitrary barriers, while municipal representatives warn municipalities need time to adjust and that oversight is important for emergency‑access concerns.
Senate Bill 281, introduced by Senator Keith Murphy and heard March 11, would change state law governing building permits on Class 6 (unmaintained) roads by allowing property owners who record a notice acknowledging municipal non‑maintenance and limits of responsibility to proceed with permits in more cases. Murphy said the statute currently leaves towns and applicants in a patchwork of inconsistent practices, and that the bill would permit consenting property owners to move forward rather than having towns categorically deny permits.
Support: Several witnesses, including attorney Paul Alfano (who said his practice routinely handles private‑road matters) supported the bill. Alfano told the committee that the current statute and town practices produce arbitrary results (for example, variable distance cut‑offs or ad hoc approvals) and that predictable state criteria would reduce confusion and litigation. He also suggested a possible alternative or refinement: keeping some select board oversight to confirm whether emergency vehicles could reach a dwelling.
Opposition and municipal concerns: Brody Deshaies (New Hampshire Municipal Association) testified in opposition, saying the statute and existing planning processes are important protections that prevent scattered or premature development in areas without adequate infrastructure. He recommended that if the bill moves forward, municipalities be given time to update zoning ordinances and that the effective date be delayed (he suggested July 2026) so towns can prepare any necessary changes.
Committee exchange: The committee discussed the existing RSA 6:74:41 provision, which already requires select board approval and recorded notices in many cases. Opponents said the statute helps avoid placing unsuspecting buyers or renters in locations without emergency access or adequate infrastructure. Proponents emphasized predictable standards and the hardship of denying long‑held lot owners the ability to build.
Ending: The hearing closed with the committee hearing practical suggestions for compromise: either clarify objective criteria or require select board confirmation focused on emergency access if the legislature does not want to remove select board involvement entirely. No committee vote took place at the hearing.
