Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property owner alleges substantial restriction on 3 North Winchester; town to have counsel review claim
Summary
An attorney representing the owner of 3 North Winchester told the select board that loss of driveway access and on‑street parking — tied to recent state and town work — may constitute a substantial restriction amounting to a taking under New Hampshire law; the board agreed to have the town attorney review the claim.
Attorney Jim Fleming appeared with his client, property owner Thomas Souviantopoulos, to raise a legal claim regarding property at 3 North Winchester Street. Fleming said the owner had relied on rear and on‑street parking access that was removed or made unusable during recent public‑works improvements tied to a state grant for the adjacent area. Fleming cited New Hampshire case law and RSA 675:7 protocols to argue that the loss of vehicular access and parking could be a "substantial restriction" on economically viable use and, in some circumstances, tantamount to a taking that would require notice, opportunity to be heard and payment of just compensation.
Fleming told the board his client had spent about $30,000 to regrade and create a driveway and drainage solution because the prior access would not meet code slope requirements; the owner is seeking reimbursement for the work because, Fleming said, the owner had been deprived of use of the property and had not received notice as required by statute. Town staff disputed that access had been "cut off," saying their research of deeds and prior interactions differed with the attorney's framing. The town also noted it had issued a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) after the work was completed.
The select board voted to have Fleming contact the town administrator and asked the town attorney to review the claim. Board members emphasized the need for a legal review of title history, applicable state grants and any statutory notice requirements before any commitment to reimbursement or settlement.
No legal determination was made at the meeting; the board took the matter under advisement and asked staff to coordinate with the town attorney and report back.
