Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Private Roads topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board directs certified letter on Dana Place access after residents cite emergency-vehicle blockage
Summary
The Select Board approved sending a revised letter to a property owner about a Dana Place Road stream crossing that residents say is blocking emergency access; the board set a 45-day response deadline (Aug. 7) after legal counsel said the town's road standards address construction, not ongoing maintenance.
The Jackson Select Board on June 23 reviewed a revised letter to a property owner about a stream crossing that residents say has restricted access from Dana Place Road to Route 16 and asked that the letter be sent via certified mail with a written response requested within 45 days, setting an Aug. 7 deadline.
Chair Bob Thompson summarized legal advice that the town's Road Design and Construction Standards are construction standards rather than maintenance obligations and that the town "may not expend public funds on matters involving private roads," citing guidance from the New Hampshire Municipal Association. Thompson told the board that "no conflict of interest exists because no litigation has been initiated." Barbara Campbell moved to send the edited letter; Frank DiFruscio seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Residents raised public-safety concerns during the discussion. Jan Carpenter, a Dana Place resident, described restricted access for emergency services, vendors, visitors and residents and referenced a prior fatality near the emergency egress. Board members pressed whether subdivision easements established at the time of approval had been formally terminated and recorded; town staff reported they had not been. Angelo Simeoni and Burr Phillips disputed the interpretation of Section 21.1 of the town standards — Angelo argued it requires private roads to meet the same standards as town roads, while Burr said the provision applies to new road applications rather than existing private ways.
The board's formal action was to transmit the revised letter to Mr. Levine by certified mail and request a written response by Aug. 7. The vote (Barbara Campbell, mover; Frank DiFruscio, second) carried unanimously. The board recorded no further binding commitment to use public funds for work on the private road, noting follow-up would depend on counsel responses and any change in the status of subdivision easements.
