Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trail Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Private land access and trail connectivity emerge as sticking points in Tinmouth ATV proposal
Summary
Residents and presenters debated whether a roads‑only ordinance would produce meaningful trails without prior landowner agreements; proponents said road access would make landowner recruitment easier, while residents urged getting commitments from landowners before the vote.
Several residents argued that designating roads without clear destination points risks encouraging aimless recreational riding. A resident framed the issue as a "chicken‑and‑egg" problem: trail access and landowner permissions are harder to obtain without road access, but roads without destinations could encourage unnecessary loops on local streets.
Proponents acknowledged the concern and said some landowners had expressed conditional willingness to allow trail use if the ordinance passed; they encouraged outreach to specific landowners and said they were already talking with some owners about potential trail connections. The selectboard and proponents agreed it would be useful to publicize any landowner willingness once permissions were secured and to include trail‑access information when circulating the draft ordinance.
