Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why did the Select Board decide to stop maintaining these roads?

A: While two Board members objected, a bare majority of the Select Board was persuaded by the argument that the Town was spending public money for private benefit - private because the Town does not own the land these roads are on. This, however, is a misunderstanding of the distinction between "private" and "public." These roads are open to the public, and they serve not only the people who live on these roads, but they also provide access to vital Town infrastructure. Many provide access to power lines that go not only to Nottingham residents who live on these roads, but those who don't. One goes to the State Park. One provides access to the publicly owned Dolloff Dam. Two other of these roads provide access to dikes necessary for maintaining Pawtuckaway Lake. One road provides access to a boat launch for emergency vehicles to access the lake. The people who own the land these roads go over do not benefit from the roads. It is the citizens of Nottingham who benefit.

Q: Aren't these roads just shared driveways?

A: No. Decades ago the Town made it clear that the camp roads were definitely not driveways. The subject came up in the 1969 Nottingham Town Meeting, back during the era these roads were being approved and constructed. In that meeting, Selectman Frederic York made a motion that concerned driveways, which clearly stated "camp roads are not considered driveways" (1969 Annual Report, p. 10). The Town's voters passed this motion without opposition. While the fact that a statement to this effect was necessary indicates that some people then thought that the camp roads might be driveways, that the motion was put forward by a Selectman and the Town's voters approved it unanimously indicates that it was widely understood then that the camp roads were roads, not driveways. Besides, shared driveways have deeded shared ownership. That's not the case with the camp roads. The land under the camp roads go across land that is usually not owned by any of the residents who live on these roads, and in no case is that land collectively owned. Without shared ownership, there is no legal mechanism to compel these road users to pay their share for maintaining the road. Further, with regard to development restrictions, the Town has never treated these roads as shared driveways. The Town has required that any new buildings on these roads conform to the Town's set-back requirements.

Q: How did the Town end up maintaining roads it doesn't own?

A: The roads in question were created between the early 1800s and the 1970s. During this period Nottingham had far fewer regulations about land use than it does now. Also during this period Nottingham was experiencing a consistently falling population. Substantial, ongoing changes in the population are difficult for towns to manage because the population changes change the town's tax base and service needs. Hence, during this period the town welcomed development, new homes, new residents, and new taxpayers to help pay for existing town infrastructure. Encouraging development on these roads was financially attractive for the Town as these lots had high property values, they could be charged at a higher property tax rate as waterfront, and they tended to not be owned by families with school-age children. The Town consequently decided to maintain these roads like it did the other roads in Town in order to encourage development. For a more details, read the history of the camp roads.

1919 Map Showing Some of the Oldest of These Roads

A: No. There's no requirement that Town roads must be paved, nor does accepting the roads even authorize the Town to pave them, nor do the residents on those roads want them to be paved. The Town has other unpaved roads and many that are paved now were previously dirt roads. Accepting these roads doesn't require the Town to do any more maintenance to them than the Town has done for the past half century. Mostly that just means plowing the roads in the winter, grading them in the spring, and spot repairs and additions of gravel caused by washouts and other weather events, such as downed trees. Besides, a large expenditure such as would be needed for paving these roads would have to be voted on by the Town's citizens. Not only is there no citizens' movement to have these roads upgraded, but in general the residents on these roads like the rustic character of their neighborhoods and do not want that changed by changing these roads. More on why this fearmongering is implausible.

Q: I've been told that the antiquated standards to which these roads were built creates legal liability for the Town. Is that true?

A: In the half century the Town has been maintaining these roads the Town has never experienced any law suit or threat of a law suit regarding how the roads were built. The Town's legal counsel has not produced any examples of other Towns with similar roads being sued because the roads were built to antiquated standards.

Q: Is that true that these roads are substandard?

A: With respect to roads, "substandard" refers to design and condition. It is true that, like countless other old public roads in New Hampshire - including all of Nottingham's existing old roads - these roads were built using antiquated standards and do not meet current standards for the construction of new roads. As with some other roads in town, it is true that the Town has been lax in their maintenance. These Warrant Articles do not in any way compell the Town to rebuild these or any of its many other substandard roads to current standards, nor do these Warrant Articles compell the Town maintain them any better than the Town maintains similar roads in Town. When Rockingham Superior Court compelled the Town of Derry to accept the Rainbow Lake camp roads, the Court specifically said that the Town was not required to bring the roads up to current standards.

Q: Will voting for these Warrant Articles increase my taxes?

A: The Town has been maintaining these roads for decades. The intent of these Warrant Articles is to preserve the Town's on-going maintence of these roads. In theory, that should cause no changes in taxing. That said, certain members of the Select Board have commited themselves deeply to ending the Town's maintence of these roads. If these Warrant Articles pass these Select Board members could potentially argue, as a face-saving effort, that tax increases are now needed because of the "extra" burden the Town has taken on. If so, they will be engaging in sophistry. Instead, Nottingham taxpayers should be worried about what will happen to their taxes if the Warrant Articles are not passed. How much more money will Nottingham taxpayers have to spend on legal fees so that the Select Board can defend its poor decision to overturn long-standing practices? Worse, what will happen if the Town wins that lawsuit? Property values on those homes could plument, causing other taxpayers to have to pick up the slack. There could even be another suit against the Town arguing that homes on these roads should be taxed less because they do not receive the government services that other homes in the town do. The bottom line is that the Select Board's decision to stop maintaining these roads has exposed taxpayers to great uncertainty, at little benefit. The safest course of action is to continue doing what has been done for decades. These Warrant Articles allow Nottingham citizens to mandate the Select Board to take the safest path.

Q: The Select Board says these roads don't meet the Town's road standards; therefore they cannot become Town roads.

A: The Town's own legal counsel has said, "this warrant article is valid and enforceable if so approved by Town residents. If the Town residents want to accept a road in any condition, this is within the authority of Town meeting."

Q: If these roads become Town roads, will everyone be able to use them then, and have lake access?

A: Everyone is already able to use them. These roads have been open to the public for as long as anyone can remember. They are Emergency Lanes. While these roads go near the lake, and at a few places touch the lake (e.g., Seamans Point Rd going over Gove Dike) from where you can walk from the road into the lake, there's otherwise no form of lake access from these roads. Nottingham residents do, however, have their own lake access at the Nottingham Town Beach.

Q: The people who live on these roads knew they were private roads when they bought their homes. Their failure to do due diligence is not the Town's responsibility.

A: These roads have been maintained by the Town for decades and had been granted Emergency Lanes status. Buyers were told - correctly - that the Town maintained the roads. Hence, the buyers had every reasonable expectation for the Town to continue to maintain the roads. Rockingham Superior Court ruled that when the Town of Derry insisted that its similar camp roads were private that "The Court determines that the Derry Town Council's decision that the roads are private is a decision as lacking in reason as to be arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious."

Q: Why should the Town maintain roads that only go to a few homes?

A: These roads serve some of the most heavily populated areas of Nottingham. At their entrances these are some of the most heavily traveled roads in Nottingham that are not State highways.

Q: If Warrant Articles #19 & #20 pass, will it end the lawsuit?

A: Yes. The dispute will be permanently over. These roads will then be treated the same as the Town's other old roads.