A recent discussion at the Claremont Planning Board raised an important question: Should property owners be allowed to build on Class VI roads? As it stands, Claremont has a long-standing motion — nearly 30 years old — stating that the city does not allow access permits for driveways or buildings on these roads, effectively barring development. However, a review of state law reveals that this position may be outdated and in need of reconsideration.
Under RSA 674:41, property owners can build on Class VI roads, provided that:
- The local governing body authorizes building permits.
- The municipality does not assume responsibility for maintenance or liability for damages.
- The property owner records notice of these limitations with the county registry of deeds.
This conversation originally began with the Policy Committee, which recognized that under RSA 674:41, property owners should be able to erect buildings on Class VI roads. However, at that time, the city planner did not bring the recommendation forward for action. This should be addressed to bring Claremont into compliance with state law.
The recent Planning Board discussion highlighted ongoing confusion on this issue. Some board members expressed the belief that Claremont does not allow building on Class VI roads, while others pointed out that state law provides a clear process for doing so. Further complicating the matter is the current House Bill 296, which proposes updates to regulations regarding private roads, potentially clarifying the process even further.
In response to this discussion, the city council has asked the city manager to consult legal counsel and draft an ordinance that aligns with state law, ensuring that residents have a clear and lawful path to building on their property. Allowing this could also provide much-needed housing options at a time when our region faces a severe housing crisis.
I have heard from residents that the original motion restricting development may have been related to concerns about the city’s ability to provide bus transportation and emergency services. While I understand this concern, I have been unable to find any specific legal requirement that mandates such services for Class VI roads. In fact, I have seen homes successfully built in other New Hampshire communities on unmaintained Class VI roads, with property owners fully aware that they are responsible for maintenance, including plowing — and that public safety services may not be able to access their property in an emergency. This personal responsibility is exactly why state law requires owners to formally acknowledge the limits of municipal responsibility.
I am a firm believer in local control, but we also need to recognize that by stunting building growth, we are directly impacting property tax rates for all residents. More housing means a broader tax base, which helps to distribute the financial burden more fairly.
I believe this issue deserves a fresh, fact-based discussion. Claremont must ensure that its policies reflect state law while also considering the needs of residents who simply want to use their land. I look forward to seeing how the City Council addresses this important topic in the coming weeks.
