Rockhouse Mountain Property Owners Ass'n v. Town of Conway

574 A.2d 380, 133 N.H. 130, 1990 N.H. LEXIS 41
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedMay 4, 1990
DocketNo. 88-412
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 574 A.2d 380 (Rockhouse Mountain Property Owners Ass'n v. Town of Conway) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rockhouse Mountain Property Owners Ass'n v. Town of Conway, 574 A.2d 380, 133 N.H. 130, 1990 N.H. LEXIS 41 (N.H. 1990).

Opinion

Thayer, J.

The Town of Conway (the town or the defendant) appeals an order of the Superior Court (O’Neil, J.) approving the recommendation of the Master (Robert E. Hinchey, Esq.) that occasion exists for the town to lay out a roadway system pursuant to RSA [131]*131231:28-33 (1982 and Supp. 1989) in the Rockhouse Mountain Development, in Conway. We find that the burden on the town resulting from the requested layout would outweigh any benefit the public would receive; accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order.

This case has already been before us in Rockhouse Mountain Property Owners Association v. Town of Conway, 127 N.H. 593, 503 A.2d 1385 (1986), where we affirmed the dismissal of counts three and four, seeking damages and mandamus. In this appeal, the town challenges the trial court’s decision on counts one and two, seeking a layout of roads. The relevant facts are as follows. See also Rockhouse Mountain supra. The plaintiffs are an incorporated association of property owners in a Conway subdivision known as the Rockhouse Mountain Development (Rockhouse Mountain), together with individual lot owners residing and/or owning property in that subdivision. Rockhouse Mountain was developed by Great Northern Land Corporation (Great Northern), which obtained approval for the subdivision from the Conway Planning Board in 1971. The planning board understood that the roads were to be private, and purchasers of the lots were told that the developer would maintain the roads in the subdivision for an annual fee. There are approximately 197 one-half acre lots in Rockhouse Mountain, and 2.46 miles of roads. Twelve lots are owned by Conway residents, approximately sixteen to eighteen are owned by developers, and 135 of the remaining lots are owned by out-of-state residents. Twenty-two lots had homes on them at the time of trial, and only eight or nine of these homes did not front on public roads. When the plaintiffs petitioned the town to take over the private roads, no school-age children resided within Rock-house Mountain. It is unclear from the record whether or not school-age children currently live there.

In 1979, Great Northern notified the lot owners that, because it was having difficulty collecting its annual fees, it had decided to withdraw from further maintenance of the roadways. During August of 1982, several lot owners sent the Conway selectmen a petition pursuant to RSA 231:8, requesting that the town lay out roads over all rights of way in the development without cost to the abutting landowners. RSA 231:8 states:

“Selectmen of a town, upon petition, may lay out any new class IV highway not financed in whole or in part with federal aid highway funds, and class V or VI highway or alter [132]*132any such existing highway within their town for which there shall be occasion.”

Alternatively, they requested that the town lay out roads over the development’s two principal thoroughfares, Gotzens Road and Brenner Drive, subject to betterment assessments against the abutters. The betterment assessment statutory scheme enables town selectmen, in response to a petition, to lay out roads over existing rights-of-way, and to assess the abutters for the cost. RSA 231:28-29 (1982 and Supp. 1989). RSA 231:29 specifically provides:

“The cost of constructing, reconstructing or repairing such highways, streets, roads or traveled ways shall be assessed by the selectmen against the owners of property abutting or served by such facilities in an amount not exceeding the entire cost of constructing, reconstructing or repairing the same, and the amount so assessed upon each such owner shall be reasonable and proportional to the benefits accruing to the land served. Said assessments may be payable in one year or payment may be prorated over a period not to exceed 10 years, in the discretion of the appropriate governing board____”

On September 28,1982, the selectmen denied each request, stating that the existing roads did not meet Conway’s road specifications, and that the cost of betterment assessments to improve the roads and bring them up to town standards would be disproportionate to any value the abutters would receive, in some cases even exceeding the assessed value of the lots benefited. The selectmen explained that the high cost of construction outweighed the benefit to the few people who would be served by the public roads, and that these people would use the roads only infrequently. They also based their denial on the fact that the subdivision’s roads “do not interconnect or improve the road system of the Town of Conway generally.”

In September of 1983, some of the property owners filed a new petition with the selectmen in which they requested that the town lay out only a portion of Brenner Drive subject to a betterment assessment. On November 7, 1983, the selectmen denied the petition, explaining that only four houses would be served by the road, and that the estimated cost would be too burdensome to the individual abutters. The selectmen also stated: “More importantly, however, we fail to find valid public benefit to the rest of the Town. The road does not connect with anything on the southeastern terminus, thus not up[133]*133grading the Town’s road system generally.” In response to these decisions by the selectmen, the plaintiffs filed the present lawsuit, claiming in counts one and two that the selectmen acted illegally in denying their requests for the layout, respectively, of Brenner Drive and of all of the roads in the development.

During the hearing before the master, evidence was introduced indicating that the cost of upgrading Brenner Drive to conform to town standards, with the exception of the road’s grade, which could never be brought into conformity, would range from $137,500 to $217,500. The cost of upgrading the entire roadway system, with the exception of the roads’ grades, would range from $735,373 to $1,162,468 to bring the roads up to town standards, and from $553,000 to $663,000 to bring the roads up to State standards. The town subdivision regulations require that prior to the town’s acceptance of a road, there must be at least $500,000 of valuation per mile and at least 60% development. See CONWAY Code § 131-83. While evidence was introduced that the valuation per mile in this case may exceed $500,000, there was also testimony that the development along the roads is far below the 60% requirement.

Following the hearing, the master recommended and the superior court ordered that occasion exists for the layout of public roads throughout Rockhouse Mountain pursuant to RSA 231:28-33 (1982 and Supp. 1989). In reaching his recommendation, the master balanced the public need for the roadways against the burden the roads would impose on the town. The master found that “a substantial number of lots are served by virtually impassible [sic] roads. Fire and police protection plus the necessary school bus service would ... be substantially impossible.” In concluding that there existed “a reasonable necessity” for the layout of public roads, the master determined that the burden on the town was not onerous when compared with the plaintiffs’ need for the roadway system.

While RSA 231:8 indicates that the selectmen may lay out roads for which there is occasion, RSA 231:28-33 (1982 and Supp. 1989) merely provides that the selectmen may lay out roads pursuant to a petition and may assess the abutters to recoup the cost thereof.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Green Crow Corp. v. Town of New Ipswich
950 A.2d 163 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2008)
Rodgers Development Co. v. Town of Tilton
781 A.2d 1029 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2001)
Wolfeboro Neck Property Owners Ass'n v. Town of Wolfeboro
773 A.2d 633 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
574 A.2d 380, 133 N.H. 130, 1990 N.H. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rockhouse-mountain-property-owners-assn-v-town-of-conway-nh-1990.