When Towns Sue Each Other: Road Discontinuance Rights in New Hampshire

‍ A New Hampshire case showing when a town cannot close a road to limit traffic from a neighboring town

‍Can a town close a road simply to reduce traffic from a neighboring town?

To find out, we pulled a 2005 New Hampshire Supreme Court decision from our archives in which one municipality sued another over a highway discontinuance.

Background

North Hinsdale Road runs south from Route 63 in Chesterfield to the Hinsdale town line. The road then changes names in Hinsdale and continues to Route 119. In effect, North Hinsdale Road connects two state roads: Route 63 in Chesterfield and Route 119 in Hinsdale, New Hampshire.

Chesterfield residents living near North Hinsdale Road complained about traffic coming from Hinsdale and sought relief from what they viewed as increasing congestion along the road.

In response, Chesterfield voted in March 2003 to discontinue a quarter-mile segment beginning at the Hinsdale line, subject to gates and bars, and installed locked gates at the border.

Chesterfield residents retained access. Hinsdale residents did not.

The practical effect was immediate. Hinsdale residents lost their most direct route to Route 63. Travel distances increased by as much as ten miles. The discontinued segment had served as a practical evacuation route in the event of an incident at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power facility and allowed more efficient police response between the towns.

Hinsdale appealed the Chesterfield vote to the superior court.

Superior Court

To resolve the matter, the court adopted a balancing test. It weighed the aggrieved town’s (Hinsdale) interest in continued use of the highway against the burden on the town (Chesterfield) voting to discontinue it to maintain it. The burden of proof rests on the party challenging the discontinuance. The superior court then applied that test to the evidence.

On one side, the court found substantial evidence supporting Hinsdale’s interest in continued use. The discontinuance eliminated a direct route used by more than 300 Hinsdale residents. It increased travel time and distance. It affected emergency planning and police response. The court found “the deliberate purpose of closing the quarter-mile section of the road was to create a barricade or plug or roadblock to the traffic coming from or to Hinsdale,” because “some Chesterfield residents reside close to North Hinsdale Road and are bothered by the traffic.”

On the other side, the burden on Chesterfield appeared minimal. A road agent testified that maintenance costs for the affected segment were low. The record suggested that traffic concerns, not expense or feasibility, drove the vote.

The superior court concluded that the balance favored continued use and reversed the discontinuance.

Supreme Court Review

The New Hampshire Supreme Court said it would uphold the superior court’s decision if supported by “some evidence” and would not disturb it absent gross mistake or fraud. That standard mirrors the review used in highway layout cases.

Applying that standard, the Court affirmed. The record contained “substantially more than some evidence” to support the superior court’s weighing of interests.

Takeaways

This case highlights the superior court’s central role in New Hampshire highway discontinuance appeals. The court does not defer to the town vote. It conducts “de novo” review and decides the issue anew. And the Supreme Court’s “some evidence” standard means it gives deference to the superior court’s ruling.

In that sense, the superior court serves as the “adult in the room” in highway discontinuance cases. It applies a neutral standard to a developed record and ensures the result aligns with the governing law, not merely the outcome of a local vote. This is a feature of the system, not an exception. The law contains protections for those affected by these types of public decisions, including neighboring towns.

Town of Hinsdale v. Town of Chesterfield, 153 N.H. 70 (2005).

For assistance with easements, roads and civil litigation, please contact Alfano Law at (603) 856-8411 or by filling out our Contact Form.  The firm offers free or low-cost initial consultations for most matters.