Michael Connolly wrote:We are presently in the standing committee stage of forming a road association. We presently include all those who have legal right of way and regularly use and have property on our private road. This includes about 30 property owners and 2 miles of road. Connected to our road, is another 3/4 mile private road that a couple of residents at our end use regularly and have ROW over this road. There are an additional ten property owners on this separate road with two owners with legal ROW over ours and regularly use ours as well.

 We on occasion have a need to use their road on an emergency basis, and they ours. Initially, we saw no need to include this road as members as there is generally little common usage. We did ask them to participate in our discussions, as in general we feel that all should belong to a formal road association, and they being exclusively on the lake side may have a greater need at a later date.

Our local Watershed Association has identified the connector road as a trouble spot for lake pollution which complicates our obligations as well as it partly lies within our boundaries and includes some of our members.

We are coming up on our sending out invitations to an informal meeting and wonder if they should be included as a group or just those who regularly use our road with their ROW ?

Has anyone a similar situation, and what is your conclusion in this matter relative the basic guidelines of inclusion of all those who "benefit" from a particular road ?

1. "Benefit from" means access. Are the people on the 3/4 mile connector road using the 2 mile road for access? 
2. You say people on the 2 miles use the 3/4 miles -- for access?
3. Are the eight (ten minus the two with "right of way") actually landlocked? With no legal access? Explain.
4. Explain about the emergency access. 

Michael Connolly wrote:Thank you for responding. I'll try to answer each question

1. "Benefit from" means access. Are the people on the 3/4 mile connector road using the 2 mile road for access? 
   
2. Yes, for just  2 who have legal ROW and use 2 mile road  to commute to work in summer months. No for everyone else there.
   
3. You say people on the 2 miles use the 3/4 miles -- for access?
4. Just two or them have likewise have legal access to the other road and use it regularly as well during the summer months.
   
5. Are the eight (ten minus the two with "right of way") actually landlocked? With no legal access? Explain.
6. Neither road section is landlocked, each has an egress to different town and state  roads. The joining road section though is seldom plowed in the winter (too difficult) and each is isolated with their own egress during this time.
   
7. Explain about the emergency access.  If either end, 3/4 road or 2 mile section has trees down, delivery trucks off road that blocks ( which happens often in slippery weather) or work being done, residents to that point use the other road for egress.
   

Truth to tell, if you are wary of viewing the whole 2 3/4 miles as one road you have got to have good legal reason not to do so. It isn't going to fly to not be doing it because of the environmental issue. I'm sure you understand tha(t)
My inclination is to include this 3/4 mile section as they are all lake side and in the watershed of our lake as is most of the  other 2 mile section and they do adjoin us. Only 1/2 mile of our road (2 mile section) is not in watershed. It would make a great forum for a lot of issues, esp. environmental. The issues that are tough for me to wrap my mind around, are the fee collection, and maintenance issues of one section v another when travel between the two is actually discouraged for most residents w/o ROW. I'm sure that can be worked out but I'd  like suggestions on these and other potential problems with roads within an association that may or may not be legal egress for some of it's residents.

Over and illegal use of the 3/4 mile section by the 2 mile section residents has always been of concern, as the 3/4 mile section road is very use sensitive and  in very close proximity to their homes and camps.

Todd Tolhurst wrote:

Betsy Connor Bowen wrote:But I don't know if being eligible to form under the statute itself confers ROW. It simply says those benefited by a road may form. I would look for an attorney who understands road law. If possible, get pro bono help on this one point. Once that is clarified you can follow the manual to form under the statute. 

The statute says that those "benefited by a private road, private way or bridge as an easement or by fee ownership" may form an association.  The "benefit" referred to is the legal right to use the road, either by ownership or ROW. 

If there are property owners who use the road but neither own all or part of the road nor have a ROW over the road, they could not be included in the association until and unless they acquire a ROW.

Michael Connolly wrote:

Betsy Connor Bowen wrote:

Todd Tolhurst wrote:

Betsy Connor Bowen wrote:But I don't know if being eligible to form under the statute itself confers ROW. It simply says those benefited by a road may form. I would look for an attorney who understands road law. If possible, get pro bono help on this one point. Once that is clarified you can follow the manual to form under the statute. 

The statute says that those "benefited by a private road, private way or bridge as an easement or by fee ownership" may form an association.  The "benefit" referred to is the legal right to use the road, either by ownership or ROW. 

If there are property owners who use the road but neither own all or part of the road nor have a ROW over the road, they could not be included in the association until and unless they acquire a ROW.

Can fee ownership refer to fees paid to an association that owns a ROW? The question in the above case would then become "who has the authority to grant a ROW?" and can that be conferred to an association? Because that is what I believe I recall happening to straighten out our road situation -- the association was granted the ROW and all owners of property benefited by the road were members. 

"If there are property owners who use the road but neither own all or part of the road nor have a ROW over the road, they could not be included in the association until and unless they acquire a ROW."

But, if the association "included" their road would  this restriction be mute ? They would then be in an association with restricted "routine" travel for some in one direction, but not in an another. Must road association provide unrestricted travel for all ? We also have areas around camp roads that  have restricted spring travel. Is this not allowable too ?

Betsy Connor Bowen wrote:Michael,

I've run this by an attorney who knows road law. He has offered an initial view based on just what he's read on the post that possibly the best thing might be to form two associations with some members belonging to both. So clearly, I'm in over my head and advise that you consult an attorney. Once you do -- if you do -- it would be extremely useful if you shared your thoughts on the process as you go forward.  Thanks for bringing this very interesting situation onto the message board, and good luck.