u/rocketwidget

There has been much misinformation on social media around the Northern Rail Trail lawsuit. Seemingly, the conflict traces back to an abutter, Caron, who was angered after the State of New Hampshire reduced the load limit on the Keniston Covered Bridge for safety (which is owned by the Town of Andover), rendering it unusable for his heavy construction vehicles. The Town of Andover did not upgrade the bridge. In 2026, Caron asserted ownership of a section of the Northern Rail Trail—a state-owned public recreational trail—and barricaded it. NH sued Caron. Both sides signed a temporary agreement, pending the outcome of the lawsuit, which required Caron to immediately remove the barriers, forbade him from impeding public access again, and imposed strict controls on his activity, while allowing him very limited use of construction vehicles on the trail, including a rail trail trestle bridge, but not the covered bridge.

So I want to make 3 points I think are pretty important to understand!

Facts:

1. Most Rail Trails in New Hampshire were built pursuant to multiple eminent domain actions

* Under NH law, in 1844 NH laid out railroad right-of-way (easements) using eminent domain and then leased to the railroad operators including the Northern Railroad Corporation. NH law was later updated, effective June 1991, so the same NH rights-of-way and properties are now owned by NH in "Fee Simple Absolute" (total, highest ownership) again with eminent domain, extinguishing any and all reversionary rights (meaning whatever clauses the 1800s era deeds might say), pursuant to RSA 228:60-a, V. https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XX/228/228-60-a.htm The law also explicitly acknowledged the purpose included recreational trails.

* Most rail trails in New Hampshire were built under RSA 228:60a, including the Northern Rail Trail.

2. Caron's countersuit, if successful, would almost certainly set precedent undermining the basis of most rail trails in New Hampshire.

* There are false claims in social media that Caron got everything he wanted in the temporary agreement. Not so: As of 8/5/2026, Caron has countersued NH, explicitly claiming "RSA 228:60-a is unconstitutional" and demands the Court force the State to cease using the property as a public recreational rail trail, and give Caron absolute fee simple ownership.

* If this was precedent, it's hard to imagine how public access to rail trails across New Hampshire would not be at risk.

My opinion:

3. New Hampshire rail trail fans have nothing to worry about!

* In 2002, RSA 228:60a was upheld by the NH Supreme Court in Malnati v. State. The abutters in that case had a "better" timeline than Caron, in that the railroad abandonment occurred decades before NH used eminent domain with RSA 228:60-a in the 1990s. Still, the NH Supreme Court agreed NH could never lose its 1844 easement from abandonment. Furthermore, the NH Supreme Court also agreed RSA 228:60-a gave NH fee simple absolute possession. https://www.courts.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt471/files/documents/2022-10/2002077malnati.pdf Note: The Malnatis were still entitled to just compensation for the post-abandonment taking in the 1990s.

* Caron, instead, has a massive timeline problem. Caron argues he was not properly notified of the RSA 228:60a eminent domain, voiding it. However, Caron purchased his property in June 1994, after A. RSA 228:60a was effective in June 1991, and B. After the Northern Rail Trail filed for Abandonment in October 1991. Finally, Caron signed Temporary Use Agreements with NH in 1996 and 1999, explicitly stating "The State is the owner of a section of railroad corridor". Under State and Federal law: Explicitly acknowledging the State as owner IS "actual notice" of eminent domain. RSA 228:60-a gives Caron, at most, a 5 year clock to demand just compensation, which expired decades before the 2026 dispute.

* The timeline problem for Caron continues. Even ignoring NH Supreme Court precedent on RSA 228:60a, NH would still win a textbook case of Adverse Possession. Acquiring land by adverse possession requires the claimant to conspicuously act as the true owner, continuously and adversely (without permission from anyone else claiming to own it) for 20 years. NH built, maintained, and continuously controlled the rail trail well past that 20-year threshold. Furthermore, from at least 1996 until 2024, Caron explicitly acknowledged NH's dominion over the land, in writing, by asking for permission from the State for commercial use of State property. Caron only contested the State's ownership in 2026. Caron's ignorance is no defense from the 20 year Adverse Possession clock. https://www.nashualaw.com/blog/2010/03/adverse-possession-in-new-hampshire/

It's no surprise to me that New Hampshire is zealously defending public trails that New Hampshire has invested a huge amount of tax dollars in, given A. An extremely strong case, and B. The massive negative impact on rail trails across New Hampshire if Caron somehow won.

P.S. For reference, the court has been posting all the documents filed in this case here: https://www.courts.nh.gov/media/requested-cases/civil/state-new-hampshire-department-transportation-v-leonard-caron

"Cool" how the article doesn't even bother to mention the purpose of the covered ramps: To keep rain, snow, and ice off the ramps, especially beneficial for people using wheelchairs and using canes or walkers, or any people who are vulnerable to slipping and falling.

An 8-0 vote trying to, at "best", erode, or at worst, delay an accessibility project, in the works for a decade, because the Newton Highlands Area Council didn't bother to review a 2023 design until August 2026. Show me any disability advocacy groups who agree weather protection is "unnecessary" as being claimed here.

Really incredible work from the NHAC.

More history here: https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/1uc461t/so_called_weston_whopper_developer_ma_housing/

Because the Boston Globe article posted earlier is paywalled.

This is bundled into the larger Economic Development Bill: Not mentioned by the article, but also, differing variants of the"Ride Safe Act" are also bundled into the larger bill passed in the MA House and MA Senate.

I'm guessing by the end of the week, we will see the final language from reconciliation between the MA House and MA Senate bills, regarding these road safety amendments, and the Ride Safe Act.

Also see reporting here: https://wbznewsradio.iheart.com/content/sudbury-ceremony-opens-expanded-rail-trail-and-improved-grid-reliability/

Map and extensive history of the trail here: https://masstrailtracker.com/map?segment=130

and more detailed history also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_Central_Rail_Trail%E2%80%94Wayside#History_in_Sudbury,_Hudson,_and_Stow

and my previous post: https://www.reddit.com/r/bikeboston/comments/1hdigb2/the_failures_of_protect_sudbury_which_sought_to/

More background:

https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston-globe/2023/03/23/andrews-point-rockport-public-access-private-elizabeth-fisher/

https://preview.redd.it/9hb6z98dvhch1.png?width=512&format=png&auto=webp&s=e194a6aa7248f6f3e4ca5a5e95d6e29817c4a363

Source: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Em998HQde/

The public enjoyed the right to access Andrews Point along the Atlantic Path ocean rock path in Rockport, Massachusetts, for all living memory.

A woman bought a Rockport beachhouse with public access mandated in her property deed. 

In 1995, she launched a lawsuit to revoke the public access.

Yesterday, she just lost the case.

More background:

https://www.boston.com/news/the-boston-globe/2023/03/23/andrews-point-rockport-public-access-private-elizabeth-fisher/

Source: https://www.masscourts.org/eservices/home.page, Land Court, Case Number 95 MISC 222901

https://preview.redd.it/9wa13e685fch1.png?width=1008&format=png&auto=webp&s=638d1d36ee2b1ecdd9efae19c5803ebb487fa7cd

https://preview.redd.it/axazydha5fch1.png?width=1009&format=png&auto=webp&s=8f6c22ab47d4eb93e7fa64e5007a25db2c220185

>The legislation also includes a new framework governing micromobility devices, establishing safety standards and operating rules for personal transportation devices such as motorized bicycles.

Looks like the catch-all bill has become the vehicle to pass https://www.massbike.org/micromobility_bill_s_3077 (S.3077, An Act to Enhance the Safe Use of Micromobility Devices, AKA Ride Safe Act)

Has anyone reviewed all the changes in the catch-all bill specifically, yet?

Edit: OK I used Google Gemini (sorry) to review the micromobilty text in the Catch-All House Bill, and the 5 Consolidated Amendments that also passed. I wanted to know if any of the Catch-All H.5562, the replacement of Ride Safe Act S.3077, had changed:

Based on the provided text of H.5562 and its consolidated amendments, the legislation establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework for micromobility devices.

Definition and Classification Micromobility devices are defined as small, lightweight transportation devices intended for personal use in public access areas, which explicitly excludes motor vehicles, motorcycles, mopeds, and low-speed vehicles. The bill categorizes them into four distinct "speed tiers" based on their maximum assisted or designed speed:

• Speed Tier 0*: Includes unpowered devices and powered devices with a maximum speed of up to 20 mph, such as class 1 and 2 electric bicycles and mobility aids. Operators of Tier 0 devices are afforded the same rights and subject to the same duties as bicycle operators.*
• Speed Tier 1*: Includes powered devices with a maximum speed between 21 and 30 mph, such as class 3 electric bicycles. Operators are subject to the same rights and duties as electric bicycle operators.*
• Speed Tier 2*: Includes powered devices with a maximum speed between 31 and 40 mph. It is unlawful for these devices to travel on sidewalks, bike lanes, bike paths, bike routes, separated micromobility lanes, or shared use paths.*
• Speed Tier 3*: Includes powered devices with a maximum speed greater than 40 mph. These devices are also banned from sidewalks, bike lanes, and all bicycle or shared use paths.*

Age and Helmet Requirements

• Individuals 16 years of age or younger are prohibited from purchasing, renting, leasing, or operating any powered micromobility device, with the exception of mobility aid devices.
• Helmets are mandatory for anyone 16 years of age or younger when operating or riding as a passenger on a Tier 0 device.
• All operators and passengers, regardless of age, must wear protective headgear when using Tier 1, 2, or 3 devices.
• It is unlawful to operate a device with more passengers than the manufacturer designed it to accommodate.

Equipment and Safety Standards

• Powered micromobility devices must meet specific electrical system safety standards, requiring a minimum battery rating of UL 2271 and an electrical system rating of UL 2272, while electric bicycles must meet UL 2849.
• Tier 0 and 1 devices must be equipped with lights, brakes, and an audible warning that satisfy standard bicycle requirements.
• Tier 2 and 3 devices must feature lights, brakes, and a horn that meet federal motor vehicle standards.
• It is illegal to make aftermarket modifications to a device's battery or other components to increase its manufacturer-designed speed, range, propulsion power, or passenger capacity.

Enforcement, Oversight, and Registration

• Micromobility devices are subject to municipal and state motor vehicle speed limits.
• Operators are subject to civil and criminal fines and penalties applicable to motor vehicles, including driving under the influence laws.
• The Registrar of Motor Vehicles is authorized to issue number or registration plates for micromobility devices. The Registrar may also promulgate regulations regarding registration, licensure, and insurance.
• The legislation establishes a working group on micromobility to develop recommendations for a regulatory scheme and a standardized form for reporting crashes involving these devices. The group must issue a report of its findings by December 31, 2027.

Impact of the Consolidated Amendments Consolidated Amendments A, B, C, and D did not alter or impact the micromobility regulations established in the base text of the bill.

However, Consolidated Amendment E impacted micromobility by adding a specific funding allocation for local infrastructure. The amendment dictates that not less than $50,000 shall be expended to the town of Danvers for planning and infrastructure improvements. This funding is specifically allocated to address the safe use of sidewalks, streets, rail trails, and paths in anticipation of micromobility safety measures.

Map: https://masstrailtracker.com/map?segment=242

The project is currently at the 75% design phase. Although Weston residents have already appropriated nearly $1.54 million in design fees – $938,000 in 2018 and $600,000 in 2024 – it could still, as some residents requested last month, be stopped. The Select Board will likely have the final say on whether it advances to the next stages, according to a timeline shared by Town Engineer Jason Lavoie.

...

The original 2018 proposal, overwhelmingly approved by Town Meeting in a 563-35 vote, included a 5-foot-wide sidewalk along the entire corridor. An additional funding request was brought forward at the 2024 Annual Town Meeting because the design had been changed to include the shared-use path, or buffered bicycle lanes, as required by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s “Healthy Design Standards” to keep the project on the state- and federally funded Transportation Improvement Plan, according to language on the warrant.

That 2024 appropriation was approved by a much narrower margin, 285-203.

...

David Hutcheson, a Coburn Road resident and avid cyclist, said he is in favor of the project because it will provide widespread public benefits by potentially easing vehicular traffic and allowing pedestrians and cyclists to safely travel alongside the busy road. He noted that while he understands some concerns, change is inevitable in a community.

“You need public infrastructure to support the activities of people in the town,” he said. “I think their objections might be overblown.”

He said the level of concern surrounding the project is similar to the negative reception the Mass Central Rail Trail received in 1997, when Weston voters shot the proposal down at Town Meeting. Decades later, the project was approved, and he said it has been a wonderful amenity for Weston and the region.

“The trail was ultimately built, and we all benefited from that in my view,” Hutcheson said. “If the project gets a thumbs down from Weston, we’ll be hurting ourselves. I think the Select Board and Town Meeting voters will need to be very careful on this one.”

Edit: A quick look at BCU's interactive crash tool indicates that over the last few years, there have been dozens of injuries, and a fatality, along South Street (Route 30) in Weston. https://labs.bostoncyclistsunion.org/crashes/ Looks like all these injuries, and death, so far, were motorists only, though vulnerable road users were injured further down Route 30 in Natick (a potentially future phase of Route 30 improvements).

This 40B affordable housing project was proposed in 2019, and rejected by Weston's ZBA in 2021. The ZBA was appealed at the State's Housing Appeals Committee (HAC), which ordered the town to include a budling permit "without undue delay" in January 2025.

In February 2025, the ZBA and six opponents filed lawsuits in Superior Court seeking to overturn the HAC decision.

In last week's 16-page decision, Middlesex Superior Court judge John Fraser affirmed the state Housing Appeals Committee’s 2025 decision.

The article notes: Year-to-date through May, the median single-family sales price in Weston was more than $2.4 million, according to data compiled by The Warren Group, publisher of Banker & Tradesman.

P.S. If article fails to load (ad blocker restrictions?), a summary is also available midway down in this post: Weston Whopper has it their way https://crrc.charlesriverchamber.com/needtoknows/Details/residents-call-on-town-to-drop-massbay-lawsuit-338900

Timeline:

• April 2019: The Developer (Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership and 518 South Ave., LLC) successfully applies for an Order of Resource Area Delineation (ORAD) with the Weston Conservation Commission to map out the wetlands on the site. Neighboring abutters unsuccessfully appeal the decision to the MassDEP and the Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution (OADR).
• July 2019: With the wetlands initially delineated, the Developer officially files a Chapter 40B Comprehensive Permit application with the Weston Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) to build affordable housing. Opponents brand the massive multi-story proposal the "Weston Whopper."
• August 2019: The Weston ZBA halts public hearings by invoking the "Safe Harbor" defense, claiming the town's existing affordable housing stock already meets statutory land-area thresholds.
• 2020: The state's environmental appeals wrap up an early phase as the OADR officially affirms the Developer’s initial 2019 wetlands delineation.
• March 2021: The state Housing Appeals Committee (HAC) denies Weston’s Safe Harbor appeal and remands the project back to the local ZBA, ordering them to conduct full public merit hearings on the developer's application.
• September 2021: The Superior Court issues its first decision upholding the Developer's initial environmental/wetlands delineation boundaries against ongoing abutter appeals.
• November 2021: The developer submits modified project plans to the ZBA, scaling the proposal down from 200 units to 180 rental units (with 25% designated as affordable).
• July 2022: After an extensive review process, the Weston ZBA votes unanimously to deny the Comprehensive Permit, refusing to grant waivers for eight local bylaws and public health regulations.
• August 2022: The Developer appeals the local permit denial to the state HAC. The abutters successfully motion to intervene as active participants in the state-level litigation.
• September 2023: The Superior Court issues a second decision affirming the Developer's original resource area boundaries, shutting down another leg of the abutters' early environmental challenges.
• April 17, 2024: While the zoning fight is tied up at the HAC, the Developer seeks separate state-level environmental clearances. The Weston Conservation Commission issues an Order of Conditions (OOC) approving the project under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (WPA).
• May 1, 2024: The abutters formally appeal the Conservation Commission's approval to the MassDEP, requesting a Superseding Order of Conditions.
• June 2024: [Case 2481CV01508 Filed] The abutters simultaneously file a civil action in Middlesex Superior Court against the Developer and the Conservation Commission. They ask the court to stop the project by declaring that local bylaws override the state framework and that the wetlands approval was arbitrary.
• September 30, 2024: MassDEP officially issues its own Superseding Order of Conditions, independently approving the project under the state Wetlands Protection Act and bypassing local objections.
• Late 2024: The HAC conducts extensive, multi-day evidentiary hearings regarding the ZBA's original 2022 permit denial.
• January 23, 2025: The HAC issues a comprehensive 30-page decision officially overturning the Weston ZBA's permit denial, ruling that the local board's environmental and public health concerns are unsupported and do not outweigh the regional need for affordable housing.
• February 2025: [Cases 2581CV00434 & 2581CV00455 Filed] The 40B zoning appeal track lands in Superior Court. The Weston ZBA and the abutters file separate complaints under M.G.L. c. 30A seeking to overturn the HAC's 30-page override decision.
• October 23, 2025: Middlesex Superior Court holds an intensive consolidated hearing regarding the 2025 zoning appeals.
• November 17, 2025: [Case 2481CV01508 Dismissed] Justice Emily A. Karstetter issues a Memorandum of Decision completely dismissing the abutters' 2024 environmental lawsuit. She rules that the court has no jurisdiction because the plaintiffs prematurely jumped to Superior Court instead of exhausting their mandatory administrative appeals before the MassDEP and the HAC.
• December 23, 2025: Transitioning focus entirely to the remaining 2025 zoning dockets, Superior Court Justice Hélène Kazanjian denies a joint motion by the town and abutters to remand the case back to the HAC for new evidence, freezing the record for final judgment.
• June 16, 2026: Justice Kazanjian issues the definitive final ruling on the remaining active dockets (2581CV00434 and 2581CV00455). By granting the Housing Appeals Committee's and the Developer's motions for judgment on the pleadings, the court completely affirms the state’s 40B permit override, leaving the Developer with clear titles to proceed with construction.
• TBD: Case 2481CV01508 reopened: On May 13, 2026, the developer file a motion for an award of attorneys fees, calling the lawsuit "entirely baseless". Ruling on this motion TBD.

https://preview.redd.it/8sv4n4hntp8h1.png?width=1091&format=png&auto=webp&s=086b9964fd3d064ab43a2b332cb527d8d7f1745f

06/11/2026 #47 ORDER: On February 10, 2026, the State Auditor filed a verified complaint in the county court seeking to enforce document requests she made to each chamber of the State Legislature in connection with an audit pursuant to G. L. c. 11, § 12, as amended in 2024 by an initiative petition. The Attorney General subsequently intervened and filed a motion to strike the complaint, and the single justice reserved and reported the motion to strike to the full court. The parties briefed and argued the motion before this court, and on May 3, 2026, we issued an order requiring, among other things, that the Attorney General file a status report within thirty days.

On June 3, 2026, the Attorney General timely filed the status report as ordered. The status report advises that the State Auditor has filed a notice of voluntary withdrawal of her complaint in the county court and that, because such a withdrawal renders moot the Attorney General's pending motion to strike, the Attorney General is no longer seeking a ruling on that motion.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is ORDERED that:

(1) The motion to strike currently pending before this court is denied as moot.

(2) The matter is remanded to the county court with instructions that the single justice dismiss the complaint.

https://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/docket/SJ-2026-0071

06/12/2026 #31 JUDGMENT: "This matter came before the Court, and in accordance with the Order that was entered in the Full Court in SJC- 13921 on June 11, 2026, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the following entry of Judgment be, and the same hereby is, made: "Dismissed." (Wendlandt, J.)

Last night we spent a long time on a couple issues that share some similarities.

Belmont Community Path
First we took up an article to appropriate funds to support the right-of-way acquisitions necessary for Phase 1 of the Belmont Community Path. This phase of the path is fully designed and ready to go out to bid as soon as the Town secures the temporary and permanent easements on the land needed to complete the construction.

The appraisal process for the easements has been very slow and, alas, appraised the values higher than anticipated, including a much higher appraisal than anticipated for one property. The combination of this slowness and higher appraisals led to a very-last-minute and dramatic increase in the amount Town Meeting was asked to appropriate for the easements, going from $200k to $1.3m about 90 minutes before last night's session of Town Meeting.

A long discussion ensued, but when the votes were finally taken, about 88% of Town Meeting Members supported the appropriation, easily meeting the required 2/3 majority.

Private Sewer System
The only other orders of business we got through last night both focused on a private sewer operating on Belmont Hill. Established as a public-private partnership around the turn of the millennium, the private sewer was established to help provide options for property owners on Belmont Hill who had septic systems and wanted to move to a sewer connection instead.

The private sewer owner charges property owners a one-time licensing fee to connect and then seems to also contract for any work necessary to physically make connection. They do not charge any ongoing subscription fees once the connection has been made. Town Counsel provided a rough estimate of "around $50k" that the sewer owner charges for the licensing fee. This is essentially a sanctioned local monopoly in which property owners who need to replace aging septic systems must choose between replacement with new ones that meet heightened and very expensive requirements (due to special considerations for water flow off the hill) or paying to connect into this private sewer.

Town Meeting Members asked many questions as this was a complicated issue and the matter is a subject of current, ongoing litigation, so nobody was willing to provide detail on certain aspects that relate to that litigation. A legal representative was allowed to make a brief presentation in which he mostly described the reliability of the current system, including quoting the late (and beloved) Town Engineer Glenn Clancy, which was perhaps less well-received than he hoped as Mr. Clancy was, of course, unable to explain the remarks that were quoted. After a motion to terminate debate, this legal representative stood and began complaining about fairness and was asked by the moderator to stop several times before relenting. I noticed a member of the Belmont police positioning himself closer by in case the Moderator had to ask the man to leave.

Ultimately, Town Meeting Members voted overwhelmingly in favor of both articles relating to this sewer (one to give the town permission to pursue eminent domain and another to appropriate $60k for that effort).