In New Hampshire, the classification of highways significantly influences how municipalities manage building permits, maintenance duties, and overall development along roads. A “Class VI” road is one such classification for public ways under state law. Traditionally, these roads have created challenges for development because they are usually not maintained by the municipality. They also present different liability and access issues compared to regularly maintained town roads. With the signing of Senate Bill 281 (SB 281), effective July 1, 2026, the rules governing building and occupancy permits for properties next to a Class VI road have changed considerably. It is essential for landowners, developers, municipal officials, and prospective homeowners to understand the law, the opportunities it offers, as well as its practical aspects and limitations.

It is useful to understand what a Class VI road is in New Hampshire and how past laws addressed development on properties near such roads. According to RSA 229:5, VII, a Class VI highway is generally defined as "all other existing public ways... and all highways which have not been maintained and repaired by the town... for travel thereon for five successive years or more," among other criteria. There is also a category of highways that have been "discontinued as open highways and made subject to gates and bars."

Towns typically treat Class VI roads as unmaintained public ways, meaning the town has no responsibility to keep them open or in good repair. Historically, this has led municipalities to impose stricter rules or even deny building permits for lots that can only be accessed via these roads. For instance, before the recent amendment, under RSA 674:41 I(c), obtaining a building permit for a lot with access via a Class VI road required a vote from the local governing body to approve the issuance, with the understanding that the municipality would not take on maintenance or liability for damages. Additionally, before the permit could be issued, the applicant had to provide proof that a notice of the municipality's limited responsibility had been recorded in the county registry of deeds.

Because municipalities were not obligated to allow development on Class VI roads, many towns put policies in place that limited or denied building permits for those roads, citing concerns about access, fire protection, utilities, liability, and maintenance. Consequently, many landowners found it difficult to build or receive occupancy permits for homes on lots with access only via Class VI roads.

Senate Bill 281 changed this landscape. This legislation was proposed in the 2025 session, passed both legislative chambers, and was signed by the Governor on July 15, 2025, becoming Chapter 0256, effective July 1, 2026. The bill revises RSA 674:41, I(c), allowing a municipality to no longer deny a building or occupancy permit solely based on a lot's proximity to a Class VI road, as long as the applicant meets specific statutory conditions. The law now states that a lot next to a Class VI highway (and accessible through it) qualifies for a building permit if the applicant: (1) signs a liability waiver declaring that the municipality will not maintain the highway or offer services to any lot accessible by it, that the municipality will not take responsibility for losses or damages due to a lack of services, and that the applicant is fully responsible for such services; (2) provides proof that the waiver has been recorded in the county register of deeds prior to permit issuance; and (3) demonstrates that the lot and any buildings are insurable before the permit is issued.

From a practical standpoint, the implications of SB 281 for homeowners, developers, or landowners are significant. Previously, if your lot’s only access was through a Class VI road, you might have been denied a building permit, required to have the town upgrade or maintain the road, or needed to prove access to a Class V road. Under the new law, as long as the lot meets other eligibility criteria (such as zoning, utilities, septic, frontage, building codes, and environmental constraints), and you are willing to sign the waiver and demonstrate insurability, the municipality cannot deny your building or occupancy permit solely because the road is Class VI. This change opens the way for many lots previously seen as marginal for development.

From the municipal perspective, the law provides a clearer, more uniform standard. It reduces discretion and the risk of litigation regarding cases involving access via Class VI roads while clarifying the limits of municipal responsibility, as explicitly stated in the waiver. This can be a valuable tool for communities facing housing shortages or those needing to expand housing options, particularly in rural or remote areas where roads are not maintained by the town.

However, while SB 281 removes a significant barrier, it is crucial to recognize its limitations and the practical steps involved, as well as the associated risks and considerations. Firstly, the new law does not override other development and zoning requirements. A lot must still comply with zoning standards (including setbacks, frontage, lot size, and use), building codes, septic and well system regulations, environmental laws, access and road surface standards (if required by local rules), utility connection requirements, and fire and rescue access criteria, in addition to any applicable municipal or state regulations. The Class VI status of the road may introduce further insurance or service challenges. The legislation specifically addresses the ability of the municipality to deny the permit solely based on the road's classification; it does not guarantee the approval of the permit if other requirements are not met. Indeed, one critical condition is that the lot and buildings need to be insurable. This means that issues around access, emergency services, road conditions, maintenance, insurance rates, and utility costs can still impact viability. For instance, if an insurer decides not to cover the property or charges excessive premiums, that could complicate the process.

Secondly, the waiver that must be signed and recorded carries significant weight. By signing it, the property owner agrees that the municipality will not maintain the highway or provide services, will not take responsibility for any losses or damages, and that all service responsibility rests with the owner or applicant. This means that if the road becomes impassable, if the property is inaccessible in winter, or if emergency services cannot reach it, the municipality is explicitly exempted from all responsibility. The waiver needs to be recorded in the county registry of deeds to ensure the title chain reflects this limitation. For landowners, this means additional steps at closing or permitting: obtaining the waiver, agreeing to the terms, recording it, possibly paying fees, and informing future buyers of this limitation. Practically, it is wise to consider how this waiver affects title insurance, resale, insurance rates, mortgage underwriting, and the property's marketability. Some lenders might be cautious about properties accessed via roads not maintained by the town, leading to extra demands or higher interest rates.

Third, the insurability requirement is significant. The law stipulates that before issuing a building permit, the applicant must show that the lot and buildings are insurable. Municipalities will likely seek written confirmation from an insurance provider stating that the proposed building is insurable considering the road access and any service limitations. Factors influencing insurability may include road width, turnaround space for fire trucks, emergency vehicle access, slope, drainage, snow removal, and overall risk. If access is questionable or there are utility or firefighting concerns, an insurer might refuse coverage. For many lots on remote Class VI roads, these issues were precisely what troubled municipalities and insurers before this reform.

Fourth, property owners and municipalities must stay vigilant about maintenance, emergency service access, and safety. Although the waiver relieves the municipality of maintenance obligations, the property owner remains accountable. If the road falls into poor condition, challenges may arise around winter access, snow removal, emergency service reach, and liability for storms, washouts, or gate access. Since the municipality is not responsible for road maintenance or liability, the landowner—or potentially a homeowners’ association if several lots share the road—needs to plan for long-term upkeep. This might involve establishing private road maintenance agreements, road associations, shared driveway duties, snow-plowing contracts, turnaround designs, drainage improvements, and ensuring fire and rescue access. The owner should consider the ongoing costs of road maintenance, along with possible increases in insurance or safety expenses when thinking about development on a Class VI access lot.

Fifth, while the law guarantees the right to obtain a permit (if conditions are met) and eliminates one barrier, there may be other municipal or local policies that need revision. Many municipalities historically had zoning or subdivision rules that required access to a Class V road or municipal maintenance of access. Some places may have specific standards for lots located on private or unmaintained roads. For example, previous guidance to planning boards indicated that if the zoning ordinance requires frontage on a Class V road, a lot on a Class VI road could still need a variance.

Municipalities should evaluate their ordinances to ensure they align with the new state law, and landowners ought to consult with municipal planning, zoning, and building departments to be aware of local requirements. Additionally, municipalities may still enforce reasonable design standards or fire-safety access rules as long as they do not discriminate against lots located on Class VI roads simply because of the road's classification.

Sixth, from a community planning and policy standpoint, the passage of SB 281 demonstrates a movement toward minimizing regulatory obstacles to housing, particularly in New Hampshire's rural or remote regions. The ongoing shortage of housing for both the workforce and older residents wanting to stay in their communities has prompted legislative changes aimed at increasing housing supply while also balancing infrastructure and service challenges. SB 281 is part of a larger set of housing-related reforms established during the 2025 session. The hope is that many lots previously deemed inaccessible or undevelopable due to road classification may now become viable options, potentially expanding housing choices. Meanwhile, the law maintains some protections for municipalities by clearly assigning maintenance and liability to the landowner through the waiver, rather than placing those responsibilities on the town.

For a landowner interested in taking advantage of the new law, here’s a practical roadmap and checklist. Local consultation is strongly recommended. First, determine if your lot is truly next to or accessible by a Class VI road. Confirm the road’s classification in your town or city, check its maintenance history, ownership, right-of-way, and conditions. Make sure the town lists it as Class VI. Review the condition of the road, including width, surface, drainage, winter access, utility access, emergency vehicle access, turnaround ability, snow removal options, and its distance from a maintained road. 

Second, assess your zoning and regulatory situation. Make sure the lot is in a zoning district that permits your intended use, whether that's residential, building, or occupancy. Check the lot size, frontage requirements, setbacks, environmental and wetlands constraints, utility capacity (like well, septic, water, and sewer if applicable), and fire and life-safety access. 

Third, engage with insurance and financing early. Contact an insurance carrier or brokers familiar with remote access lots. Find out if they will insure a building on the lot, what conditions may apply, and what the premiums will be. Similarly, check with your mortgage lender about any restrictions or additional requirements for lots accessed by non-maintained roads. 

Fourth, plan for road and drive access and maintenance. Since the municipality will not maintain the road for you, budget for ongoing maintenance, like grading, snow plowing, fixing potholes, managing drainage, maintaining culverts, putting up signage, and gating if needed. Ensure the road is stable for emergency services, and consider if a road association or shared responsibility agreement is necessary if others use the road. 

Fifth, obtain and record the waiver. When you submit your building or occupancy permit application, you must sign a liability waiver. This waiver acknowledges that the municipality will not maintain or provide services and that you alone are responsible for those services. You also need to show evidence that this waiver has been recorded in the county registry of deeds before you receive the building permit. 

Sixth, submit your documentation. Include in your building permit application the recorded waiver, proof of insurability for the lot and proposed building, and any other documentation required by the municipality under its regulations. This might include a road access plan, site plan, utility plan, turnaround for emergency services, maintenance agreement, or subdivision plan if required. 

Seventh, proceed with the permit and construction. After you meet the above conditions, the municipality must issue the building or occupancy permit, assuming all other criteria are also met. From there, you can carry out the construction or occupancy, keeping in mind your ongoing responsibilities for access, maintenance, and services. 

Eighth, consider resale and long-term implications. When you or a future buyer resells the lot, the recorded waiver will stay with the title. Potential buyers will see that they are responsible for road maintenance and that the municipality is not. Be prepared to disclose this in sale documents. Check how the waiver may affect marketability, insurance renewals, property value, and financing options.

While many lots on Class VI roads may now be developable under the new law, several key risks and considerations remain. Road condition and access are crucial. Even if the municipality is not maintaining the road, your liability and cost risk go up if you live on a poorly maintained road. Issues like winter snow, ice, washed-out culverts, gates or barriers, narrow turning radii for emergency vehicles, or low road standards can create safety risks or service delays, raising insurance costs or making the lot uninsurable. The law's requirement for insurability means municipalities have some backup, but it also places the responsibility on owners to meet insurer standards for road and site conditions. In some cases, necessary investments like road upgrades or snow-plow arrangements may offset the benefits of obtaining the permit under the new law. 

Another risk involves emergency and utility service delivery. Fire trucks, ambulances, and utility crews may struggle to access homes on poorly maintained roads. In the event of a fire or medical emergency, response times could be longer. Additionally, utility connections like electric, internet, cable, and gas may be more expensive to extend or maintain. Although the municipality is not responsible, the homeowner still bears that burden. While the law states that a permit cannot be denied just because the road is Class VI, other safety or access conditions could lead to denial under different laws or local ordinances. For instance, if fire codes require minimum width access or turning space that the road cannot provide, the permit could still be denied.

Even though the waiver shifts liability from the municipality, any open gates or barriers, or unclear rights-of-way on Class VI roads that have been discontinued or gated may cause legal confusion over access rights. Title insurance or access disputes may still occur, so it’s wise for applicants to review the road status, rights-of-way, easements, and maintenance obligations of other users. Finally, market considerations are important. Properties accessed only through non-maintained roads might be less appealing to buyers, have higher insurance premiums, and face financing challenges. While state law makes it easier to get permits, market and lender conditions might still present practical obstacles. Prospective buyers should weigh whether the added costs, risks, and ongoing maintenance are worth the chance to build.

On the positive side, the reform highlights a broader recognition that many rural areas in New Hampshire have lots with existing road access, though it is via Class VI roads. These lots have often been under-utilized because municipalities would not issue building permits. By making it clear that municipalities cannot deny building or occupancy permits solely for being adjacent to a Class VI road, as long as the applicant signs the waiver, records it, and proves insurability, SB 281 creates an opportunity for more residential development. This change allows more housing units without burdening towns with the obligation of maintaining every road. This is significant in areas where housing demand is high, yet funding for infrastructure and services is limited. Municipalities can now permit additional housing while minimizing financial liability for road upkeep, placing that responsibility on the applicants. This approach can help ease housing supply issues, enable owners of remote lots to build, and encourage better use of existing land and roads. Media reports indicate that the bill “requires municipalities to allow construction of homes on Class VI roads, provided the landowner signs a document acknowledging that the city will not maintain those roads.” 

For towns wishing to keep a rural character while still allowing for housing growth, SB 281 might offer a way to do so by shifting maintenance responsibilities to owners instead of the town.

For municipalities, the law also conveys a clear message about balancing development and responsibility. While towns are not required to maintain Class VI roads or take on liability, they will need to adjust their internal processes, building permit checklists, and zoning/subdivision rules to comply with the new statute once it takes effect. Towns may need to update their zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, and building permit applications to reflect the waiver and recording requirements. They should train building inspectors and planning staff about the new access standards, maintain records of which roads are Class VI, ensure applicants understand the waiver requirement and that the recording is completed, monitor proof of insurance, and avoid denying a permit just because a lot is near a Class VI road if the conditions are met. 

Municipalities can still impose reasonable standards for safe road access, fire and emergency access, turnaround abilities, and snow-plow arrangements. They can also create policies for shared maintenance of private or unmaintained roads, but they must do this without discrimination compared to other lots with standard road access, as long as the lot meets statutory conditions. Some municipal officials have voiced concerns about losing local control; historically, access decisions and road maintenance standards were handled by select boards. The new law shifts some of that authority to the statutory waiver process. For example, during a town meeting, local select board members questioned the need for a Zoning Board when state law overrides local decisions. 

The tension between statewide housing policy and local land-use autonomy will likely surface during implementation. However, from a legal standpoint, towns must comply with the new state law once it takes effect.

It's also worth considering how this change connects to broader land-use trends and regulatory frameworks. For decades, access to a town-maintained road has been a key requirement for subdivision approval and building permits in New Hampshire. Access through private roads, unmaintained paths, or roads not under town maintenance has often meant greater scrutiny, higher costs, and difficulty obtaining permits. In many rural towns, this has effectively rendered many lots off-limits for development. With SB 281, the state is reducing one barrier to development, specifically the classification of road access, while still requiring that applicants take on maintenance and liability through the waiver process and proof of insurability. This aligns with other recent reforms aimed at expanding housing options, simplifying zoning or regulatory steps, and removing obstacles that slow down development. The hope is that by permitting more lots to be developed, housing supply will increase, especially where infrastructure is lacking, allowing rural communities to gain more housing without needing to upgrade every road to town maintenance standards. That said, the challenges of truly remote lots, such as utilities, service delivery, access, snow removal, and fire safety, remain. Thus, SB 281 is not a complete solution but one tool in a larger set of land-use reforms.

Economically, the law could encourage development of previously unused lots, increase the property tax base, and give owners the chance to build homes or rental units in areas previously considered too far off the beaten path. It may also support multi-generational living arrangements, such as adult children building homes on a parent’s lot accessed by a Class VI road. Additionally, it could provide options for aging in place and help lower land costs for housing by making remote lots more feasible. For towns concerned about affordable housing or expanding the housing supply without incurring significant infrastructure costs, allowing development along Class VI roads might represent a balanced approach. For landowners, the savings from not needing to upgrade roads to meet town maintenance standards, which can be very costly, may make projects financially viable that weren’t before. However, owners must consider the costs of road maintenance, insurance, potential higher interest rates, and the waiver recording process.

SB 281 marks an important change in New Hampshire’s land use and housing permitting. It stops municipalities from denying building or occupancy permits for properties next to Class VI roads, as long as the owner signs a waiver, proves they can get insurance, and meets other requirements. This opens up more chances for developing lots connected by roads not maintained by the town. While this gives landowners more flexibility, it also means they now have more responsibility for road upkeep, services, liability, and insurance. For towns, it makes processes clearer and shifts some maintenance duties away from them. However, issues like emergency access, utility availability, road conditions, service delivery, local fire safety, insurance, and long-term maintenance are still crucial. Property owners thinking about building on a lot served by a Class VI road should do thorough research. They need to look into access conditions, the state of the road, insurance and financing options, local rules, and maintenance plans. If handled well, the new law could open up lots that were previously hard to develop, increase housing options in rural areas, and provide landowners with new alternatives. Still, the responsibility for maintaining safe and reliable access lies with the homeowner, and they will need to consider the associated costs. In the end, SB 281 is a sign of how state-level changes in housing and land use can create new opportunities. However, success will rely on careful planning, local cooperation, and responsible management of access.