For the last time for all the uniformed, misinformed, and those who just want to scream, this is a land take, I was able to locate the three RSA's. At least be an informed voter!
Under New Hampshire law, a town cannot use eminent domain unless voters specifically authorize it in a warrant article.
The article that was presented did not authorize eminent domain. If the town ever wanted to pursue that option, it would require a completely separate vote of the town.
For those who want to review the law themselves, here are the relevant statutes:
• RSA 31:4 – Allows towns to acquire land for municipal purposes only when authorized by vote of the town
• RSA 41:11 – Allows towns to purchase or acquire property or easements when voters approve the authority or funding
• RSA 498-A – The New Hampshire law that governs the eminent domain process
These laws make it clear that eminent domain cannot simply be decided later by a board. It requires explicit approval from the voters.
It is always a good idea to look at the actual statutes rather than relying on assumptions or rumors.
Informed voters make better decisions for our town.
I would like to offer my sincere apology to Joe and Dawn Fernald for being unaware of what appears to be a newer rule regarding the access during summer town beach hours.
Last August a friend and I parked our cars with valid town beach stickers and walked down the access road toward Deerfield Road to get a 5 mile walk in before returning to the lake for a swim. For many years prior, I had biked, ran or walked down the road during the summer and then jumped in the lake, so it never crossed our mind that we might suddenly be violating a rule or trespassing.
In hindsight, I truly wish that when Joe Fernald passed by my friend and I walking he might have simply pulled over and let us know foot Traffic was no longer allowed. We would’ve happily turned around and avoided any issue at all.
Instead, he chose to continue to pass us and contact the Nottingham police. The officer arrived while we were in the water and escorted us out, which certainly seemed like a very efficient way to handle what was clearly an innocent misunderstanding.
Again, my apologies for not realizing the rules have changed.
lol, this is such a joke!!! You we told multiple times not to trespass and you kept on doing it because you felt entitled!!! Also the cops were already there because of s motorcycle that was driven on the damn! You literally had months to “apologize “ to Dawn and Joe, acting like you don’t know them! And they didn’t trespass you until you filed a bogus claim with the DES about their dock months later. What about letting your dog off leash to run around their property, or launching your kayaks from the beach?
Tom is correct that I used the wrong figure, but Incorrect about the MCI being unrelated to the CPI. The MCI relies on data from the Bureau of Labor statistics - data that was not published for October 2025. The concern regarding missing data is the same under either index.
Copied from the SmartCitiesdive website:
"UPDATE: Dec. 19, 2025: The federal government continues to stagger the release of data used to calculate the monthly Municipal Cost Index in the wake of the federal government shutdown.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics on Thursday released the Consumer Price Index for November, which showed a seasonally adjusted 0.2% increase from September. BLS will not report the CPI for October 2025.
It will release the Producer Price Index required to calculate the Municipal Cost Index for November on Jan. 14, 2026, it said. The October PPI data will be bundled with its November data release, BLS said."
Keeping to the brass tacks of this matter, remember that the blacklist is about one core principle: FAIR GOVERNANCE REQUIRES EQAL ACCESS.
As for a rebuttal, I’ll keep this brief. I will say that the previous Fernald post is libelous. I can demonstrate that and will address it outside of this forum through the appropriate channels.
Around two years ago I volunteered to work with the Lamprey River Advisory Committee (LRAC). My employer encouraged me to volunteer and even provided time off to do so. Initially, I volunteered at a food bank where the work involved sorting donated produce, good orange bad orange, and collecting empty boxes so they could be compacted and recycled.
When I saw the opportunity to volunteer with the LRAC, I jumped at it. Having spent a great deal of time paddling the Lamprey River, I had come to appreciate the conservation and protection it receives as a federally designated river.
I’d like to share a few accomplishments, several that have benefited Nottingham:
1. Water monitoring support
While collecting water samples with the Nottingham Conservation Commission, I noticed the testing instrumentation needed repair and replacement. LRAC helped provide funding for that equipment so sampling could continue and data collection on Nottingham’s rivers could be maintained.
2. Watershed land protection
I worked with the Pawtuckaway Lake Improvement Association (PLIA) to help secure town funding for a 215-acre parcel in the upper watershed of Pawtuckaway Lake.
3. Milfoil containment support
More recently, again working with PLIA, I’m excited to share that LRAC will be providing a grant to help pay for aquatic herbicide used to contain Eurasian watermilfoil, an invasive species threatening the lake.
4. Outdoor recreation initiative
Saving the best for last, I’m leading a subcommittee within LRAC focused on outdoor recreation and awareness of this special resource. This year we will sponsor kayaking and canoe trips down the Lamprey River. A naturalist, forester, and historian will join the paddles to share insights along the way.
I also want to address the “AI picture.” The photo was taken with an iPhone 11 during a spring paddle a couple of years ago. While on Pawtuckaway Lake I noticed what appeared to be shoreline disturbance: removal of riparian vegetation, alteration of terrain, and large rocks reinforcing the shoreline.
I’ve been involved with water testing on Pawtuckaway through PLIA for at least fifteen years. Although I have not participated recently, I still review the results. One concern is the continued rise in phosphorus levels. Shoreline disturbances like the one shown in the photo can contribute to phosphorus runoff, which in turn can fertilize invasive milfoil and contribute to algae growth, including potentially toxic blooms.
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services reviewed the photo and suggested filing a shoreline protection complaint. I followed that guidance, and the matter is currently under review. That is the reason I appear to have been placed on the blacklist.
Existing permits may cover the shoreline work, that is not for me to determine. My understanding at the time, however, was that the entire shoreline appeared to be in current use.
As you consider Article 25 on Tuesday, I encourage you to reflect on the principles that guide fair governance: EQUAL ACCESS, transparency, and respect for those who volunteer to protect our community and its natural resources. Think carefully about how decisions are made and how blacklists are determined. Are they based on merit, contribution, and stewardship—or on unrelated factors that could undermine fairness? When we vote, we choose not just an outcome, but the kind of community we want to support: one that values participation, environmental care, and equitable treatment for all.
Dan so you were so concerned about the lake that you snapped a photo but held onto it for 2yrs. Totally a coincidence that you submitted it a couple hours after your wife was stopped for trespassing to raise your concerns with NHDES?
Mifoil deeply concerns you but you move your kayak body of water to body of water than take it in the Nottingham town beach despite LRAC and PLIA blaming that exact activity for the spread of milfoil?
Come on Dan. Your the one who took the petty immoral route. Doug Bates has the time stamped police log and the time stamped NHDES report.
The 91A government records from the dam bureau, the town and NHDES contradict your statement. Are you accusing NHDES of breaking the law and withholding part of the record from a 91A request? Your photo went in with your complaint. The white birch trees in the photo caused us to run it through an AI detector (several actually) they all said it was AI generated. No birch trees on my property.
It is news to me that the case is under review. Did you file a new complaint? I have engineer designed, submitted and approved Shoreland Protection Permit and Dock Permit. Easy to find on NHDES website. The entire point was covered in the permit and the acreage around my house is out of current use and my Current Use Penalty paid. I provided those to the inspector and that was the last I heard from NHDES.
But I'll ask again why do you know and are cataloging so much information about my personal property? Yes I find that weird and creepy. Feelings are not slander.
Do you take photos of everyone's home, shoreline and docks while paddling? Have you reported others for violations in all your years of protecting the lake? Do you check on everyone's current use status and maps?
No. Just mine?
And did you really just say that community service should mean a trespasser should not be trespassed or absolve someone for being a shitty person? Is that why you do it?
If you trespassed on town property, you'd be served a No Trespass by the town and would not be allowed back. The law does not protect trespassers.
You wanted to play this out publicly. I responded. You were pissed at me and my wife. You retaliated. Now let it go Dan.
Support the Warrant all you want, just stop harassing my family.
A resident was just in the office asking about access to the Town Beach Road.
He questioned if the “Current Use” allows Joe and Dawn Fernald to post NO TRESPASSING signs on the access road and surrounding area....
This resident he has emailed Ben Bartlett to see if it can be extended out to between May 1st and October 1st so he can have more chance to put his kayak in. Not sure how that panned out, but I explained he is NOT supposed to be putting his kayak in at the town beach, milfoil is rampant in that area due to people ignoring the postings, he can put in at Fundy Cove (this man lives At 139 Deerfield Road, so is familiar with the area) Town Beach Rules – number 3 – NO BOAT LAUNCHING...
The resident said “but I could take a boat or have a bob house right in front of their house” - I said the LAKE is not privately owned, but the land that Joe and Dawn are posting IS. This man said “oh, I know Joe and Dawn” I suggested maybe he have a conversation with them? (no, it’s easier to make the town enforce it?)
Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective and the historical background regarding the Town Beach and access across your property. Discussions like this are important, and it is helpful for residents to hear different viewpoints.
It is also important to acknowledge something that should not be lost in the current debate. Access to the beach has existed for many years largely because of cooperation between the Town and the abutting landowners. That cooperation has allowed generations of Nottingham residents to enjoy the beach, and it deserves to be recognized. It is also reasonable for landowners to raise concerns about enforcement, liability, and behavior when their property becomes the gateway to a public facility.
Where the discussion seems to diverge is in how Warrant Article 25 is being characterized.
The purpose of Article 25 is not to vilify landowners or to seize private land. The article simply authorizes funding so the Town can explore lawful ways to secure permanent access to property the Town already owns. The repeated suggestion that the article authorizes the Town to take land “by any means necessary” is not language that appears in the warrant article itself.
What the article does is allow the Town to examine its options. Those options could include negotiation, legal clarification, or other mechanisms available under New Hampshire law. The article does not require the Town to pursue eminent domain, nor does it predetermine any particular outcome. Decisions of that magnitude would require additional public discussion and further action by the Select Board and, in many cases, the voters.
It is also important to clarify another point that has caused confusion. A legal right-of-way is not the same thing as taking someone’s land. Rights-of-way and easements are common legal tools used across New Hampshire to allow access to landlocked property, municipal facilities, trails, and utilities. They establish defined terms for access while the underlying property remains privately owned.
The Town Beach is a public asset owned by the residents of Nottingham. If the Town owned another public facility, such as the library or town hall, but the only way to reach it required crossing private land under revocable permission, most residents would understandably expect the Town to secure permanent access so that the facility could reliably serve the public. The same principle applies here.
The broader goal should not be conflict between neighbors or the vilification of landowners. In fact, a clearly defined and permanent access structure could ultimately benefit everyone involved. It would allow the Town to assume full responsibility for managing its public facility while removing neighboring property owners from the middle of ongoing disputes about access and behavior.
For decades residents have enjoyed the Town Beach because neighbors and the Town found ways to make the arrangement work. The question now is whether the Town should ensure that access to property it owns is supported by a stable and legally defined framework moving forward.
I have also spent time researching potential solutions that could address the access issue while respecting the interests of both the Town and the abutting landowners. If Article 25 passes, I intend to share those ideas with the Select Board so they can be evaluated as part of the process moving forward. My hope is that a constructive path exists that benefits both the community and the neighboring property owners.
This issue affects neighbors on all sides, and the goal should be a solution that brings clarity and stability rather than continued conflict.
The agreement in place for 2yrs has allowed the town to take full responsibility for managing its public facilities. Do you support the plan and budget that they put forth to do that?
For the last time for all the uniformed, misinformed, and those who just want to scream, this is a land take, I was able to locate the three RSA's. At least be an informed voter!
Under New Hampshire law, a town cannot use eminent domain unless voters specifically authorize it in a warrant article.
The article that was presented did not authorize eminent domain. If the town ever wanted to pursue that option, it would require a completely separate vote of the town.
For those who want to review the law themselves, here are the relevant statutes:
• RSA 31:4 – Allows towns to acquire land for municipal purposes only when authorized by vote of the town
• RSA 41:11 – Allows towns to purchase or acquire property or easements when voters approve the authority or funding
• RSA 498-A – The New Hampshire law that governs the eminent domain process
These laws make it clear that eminent domain cannot simply be decided later by a board. It requires explicit approval from the voters.
It is always a good idea to look at the actual statutes rather than relying on assumptions or rumors.
Informed voters make better decisions for our town.
I would like to offer my sincere apology to Joe and Dawn Fernald for being unaware of what appears to be a newer rule regarding the access during summer town beach hours.
Last August a friend and I parked our cars with valid town beach stickers and walked down the access road toward Deerfield Road to get a 5 mile walk in before returning to the lake for a swim. For many years prior, I had biked, ran or walked down the road during the summer and then jumped in the lake, so it never crossed our mind that we might suddenly be violating a rule or trespassing.
In hindsight, I truly wish that when Joe Fernald passed by my friend and I walking he might have simply pulled over and let us know foot Traffic was no longer allowed. We would’ve happily turned around and avoided any issue at all.
Instead, he chose to continue to pass us and contact the Nottingham police. The officer arrived while we were in the water and escorted us out, which certainly seemed like a very efficient way to handle what was clearly an innocent misunderstanding.
Again, my apologies for not realizing the rules have changed.
lol, this is such a joke!!! You we told multiple times not to trespass and you kept on doing it because you felt entitled!!! Also the cops were already there because of s motorcycle that was driven on the damn! You literally had months to “apologize “ to Dawn and Joe, acting like you don’t know them! And they didn’t trespass you until you filed a bogus claim with the DES about their dock months later. What about letting your dog off leash to run around their property, or launching your kayaks from the beach?
Tom is correct that I used the wrong figure, but Incorrect about the MCI being unrelated to the CPI. The MCI relies on data from the Bureau of Labor statistics - data that was not published for October 2025. The concern regarding missing data is the same under either index.
Copied from the SmartCitiesdive website:
"UPDATE: Dec. 19, 2025: The federal government continues to stagger the release of data used to calculate the monthly Municipal Cost Index in the wake of the federal government shutdown.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics on Thursday released the Consumer Price Index for November, which showed a seasonally adjusted 0.2% increase from September. BLS will not report the CPI for October 2025.
It will release the Producer Price Index required to calculate the Municipal Cost Index for November on Jan. 14, 2026, it said. The October PPI data will be bundled with its November data release, BLS said."
Keeping to the brass tacks of this matter, remember that the blacklist is about one core principle: FAIR GOVERNANCE REQUIRES EQAL ACCESS.
As for a rebuttal, I’ll keep this brief. I will say that the previous Fernald post is libelous. I can demonstrate that and will address it outside of this forum through the appropriate channels.
Around two years ago I volunteered to work with the Lamprey River Advisory Committee (LRAC). My employer encouraged me to volunteer and even provided time off to do so. Initially, I volunteered at a food bank where the work involved sorting donated produce, good orange bad orange, and collecting empty boxes so they could be compacted and recycled.
When I saw the opportunity to volunteer with the LRAC, I jumped at it. Having spent a great deal of time paddling the Lamprey River, I had come to appreciate the conservation and protection it receives as a federally designated river.
I’d like to share a few accomplishments, several that have benefited Nottingham:
1. Water monitoring support
While collecting water samples with the Nottingham Conservation Commission, I noticed the testing instrumentation needed repair and replacement. LRAC helped provide funding for that equipment so sampling could continue and data collection on Nottingham’s rivers could be maintained.
2. Watershed land protection
I worked with the Pawtuckaway Lake Improvement Association (PLIA) to help secure town funding for a 215-acre parcel in the upper watershed of Pawtuckaway Lake.
3. Milfoil containment support
More recently, again working with PLIA, I’m excited to share that LRAC will be providing a grant to help pay for aquatic herbicide used to contain Eurasian watermilfoil, an invasive species threatening the lake.
4. Outdoor recreation initiative
Saving the best for last, I’m leading a subcommittee within LRAC focused on outdoor recreation and awareness of this special resource. This year we will sponsor kayaking and canoe trips down the Lamprey River. A naturalist, forester, and historian will join the paddles to share insights along the way.
I also want to address the “AI picture.” The photo was taken with an iPhone 11 during a spring paddle a couple of years ago. While on Pawtuckaway Lake I noticed what appeared to be shoreline disturbance: removal of riparian vegetation, alteration of terrain, and large rocks reinforcing the shoreline.
I’ve been involved with water testing on Pawtuckaway through PLIA for at least fifteen years. Although I have not participated recently, I still review the results. One concern is the continued rise in phosphorus levels. Shoreline disturbances like the one shown in the photo can contribute to phosphorus runoff, which in turn can fertilize invasive milfoil and contribute to algae growth, including potentially toxic blooms.
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services reviewed the photo and suggested filing a shoreline protection complaint. I followed that guidance, and the matter is currently under review. That is the reason I appear to have been placed on the blacklist.
Existing permits may cover the shoreline work, that is not for me to determine. My understanding at the time, however, was that the entire shoreline appeared to be in current use.
As you consider Article 25 on Tuesday, I encourage you to reflect on the principles that guide fair governance: EQUAL ACCESS, transparency, and respect for those who volunteer to protect our community and its natural resources. Think carefully about how decisions are made and how blacklists are determined. Are they based on merit, contribution, and stewardship—or on unrelated factors that could undermine fairness? When we vote, we choose not just an outcome, but the kind of community we want to support: one that values participation, environmental care, and equitable treatment for all.
Dan so you were so concerned about the lake that you snapped a photo but held onto it for 2yrs. Totally a coincidence that you submitted it a couple hours after your wife was stopped for trespassing to raise your concerns with NHDES?
Mifoil deeply concerns you but you move your kayak body of water to body of water than take it in the Nottingham town beach despite LRAC and PLIA blaming that exact activity for the spread of milfoil?
Come on Dan. Your the one who took the petty immoral route. Doug Bates has the time stamped police log and the time stamped NHDES report.
The 91A government records from the dam bureau, the town and NHDES contradict your statement. Are you accusing NHDES of breaking the law and withholding part of the record from a 91A request? Your photo went in with your complaint. The white birch trees in the photo caused us to run it through an AI detector (several actually) they all said it was AI generated. No birch trees on my property.
It is news to me that the case is under review. Did you file a new complaint? I have engineer designed, submitted and approved Shoreland Protection Permit and Dock Permit. Easy to find on NHDES website. The entire point was covered in the permit and the acreage around my house is out of current use and my Current Use Penalty paid. I provided those to the inspector and that was the last I heard from NHDES.
But I'll ask again why do you know and are cataloging so much information about my personal property? Yes I find that weird and creepy. Feelings are not slander.
Do you take photos of everyone's home, shoreline and docks while paddling? Have you reported others for violations in all your years of protecting the lake? Do you check on everyone's current use status and maps?
No. Just mine?
And did you really just say that community service should mean a trespasser should not be trespassed or absolve someone for being a shitty person? Is that why you do it?
If you trespassed on town property, you'd be served a No Trespass by the town and would not be allowed back. The law does not protect trespassers.
You wanted to play this out publicly. I responded. You were pissed at me and my wife. You retaliated. Now let it go Dan.
Support the Warrant all you want, just stop harassing my family.
Experts from town employee email
From: Kelly Dallaire
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 3:11 PM
To: Ellen White <TA@nottingham-nh.gov>
Cc: Kortney Dorow Duball <recreation@nottingham-nh.gov>
Subject: Town Beach Road/Access
Hello,
A resident was just in the office asking about access to the Town Beach Road.
He questioned if the “Current Use” allows Joe and Dawn Fernald to post NO TRESPASSING signs on the access road and surrounding area....
This resident he has emailed Ben Bartlett to see if it can be extended out to between May 1st and October 1st so he can have more chance to put his kayak in. Not sure how that panned out, but I explained he is NOT supposed to be putting his kayak in at the town beach, milfoil is rampant in that area due to people ignoring the postings, he can put in at Fundy Cove (this man lives At 139 Deerfield Road, so is familiar with the area) Town Beach Rules – number 3 – NO BOAT LAUNCHING...
The resident said “but I could take a boat or have a bob house right in front of their house” - I said the LAKE is not privately owned, but the land that Joe and Dawn are posting IS. This man said “oh, I know Joe and Dawn” I suggested maybe he have a conversation with them? (no, it’s easier to make the town enforce it?)
Kelly Dallaire
BOS Secretary
Assessing Coordinator
Town of Nottingham
PO Box 114
Nottingham NH 03290
(603) 679-5022
Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective and the historical background regarding the Town Beach and access across your property. Discussions like this are important, and it is helpful for residents to hear different viewpoints.
It is also important to acknowledge something that should not be lost in the current debate. Access to the beach has existed for many years largely because of cooperation between the Town and the abutting landowners. That cooperation has allowed generations of Nottingham residents to enjoy the beach, and it deserves to be recognized. It is also reasonable for landowners to raise concerns about enforcement, liability, and behavior when their property becomes the gateway to a public facility.
Where the discussion seems to diverge is in how Warrant Article 25 is being characterized.
The purpose of Article 25 is not to vilify landowners or to seize private land. The article simply authorizes funding so the Town can explore lawful ways to secure permanent access to property the Town already owns. The repeated suggestion that the article authorizes the Town to take land “by any means necessary” is not language that appears in the warrant article itself.
What the article does is allow the Town to examine its options. Those options could include negotiation, legal clarification, or other mechanisms available under New Hampshire law. The article does not require the Town to pursue eminent domain, nor does it predetermine any particular outcome. Decisions of that magnitude would require additional public discussion and further action by the Select Board and, in many cases, the voters.
It is also important to clarify another point that has caused confusion. A legal right-of-way is not the same thing as taking someone’s land. Rights-of-way and easements are common legal tools used across New Hampshire to allow access to landlocked property, municipal facilities, trails, and utilities. They establish defined terms for access while the underlying property remains privately owned.
The Town Beach is a public asset owned by the residents of Nottingham. If the Town owned another public facility, such as the library or town hall, but the only way to reach it required crossing private land under revocable permission, most residents would understandably expect the Town to secure permanent access so that the facility could reliably serve the public. The same principle applies here.
The broader goal should not be conflict between neighbors or the vilification of landowners. In fact, a clearly defined and permanent access structure could ultimately benefit everyone involved. It would allow the Town to assume full responsibility for managing its public facility while removing neighboring property owners from the middle of ongoing disputes about access and behavior.
For decades residents have enjoyed the Town Beach because neighbors and the Town found ways to make the arrangement work. The question now is whether the Town should ensure that access to property it owns is supported by a stable and legally defined framework moving forward.
I have also spent time researching potential solutions that could address the access issue while respecting the interests of both the Town and the abutting landowners. If Article 25 passes, I intend to share those ideas with the Select Board so they can be evaluated as part of the process moving forward. My hope is that a constructive path exists that benefits both the community and the neighboring property owners.
This issue affects neighbors on all sides, and the goal should be a solution that brings clarity and stability rather than continued conflict.
The agreement in place for 2yrs has allowed the town to take full responsibility for managing its public facilities. Do you support the plan and budget that they put forth to do that?