New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules Tra-Ap - Appeals Board for the Department of Transportation
1. Driveway Access Permit Denial (Highway Safety vs. Property Rights)
Background:
A landowner owned a large parcel along a state highway and wanted a driveway permit to access the road. The New Hampshire Department of Transportation (DOT) denied the permit because its internal access-management policy limited the number of driveways allowed along a particular stretch of highway for safety reasons.
Appeal to the Transportation Appeals Board:
The landowner argued that:
The property could not reasonably be used without access.
DOT had previously allowed other driveways nearby.
An exception to the access rule should apply.
The Appeals Board agreed with the landowner, finding that denying access entirely would be unreasonable and ordered DOT to issue the permit.
Court Review:
When DOT appealed, the court reversed the board’s decision. The court ruled that:
DOT has broad authority to regulate highway access for public safety.
The landowner bears the burden of proving entitlement to an exception.
General safety policies do not need to be justified on a case-by-case accident basis.
Key Lesson:
The Appeals Board can review DOT decisions, but courts will uphold DOT rules if they are reasonable and safety-based.
2. Construction Contract Dispute – Extra Compensation Claim
Background:
A highway construction contractor entered into a contract with DOT to perform excavation and embankment work. During construction, excess material had to be disposed of in a way the contractor claimed was not anticipated by the contract.
Appeal to the Transportation Appeals Board:
The contractor argued that:
The contract language was ambiguous.
DOT should pay extra for disposal costs.
The work went beyond the original scope.
The Appeals Board sided with the contractor and awarded additional compensation.
Court Review:
The court overturned the board’s decision, holding that:
The contract language was clear.
The risk of surplus material was already priced into the bid.
The Appeals Board cannot rewrite contracts based on fairness concerns.
Key Lesson:
In contract appeals, strict interpretation of written contract terms controls over equitable arguments.
3. Highway Detour and State Liability
Background:
DOT closed a road for bridge repairs and established a detour route. A truck following the detour struck a low-clearance bridge and sustained damage.
Administrative Claim and Appeal:
The truck owner claimed DOT was negligent in designing the detour and failed to provide adequate warnings. The claim proceeded through administrative review related to transportation oversight.
Decision:
The reviewing authority initially found DOT partially responsible.
Court Review:
The court reversed, finding that:
Designing detours involves discretionary, policy-based decisions.
Such decisions are protected from liability under governmental immunity.
Only operational negligence (not planning decisions) can create liability.
Key Lesson:
Transportation decisions involving planning and judgment are generally immune from liability, even if they result in harm.
4. Property Access and Compensation Dispute
Background:
A property owner claimed that DOT’s redesign of a state highway substantially impaired access to their land, reducing its value.
Appeal to the Transportation Appeals Board:
The owner argued:
The change amounted to a taking.
Reasonable access no longer existed.
Compensation was required.
DOT argued that:
Some access still existed.
Changes were part of lawful traffic control measures.
No taking occurred.
Decision:
The Appeals Board found that while access was less convenient, it was not eliminated and therefore did not require compensation.
Court Review:
The court upheld the board’s decision, emphasizing that:
The state does not guarantee the most convenient access.
Compensation is required only when access is materially and substantially impaired.
Key Lesson:
Inconvenience or reduced traffic flow does not equal a compensable taking.
5. Permit Revocation for Non-Compliance
Background:
A business obtained a DOT permit for roadside signage and driveway access but failed to comply with permit conditions related to sight distances and traffic control.
Appeal to the Transportation Appeals Board:
The business argued that:
Violations were minor.
Revocation was excessive.
DOT failed to give adequate warning.
DOT argued that:
Safety violations justified immediate action.
Permit conditions were clear and enforceable.
Decision:
The Appeals Board upheld DOT’s revocation, finding that:
Permit holders are strictly responsible for compliance.
DOT has authority to act quickly when safety is involved.
Key Lesson:
Transportation permits are conditional privileges, not permanent rights.
6. Bid Protest and Award Dispute
Background:
A contractor lost a bid for a state highway project and claimed DOT improperly evaluated bids.
Appeal to the Transportation Appeals Board:
The contractor alleged:
DOT misapplied scoring criteria.
Another bidder was non-responsive.
The process lacked transparency.
DOT responded that:
Bid evaluation followed published rules.
Discretion in scoring technical factors is allowed.
Courts should not second-guess procurement decisions.
Decision:
The Appeals Board sided with DOT, and later review affirmed that:
Procurement decisions receive substantial deference.
Only clear violations of law justify overturning an award.
Key Lesson:
Disagreement with DOT’s judgment is not enough to overturn a bid award.
Overall Role of the Transportation Appeals Board (Tra-Ap Context)
From these cases, the Transportation Appeals Board generally:
Reviews DOT decisions affecting private parties
Hears appeals involving:
Access permits
Construction contracts
Property impacts
Permit enforcement
Procurement disputes
Applies administrative law standards, not equity alone
Can be reversed if it exceeds statutory authority or misapplies the law
Although the specific Tra-Ap procedural rules have been repealed or consolidated, the appeals function continues under statutory authority, and these types of cases remain central to transportation law in New Hampshire.
RELATED Blog
comments