CONWAY — Lawyers for the state of New Hampshire asked a Superior Court judge Thursday to dismiss a lawsuit filed by James Pietrangelo of Bartlett, who seeks to have the Conway Rec Path demolished.
Attorneys Colin Carroll and Christina Wilson stressed that Pietrangelo's suit should be dismissed because the Legislature approved the rec path in an iteration of the 10-year transportation plan.
However, Pietrangelo believes that the rec path, which was built by the MWV Trails Association with help from the town and state, was a questionable use of congestion mitigation funds.
In May 2024, he brought suit in Carroll County Superior Court, complaining that while the state paid nearly $2 million in federal dollars for land meant to be used for the now-scrapped Conway bypass, the land was made available for rec path and skate park projects.
The skate park project, which was another of Pietrangelo's targets, has since been relocated to town-owned land.
On Thursday, Superior Court Judge Mark Attorri heard a motion to dismiss from state attorneys Carroll and Wilson. Pietrangelo appeared by conference call from London, England.
"It's the state's position that this authorization to construct the non-motorized 2.8-mile transportation pathway in this section of Conway indicates that the Department of Transportation was authorized by the Legislature to use those parcels for that multi-use path," said Carroll.
The state provided the judge with hundreds of pages of documents from New Hampshire Department of Transportation Ten Year Plans going back to the 1990s. The Rec Path appears in the 2019-28 plan.
"How do I know that this document here is what it purports to be? Can I look this up someplace?" asked Attorri of the 2019-28 plan.
Pietrangelo, in his written objection to the motion to dismiss, said the state was putting the judge in the position of an "archaeologist" who would have to sift through hundreds of pages of DOT documents and "guess" what they meant. He said the state should have provided an affidavit explaining what the plans mean.
Pietrangelo said it's unclear whether the path proposed in the 2019-28 Ten Year Plan is the same one that was built in 2021 because the plan called for the path to be built in a heavily congested area.Â
"According to what the state has presented to the court, the Legislature withdrew their approval for the project before it was built," he said.
What's more, said Pietrangelo, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funding for the path came with strings: that the path would reduce congestion and that ownership of the land was clear.
Carroll responded that claims about the CMAQ process should be addressed at the federal level and reminded the judge that the issue before the court was whether the Ten Year Plan gave the DOT the authority to allow the path to be built.
At present, jury selection is scheduled for Aug. 31, 2026.
Attorri said he will deliberate on the motion to dismiss and issue a decision at a later time.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.