Your area Not set — showing everywhere
How it works Support this town
Meeting report · Board of Selectmen
Creating this report cost real money. Help fund coverage →

Board of Selectmen — May 5, 2026

The meeting was marked by heavy public testimony regarding trespassing, deception, and property rights, exacerbated by significant off-agenda discussions regarding committee oversight.

Date Tuesday, May 5, 2026 Duration 1.0h Speakers 14 Public comments 9 Decisions 1 Heated
▶ Video

Questions about this meeting? ⁠Just ask.

Ask MeetingWatch answers from this meeting’s report, transcript, and records — with linked sources.

Summary AI-generated to surface controversy & community impact without bias — always verify against the actual meeting before relying on it.

During the May 5th Board of Selectmen meeting, several issues arose that warrant close attention from Amherst residents, particularly regarding transparency and property rights.

Most notably, the Board engaged in a significant discussion regarding the oversight and future charter of the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). This was an off-agenda topic, meaning the public was not given prior notice that the committee's mandate or transparency would be addressed. Citizens raised serious allegations of deceptive communication and attempts by the BPAC to influence other town boards.

There were also heated discussions regarding the proposed Baboosic Greenway Rail Trail. Property owners expressed strong opposition, arguing the town may be attempting to exceed existing easements to build a full bike path. Following reports of surveyors entering private property without permission, the Board has directed staff to investigate the authority and scope of these surveyors.

Additionally, there was a notable discrepancy in the meeting's documentation: while the agenda listed the 'North 02 Project,' the primary focus of the meeting was the Rail Trail project. We will continue to track the Board’s decision on the 'build' vs 'no-build' option for the trail, which is expected following their May 11th deadline.

May 5, 2026 1.0h long 14 speakers 9 public comments 1 decisions Heated
❝ Notable statements ↔ Drag to browse

“It is my professional opinion that the scope of the proposed Babusa Greenway Rail Trail is a gross overburden of the actual rights that the town enjoys over the mayor's private property.”

— SPEAKER_10 (Ken Clinton) · Providing professional land use and surveying opinion regarding the limited easement on the Mayor property. ▶ 07:21

“The burden of proof is not on us. The burden of proof is on the people who are wanting to build the trail.”

— SPEAKER_04 (Derek Lucci) · Arguing that the project's lack of connectivity and impact on residents should necessitate a 'no-build' vote. ▶ 12:39

“I think there's a lot of confusion for me about who has contacted you for easements or talked to you... I still don't have a clear understanding of who those people were.”

— SPEAKER_08 (Madam Chair) · Acknowledging the lack of clarity regarding town communication with abutters. ▶ 25:21

“I think they [BPAC] have no input into that [rewriting the charter]. They have no input into that. That's not what they were established for.”

— SPEAKER_08 (Madam Chair) · Responding to concerns about the BPAC attempting to expand its authority and influence. ▶ 53:29
This meeting — choose a section

Public ⁠impact

Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
What was discussed

Potential legal disputes over property easements and significant allocation of municipal/state grant resources.

Topics ⁠discussed

Each topic expands to quotes and full context.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

The Board of Selectmen held a public meeting to gather input and concerns regarding the proposed rail trail project, specifically addressing connectivity, private property rights, and land use.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Property owners (the Mayors and others) expressed strong opposition to the project, citing limited existing town easements that only permit a narrow footpath and arguing the town lacks the rights to develop a full bike path on their land.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Citizens raised concerns regarding the BPAC's transparency, alleging they have acted outside their advisory mandate, engaged in deceptive communication, and attempted to influence other boards like the Planning Board.

Controversy & ⁠dissent

Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.

Potentially controversial issues

01

Babusik Greenway Rail Trail Project

Conflict between municipal infrastructure goals and private property rights. Landowners argue the town is attempting to overstep existing narrow easements to build a full bike path, potentially involving unlawful trespassing.
Board position: Undecided; the board deferred a 'build' vs 'no-build' decision to a future meeting while acknowledging the need to review land use and easement rights.
high concern
02

Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Oversight

Citizens alleged the BPAC is acting outside its advisory mandate, engaging in deceptive communication, and attempting to influence other boards. This was an off-agenda topic, meaning residents had no prior notice to prepare for this specific accountability discussion.
Board position: The Board signaled a need to reassess the committee, with the Chair stating the BPAC has no input into rewriting its own charter.
high concern

Community vs. board tension

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
9
Total speakers
3
Addressed
3
Partial
3
Not addressed
Ken Clinton (Agent for Kat and Hugo Mayor)
▶ 01:26
Partial
Speaking on behalf of the Mayors, Clinton argues that the town's rights to the rail bed are limited to a narrow footpath and a non-existent footbridge. He asserts that the proposed rail trail project is an unlawful overreach of these rights and causes trespassing on private property. Key concern
The town lacks the legal rights to develop a bike trail on the specific segment of private property owned by the Mayors.
Board response
The board acknowledged the presentation and later mentioned they are reviewing concerns regarding town-owned land.
While the board listened, they did not provide a definitive legal ruling during the meeting, stating they would discuss the project on Monday.
Derek Lucci
▶ 11:31
Partial
Lucci argues that the project lacks connectivity and is a 'passion project' rather than a community need. He expresses frustration over a lack of transparency and requests that the board vote 'no-build' to prevent wasting resources. Key concern
The project lacks connectivity, lacks a clear community need, and has been characterized by a lack of transparency.
Board response
The board chair explained that the process is slow and that they are taking input to reach a conclusion by Monday.
The board acknowledged the frustration and the process but did not commit to a specific vote or provide the requested documents immediately.
Joanne Dumas
▶ 19:21
Addressed
Dumas notes the confusion caused by inconsistent segment labeling in town documents. She also mentions concerns about a landowner in segment three and requests information regarding the authorship of the state grant to ensure transparency. Key concern
Inconsistent documentation/labeling and lack of transparency regarding the state grant application.
Board response
The board chair noted that the grant application should be in the minutes and a board member mentioned that staff would work on providing the requested discovery.
The board provided a path forward for accessing the grant information through staff and official records.
Speaker SPEAKER_00
▶ 26:02
Addressed
The speaker explains that they were contacted by previous committee members for an alternate route and participated in meetings to view property markers. Key concern
Sharing personal experience of being contacted by town officials regarding property use.
Board response
The board chair acknowledged the comment and asked for clarification on timing.
The board acknowledged the speaker's history of communication with the town.
Terry Robinson
▶ 27:54
Partial
Robinson expresses shock at being unaware of surveying on their land and accuses the Bike Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) of acting without transparency. He also alleges that committee members have used private identities to influence public opinion. Key concern
Lack of transparency and alleged deceptive tactics by the BPAC regarding eminent domain and public influence.
Board response
The board chair accepted physical copies of the emails/letters provided and stated the board would discuss the role of the BPAC.
The board accepted the evidence and promised a future discussion regarding the committee's role, but did not resolve the allegations immediately.
Speaker SPEAKER_03
▶ 33:03
Not addressed
The speaker declares they will fight any easement or acquisition of their property and is working with an attorney to add restrictive covenants to their deed. They argue the project is a waste of taxpayer money for a 'trail to nowhere.' Key concern
Protecting private property from future easements or acquisitions.
Board response
The board chair thanked the speaker and asked if they wanted to leave a copy of their materials.
The board acknowledged the speaker but did not address the legal threat or the specific request to protect property.
David Brown
▶ 36:11
Addressed
Brown reports that surveyors appeared on his property in 2024 without his permission and continued even after being asked to leave. Key concern
Unauthorized surveying of private property.
Board response
The board chair asked for the specific date and requested text messages as evidence.
The board actively engaged with the claim and requested documentation to investigate.
Todd Newman
▶ 38:14
Partial
Newman claims he was deceived by the BPAC and the town regarding the use of eminent domain. He argues that the project is being pushed through despite financial infeasibility and lack of community support. Key concern
Deception regarding eminent domain and the mismanagement/misrepresentation of the project's scope and funding.
Board response
The board chair acknowledged the concerns and mentioned that they have met with the ACC regarding town-owned land.
The board acknowledged the sentiment but did not directly address the accusations of 'deception' with a specific resolution.
Steve Martin
▶ 45:54
Not addressed
Martin raises concerns about the safety of e-bikes on rail trails and encourages board members to visit the specific locations (Dream Lake and Babusik Lake) to see the encroachment on private land. Key concern
Safety of e-bikes and the physical encroachment on private properties.
Board response
The board chair thanked the speaker.
The board acknowledged the comment but did not address the e-bike safety concern or the request for site visits.

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Adjournment of the meeting
Motion to adjourn made by a speaker, seconded by John (a speaker/UNKNOWN), all in favor.
Passed (unanimous)

Share ⁠this report

Drafts ready to post — click any block to copy.

X / Twitter — by angle

Off-agenda controversial decision (BPAC oversight)
Transparency Alert: At the 5/5 Board of Selectmen meeting, the Board discussed the future role and charter of the BPAC—a high-significance topic that was NOT on the public agenda. Residents had no prior notice to prepare for... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/amherst/board-of-selectmen/2026-05-05/ #MeetingWatch #AmherstNH
319/280 chars
Community concerns (Trespassing/Property rights)
Amherst Selectmen are now investigating reports of surveyors entering private property without permission following the 5/5 meeting. The Board must determine the authority and scope of these surveyors regarding the Baboosic... https://meetingwatch.org/nh/amherst/board-of-selectmen/2026-05-05/ #MeetingWatch #AmherstNH
318/280 chars
Transparency (Agenda inaccuracy/Significant deviation)
The 5/5 Selectmen meeting agenda listed the 'North 02 Project,' but the substantive discussion focused entirely on the Baboosic Greenway Rail Trail. Discrepancies between agenda titles and actual discussion limit public clarity. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/amherst/board-of-selectmen/2026-05-05/ #MeetingWatch #AmherstNH
320/280 chars

X thread

1
At the May 5th Amherst Board of Selectmen meeting, two major issues surfaced that residents should know about: unexpected off-agenda discussions and serious allegations regarding property rights and committee overreach. 🧵 #MeetingWatch #AmherstNH
246/280
2
First, the Board discussed the future role and charter of the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). This was NOT on the public agenda. Residents were not given prior notice that the committee's authority and transparency would be a topic of official action.
265/280
3
Second, property owners raised alarms about the Baboosic Greenway Rail Trail. Allegations were made regarding surveyors entering private land without permission. The Board has now been tasked with investigating these reports of unauthorized access.
248/280
4
Finally, the meeting agenda listed the 'North 02 Project,' yet the meeting focused almost exclusively on the Rail Trail. Accurate agendas are vital so residents know exactly what will be decided in their name. Stay informed.
224/280
5
The Board is set to decide on the 'build' vs 'no-build' option for the rail trail by May 11. We will continue to monitor how these decisions impact our property rights and town transparency. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/amherst/board-of-selectmen/2026-05-05/
214/280

Facebook — long form

During the May 5th Board of Selectmen meeting, several issues arose that warrant close attention from Amherst residents, particularly regarding transparency and property rights.

Most notably, the Board engaged in a significant discussion regarding the oversight and future charter of the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). This was an off-agenda topic, meaning the public was not given prior notice that the committee's mandate or transparency would be addressed. Citizens raised serious allegations of deceptive communication and attempts by the BPAC to influence other town boards.

There were also heated discussions regarding the proposed Baboosic Greenway Rail Trail. Property owners expressed strong opposition, arguing the town may be attempting to exceed existing easements to build a full bike path. Following reports of surveyors entering private property without permission, the Board has directed staff to investigate the authority and scope of these surveyors.

Additionally, there was a notable discrepancy in the meeting's documentation: while the agenda listed the 'North 02 Project,' the primary focus of the meeting was the Rail Trail project. We will continue to track the Board’s decision on the 'build' vs 'no-build' option for the trail, which is expected following their May 11th deadline. https://meetingwatch.org/nh/amherst/board-of-selectmen/2026-05-05/ #MeetingWatch #AmherstNH

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Discuss and decide on the 'build' vs 'no-build' option for the rail trail project.
Assigned: Board of Selectmen · Due: 2026-05-11
Provide the state grant application and associated documentation to Kat (Tumas) for review.
Assigned: Board of Selectmen / Staff · Due: Soon
Investigate reports of surveyors entering private property without permission and determine their authority and scope of work.
Assigned: Board of Selectmen / Staff · Due: After Monday's meeting
Hold a discussion regarding the future role and charter of the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC).
Assigned: Board of Selectmen · Due: Not specified

Accountability ⁠flags

Documented procedural gaps. Each item links to its source.

Agenda items not discussed

Topics discussed — not on agenda

Support coverage

Creating this report cost ⁠real money.

MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering Amherst.

Report composed by grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-05-29.