State law wrote:231:21-a Uniform Provisions Governing Class VI Highways. – All class VI highways, whether such class VI status resulted from a layout pursuant to RSA 231:21, a discontinuance subject to gates and bars pursuant to RSA 231:45, or by the failure of the town to maintain and repair such highway in suitable condition for travel thereon for 5 successive years or more as set forth in RSA 229:5, VII, shall be subject to the following provisions:
I. All such highways shall be deemed subject to gates and bars; provided, however, that any gates or bars maintained by private land owners shall be erected so as not to prevent or interfere with public use of the highway, and shall be capable of being opened and reclosed by highway users. The selectmen may regulate such structures to assure such public use, and may cause to be removed any gates or bars which fall into disrepair or otherwise interfere with public use of the highway.
II. Even though, as set forth in RSA 231:93, class VI highways are not subject to any municipal duty of care or maintenance, the municipality shall have the same regulatory authority over such highways as is the case with class V highways, including but not limited to the authority to regulate their use pursuant to RSA 41:11 and RSA 47:17, VII, VIII and XVIII, to regulate the excavation or disturbance of such highways pursuant to RSA 236:9 through 236:11, to regulate driveways and other access pursuant to RSA 236:13, and to establish weight limits pursuant to RSA 231:191.
I don't see how the selectmen could legally grant a request to bar public access to a class VI road.
There is no provision for the town to erect gates, only the landowners, and the selectmen have the duty to assure public access if gates are erected.
It was suggested to me that if the town can't put gates on Cross Road, then they should not have put them on Tucker Road, but the difference is that Tucker road was designated a municipal trail by town vote.
State law wrote:CHAPTER 231-A
MUNICIPAL TRAILS
Section 231-A:4
231-A:4 Public Trail Use Restrictions. – In this chapter "public trail use restrictions'' means any restrictions upon use of a trail by the general public. Such restrictions may be imposed by a landowner as a condition of grant or dedication of a trail acquired under RSA 231-A:5, or by vote of the local legislative body or its designee at or subsequent to the time the trail is established, or by the local governing body under RSA 41:11. Such restrictions may include, but are not limited to, prohibition of motor vehicles, prohibition of wheeled vehicles, prohibition of off highway recreational vehicles, or restriction to specified modes of travel such as horse, bicycle, or foot. Such restrictions, if posted using legible signs at entrances to the trail from public highways, or at any property boundaries where new or different restrictions become applicable, shall be enforceable in the same manner as traffic violations as set forth in RSA 265. Any person violating such restrictions shall be guilty of a violation.
It was also suggested to me that the town did not have authority to convert Tucker Road from being a Class VI road to a municipal trail, that it should have been discontinued as a Class VI road then established as a municipal trail, two separate votes, but a direct conversion is specifically allowed:
State law wrote: 231-A:2 Reclassification of Highways; Damages. –
I. Any class V or VI highway may be reclassified as a class A or class B trail, and any class A trail may be reclassified as a class B trail, by vote of the local legislative body.