Philip Ferneau

This bill risks profound damage to a program that has well served the public interest and been essential to preserving New Hampshire’s scenery, environment, and wildlife. 1. Single Lot. Limiting owners to enrolling a single lot in current use is arbitrary and at odds with the program’s policy objectives. Whether open space land qualifies for the current use program shouldn’t depend on whether it is a single or multiple lots as long as the program’s acreage minimums are met. The proposed single-lot limitation would thwart the efforts of landowners and non-profits seeking to assemble and conserve contiguous parcels of lands for wildlife, environmental and recreational purposes. This change would encourage landowners to maintain their land holdings in the largest lot possible and penalize those landowners who have already subdivided their property for possible future development, including families planning to ensure that their children and other relatives can live nearby. As well, it’s important to recognize that homes are often bought and sold as a parcel with one or more abutting lots already in current use based on prior sub-divisions. That’s especially common in towns without zoning as the only possible safeguard to industrial or commercial development at odds with the quiet enjoyment of their home. 2. Municipal Limitation. Limiting “rural” municipalities to no more than 75% of its area fails to recognize that many towns in the North County are already close to that percentage (or already above it) as a function of their remoteness and physical terrain and resulting prevalence of unproductive land and forest land. This restriction should be deleted from the bill altogether. Alternatively, the bill should be amended to provide that as long as a town is over the 75% limit, new lots may not be added to the current use program but lots already enrolled are grandfathered and remain eligible. 3. Land Management Practices. The bill would impose additional management requirements and restrictions on agricultural and forestry use that are overly prescriptive and could, in some circumstances, conflict with best conservation practice or other policy objectives. The bill should also be amended to be explicit that these restrictions on agricultural and forestry use do not impose new obligations on unmanaged unproductive lands in the current use program. 4. Effective Date. As written, the bill’s new limitations would take effect on Jan. 1, 2027, spurring many landowners worried about losing their property’s current use eligibility to rush to sell their effected lots by the end of 2026. Such a sudden and artificial increase in the supply of undeveloped land for sale would profoundly depress the market without meaningfully improving housing availability, especially in the North Country where the price of undeveloped land isn’t the constraint on new housing development. If the bill were to proceed, its limitations should take effect only over an extended period of time to allow a more orderly market adjustment to these profound changes in the current use program.