HB1397

If abutters had been notified of an Intent to Cut, a conservation subdivision application submitted to the North Hampton Planning Board would likely have been approved in far less than the 14 months it ultimately required. Several years ago, the North Hampton Select Board, on which I served, received a fully executed PA-7 Intent to Cut notice for a property within the town. Under state law, there are only four circumstances under which a governing body may decline to sign an Intent to Cut: the form is improperly completed; the land is enrolled in an unproductive current use category that does not allow timber harvesting; a required timber tax bond has not been posted; or all owners of record have not signed the notice. None of these conditions applied in this case. As a result, the notice was placed on the consent calendar and approved at a regular Select Board meeting. Subsequently, the landowner submitted a conservation subdivision application to the planning board, on which I also served as the select board representative, for the same property that had been cleared pursuant to the approved Intent to Cut. Abutters objected, arguing that the landowner had failed to disclose his true intentions when filing the Intent to Cut. While no impropriety was found in either the Intent to Cut or the subdivision application, the appearance of impropriety led to significant delays in the subdivision’s approval. Had abutters been notified of the Intent to Cut, they would have had a clearer understanding of the scope of the timber harvest and its potential impact on their properties. Greater transparency at the outset would likely have avoided confusion, mistrust, and unnecessary delays. For these reasons, I respectfully request that this bill be moved “ought to pass.”