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.”
HB1397
House · 2026 sessionBipartisanKilled in HouseNotice to abutters before tree cutting
AIDefines abutter for property taxation purposes and requires municipal officials to notify abutters by verified mail before a cutting operation that may affect their property.
relative to the notice to abutters for the intent to cut.
Status
Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · February 19, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✕House
- Senate
- Governor
- Law
Division of testimony
8 submissionsPlease see attached letter. Thank you, Ann Davis, forest landowner Wilmot and Springfield
As the cost is to be born by the property owner/applicant, this is nothing more than a tax on those who are trying to properly manage their forested property. It is none of the abuttors business what legal timber harvesting activity occurs on a forested property that is not theirs. A property was cut near me last year and while the process made noise during calloused hand working hours, it is not my property and would result in timber tax revenue for my town. Sounds like a win as it already is. Logging and forest management is big in NH. You should be making it easier to responsibly conduct these activities instead of placing roadblocks. This bill seeks to increase costs unnecessarily and should be ITLed.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.