Committee tables bill expanding state‑road connectors for off‑highway vehicles after heated hearing

The Resources, Recreation and Development Committee voted to recommend that House Bill 683, which would allow additional counties to use an established process for opening short segments of state roads to off‑highway recreational vehicles (OHRVs), be declared inexpedient to legislate (ITL).

Prime sponsors and ATV advocates said the bill simply extends to five additional counties the process already used in parts of the North Country, where volunteer clubs, town selectboards and the Department of Transportation (DOT) follow a public, documented procedure that includes landowner permission, public hearings and a DOT safety review. Supporters argued the change is a narrowly targeted tool to help a few towns link local trails to services such as gas and stores.

"This is a process," said Representative Mike Ouellette, the prime sponsor. "We're not talking about opening roads" indiscriminately; instead, the bill would make a transparent permitting option available to additional counties that request it.

Opponents — including the New Hampshire Farm Bureau, conservation commissions, public‑safety officials and neighborhood residents — told the committee the bill would shift the cost and burden of abutter notification, worsen public‑safety and law‑enforcement challenges in more densely populated counties, and allow changes that would be difficult to reverse once a road is opened for OHRV use.

Anne Davis of the New Hampshire Farm Bureau questioned whether municipal governments should shoulder the cost of verified‑mail abutter notifications, noting towns already face law‑enforcement and road‑maintenance impacts if use expands. "The petitioning organization should bear the notification cost," she told the committee.

Steve Wilkie, who represents OHRV clubs in the state, said the verified‑mail requirement can be expensive for small clubs and described cases in which clubs paid nearly $1,000 to notify abutters for a mile‑and‑a‑quarter section. He and other supporters stressed that the statute and permitting steps require local review, public hearing and the ability for towns to rescind the permission.

Officials from New Hampshire Fish and Game and conservation groups urged caution. Captain Eastman, OHRV coordinator for New Hampshire Fish and Game, said the experience in some counties has included complaints that led towns to close roads rather than leave them open. Conservation groups and town residents described noise, dust and safety concerns along routes used by OHRVs and urged the committee to let the state OHRV study commission complete its work.

The Department of Transportation told members the primary pavement impact would be to shoulders and side slopes on unpaved segments rather than to the paved surface.

After hearing dozens of public statements both for and against the bill, the committee voted in executive session to recommend ITL. The roll call returned a recommendation to declare the bill inexpedient to legislate (committee vote recorded as 14 in favor, 1 opposed).