Developers, resorts and conservation groups debate raising AOT threshold to ease small housing projects

Sen. Cindy Rosenwald introduced Senate Bill 110, which witnesses described as an attempt to ease permitting burdens for smaller development projects by raising or modifying the statutory alteration of terrain (AOT) threshold and/or changing fee treatment for certain disturbance levels.

Why it matters: The AOT threshold determines when state-level stormwater and land-disturbance reviews apply. Testimony focused on whether raising the threshold from 100,000 square feet (about 2.3 acres) to roughly 200,000 square feet (about 4.6 acres) would speed housing construction and reduce engineering costs, or whether it would create risks to water quality, infrastructure and habitat.

Construction and development witnesses said the current threshold and the multi-step permitting process add time and cost that can make small multifamily or workforce housing projects economically infeasible. John Warzoka, chief executive of Horizons Engineering, described typical engineering hours for an AOT application: "An alteration of terrain permit, even a very basic alteration of terrain permit, is on the order of, hundred engineering hours to complete that application package."

Resort representatives said the threshold change would help small housing projects in resort and rural communities. James Senunu of Waterville Valley Resort described his resort’s experience where a second phase pushed the site over the AOT threshold and produced months of additional engineering, delays and higher on‑site stormwater costs that, in his view, added significant per‑unit expense: "If such a project exceeds 100,000 square feet ... tens of thousands of dollars per unit of additional cost will make the project impossible." He urged raising the threshold to preserve smaller housing feasibility.

DES officials reiterated the importance of AOT permitting to protect water quality and infrastructure. Philip Trowbridge, manager of DES’s land resources, said: "Stormwater pollution is the number 1 source of water pollution in the state of New Hampshire. When left untreated, it's gonna be infecting our drinking water supplies, our rivers, our estuaries, our lakes." DES pointed out the existing 100,000‑square‑foot threshold has been in place decades and noted DES already includes limited relief for certain subdivision on‑lot construction.

Several developers and planning professionals asked instead for clearer, more predictable procedures, improvements to the application process, and better coordination with municipal engineering reviews. Alex (last name in testimony) and others argued that the cost and time of delayed permits — missed contractor availability, increased financing costs and lost market windows — far exceed modest fee increases the state could charge to support agency capacity.

Conservationists urged caution. Meredith Hatfield from The Nature Conservancy warned that raising the threshold could have water‑quality consequences and recommended more careful targeting of relief, clarity on where localities would pick up reviews, and more time for Fish and Game and DES to draft rules. New Hampshire Audubon’s Eric Orff urged the committee not to "poke a sleeping bear" on conservation gains and asked the legislature to proceed carefully.

Where things stand: Testimony showed clear disagreement about trade‑offs. Development stakeholders favored higher thresholds or administrative fixes to speed smaller projects; DES and conservation groups pushed for guardrails, more predictable processes, and funding/staffing solutions. Committee members asked agencies to collaborate on possible refinements including fee‑sharing MOUs and clearer rules for aggregation/10‑year look‑backs.

Ending note: No committee votes were taken. Members encouraged further interagency and stakeholder drafting to produce clearer, predictable standards that address housing goals while preserving water quality and habitat protections.