Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Atv On Roads topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would let municipalities authorize limited on‑road ATV use; DOT, Fish & Game urge clarifying language
Summary
Representative Dan Maguire introduced House Bill 375 to allow municipalities to designate sections of roadway for ATV use with mapping, signage and equipment requirements. DOT and Fish & Game testified that existing permitting procedures and vehicle definitions need clarification before the state should adopt the proposal as written.
Representative Dan Maguire introduced House Bill 375, a proposal that would let a municipality designate specific segments of road for on‑road all‑terrain vehicle (ATV) use and require local maps and signage for those segments. Maguire told the Public Works and Highways committee the idea grew out of tourism uses in other towns and that the bill is voluntary for municipalities.
"For the record, my name is Dan Maguire. I represent the town of Epsom," Maguire said, explaining the measure would create "ground rules of how this is to be done" and that he is "not wedded to any of the details." He described requirements in the draft including online and town‑hall maps, optional signage, seasonal designations, and equipment standards.
Committee members and state agencies raised safety, statutory and implementation concerns. Alan Hanscomb, state maintenance engineer at the New Hampshire Department of Transportation, told the committee that exempting municipalities and the Bureau of Trails from DOT's permitting process "kind of subverts what the Department of Transportation does to regulate the highways" and requested the exemption language be revisited. DOT asked the committee to follow the public‑notice and signage requirements it currently applies for on‑highway OHRV crossings.
Captain Michael Eastman of Fish and Game said his commission "did oppose, this bill, just kind of the way that it's written," citing three issues: (1) the bill uses the term "ATV" while state law uses broader OHRV definitions that include UTVs and snowmobiles; (2) the exemption of a permitting review raises questions about which sections of state highway would be opened; and (3) funding and maintenance responsibilities differ between town and state roads. Eastman added Fish and Game tracks roughly "about 60" OHRV accidents annually statewide and said speed and operator experience are primary contributing factors.
Craig Rennie, chief of the Bureau of Trails at the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, said the Bureau already runs a coordinated permitting and review process with DOT for highway crossings and on‑highway connectors and that process "works very well." He told the committee the permitting sequence includes on‑site review by district staff and then DOT engineering review, and that the agencies maintain a GIS mapping tool showing pending and approved highway crossing permits.
Discussion focused on several specific provisions of the draft. Maguire said the bill as written sets a maximum allowable road speed of 40 mph for designated segments but acknowledged he had intended 30 mph in his own recollection. The draft also would add equipment requirements that some modern off‑road vehicles do not include by default, such as directional signals, horns and emergency flashers; Maguire acknowledged that directional signals "might be controversial." Committee members asked whether golf carts or slow‑moving agricultural plates would be covered; witnesses said those vehicles are regulated under different statutes and plates.
Witnesses emphasized the difference between town roads and state highways for maintenance and funding. DOT and Fish and Game asked for clearer language so the permitting and safety review processes remain intact and so that responsibilities for signage, law enforcement and pavement wear are explicit.
The committee held the public hearing on HB 375 with no formal vote recorded at the hearing.
Why it matters: the bill would change how municipalities may open roadways to recreational and utility OHRVs and could shift safety, maintenance and permitting responsibilities among towns and state agencies if enacted. The testimony shows agency consensus that permitting and safety processes already exist, but state and local responsibilities must be spelled out to avoid unintended openings of higher‑speed state routes.
Ending: The committee closed public testimony on House Bill 375 after agency testimony; sponsors and agencies signaled willingness to revise statutory language. The committee did not take a floor motion or recorded vote during the hearing.
