Committee hears proposal to condition current-use eligibility on no-cut vegetated shoreland buffers

Committee members heard testimony on SB 46, introduced by Tricia Malillo on behalf of Senator Ruth Ward, which would allow municipalities to make land newly affected by construction eligible for current-use valuation only after a no-cut vegetated buffer is established and maintained.

A constituent who said she had asked the senator to file the change described the proposal as a way to preserve shoreland that protects water quality. The witness explained she intended the change to make shoreland that has been maintained in compliance with the Shoreline Protection Act eligible for current-use treatment in order to discourage excavations and foundations that sever subsurface water flows.

“I asked for that the land in the 250 foot shoreland buffer that has been maintained in full compliance of the Shoreline Protection Act, to be eligible for current use,” the witness said. She told the committee that small lots where cottages have been replaced by foundations can damage the shoreland’s function as a buffer and that preserving natural shoreland has economic benefits to municipalities because undeveloped shoreland “imposes few, if any cost on local government.”

Opponents included representatives of timberland owners, the Farm Bureau, the Forest Society and current-use board members who warned that current-use is a statewide program whose strength lies in consistent, simple application. Jason Stock of the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association said the program is “the cornerstone of open space and land conservation in the state” and argued that permitting town-by-town exceptions would create administrative confusion.

Norm Burnish, who said he serves on the current use board and has long experience as an assessor, warned that tracking whether a vegetated buffer is maintained and administratively following those parcels would be “a nightmare” for towns and would lower assessed values if applied inconsistently. Rob Johnson of the New Hampshire Farm Bureau said the bill’s terms—such as “new construction or reconstruction” and “no-cut vegetated buffer”—were not defined and could prevent routine forest-management activities such as selective cutting.

Matt Leahy of the Forest Society said the organization opposed the bill and noted that the current-use program’s statewide uniformity and simplicity are key to its success. Several witnesses asked that any substantial language changes be drafted carefully and coordinated with relevant agencies prior to a committee vote.

The committee did not vote on the measure and the chair said she planned to set the item aside for further work with the sponsor. Several witnesses indicated they were willing to work with Senator Ward on amendments.