Committee recommends ITL on ATV/Off‑Highway vehicle expansion after hours of testimony

The House Resources, Recreation and Development Committee recommended “inexpedient to legislate” (ITL) on HB 683, a proposal to expand the process that allows municipalities to open limited state-road segments for off-highway recreational vehicle (OHRV) access in five additional counties.

The committee’s recommendation followed a long hearing that drew riders, club representatives, conservation organizations, local officials and state agencies to testify both for and against the bill.

Representative Mike Ouellette, a prime co-sponsor, told the committee the bill “is a process” measure designed to extend a transparent permitting path used in the North Country (Grafton and Coös counties) to other counties so towns can apply for limited state-road connectors. “It’s very transparent so that everybody involved… all the abutters… all know what’s going on,” he said.

Steve Wilkie, who represents ATV clubs in New Hampshire, described frequent small requests from towns that want short connectors to link class 4–6 roads and existing trails. Wilkie said the verified-mail notification requirement can be costly for small clubs and individual petitioners, sometimes running “close to a thousand dollars” for a short section of road. He argued the bill would return local control and relieve small petitioners of a cost burden they said fell disproportionately on volunteer clubs.

Opponents included representatives of conservation and landowner groups and town officials who cited public-safety, enforcement and neighborhood impacts. Anne Davis of the New Hampshire Farm Bureau asked why municipalities should shoulder notification, policing and road maintenance costs if a town opts in. Gary Newfield, chairman of the Randolph Conservation Commission, described OHRV conflicts he said persist and urged the committee to keep certified abutter notice in place. Abby Evanko of Gorham said many residents along state roads currently receive no direct abutter notice when a state road is opened to OHRVs and argued the change would further erode property owners’ ability to be heard.

New Hampshire Fish and Game testified in opposition. Captain Eastman said Fish and Game and local enforcement agencies have worked to reduce road use and that past experience showed opening roads can create complaints and enforcement burdens. Department of Transportation staff told the committee the most likely impacts to highways would be erosion and wear on gravel shoulders and side slopes rather than the paved travel surface.

Supporters included multiple local ATV clubs that said short connector crossings are typically limited in length, require landowner permission and are subject to local hearings and state review. Jerry Livesey, a club representative from Keene, said his club had raised significant volunteer funds and that the bill would help provide short crossings to access gas stations and services.

The committee’s roll call readout recorded the motion to recommend ITL as “14 1.” Following the committee action, the chair said the bill was not advanced from the committee.

Why this matters: HB 683 sought to extend a process used in a small region to other counties. Supporters framed the measure as enabling local control and lower-cost access for riders; opponents raised concerns about notification, enforcement capacity, road safety and negative effects on residents’ quality of life.

What’s next: The ITL recommendation ends committee consideration for this session unless the General Court revives the measure elsewhere or petitioners pursue other remedies.