Developers, resorts and agencies debate raising alteration‑of‑terrain threshold to ease small housing projects

Senator Cindy Rosenbaum introduced Senate Bill 110, saying the measure aims to ease permitting burdens for smaller development projects by adjusting the state’s alteration‑of‑terrain (AOT) threshold and related fees.

Why it matters: witnesses argued that the current 100,000‑square‑foot disturbance threshold (in place for decades) captures many modest projects—such as small subdivisions or resort housing additions—and that crossing the threshold can produce lengthy, costly engineering reviews that threaten project financing and housing supply. Developers asked for a higher, predictable threshold so smaller housing projects can proceed without multi‑agency delays; conservation groups and DES urged caution and recommended legislative guardrails.

Arguments in favor: - Mark Brown (Government Affairs) and John Warzoka (Horizons Engineering) described routine design and permitting work and said even small subdivisions can reach or exceed the 100,000 sq ft threshold because of open‑drainage design and road work; Warzoka described single projects that required hundreds of engineering hours for AOT submissions. - James Senunu (Waterville Valley Resort) testified the resort’s second phase of a small housing project crossed the 100,000 sq ft trigger and required months of extra engineering and tens of thousands of dollars in engineering fees and hundreds of thousands of dollars in site work—costs that nearly made the housing economically infeasible. He said raising the trigger to 200,000 sq ft (about 4–5 acres) would allow smaller multifamily housing projects to remain viable.

DES and conservation cautions: - Philip Trowbridge and Amy Clark (DES) explained the program exists because "stormwater pollution is the number one source of water pollution in the state of New Hampshire" and described many real consequences when sites are cleared without adequate controls: sediment in brooks, overloaded culverts, and contaminated groundwater or local wells. DES noted the 100,000 sq ft threshold is roughly 2.5 times the federal construction general permit threshold and has been in place three decades; raising it to 200,000 sq ft would increase the maximum area left open at once and could make some sites harder to manage. - DES staff stressed that some towns rely on DES technical review because they do not have in‑house engineering capacity; shifting review to localities could increase variance in outcomes and might lead to more third‑party municipal reviews paid by applicants.

Key numeric context (testimony): - Existing AOT threshold: 100,000 square feet of earth disturbance (in place for about 35 years). DES staff said that threshold equates, for many subdivisions, to approximately 25 lots and is already substantially larger than the federal threshold tied to stormwater control. - Developers asked to raise a threshold to 200,000 square feet (about 4–5 acres) to reduce the number of small projects that trigger full AOT reviews. - DES handles roughly 200–250 AOT permits per year; about 80 of those have needed time extensions in recent years because of missing information or process delays.

Outcome: The committee took extensive testimony and ended the public portion of the hearing without a recorded vote in the transcript. Members asked DES and stakeholders to work on clarified language and guardrails (for example, clear rules to avoid piecemeal projects or to require heightened controls in sensitive watersheds).