Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conservation Easement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Easement amendment sought for Boulder Point right‑of‑way draws legal warnings; town to seek formal AG review
Summary
Pemmy Valley Habitat for Humanity’s request for a right‑of‑way that would require altering a conservation easement drew a detailed legal memo from an abutting easement holder, who said changes to a perpetual conservation easement are high‑risk and likely require Attorney General and possibly court approval; the board agreed to seek formal legal review before any action.
Pemmy Valley Habitat for Humanity presented a conceptual request to create a right‑of‑way from Boulder Point to a Habitat parcel, a change that would require amending a perpetual conservation easement that burdens lands owned by Spear Memorial Hospital and an adjacent private owner. The proposal is intended to provide a secondary access and increase development options for the Habitat parcel.
Colin Delari, an abutting landowner who also has legal interest in the affected easement area, delivered a detailed statement and legal memorandum arguing that any amendment that permits road construction through the easement is a high‑risk modification under New Hampshire Attorney General guidance. Delari said such an amendment would likely confer a private benefit on a non‑burdened landowner and might harm the wetlands the easement was intended to protect. "A perpetual conservation easement is a charitable trust under New Hampshire law," he told the board, and he asked the town to confirm the town attorney has reviewed his memo and the AG guidance before proceeding.
Town and conservation representatives discussed the conservation commission’s conditional letter of support (which the commission said assumed AG approval and a suitable high‑value replacement parcel). The commission warned that the specific easement at Boulder Point was originally created, in part, to mitigate impacts from past development and that further fragmentation could be damaging unless an equivalent or higher‑value conservation parcel were provided in exchange.
The board did not take action to modify the easement. Members asked staff to ensure all landowners are notified, to circulate the attorney memos to the town attorney for a formal response, and to require any formal amendment proposal to include legal, ecological and replacement‑parcel details and — if requested by the AG guidance — a court process in which the AG is a required party.
No amendment was approved; town officials emphasized that the AG’s published guidelines and potential judicial process would shape any realistic path forward.
