Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goffstown board restores three tax tracks for Oakcrest Road property owners
Summary
The Goffstown Select Board voted to restore three tax‑tracked parcels that town staff had merged for tax purposes, after property owners presented survey evidence and cited RSA 674:39‑aa. The assessor will update tax maps if processed before April 1.
The Goffstown Select Board voted March 23 to restore three tax‑tracked parcels at 20 Oakcrest Road to their pre‑merger configuration, granting the request of homeowners Craig Bowden and Cynthia Bok.
The request, brought by the owners and explained by Cynthia Bok, a licensed land surveyor, relied on a recorded chain of title and a survey showing three original tracks. Bok told the board she had ‘‘prepared the survey report’’ and concluded the buildings and the 2019 garage and driveway work were located wholly within one track, and therefore did not constitute a voluntary merger under state law. She cited RSA 674:39‑aa, the 2011 statute that allows owners to petition to restore lots involuntarily merged by a municipality.
Town staff, including assessor Scott Bartlett and planner Joanne Duffy, had urged caution. Staff materials and memos flagged the 2019 permit activity around a second driveway and a garage project, and noted the town’s driveway and frontage rules could be cited as evidence of a voluntary merger. Planning staff also pointed to a New Hampshire Supreme Court decision involving Windham, in which access to a garage across a lot boundary contributed to a finding of merger in that case.
Board members framed the issue as a statutory question: had any owner in the chain of title taken an action that amounted to a voluntary merger? Select Board member Richard moved to restore the lots; Allison seconded the motion and the board approved it by voice vote. The board directed the assessor to separate the parcels on the tax maps so that, if processed in time, separate tax bills would be issued beginning with the next tax cycle.
The vote does not itself change zoning or create any guarantees about future development. Staff and the board emphasized that restoring the historic tracks simply returns the town’s tax mapping to the prior configuration; any owner who wants to build or develop on restored parcels will still have to satisfy current zoning, frontage, and permitting requirements, and may need variances or planning board review for new driveways or new curb cuts.
Next steps: town staff will transmit the restoration to the assessor for map changes; if completed before the town’s map update, separate tax bills will issue. Any owner decisions about subdividing or combining restored parcels will proceed under current land‑use rules and planning board oversight.
