Crowdog
03-23-2005, 07:14 AM
State revs up attempt to change ATV rules
By DAVID BROOKS, Telegraph Staff
brooksd@telegraph-nh.com
Published: Wednesday, Mar. 23, 2005
CONCORD - Foes of ATVs hate the noise they make; fans of ATVs love the ground they cover.
But neither group has had much to cheer about in the Statehouse, where two years of ATV legislation has produced a lot of noise and not much movement.
On Tuesday it all ramped up again, as the state renewed its three-year attempt to override town review of public trails for ATVs and dirt bikes, a move some say is necessary to provide riding areas for the large number of off-road fans.
“I find it offensive that they can tell me what I can and cannot do with my property,” Jim Bird of Mont Vernon, speaking as a representative of the New Hampshire Off-Highway Vehicle Association, told the state Senate’s Environment and Wildlife Committee.
“We strongly support this bill . . . as the way that is most likely to provide long-term solutions.”
In contrast, Tracey Turner of Lyndeborough told the same committee: “This is a bad precedent . . . undoing the single most important tool that New Hampshire towns have at their disposal to manage growth.”
Such opposite opinions, from two people who live 15 minutes apart and serve on neighboring towns’ planning boards, shows that the issue won’t be settled easily this year, either.
The two were speaking at a committee hearing on SB 121, a bill that would exempt ATV trails on private property from having to get site-plan reviews from local planning boards, which can take months and cost thousands of dollars. ATV fans call this unfair and say it makes it almost impossible to create a network of off-road trails like those that have long existed for snowmobiles, which do not have to get site-plan reviews.
The bill could take a number of different routes if it gets out of committee, including the possibility that it will be subsumed by a large transportation bill that would apply differing standards to snowmobiles and ATVs.
Similar attempts to make ATV trails exempt from site-plan review were rejected by the Legislature last year as part of a battle born out of a proposed ATV park in Lyndeborough.
That battle ended in the state Supreme Court, which sided with the towns last April, giving them oversight of public trails. Private ATV trails, used only for family and friends, do not need such review.
If passed, SB 121 would appear to undo that Supreme Court ruling.
The bill is opposed by the New Hampshire Municipal Association, which thinks it infringes on towns’ local authority, and by environmental groups like the Appalachian Mountain Club, which is leery of ATVs because they can do a lot of damage when misused.
Its public support comes largely from the ATV community, which is much younger and less organized than the snowmobile community.
Battles over ATV usage have grown in recent years, a reflection of the increase in popularity of the machines.
In Windham, for example, large numbers of riders from Massachusetts came to use the Rockingham Recreational Trail, a former rail bed owned by the state, leading to complaints from town residents. Last year, after a series of contentious public meetings, the state banned ATVs from part of that trail.
Similar problems occurred on a rail trail in Mason.
The longest-running dispute is in Lyndeborough, where Larry and Sharon Boisvert wanted to allow public ATV trails on roughly 500 acres of land attached to their Feel Good Farm. That idea died with the Supreme Court ruling, and the Boisverts currently have a new proposal before the Lyndeborough Planning Board that includes outdoor recreation but no public ATV use.
The entire debate is complicated by several issues.
For one, there is the fact that SB 121 would also change how close ATV trails can get to wells, from about 4,000 feet to 400 feet. This is a major component of a long-running battle over the state’s desire to put ATV trails in Bear Brook State Park in Allenstown, which has some public wellheads.
Another complication is the increasing legal separation between snowmobiles and wheeled vehicles such as ATVs and dirt bikes. They are all currently lumped together in state law as OHRVs, or off-highway recreational vehicles.
Snowmobiles were specifically given exemption from site-plan review last year by the Legislature, even as it denied such exemption to ATVs. The preferential treatment was largely due to snowmobiles’ greater popularity in the state.
Roughly 70,000 snowmobiles are registered in the state, about three times the number of ATVs. While New Hampshire has only about 670 miles of official ATV trails dating back a half-dozen years, it has 10 times as many miles of snowmobile trails, most on private property and many dating back decades.
The difference in approach also reflects the fact that snowmobiles are limited to wintertime, when non-users are less likely to encounter them or hear them, and when environmental effects are lessened, and so have drawn less public opposition.
“An ATV is very much different from a snowmobile,” Armand Verville of Allenstown, who has been fighting ATV trails in Bear Brook State Park for years, told the Senate committee Tuesday. “Snowmobilers like trails . . . ATV (users) are like their name says, they like all terrain. They love mud.”
Sen. Jack Barnes, R-Raymond, cautioned Verville, whom he has dealt with over the Bear Brook issue many times, not to expect a speedy resolution.
“You’re going to be here next year fighting this again, and again, and again,” said Barnes.
“Oh, I know that,” said Verville.
David Brooks can be reached at 594-5831 or brooksd@telegraph-nh.com.
-------------------------------------------------
BILL AT A GLANCE
BILL NO.: SB 121
SPONSOR: Sen. Robert Flanders, R-Antrim
DESCRIPTION: The bill exempts trails for off-highway recreational vehicles from site-plan review by local planning boards. The bill also requires that an ATV or dirt bike trail pass no closer than 400 feet to a well supplying a public water system, a change from the current restriction of about 4,000 feet.
STATUS: The Senate’s Environment and Wildlife Committee held a hearing on the bill Tuesday afternoon.
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050323/NEWS01/103230027/-1/news01
By DAVID BROOKS, Telegraph Staff
brooksd@telegraph-nh.com
Published: Wednesday, Mar. 23, 2005
CONCORD - Foes of ATVs hate the noise they make; fans of ATVs love the ground they cover.
But neither group has had much to cheer about in the Statehouse, where two years of ATV legislation has produced a lot of noise and not much movement.
On Tuesday it all ramped up again, as the state renewed its three-year attempt to override town review of public trails for ATVs and dirt bikes, a move some say is necessary to provide riding areas for the large number of off-road fans.
“I find it offensive that they can tell me what I can and cannot do with my property,” Jim Bird of Mont Vernon, speaking as a representative of the New Hampshire Off-Highway Vehicle Association, told the state Senate’s Environment and Wildlife Committee.
“We strongly support this bill . . . as the way that is most likely to provide long-term solutions.”
In contrast, Tracey Turner of Lyndeborough told the same committee: “This is a bad precedent . . . undoing the single most important tool that New Hampshire towns have at their disposal to manage growth.”
Such opposite opinions, from two people who live 15 minutes apart and serve on neighboring towns’ planning boards, shows that the issue won’t be settled easily this year, either.
The two were speaking at a committee hearing on SB 121, a bill that would exempt ATV trails on private property from having to get site-plan reviews from local planning boards, which can take months and cost thousands of dollars. ATV fans call this unfair and say it makes it almost impossible to create a network of off-road trails like those that have long existed for snowmobiles, which do not have to get site-plan reviews.
The bill could take a number of different routes if it gets out of committee, including the possibility that it will be subsumed by a large transportation bill that would apply differing standards to snowmobiles and ATVs.
Similar attempts to make ATV trails exempt from site-plan review were rejected by the Legislature last year as part of a battle born out of a proposed ATV park in Lyndeborough.
That battle ended in the state Supreme Court, which sided with the towns last April, giving them oversight of public trails. Private ATV trails, used only for family and friends, do not need such review.
If passed, SB 121 would appear to undo that Supreme Court ruling.
The bill is opposed by the New Hampshire Municipal Association, which thinks it infringes on towns’ local authority, and by environmental groups like the Appalachian Mountain Club, which is leery of ATVs because they can do a lot of damage when misused.
Its public support comes largely from the ATV community, which is much younger and less organized than the snowmobile community.
Battles over ATV usage have grown in recent years, a reflection of the increase in popularity of the machines.
In Windham, for example, large numbers of riders from Massachusetts came to use the Rockingham Recreational Trail, a former rail bed owned by the state, leading to complaints from town residents. Last year, after a series of contentious public meetings, the state banned ATVs from part of that trail.
Similar problems occurred on a rail trail in Mason.
The longest-running dispute is in Lyndeborough, where Larry and Sharon Boisvert wanted to allow public ATV trails on roughly 500 acres of land attached to their Feel Good Farm. That idea died with the Supreme Court ruling, and the Boisverts currently have a new proposal before the Lyndeborough Planning Board that includes outdoor recreation but no public ATV use.
The entire debate is complicated by several issues.
For one, there is the fact that SB 121 would also change how close ATV trails can get to wells, from about 4,000 feet to 400 feet. This is a major component of a long-running battle over the state’s desire to put ATV trails in Bear Brook State Park in Allenstown, which has some public wellheads.
Another complication is the increasing legal separation between snowmobiles and wheeled vehicles such as ATVs and dirt bikes. They are all currently lumped together in state law as OHRVs, or off-highway recreational vehicles.
Snowmobiles were specifically given exemption from site-plan review last year by the Legislature, even as it denied such exemption to ATVs. The preferential treatment was largely due to snowmobiles’ greater popularity in the state.
Roughly 70,000 snowmobiles are registered in the state, about three times the number of ATVs. While New Hampshire has only about 670 miles of official ATV trails dating back a half-dozen years, it has 10 times as many miles of snowmobile trails, most on private property and many dating back decades.
The difference in approach also reflects the fact that snowmobiles are limited to wintertime, when non-users are less likely to encounter them or hear them, and when environmental effects are lessened, and so have drawn less public opposition.
“An ATV is very much different from a snowmobile,” Armand Verville of Allenstown, who has been fighting ATV trails in Bear Brook State Park for years, told the Senate committee Tuesday. “Snowmobilers like trails . . . ATV (users) are like their name says, they like all terrain. They love mud.”
Sen. Jack Barnes, R-Raymond, cautioned Verville, whom he has dealt with over the Bear Brook issue many times, not to expect a speedy resolution.
“You’re going to be here next year fighting this again, and again, and again,” said Barnes.
“Oh, I know that,” said Verville.
David Brooks can be reached at 594-5831 or brooksd@telegraph-nh.com.
-------------------------------------------------
BILL AT A GLANCE
BILL NO.: SB 121
SPONSOR: Sen. Robert Flanders, R-Antrim
DESCRIPTION: The bill exempts trails for off-highway recreational vehicles from site-plan review by local planning boards. The bill also requires that an ATV or dirt bike trail pass no closer than 400 feet to a well supplying a public water system, a change from the current restriction of about 4,000 feet.
STATUS: The Senate’s Environment and Wildlife Committee held a hearing on the bill Tuesday afternoon.
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050323/NEWS01/103230027/-1/news01