Atkinson

2021 Conservation Commission Warrant Articles


The Conservation Commission will be submitting two warrant articles for consideration at Town Meeting next March 2021.

 
These proposed warrant articles were presented to the Atkinson Board of Selectmen on 10/19/2020.
A video of the meeting can be found here:
Warrant Article Discussion
Scroll down to "Selectmen's Meetings" and select 10/19/2020.
The warrant article discussion starts at 0:03:30 and lasts about 20 minutes.
 

The first article proposes adding several relatively small, unbuildable, town-owned parcels to existing Town Forests which they either abut or are close to.

The second warrant article seeks to expand the use of the Conservation Fund to make it easier for the Conservation Commission to enter into conservation easements held by a land trust such as the Southeast Land Trust or the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.

 

Since posting this article on Facebook, several people have commented negatively about the Southeast Land Trust (SELT), based mostly on what they see happening in Plaistow. In that case, for some reason the Town of Plaistow decided to place a conservation easement on THEIR OWN CONSERVATION LAND, under the control of SELT. Terms of that easement gave SELT the right to log the land in ways that members of the public find destructive to the trail system there (I agree), and detrimental to the public's enjoyment of the solitude of the woods.

Here is how I responded. I am aware of that situation, and we would never agree to anything remotely similar. This warrant article just gives us the OPTION of working with a land trust -- not necessarily SELT -- and would have absolutely no affect on any of our existing conservation lands or the trails we have worked so hard to maintain and publicize. What this warrant article would allow us to do is protect ADDITIONAL privately-owned land without actually having to purchase it. Worded correctly, a conservation easement could be quite restrictive about logging. AND, before moving forward with any use of this RSA, state law REQUIRES a properly-noticed public hearing. That's when you and others can pick apart whatever deal we are considering and give us specific input - and we WILL listen. This is an important dialog to be having, and I thank you for bringing it up.

 
 
 

There was also a follow-up question on Facebook, and here was my response to that:  
Maybe I was not clear, but this is not about giving up control of any town-owned land. In fact, this does not involve town-owned land at all. Passing this warrant article would allow the conservation commission to financially assist a land trust to establish easements on privately-owned land so we don't have to spend a bloody blue fortune to buy it ourselves. For example, there are philanthropically-oriented land owners who want their land permanently protected yet remain "in the family," and so are willing to donate an easement to a land trust. Besides feeling good about it, there are tax advantages to this sort of thing. But donating an easement to a land trust has costs associated with it. Adopting this RSA would enable us to help finance those costs, since it would be a benefit to the public to preserve the land for future generations. Seems like a win-win to me, but again thanks for raising these questions! It helps sharpen our thinking.