Seems to good to be true:
http://www.beangroup.com/real_estate/listings/Land/NH/Keene/621960
Best of both worlds !!! Build your home in an area of fine homes, and walk out your back door into your very private 98 acre preserve. Great wildlife habitat. Wonderful ledge outcroppings. 28.0 acres Keene. 70.1 acres Westmoreland.
Hurricane Road, Keene, NH 03431
Didn't know the address but checked out the general area. Mountainous. Nice area.
The website says "Taxes: $184"
I thought "taxes" in realty ads meant property taxes, but can it be accurate that taxes on 98 acres for $162,000 are only $184? That's .1% (one tenth of a percent).
Quote from: Mike in CA on March 02, 2008, 02:13 PM NHFT
The website says "Taxes: $184"
I thought "taxes" in realty ads meant property taxes, but can it be accurate that taxes on 98 acres for $162,000 are only $184? That's .1% (one tenth of a percent).
That's not uncommon for undeveloped land that has "current use" status for agriculture (including timber) and/or recreation.
Quote from: KBCraig on March 02, 2008, 02:55 PM NHFT
Quote from: Mike in CA on March 02, 2008, 02:13 PM NHFT
The website says "Taxes: $184"
I thought "taxes" in realty ads meant property taxes, but can it be accurate that taxes on 98 acres for $162,000 are only $184? That's .1% (one tenth of a percent).
That's not uncommon for undeveloped land that has "current use" status for agriculture (including timber) and/or recreation.
So it's a zoning thing? If you bought this land, you'd actually owe only $184 per year in taxes? And if you built a house (i.e., used the land other than agriculture/timber) would the govt. re-assess and charge more taxes?
Quote from: Mike in CA on March 02, 2008, 03:03 PM NHFT
And if you built a house (i.e., used the land other than agriculture/timber) would the govt. re-assess and charge more taxes?
Absolutely. I know that if you officially declare (with the right paperwork and such) that your land is open for general use like hunting and gathering while it's not being used by you, you can get a drastic tax reduction; maybe it was no taxes. Can't remember. Of course if you start using it, that ends. This is a NH policy as I understood it.
Quote from: dalebert on March 02, 2008, 03:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: Mike in CA on March 02, 2008, 03:03 PM NHFT
And if you built a house (i.e., used the land other than agriculture/timber) would the govt. re-assess and charge more taxes?
Absolutely. I know that if you officially declare (with the right paperwork and such) that your land is open for general use like hunting and gathering while it's not being used by you, you can get a drastic tax reduction; maybe it was no taxes. Can't remember. Of course if you start using it, that ends. This is a NH policy as I understood it.
Good to know for people who might want to buy some land and hold onto it for a while.
I'm thinking of doing just that—get some land in Grafton, and hold onto it for eventual use... and as an insurance policy if the shit hits the fan and we all need to get out of the cities fast. Ultimately I'd build on it, but for the next few years I'm committed to what we're doing in Manchester.
Current Use in NH allows for undeveloped lots of 10 acres or more to have a State (DRA) valuation per acre depending on the agricultural use. If the property is not 'posted' against hunting/fishing/hiking (to include all human foot travel), it gets an extra 10% valuation discount for 'recreational use'. If the property is later developed a penalty of 10% of valuation must be paid.
sounds quite real
If you broke that up into a 2 acre lot, and a 96 acre lot, you could develop the 2 acre lot, and enjoy the entire 98, with must less a tax burden. That is, if you don't mind sharing the 96 with whomever might want to wander around on it.
Quote from: LotharSNL on June 21, 2008, 01:54 PM NHFT
If you broke that up into a 2 acre lot,
That link is not there anymore. Looks like outdated info..
Quote from: maulotaur on June 21, 2008, 07:43 PM NHFT
Quote from: LotharSNL on June 21, 2008, 01:54 PM NHFT
If you broke that up into a 2 acre lot,
That link is not there anymore. Looks like outdated info..
http://www.beangroup.com/real_estate/listings/Land/NH/Keene/635092
Quote from: LotharSNL on June 21, 2008, 01:54 PM NHFT
If you broke that up into a 2 acre lot, and a 96 acre lot, you could develop the 2 acre lot, and enjoy the entire 98, with must less a tax burden. That is, if you don't mind sharing the 96 with whomever might want to wander around on it.
Oddly enough in NH that would increase your property taxes. The 96 acre lot could be placed under Current Use. While the two acre lot might not be entirely hardscaped.
Interesting
I like hurricane road.
If someone wants to know more about it from long distance, they can give me the address and I could check it out sometime. :)
That's insane! Property taxes are capped at 10% out here in CA as per Prop 13 in 1970whatever. People keep telling me that property taxes in towns/"cities" are very high to compensate for lack of other taxes. What is the avg %?
2 or 3%
I just got reassessed... I'm at 1.764% of property valuation.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on June 22, 2008, 06:19 AM NHFT
Quote from: LotharSNL on June 21, 2008, 01:54 PM NHFT
If you broke that up into a 2 acre lot, and a 96 acre lot, you could develop the 2 acre lot, and enjoy the entire 98, with must less a tax burden. That is, if you don't mind sharing the 96 with whomever might want to wander around on it.
Oddly enough in NH that would increase your property taxes. The 96 acre lot could be placed under Current Use. While the two acre lot might not be entirely hardscaped.
Increase property taxes more so then if one homesteaded the entire 98? What if the 96 acres were owned by a different entity then the one that owned the 2 acres? I was thinking that the 96 acres could be sold to some out of state owner who just happened to be fine with their neighbor, living on the developed 2 acres, wandering around on it. :)
Quote from: LotharSNL on June 25, 2008, 08:56 AM NHFT
Increase property taxes more so then if one homesteaded the entire 98? What if the 96 acres were owned by a different entity then the one that owned the 2 acres? I was thinking that the 96 acres could be sold to some out of state owner who just happened to be fine with their neighbor, living on the developed 2 acres, wandering around on it. :)
Then whoever owned the other 96 acres would get stuck with more property taxes if they don't allow the use of the property by the general public. It's the exclusion of use by the others of undeveloped land that incurs the higher taxes by NH law.
Quote from: dalebert on June 25, 2008, 09:17 AM NHFT
Quote from: LotharSNL on June 25, 2008, 08:56 AM NHFT
Increase property taxes more so then if one homesteaded the entire 98? What if the 96 acres were owned by a different entity then the one that owned the 2 acres? I was thinking that the 96 acres could be sold to some out of state owner who just happened to be fine with their neighbor, living on the developed 2 acres, wandering around on it. :)
Then whoever owned the other 96 acres would get stuck with more property taxes if they don't allow the use of the property by the general public. It's the exclusion of use by the others of undeveloped land that incurs the higher taxes by NH law.
Ah.. I see. Thank you. So, if you owned 100 undeveloped acres, and put no trespassing signs up, your taxes go up?
Actually the land does not have to be open to all in order to enjoy a reduced property tax rate. There are essentially three levels of property taxation. The first is the full rate, charged on developed land and other land that does not fit the criteria needed for lower property taxes through "current use" designation.
The second category is called "current use" and basically requires ten acres (or more) of land. A value is set for the land based on the amount of income the land would produce in it's current form (which must be farmland, timberland, wetland or land deemed unproductive such as ledge). Taxes are then charged based on the "current use" value rather than the real estate full market value.
The last category is really a subcategory of current use land. Any land with the current use designation can also be opened to skiing, snowshoeing, fishing, hunting, hiking and nature observation. If all six of those uses are allowed (other uses can be restricted by posting) then the current use assessment is reduced by 20%.
There are a ton of more specific requirements, plus penalties for removing land from current use equal to 10% of it's fair market value. More info can be found at http://www.nhspace.org/cu.shtml
-Nat
Quote from: Nat F on June 25, 2008, 02:30 PM NHFT
More info can be found at http://www.nhspace.org/cu.shtml
Undeveloped land in NH is presumed to allow public use if it is not posted otherwise? Or does that only apply to land designated as 'current use'? And if so then how would you know since it would not be posted or could you assume that it is if it meets the criteria described as land being valid for designation as 'current use'?
-Paul
Quote from: maulotaur on June 25, 2008, 04:13 PM NHFT
Undeveloped land in NH is presumed to allow public use if it is not posted otherwise? Or does that only apply to land designated as 'current use'? And if so then how would you know since it would not be posted or could you assume that it is if it meets the criteria described as land being valid for designation as 'current use'?
All land in NH is open to public access unless it's posted.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/635/635-4.htm
Quote from: NH Fish and Game
Common law in New Hampshire gives the public the right of access to land that's not posted. You won't find that in state law books, because it is common law, going back to the philosophy of New England's early colonists and supported over the centuries by case law. Our forefathers knew the importance of balancing the need for landowners' rights with that of the public good. On one hand, the landowner can make decisions about his or her land. On the other hand, the public should have limited rights to use and enjoy that land. The colonists held similar democratic notions about rivers, lakes, fish and wildlife.
http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Hunting/hunt_landowner_hunter_FAQs.htm
I've quite surprised to hear that people presume land is not open to access. Maybe it's just because I grew up in New England (Massachusetts though, not New Hampshire) but I'm accustomed to the idea that land is open to the public unless it's either posted or fenced in some way.
-Nat
Quote from: LotharSNL on June 25, 2008, 08:56 AM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on June 22, 2008, 06:19 AM NHFT
Quote from: LotharSNL on June 21, 2008, 01:54 PM NHFT
If you broke that up into a 2 acre lot, and a 96 acre lot, you could develop the 2 acre lot, and enjoy the entire 98, with must less a tax burden. That is, if you don't mind sharing the 96 with whomever might want to wander around on it.
Oddly enough in NH that would increase your property taxes. The 96 acre lot could be placed under Current Use. While the two acre lot might not be entirely hardscaped.
Increase property taxes more so then if one homesteaded the entire 98? What if the 96 acres were owned by a different entity then the one that owned the 2 acres? I was thinking that the 96 acres could be sold to some out of state owner who just happened to be fine with their neighbor, living on the developed 2 acres, wandering around on it. :)
Without knowing the exact valuation it would be hard to tell, but for example. The developed acres might be valued at $40,000+ each. While the CURRENT USE acres might be $400. Because the two acres were subdivided they would be valued at $80,000... but the other 96 would be valued at $38,400. If your house, outbuilding, and other hardscape equalled lets say 1/2 acre... then the 1/2 acre would be $20,000 with the other 97.5 acres at $39,000.
$80,000 two acres compared to $59,000 for the ninety-eight. Throw in the twenty percent recreational discount and the number gets even better.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on June 26, 2008, 08:19 AM NHFT
Throw in the twenty percent recreational discount and the number gets even better.
How much better would the numbers be if you lived inside of an off-grid tiny house that was sitting on a frame (as in the equivalent of an RV) and did not create any structures on the property to keep it as 'current use' status with recreational access allowance?
-Paul
I have a friend with a camp (cottage) up north. His daughters - who hunt and fish with him - say they will stay at the camp when he gets indoor plumbing. ;D
Quote from: maulotaur on June 26, 2008, 10:27 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on June 26, 2008, 08:19 AM NHFT
Throw in the twenty percent recreational discount and the number gets even better.
How much better would the numbers be if you lived inside of an off-grid tiny house that was sitting on a frame (as in the equivalent of an RV) and did not create any structures on the property to keep it as 'current use' status with recreational access allowance?
-Paul
If the entire 98 were placed in Current Use, just multiply the current use rate times 98. So in this example $39,400...
But assessors could claim the RV is a permanent structure (not mobile) and thus tax it and require the land under it to be taxed at full developed value. Certain towns have limits on how long a habitated RV may remain on the property before being deemed permanent.
Also important to understand that a $40,000 assessment for an acre is around my area... it varies depending on local real estate market.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on June 27, 2008, 07:27 AM NHFT
But assessors could claim the RV is a permanent structure (not mobile) and thus tax it and require the land under it to be taxed at full developed value.
Yep...I even heard of a case where there the owner periodically moved the 'mobile structure' around to other parts of the property (which I believe had been subdivided for this purpose) so it could not be considered a permanent structure. It's all quite ridiculous really.
NH (heck New England) is a little odder. We've had whole municipalities looking to secede from a State (Killington from Vermont), other municipalities looking to secede from a county (Sunapee from Sullivan), and parts of a municipality from the municipality (Weirs Beach from Laconia). All these just in the last few years.
The town PorcFest was held in (Gilford) and mine (Belmont) both long ago seceded from Gilmanton. And each of these three municipalities have sub-communities within them.
no address yet? ... we might bike up that road soon
The only address they show is Hurricane Rd.
And I just looked at it again and there is a sale pending on it.
aha