{"id":10579,"date":"2025-05-01T06:03:45","date_gmt":"2025-05-01T10:03:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/townunderground.com\/?p=10579"},"modified":"2025-05-01T12:14:30","modified_gmt":"2025-05-01T16:14:30","slug":"nh-municipal-association-opposes-zoning-mandates-from-concord","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/townunderground.com\/?p=10579","title":{"rendered":"NH Municipal Association Opposes Zoning Mandates from Concord"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The information below is from the New Hampshire Municipal Association<\/a> (NHMA). The HHMA supports effective municipal government by leveraging the collaborative strengths of New Hampshire cities and towns through education, training, advocacy, and legal services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The association is opposed to a number of bills currently being debated in Concord. Representative Kristine Perez has also addressed some of these bill at the Londonderry Planning Board State Representative Perez \u2018I\u2019m Afraid for Londonderry\u2019<\/a> and Town Council meetings Rep Kristine Perez Addresses Concerns over Housing Bills in Concord<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NHMA released a a \u201cspecial\u201d legislative bulletin<\/a> on 4\/2\/2025 first voicing it’s concern:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

From the New Hampshire Municipal Association 4\/25\/2025<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zoning Mandates<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In terms of sheer volume, attempts to shift control of zoning and planning away from local voters and municipal authorities have proliferated this session. Because these bills carry no cost to the state, they have\u2014until recently\u2014enjoyed bipartisan support. Framed as attempts to tackle the growing shortage of affordable housing and foster development, these sweeping, one-size-fits-all statewide mandates do nothing to incentivize or encourage the building of affordable housing. Thanks to the sustained efforts of municipalities and other advocates of local control from across the political spectrum, serious concerns about statewide mandates, as well as the specific technical deficiencies and potential conflicts between these bills, are finally being considered\u2014but much more advocacy is needed to stop these bills from passing.<\/strong> As you will see below, the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Housing has already recommended most of these problematic bills as ought to pass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HB 577<\/a> (oppose) requires municipalities to allow either one detached or attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) by right on single-family lots. In addition to expanding to detached units, the bill would repeal several vital provisions that provide for local regulation in the current ADU statutes and would essentially turn single-family residential zones into two-family residential zones with no on-site parking requirements. Status: Three-member subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee<\/a> is recommending ought to pass (OTP); full committee can hold executive session at any time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HB 631<\/a> (oppose) permits residential building in commercial zones by right, mandating mixed-use development in nearly every zoning district in New Hampshire. While promoting urban density, it may lead to conflicts over land use priorities and contradicts one of the key purposes of zoning in RSA 674:17: to \u201cconsider the character of the area involved and its peculiar suitability for particular uses.\u201d Status: Three-member subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee is recommending OTP; full committee can hold executive session at any time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HB 685<\/a> (oppose), mandates manufactured housing by right in residentially zoned areas. The bill\u2019s language directly conflicts with RSA 674:32, the existing statute that says, \u201cMunicipalities shall afford reasonable and realistic opportunities for the siting of manufactured housing\u2026\u201d and mandates several updates to local zoning ordinances. HB 685 establishes a conflicting requirement that will create confusion for municipalities, local land use boards, voters, and developers. Status: Three-member subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee is recommending OTP; full committee can hold executive session at any time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Click here<\/a> to watch the Senate Commerce subcommittee discussions on HB 577, HB 631, and HB 685.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HB 410<\/a> (oppose) prohibits municipalities from enforcing or adopting any \u201cextraordinary restriction of residential property,\u201d an undefined term, unless the ordinance is directly necessary for the health or safety of the community. It would somehow require the legislative body (the voters) to produce \u201cempirical evidence\u201d to defend adoption of such an ordinance, with no process outlined for how that works; the bill also states empirical evidence \u201cmay be relevant \u2026 but are not necessarily dispositive\u201d! Additionally, HB 410 would conflict with all the other zoning mandates relative to residential zones. Status: Three-member subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee<\/a> is recommending the bill be re-referred; full committee can hold executive session at any time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SB 84<\/a> (oppose), mandates zoning ordinances to allow smaller lot sizes for all single family-homes, overriding current zoning regulations. The bill also requires municipalities to provide empirical evidence that the sewer system cannot support the lots, which adds a layer of complexity and bureaucracy in local government. Status: House Housing Committee<\/strong> executive session on Tuesday, May 6, at 10:00 a.m. in LOB Room 305.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

SB 163<\/a> (oppose), prohibiting local moratoria and limitations on building permits. Status: House Housing Committee executive session on Tuesday, May 6, at 10:00 a.m. in LOB Room 305<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SB 170<\/a> (oppose), relative to development and related requirements in cities, towns, and municipalities. The bill has several conflicting and unworkable zoning mandates, such as, but not limited to, ending most connectivity requirements for subdivisions, mandating unlimited development at the end of dead-end roads or cul-de-sacs, tying maximum dead-end roads lengths to the state fire code (the state fire code does not regulate road lengths), preventing or limiting cluster developments and other innovative land uses, and banning any setback or frontage requirements larger than 50 feet. It also establishes a new, convoluted, and conflicting process for s for recording of plats and plans at the registry of deeds, which would conflict with RSA 674:37. Status: House Housing Committee executive session on Tuesday, May 6, at 10:00 a.m. in LOB Room 305.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

SB 188<\/a> (oppose), allows property owners or developers to use licensed, insured private providers for building code plan reviews and inspections related to the state building code and any local technical amendments, excluding fire prevention and fire safety codes, and creates a \u201cbuilding permits by default\u201d model if communities fail to meet strict deadlines. Status: House Housing Committee executive session on Tuesday, May 6, at 10:00 a.m. in LOB Room 305.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

SB 284<\/a> (oppose), limits residential parking spaces to one parking space per residential unit. Status: House Housing Committee amended the bill with its preferred parking language from HB 382 as passed by the House, and SB 284 is on next Thursday\u2019s House consent calendar with a recommendation of OTP as amended (OTP-A). (Note: The Senate Commerce Committee adopted a replace all amendment to HB 382 relative to vehicle funding loan contracts.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, these aren\u2019t the only problematic zoning bills targeting local control; earlier this month we posted a \u201cspecial\u201d legislative bulletin<\/a> covering the full list of mandates that have been passed by the House or Senate and are now with the other chamber. A special interest group launched a multimedia campaign this month to push as many zoning mandates across the finish line as possible, so it\u2019s essential for local officials and residents to continue to engage with legislators, share their concerns, and advocate for balanced, practical approaches to zoning and housing development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n