[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6642442,"mediaKeyId","2543003-656adbf05d444bc00377ba84b5e32cc3","parentId",2543003,"title","Senate Commerce Committee: votes and motions from today’s session (quick reference)","audioSeconds",6080,"startMs",495000,"endMs",6575000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2543003-656adbf05d444bc00377ba84b5e32cc3&start=495&end=6575","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2543003-656adbf05d444bc00377ba84b5e32cc3/thumbnail_495000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6642442/New-Hampshire/Senate-Commerce-Committee-votes-and-motions-from-todays-session-quick-reference","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6642442-7534899ff0139b8a6bbe1792c7a808f8/orig.mp4?Expires=1777098741&Signature=WRKNQV~3PGxCxMFymK3KPaewEOyVVcJJ7ohj8~qcvnQIOTjBfBDu0x0u-D7Ge6QnKxBiK5i1VRZnQBIJB-F723cGLzkN77clg1C3tULnYX0RihXeo21rcBcglkcrK0F0TiyugPt3~bfR-iCvzTO7QPqb4vAMCX9Ec8HfSv8gt924JSEcI1CiD11BFbS5QHX~doQhcbDrJ6K-eG9ai7ieW3t8iul8lIoe2ulAfx2EGSSHaxzrzpJWZcaU5abFhTcQ1C8jLx1gqBhgAcq0UmUGh6xV2OYJl0AEml-fjQWGnuM-anCFrRp6E4tcM1mdi1l2Ev6tKG8R~Yef89QnlwYH6A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-03-11T16:40:19.61Z","article","This quick reference summarizes the formal actions recorded in the Senate Commerce Committee transcript for Oct. 27. Where the transcript records only a voice vote, a roll‑call tally is not available; outcomes below reflect the committee’s recorded motions and voice vote results.

Votes at a glance
- Senate Bill 26 — Amendment adopted; bill recommended to pass as amended (committee voice votes). (Moved and seconded; amendment number noted on the record.)
- Senate Bill 55 — Committee voted “Inexpedient to Legislate” (ITL). (Motion and voice vote carried.)
- Senate Bill 85 — Committee adopted amendment 0413 and recommended passage (voice vote).
- Senate Bill 90 — Re‑referred for further review after reconsideration (see separate article for detail).
- Senate Bill 163 — Committee recommended passage (voice vote).
- Senate Bill 165 — Committee recommended passage and placed on consent (voice vote).
- Senate Bill 166 — Committee recorded an ought‑to‑pass recommendation and placed the bill on consent (voice vote).
- Senate Bill 167 — Committee moved Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) following discussion (motion carried by voice vote).
- Senate Bill 169 — Committee recommended passage; sponsor to take out (voice vote).
- Senate Bill 170 — Committee adopted a modified committee amendment (872s) and recommended passage as amended (see SB 170 article for details).
- Senate Bill 171/172 series — SB 172 recommended to pass (voice vote).
- Senate Bill 173 — Committee re‑referred (motion carried by voice vote).
- Senate Bill 174 — Committee recommended passage (reported as a 4–2 vote in the transcript); the bill was placed on consent and the sponsor offered to take it out for further consideration.
- Senate Bill 175 — Committee voted to re‑refer (voice vote).
- Senate Bill 281 — Committee adopted a committee amendment; recommendation to pass (effective date adjusted to 07/01/2026 by amendment).
- Senate Bill 282 — Committee adopted amendment 0528s addressing fire marshal concerns and recommended passage (voice vote).
- Senate Bill 283 — Committee recommended passage (voice vote).
- Senate Bill 284 — Committee recorded an ought‑to‑pass recommendation with one recorded opposed vote; the bill was not placed on consent following the vote.

Notes on procedure and common outcomes
- “Ought to pass” and committee amendments were often adopted by voice votes; the transcript does not provide roll‑call tallies for most items.
- Several contested bills were re‑referred to give sponsors time to prepare floor amendments or to allow municipalities and stakeholders additional review.
- Bills placed on the consent calendar were commonly those with minimal debate; sponsors sometimes elected to “take the bill out” from consent for further floor action.

If you need a detailed breakdown (vote count by member, full amendment texts, or per‑bill transcripts linked to each action), those are available in the committee’s official minutes and the electronic transcript archive.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Commerce (03/11/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","A compact listing of bills the Senate Commerce Committee discussed and the committee’s recorded outcomes during the Oct. 27 session, including motions to pass, re‑refer, and recommendations of Inexpedient to Legislate.","taxTitle","Commerce, Senate , Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",29504,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6642447,"Senate Commerce tussles over SB 90; committee re‑refers the bill after tied votes and debate on local control",2343,832000,3175000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2543003-656adbf05d444bc00377ba84b5e32cc3&start=832&end=3175","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2543003-656adbf05d444bc00377ba84b5e32cc3/thumbnail_832000.jpg","/articles/6642447/New-Hampshire/Senate-Commerce-tussles-over-SB-90-committee-rerefers-the-bill-after-tied-votes-and-debate-on-local-control","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6642447-ab7420c628ca5759e940f1d8edebe76d/orig.mp4?Expires=1777098741&Signature=oSKe5pRKjAIaAQXm5bxHmpCUPx8ssz1sP~hKufWf-4cWoolDnsK6C7qHd8G0fxnm2fUnNmyqnUzjnhffQWimrrJx9zR~o~arj-kVZvitDyz0FWbrHhlfVjSw4D6jQOTNdyn49S6K8GJ4BBrtCnz4FO~MTrkxdfZAn8tDPyq0S4wL8Peb90qYI4Tn~F94ZOJJiXJRS8gCjP1ZIJs6hAm1R2VHT-XfwRyZcklmUPfuiRPCNZvgRGImpkqdluD7TB1sbpGjbINQqZZ25eUgcclDVuWqJqhWmVYRM0oGngTGRsI3dl3jwaoHBFfg9C2ngMM7mHtVeW0WdDyPmODsMU4BFw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 90, which would expand residential use in commercially zoned areas, prompted an extended debate in the Senate Commerce Committee over the balance between encouraging housing and preserving local land‑use control. After divided committee discussion and a tied tally in an initial vote, the committee ultimately voted to re‑refer the bill for further study.

Senator Murphy, speaking for the bill, urged the committee to allow developers and individuals the ability to create residential units near jobs and services, describing the measure as a way to build vibrant, walkable communities and reduce vehicle trips. He argued that modern planning recognizes the harms of strict single‑use zoning.

Opponents warned the change would erode local control and expose communities to unintended consequences. Senator Ricciardi and others argued local planning and zoning boards should retain authority to control ground‑floor commercial integrity and prevent the loss of future commercial capacity, citing potential fiscal and service‑capacity impacts.

Several members suggested re‑referring the bill to give municipalities and committee members more time to examine related deregulation proposals and potential cumulative effects on parking, wastewater and community services. The committee initially appeared equally divided on an ought‑to‑pass recommendation; after a motion for reconsideration later in the session, senators voted to re‑refer SB 90 with the expectation sponsors could present refined amendments on the floor.

Outcome: after reconsideration, the committee approved a motion to re‑refer SB 90 for further review. The committee’s action will allow the sponsor to offer a floor amendment and to refine the measure before a final Senate vote.

Votes at a glance
- SB 26 — Amendment adopted; SB 26 as amended recommended to pass (committee voice votes recorded during committee business).
- SB 55 — Motion of “Inexpedient to Legislate” adopted (committee voice vote), effectively ending this bill’s progress out of committee.
- SB 85 — Committee adopted amendment 0413 and recommended passage of SB 85 (voice vote).
- SB 163 — Committee recommended passage (voice vote).
- SB 165 — Committee recommended passage and placed on consent (voice vote).
- SB 166 — Committee recorded an ought‑to‑pass recommendation and placed the bill on consent (voice vote).
- SB 167 — Replace‑all amendment debated; committee voted ITL (inexpedient to legislate) (motion carried, voice vote).
- SB 169 — Recommended to pass; sponsor to take bill out for further consideration (voice vote).
- SB 172 — Committee recommended passage (voice vote).
- SB 173 — Re‑referred by committee (voice vote).
- SB 174 — Committee recommended passage (ought to pass 4–2 recorded in transcript) and placed on consent; sponsor will take it out.
- SB 175 — Committee voted to re‑refer (voice vote).
- SB 170 — (See separate report) Committee amended and recommended passage as amended.
- SB 281–284 — A series of housing‑related bills (committee amendments adopted for SB 281 and SB 282; SB 283 and SB 284 recommended to pass; SB 284 drew one opposed vote and was not placed on consent).

Several other bills were considered and either placed on consent calendars or taken out for additional floor consideration. Where the transcript records only a voice vote, no roll‑call tally was available.","Senate Bill 90 — a bid to redefine commercial zoning to permit residential uses above ground‑floor commercial uses — drew extended debate about local control and was ultimately re‑referred by the Commerce Committee for further review after a tied initial showing and reconsideration.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":46,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6642453,"Senate Commerce committee adopts amended SB 170 after contested hearing on housing rules and wildlife review",2828,3747000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2543003-656adbf05d444bc00377ba84b5e32cc3&start=3747&end=6575","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2543003-656adbf05d444bc00377ba84b5e32cc3/thumbnail_3747000.jpg","/articles/6642453/New-Hampshire/Senate-Commerce-committee-adopts-amended-SB-170-after-contested-hearing-on-housing-rules-and-wildlife-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6642453-5108ba01fbee4943bf351db8229135f9/orig.mp4?Expires=1777098741&Signature=OQwlS-285bEsVDVS~pY-53mB0cI~JkBjLilUQoz7TSYYbTm4EMgoZeAqQd6AvX4EDPDeAqadHQlIbmmRU7JAIe-WXNN2633bizx~oDDCFZgHU1dmvCHWL~hO3CVOsLH3eqFTJ7-qMnshgGzp2ohmmluFAUofcA-C0t3ZyHsrQ~FzbA60ae2lQO76coeyRWf3BpLsxxuSsxToOrtyMmc6obYdK0RNdjZTfAVWhmNYUQWjk6pkGYxDxR1AyOtdTVYW9Q59qboCYpI-m2mA8c1ZXh1ac4rNUJcwC2DKPl4phE1r-nXo2kq~rvuUSWpzj4GEWyv97kQPLYbb-Deha7rSvA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Commerce Committee on Oct. 27 recommended passage of Senate Bill 170 with a committee amendment that narrows several local land‑use limits while changing the bill’s effective date to July 1, 2026.

Sponsor Senator Robert Murphy summarized a multi‑part replace‑all amendment that would: prohibit local rules requiring occupants in a dwelling to be related by blood or marriage; require municipalities to use New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) test‑pit and well‑siting standards; limit municipalities’ ability to restrict dead‑end road lengths so long as the road meets State Fire Code access requirements; permit utilities and some septic/well infrastructure in open space or perimeter buffers under certain circumstances; and cap required front/side/ rear setbacks at 50 feet in some situations. Murphy said the revisions were intended to reduce regulatory obstacles that builders and developers describe as delaying housing production.

The committee heard detailed testimony and follow‑up questions at a public hearing. Mike Marchand, supervisor of the Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program at New Hampshire Fish & Game, said his agency did not support language in the amendment that would replace existing wildlife review practice with a 5‑year lookback for recorded rare species sightings, arguing that the change would “substantially reduce our protections for species” and “basically eliminate the vast majority of our occurrences that we do reviews for.” Marchand told the committee that his agency’s current practice uses a 20‑year standard in many cases and that some species may require long timeframes to detect.

Meredith Hatfield of The Nature Conservancy echoed Fish & Game’s concerns and asked the committee to remove the proposed five‑year limit and to reconsider sections affecting wetlands and agricultural zones. She said Fish & Game and DNCR reviews are already integrated into the permitting sequence and urged caution before altering that process.

Matt Mayberry, CEO of the New Hampshire Home Builders Association, testified strongly in favor of SB 170. Mayberry described the bill as a “game changer” that would curb what he called local micromanagement, prevent repeated plan‑change demands that delay projects, and remove “outdated” familial‑status occupancy rules in some towns. He urged the committee to retain the bulk of the amendment while accepting some edits proposed by committee members.

Committee members negotiated several changes on the floor. Senators agreed to delete the proposed 5‑year limit language affecting wildlife review (lines 6–9 on page 2 of the amendment), to remove wetlands from a later provision that would have limited setback requirements, and to add a short deadline (three days) for a planning board’s initial scoping review to stamp and accept plan revisions after the first formal review. The committee also changed the bill’s effective date to July 1, 2026 to give municipalities additional time to adjust.

After the amendment was modified on the floor, the committee voted to recommend SB 170 as amended. The chair instructed OLS to place the three‑day language at the appropriate spot in the draft. The committee’s action will send the bill, with the committee amendment, to the full Senate.

The hearing transcript records that Fish & Game and The Nature Conservancy requested striking the five‑year wildlife provision and warned that revising the statutory review timing could undermine long‑term protections; the Home Builders Association urged passage to reduce planning delays and lower development costs. Several senators pressed for targeted edits instead of wholesale removal of the bill’s provisions.

The committee’s motion and subsequent voice vote indicate an affirmative recommendation to pass SB 170 with the committee amendment and the agreed edits; the amendment is recorded as 872s with the changes described above.

Looking ahead, senators agreed to leave the bill in the sponsor’s name and advance the amended version for further consideration on the Senate floor.

Votes: committee voice vote on the committee amendment and an aye voice vote for Senate Bill 170 as amended. No roll‑call vote was recorded in the transcript.","The Senate Commerce Committee voted to recommend passage of Senate Bill 170 as amended, adopting changes to local land‑use limits while removing or modifying several environmental review provisions after testimony from Fish & Game and conservation groups.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate Commerce Committee: votes and motions from today’s session (quick reference)

Senate Commerce tussles over SB 90; committee re‑refers the bill after tied votes and debate on local control

Senate Commerce committee adopts amended SB 170 after contested hearing on housing rules and wildlife review