[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-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",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_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",6640693,"mediaKeyId","2549895-081bec7382f4c8d9dc66d580759e847c","parentId",2549895,"title","Lawmakers weigh repeal of religious land‑use protections after local disputes","audioSeconds",860,"startMs",953000,"endMs",1813000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2549895-081bec7382f4c8d9dc66d580759e847c&start=953&end=1813","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2549895-081bec7382f4c8d9dc66d580759e847c/thumbnail_953000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6640693/New-Hampshire/Lawmakers-weigh-repeal-of-religious-landuse-protections-after-local-disputes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6640693-17debdab69f5d5dc537fbe46d5b1f518/orig.mp4?Expires=1776690561&Signature=XB-IX9RGOvuZfD~467AlSnMSq8R2sagvmQIsLsNUGyQAqG-y8aXMcFzDHqS~aMFM-7iQuPiDeZUseRWdS0UmzN-YUGFIkbq7KH5PSrwyrodk4dXDudJGagbqRiztjaJR1R-YqliozBIje27cBZK06ulaeXQsnypiF~FRah4HhrL5kOe4USYJHXYtM4rJPYgsZefnai5AJ01K8g70y1J23RXVBAkfQPEkf1PsLC25altZc0DY7Yj3r-eAeKycuPkfIlMb43GcAMdOioR0Pfbm0MQrcU4MLTKwBj-KvlFMg98nRhZ8kCLeGAGV6GbQ0Pv8kpz1xtdI0rYVbfUoMZwq1A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-03-11T18:57:20.283Z","article","Senate Bill 265 drew an extended hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee after Sen. Cassandra Prentice described concerns about what she called a potential usurpation of local control by RSA 674:76, the 2022 law that limits local zoning and site‑plan discretion for properties primarily used for religious purposes.

“According to the statute as written, no zoning ordinance or site plan review regulation shall prohibit, regulate, or restrict the use of land or structures primarily used for religious purposes,” Prentice said, adding she was not seeking to restrict worship but to preserve local zoning character. She identified Hanover and other communities where disputes have arisen since the statute’s 2022 enactment.

Opponents of repeal told the committee the statute addresses long‑standing discrimination against religious institutions. Land‑use attorney Michael Cherney, who said he has represented more than 50 religious clients, said discretionary criteria in municipal ordinances have repeatedly been used to deny or delay religious uses. “Anytime a government decides how a church should operate and who should gather is a problem,” Cherney said, and he urged senators to oppose SB 265.

Ian Hewitt of Cornerstone, a Christian advocacy organization, testified the statute prevents municipalities from repeatedly using discretionary criteria to block religious construction. He noted litigation in Hanover and warned repeal would enable the same practices to continue. Several pastors, including Sean Foster of Crossing Light Church in Windham, described local disputes that required substantial legal costs and administrative appeals; Foster said his congregation spent more than $50,000 to obtain a tax exemption fight and later used RSA 674:76 to secure site plan approval for a new building on its 100‑acre property.

The New Hampshire Municipal Association’s representative, Brodie Deshais, told the committee the statute narrowed the universe of site‑plan review powers available to municipalities effective July 1, 2022. Deshais listed typical site‑plan topics—lighting, signs, noise, drainage, erosion control, sidewalks, landscaping and parking—and said the statute now limits municipal authority to objective requirements that apply equally to religious and nonreligious uses. He said municipalities generally support the bill’s goals but stressed the practical tension between preventing discrimination and preserving local review of public‑safety and infrastructure impacts.

Senators questioned whether the statute permits towns to apply objective, nondiscriminatory rules such as setbacks and height limits; witnesses replied that definitive and objective standards (setbacks, height, lot area) remain enforceable but discretionary criteria that invite subjective judgments—\"harmonious with neighborhood character,\" \"adequate proportions\"—are the parts the statute bars when applied to religious institutions.

Multiple witnesses urged the committee to retain RSA 674:76. Michael Cherney recalled cases where towns used zoning to block religious uses, citing a settlement that cost a town insurer over $1 million. Cherney and others said the statute brings New Hampshire into alignment with similar protections in neighboring states and prevents repeat litigation and discrimination.

The hearing closed without a committee vote. Sponsors and opponents agreed there is room to seek a “middle ground” or a study to balance local zoning character with constitutional protections for religious exercise.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Judiciary (03/11/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Sen. Cassandra Prentice introduced SB 265 seeking to repeal RSA 674:76, a 2022 law that limits municipalities’ discretionary land‑use controls over properties used primarily for religious purposes.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Senate , Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",29511,"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},6640689,"Committee hears DHHS‑requested fixes to therapeutic cannabis law, including ethics and provider oversight changes",453,2795000,3248000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2549895-081bec7382f4c8d9dc66d580759e847c&start=2795&end=3248","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2549895-081bec7382f4c8d9dc66d580759e847c/thumbnail_2795000.jpg","/articles/6640689/New-Hampshire/Committee-hears-DHHSrequested-fixes-to-therapeutic-cannabis-law-including-ethics-and-provider-oversight-changes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6640689-5a2820c8d2fbc1f7d86aa40d569ae996/orig.mp4?Expires=1776690561&Signature=krPLMODG87KkPgZ5ZEdd67Tt8f1uLiPTWwFcmWG2oO8-ovmnZ-~0vDAA7oMtxkNt4-9JX2CHkCm1gJ7QRBJNiQeIo~doit6sYuY7YrzREOyif7yy1Wp8-Zdtrr0Llm9MkR0yOSitfA4RMarFtxsxoGvUB1U4ciw5ueLgj0rIR7MT83znhMsMfauRNVDblSv9U8GuDtbQGRDzrH3pnAb3Ey7yMeqMxw2kzjb22JtSRSzEhidYVJQXzmAsTYwr5YZtu7Qp9BxG1nzvQBwsMmB2Oc8zCgN7hM18tRSeVEJHMX3~4cC9CA~g84cD8Y2lupi~iNmqMmbtpDuEETHfDktx0w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 264, introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee at the request of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), would amend the therapeutic cannabis statute (RSA 126‑X) to resolve inconsistencies left after two bills passed last year.

Sen. Cassandra Prentice said the bill responds to two earlier pieces of legislation: House Bill 1222 (which modified physician‑assistant collaboration/scope provisions) and SB 357 (which expanded the list of provider types authorized to certify patients for therapeutic cannabis). SB 264 would:

- Clarify that physician assistants (PAs) who certify patients for therapeutic cannabis must have a collaborative agreement only when their scope of practice still requires one (a change tied to HB 1222 and a two‑year waiver process for some PAs).
- Extend DHHS’s existing authority to refer concerns about certifying providers’ conduct to the appropriate professional licensing board to the newly authorized provider types (podiatrists, dentists, naturopathic doctors, optometrists, and other providers added by the 2024 expansion).
- Close a conflict‑of‑interest loophole by extending existing prohibitions on financial relationships between certifying providers and in‑state Alternative Treatment Centers (ATCs) to analogous relationships with out‑of‑state cannabis dispensaries or entities.

Michael Holt, administrator of DHHS’s therapeutic cannabis program, described the drafting problems SB 264 would fix and said the bill is “largely remedial legislation” to align overlapping statutes. Jerry Kurnerck (retired surgeon and chair of the Therapeutic Cannabis Medical Oversight Board) said the oversight board unanimously supported the bill and described the ethics rationale: department referrals help regulatory boards investigate provider misconduct, and financial conflicts tied to out‑of‑state dispensaries can create incentives that compromise clinical judgment or patient safety.

Committee members asked practical questions about the proposed out‑of‑state prohibition. Holt and Kurnerck said the department has observed New Hampshire certifying providers advertising or otherwise promoting out‑of‑state dispensaries (notably in Maine) and that state regulation of those dispensaries differs: Maine’s medical marijuana dispensaries, they said, do not meet the same testing or labeling standards and therefore raise patient‑safety concerns. The proposed change would not bar a provider from certifying patients in New Hampshire so long as the provider did not maintain the prohibited financial/advertising relationships; it would give DHHS the authority to enforce the in‑state conflict‑of‑interest rule against out‑of‑state links.

Sen. Prentice and representatives of the oversight board and DHHS said the bill does not expand who may certify — that expansion was last year’s legislation — but creates necessary enforcement and alignment mechanisms to support the expanded program.

Representatives from the House members who shepherded the prior bills (including Rep. Wendy Thomas) and the Oversight Board reaffirmed support; committee members asked clarifying questions but did not take a vote that day.","Senate Bill 264, requested by DHHS and introduced by Sen. Cassandra Prentice, would align New Hampshire’s therapeutic cannabis statute with recent changes that broadened certifying provider types and altered physician‑assistant supervision.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6640697,"Senate bill to tidy post‑ban language for child marriage gets brief hearing",226,434000,660000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2549895-081bec7382f4c8d9dc66d580759e847c&start=434&end=660","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2549895-081bec7382f4c8d9dc66d580759e847c/thumbnail_434000.jpg","/articles/6640697/New-Hampshire/Senate-bill-to-tidy-postban-language-for-child-marriage-gets-brief-hearing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6640697-708b109c7d3c309f044093f92f8806ea/orig.mp4?Expires=1776690561&Signature=QuvFEbV19-E7j1XtFJ9TfCjgjEfnHYSCr1bu8YSKyEJIPABWx8k~ZT~nAguwLf1nB82Z~gvo-UvM5O6vYNj4cYy4vNkj9o0zgGriQSbEXjW0FhFt4M-KcsgbXZVLIEPvptbJnZ5LQi4kb5lbbBQooifj5~UzPdHUZ3EQz~VvOZTwRNE2oIjtdJ5QITDMn6uuj3~eEZFJJ3ZlMauylFehRl4xh9ZTjVbDFkINwLW7Nd1NmPl08DSl0g3DyzDD0zHHVUgpg~qq11CIgC5xGeYQ8RhjiaoiwW~CXj32PIzxqlAI~PeIiAFr2UQq-6nxhG8AP5iAy2shDXml-erHy4YtMg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Judiciary Committee members heard brief testimony on Senate Bill 269 on the afternoon of the committee’s hearing day, when Sen. Deborah Altschuler, representing District 24, introduced the measure requested by the Secretary of State’s office.

The bill would update statutory language left over after last year’s change to New Hampshire law that raised the minimum age of marriage to 18. Specifically, SB 269 replaces gendered terms “bride” and “groom” with neutral language such as “applicants,” removes references to a now‑removed waiver, and deletes cross‑references to obsolete waiver provisions.

“This is not a policy change, just some language cleanup,” Sen. Deborah Altschuler told the committee. She said the bill ensures “the ducks are in a row” after the prior session’s reforms.

Kristen Martino, the state registrar and director of vital records, testified in support and described the specific statutory edits. She told the panel, “As you know, the minimum age of marriage was raised to 18, and statutes concerning court issued waivers were done away with. … We are looking forward to removing [references] from our statutes as well.”

No committee members asked follow‑up questions during the hearing and no vote on the bill was taken that day. The sponsor and witness characterized the measure as remedial: it aligns wording across affected chapters so that references to waivers and older terms no longer remain in statute.

If the committee advances SB 269 it will go forward as a technical cleanup to align multiple RSA sections with the changes enacted by last year’s bill that eliminated child‑marriage waivers.

The record of this hearing contains the sponsor’s opening remarks and the registrar’s explanation; committee members recessed briefly into executive session later in the docket but did not take final action on SB 269 during this sitting.","Sen. Deborah Altschuler introduced SB 269, a technical cleanup requested by the Secretary of State to replace gendered terms and remove obsolete waiver language after last year’s child‑marriage ban; the registrar of vital records described the specific statutory fixes and no questions were raised at the hearing.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6640679,"Committee re‑refers bill on impounded vehicles after tow‑lot liability concerns",189,6694000,6883000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2549895-081bec7382f4c8d9dc66d580759e847c&start=6694&end=6883","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2549895-081bec7382f4c8d9dc66d580759e847c/thumbnail_6694000.jpg","/articles/6640679/New-Hampshire/Committee-rerefers-bill-on-impounded-vehicles-after-towlot-liability-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6640679-17ab6aa347d949e6f24ace2479ee9c23/orig.mp4?Expires=1776690561&Signature=nDbzgC6ZQQQjWEVGJjpioMnJgHlgOVPCjT-KYLYWn9bp4rsIDn0GDrIaYhNEkIN17dgWevEhAbNGrL0spyMKuHBlvyEA~mQn1se5xVxZORQXrEQ1zR4J~Qw~d6KpugzVAAwT4HVo33oLNlTLlmNAu31jRjNFe08pKGFJWIRIS9LcRQ86yFH3Ml3YGuVag-NkCJZEqwp-iypZgSl-Gi7j6zE6Vw0j7V0z-RgzO3vKbCs7sg4buHXEvlH2W48VBN8MqmsB0mpGG8US2XihsaPL8glr1AKC7B7z5BXqCiVLgOby8xP0geYd5~vH7op13JfBKTnaDYZTAvwcUNvoIvzqyA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During the Senate Judiciary Committee session the senators discussed a bill dealing with impounded vehicles (referred to in the hearing as bill 270). Committee members described competing interests: a worker who had personal tools inside a towed vehicle needs access to tools to do their job, while tow‑lot operators and law‑enforcement witnesses said inventory and chain‑of‑custody procedures make immediate release problematic.

One senator summarized the tension: tow operators said they risk releasing evidence or the wrong property and face liability; a state trooper described evidence‑preservation concerns. Committee members said the statutory burden on impound‑lot operators as drafted would be too high and recommended further drafting.

Senators moved to re‑refer the bill for additional work and later voted to move the corrected measure to the consent calendar for follow‑up. The committee did not enact the bill that day; senators said they wanted clearer language that balances the rights of vehicle owners and workers with tow operators’ operational and liability concerns.","Committee members voted to re‑refer discussion of a bill governing return of personal items from impounded vehicles after testimony raised liability concerns from tow operators; senators later moved the item to consent for further drafting work.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6640684,"Senate hearing on SB 260: sponsors seek statutory protection of abortion access up to 24 weeks",2312,4380000,6692000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2549895-081bec7382f4c8d9dc66d580759e847c&start=4380&end=6692","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2549895-081bec7382f4c8d9dc66d580759e847c/thumbnail_4380000.jpg","/articles/6640684/New-Hampshire/Senate-hearing-on-SB-260-sponsors-seek-statutory-protection-of-abortion-access-up-to-24-weeks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6640684-50b9fa014be962b94dcacc295573a88f/orig.mp4?Expires=1776690561&Signature=JuDggqyk~V14GVuxO3GezY1OocQyjzcxe4D6V4gPncPg7EW5LyyD-OObkQK7GHlYs6IqxmUOJs-59CzasnIfGSN8iMtNHcOwPc09OYalYNUksiBKzVHl1vFVqUI2FwbJLj5Md2gJBkpcmM6TcDKosEFfxdSamM1QvBNSQ0BPi5ugRPDgXwEShgEGcCmRqRn8kRLAemMZKECcEHZaXyrlEnKPKEMjpMWkvQoGquLhtQbu3QYgQ86PrxNvBm5x5aCFCNDYaKQwLq7N4lCDAv4hfGfXr0n6gk~SAudtxStLPyMEczEWwlriR5vXGYE~pJU3dDSfSduxLe7DFil~Srspsg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 260 prompted a lengthy hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee when Sen. Deborah Ochsler introduced legislation that would affirm in statute that, prior to 24 weeks’ gestation, “the right to terminate a pregnancy shall not be infringed upon in New Hampshire.”

Ochsler framed the bill as grounding reproductive‑health protections in state law after federal protections were reduced. “This bill affirms that prior to 24 weeks gestation, the right to terminate a pregnancy shall not be infringed upon in New Hampshire,” she said, adding the measure “recognizes three important facts” about reproductive‑health access and state precedent.

Supporters described SB 260 as a clarity measure that would put New Hampshire in line with its New England neighbors. Claire T. Looney of Reproductive Equity Now said New Hampshire is “the only state in New England without affirmative legal protections for abortion, either in its statute or in its constitution.” Liz Kanda of Planned Parenthood New Hampshire Action Fund and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and Courtney Reed of the ACLU of New Hampshire urged the committee to report the bill favorably, citing public‑health harms from restrictions elsewhere and public opinion polling showing majority support for state protections.

Support witnesses emphasized the bill would not impose new medical requirements or change the current standard of care; rather, they said, it would provide explicit statutory protection and certainty for patients and providers. “When we talk about abortion access, we are talking about health care,” Ochsler said. Supporters noted the 1997 repeal of a 1955 criminal abortion ban and said a statute affirming an affirmative right would reduce confusion and protect access if stricter measures are proposed in future legislatures.

Opponents urged the committee to reject SB 260. Michael Cherney and Kurt Wolper (chairman, New Hampshire Right to Life) argued that the language “shall not be infringed” is unusually broad and could invite litigation; Wolper said the bill “sanctions abortion” and expressed moral objections. Pastor Sean Foster and other faith‑based opponents asked the committee to protect unborn life and opposed the bill on moral grounds.

Committee members pressed witnesses on what concrete legal difference SB 260 would make versus current law. Supporters acknowledged that statutory protections can be changed by future legislatures, but said a statute provides more immediate clarity and a public record of policy intent. Counsel and witnesses debated whether existing statutory language already provides practical access up to 24 weeks and whether an affirmative statute would materially alter legal outcomes.

The hearing concluded with no committee vote taken; senators asked follow‑up questions and requested additional information from witnesses. The hearing record includes multiple organizational statements and both affiliated and unaffiliated individuals presenting testimony for and against the bill.","Sen. Deborah Ochsler introduced SB 260 to codify an affirmative state law protecting the right to terminate a pregnancy before 24 weeks. Supporters, including Planned Parenthood, ACLU and reproductive‑rights groups, urged passage as a clear statutory guarantee after Roe’s overturn; opponents from pro‑life groups urged rejection. Committee members","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lawmakers weigh repeal of religious land‑use protections after local disputes

Committee hears DHHS‑requested fixes to therapeutic cannabis law, including ethics and provider oversight changes

Senate bill to tidy post‑ban language for child marriage gets brief hearing

Committee re‑refers bill on impounded vehicles after tow‑lot liability concerns

Senate hearing on SB 260: sponsors seek statutory protection of abortion access up to 24 weeks