Planning board reviews state housing bills and regional Safe Streets grant opportunity

Planning staff gave the board a legislative briefing on multiple housing bills moving through the New Hampshire Legislature and described a regional transportation safety plan that could allow Brentwood to apply for federal Safe Streets for All implementation funding.

Staff provided context that the legislative session is near crossover and that many bills will likely change as they move between chambers: “A lot of these bills... we're kind of like around the halfway point,” staff said. The briefing covered House Bill 382 (parking standards reduction), House Bill 410 (restrictions on municipal residential regulations), House Bill 577 (accessory dwelling unit changes, including language allowing conversion of existing structures), HB685 (manufactured housing), and Senate Bill 84 (sets maximum lot sizes tied to water/sewer availability). Staff cautioned that several provisions, if enacted as written, would limit local zoning discretion and could alter local requirements on lot sizes, parking and accessory units.

Board members discussed specific concerns about HB577 (ADUs), including language that could allow conversion of nonconforming detached structures (such as garages) into accessory dwelling units without local dimensional relief; one member noted the bill’s provision that such conversions might bypass the local Zoning Board of Adjustment. Several members flagged potential impacts on local parking and on neighborhood scale if the state prescribes uniform limits.

Staff also described a regional “Safe Streets for All” (SS4A) action‑plan effort led by the Rockingham Planning Commission (RPC) that qualifies the region for implementation grants. Staff said the RPC completed the action plan step, which allows Brentwood to apply for implementation funding for projects such as a potential South Road roundabout. “Brentwood now has... unlocked the ability for Brentwood to apply for implementation grant funding if we want to because RPC did the first step,” staff said. The board discussed application costs, competitiveness of the national program, likely consultant expenses (graphic and application development), and the possibility of a local match requirement; staff warned that winning an implementation grant could require a significant local match and consultant costs.

Members agreed to consider drafting comment letters or targeted input on specific bills later in the session and to monitor bills that affect local zoning authority. Staff said they would circulate summaries and recommended points for any board members who want to engage with legislators or RPC on the grant opportunity.