Brentwood planners respond to two new state housing laws; draft ordinance changes and public guidance planned

Brentwood Planning Board members heard a presentation July 17 from resilience planning consultants on recent state legislation that affects local housing rules and on public feedback from a town housing forum.

Consultant Steve Whitman of Resilience Planning and Design summarized two new state laws that he said will require changes to Brentwood’s zoning. “House Bill 577 … allows attached and detached accessory dwelling units by right,” Whitman told the board, and he said the law sets a default maximum ADU size of 950 square feet and a minimum of 750 square feet unless the municipality sets otherwise. Whitman said the ADU law takes effect July 1, 2025. He also summarized House Bill 631, which he said “requires municipalities to permit multifamily residential development on commercially zoned land,” and noted that bill becomes effective in 2026.

Why it matters: town zoning and any ballot measures will need to reflect the new state requirements so the town remains compliant and keeps local control over design and location where possible. Consultants told the board that updating Brentwood’s accessory-dwelling-unit (ADU) rules and clarifying where multifamily may be allowed will also help the town demonstrate it has provided “reasonable opportunity” under the state workforce-housing statute (RSA 674:58–61).

Consultants reviewed public-survey results gathered at a forum. They reported split views: roughly half of respondents favored modifying ADU rules for more flexibility; a majority opposed higher-density multifamily in some locations and expressed strong support for retaining the town’s rural character. Whitman said the forum responses were not a “slam dunk” in favor of broad change, but he urged that providing clear, up-to-date regulations would reduce confusion if property owners apply under the new state standards.

Board discussion focused on compliance and preservation of rural character. Several board members said they favored minimal changes required to comply but asked consultants to prepare multiple options the town could consider. Board member (and acting chair) Liz Faria said the planning board should acknowledge publicly that residents’ input was heard even as staff and the board work to meet legal requirements. Resident commenters at the meeting stressed the need to define workforce housing clearly; Letty Bedard noted state calculations and said, “the income is a $140,000 a year and the estimated affordable purchase price is $431,000.”

Consultants described possible local choices under the new ADU law: recognize attached or detached ADUs by right; keep the town’s percentage-based size rule but ensure it allows at least 950 square feet; consider a second ADU only by conditional use permit with conditions such as screening, lot size or driveway limits. Whitman cautioned that aesthetic requirements for ADUs cannot be imposed unless they apply equally to the primary house, a limitation contained in the recent ADU law.

On multifamily, consultants said the new state law’s language leaves some ambiguity about whether commercial parcels served by on-site septic could qualify; they recommended waiting for guidance from the New Hampshire Municipal Association and the state in coming weeks. They also proposed tools the board could use to limit where multifamily would practically be allowed — for example, reducing the geographic extent of commercial districts, creating subdistricts (such as industrial-only on Pine Road), or requiring residential uses to be behind or above commercial fronting the highway.

Next steps: the board asked consultants to mark up the town’s existing ADU ordinance to show the minimum changes required by state law and to draft alternative approaches for the public to review. The consultants said they will also prepare a short voter guide and suggested the board publish explanatory pieces in the Brentwood newsletter ahead of town meeting. Board members agreed to schedule further review at upcoming meetings and to aim to have draft language available for the board’s September sessions.

The board did not take a formal regulatory vote on ordinance text at the meeting; instead the board approved continuing work and asked staff and the consultants to return with draft ordinance language, sample voter materials and analyses of septic and site constraints for multifamily where applicable.

Residents and board members will get further materials for review before the board formally posts any zoning changes for public hearing and town vote.