House backs change limiting 'relationship' restrictions in local housing ordinances after heated debate

The New Hampshire House on June 5 voted to concur with the Senate amendment to House Bill 4 57, a measure that prevents municipalities from enforcing ordinances that bar unrelated people from living together in housing zones that allow residential uses.

The bill drew extended debate because supporters framed it as reversing "familiar relationship" discrimination that can bar veterans, nontraditional families and working households from shared housing, while opponents warned the change removes local tools for managing neighborhood character, septic and water capacity, and housing density.

Representative Wheeler, a member of the Peterborough zoning board who supported concurrence, said the bill "is about the unrelated people who would like to live together because they can't afford the cost of living and the cost of housing today." Representative Perez, speaking against concurrence, argued the bill "mandates group living such as dormitories, boarding houses, fraternities...in every zoning district that allows residential housing" and said it could encourage investor‑driven conversions that harm families and local infrastructure. Representative Potenza urged colleagues to consider disabled veterans and other protected classes, saying, "This law prevents discriminatory housing practices against protected classes such as disabled veterans, non traditional families, students, and more."

Floor back‑and‑forth included questions about septic capacity, fire and building codes, and whether the bill would allow higher occupant counts than local systems were designed to support. Supporters emphasized that the bill does not prohibit enforcement of building or fire codes; opponents said the statute's use of undefined terms such as "zoning administrator" and the 51% density calculation would create implementation challenges.

Following division votes and floor procedures, the clerk announced the motion to concur was adopted; the recorded tally as announced on the floor was 179 in favor and 170 opposed. The transcript records multiple parliamentary inquiries and a heated, lengthy debate, and shows the House ultimately agreed to the Senate amendment.

The change now moves forward in the legislative process with the House‑adopted Senate language; proponents described the vote as removing discriminatory barriers to housing, and opponents said the change may reduce local control over land‑use decisions.