Bill would require towns to "show their work" when zoning imposes 'extraordinary restrictions' on housing, committee hears

Representative Reed introduced HB 410 as a broad, principle-based approach to zoning that would require municipalities to justify any ordinance that amounts to an "extraordinary restriction" on residential property by showing it is grounded in the best current scientific understanding tied to health and safety. "If an ordinance is an extraordinary restriction then they need to prove that it's based on the best scientific understanding…show your work," Reed said.

The bill includes multiple examples of what could be extraordinary restrictions: minimum house size standards beyond a small baseline, lot-size minimums above five acres per unit, bans on residential use in commercial zones, differential fees on permits that burden low-income owners, and limits on camping on private land. Reed said the measure is intended as a safety net: towns would still be able to adopt rules but must document why health or safety require them.

Testimony divided. The Institute for Justice supported the bill and offered to provide model language and evidence on appeals processes; IJ argued the bill provides a more rigorous standard of review for property-rights restrictions. Housing advocates and municipal representatives including the New Hampshire Municipal Association opposed the draft as written. The Municipal Association said the bill uses imprecise terms — "empirical evidence," "legislative body" — and could empower a single aggrieved resident to block zoning amendments, clog appeals processes, or effectively require a planning-board-level evidentiary record for every local zoning change. The Municipal Association added that planning boards and zoning boards already keep written findings when required and that some municipal concerns — for example, preserving agricultural lot sizes to protect farms — can be legitimately subjective and not easily reduced to a single empirical dataset.

Several committee members supported Reed’s core idea but asked for clearer definitions of "empirical evidence," the appropriate appeals route, and how the bill would interact with other, narrower bills addressing manufactured housing, minimum lot sizes, or allowing residential use in commercial districts. Reed and other supporters said the goal is to set a legal floor that would stop ordinances that are primarily aesthetic or exclusionary in effect while preserving municipalities’ ability to adopt well-documented health-and-safety rules. There was no vote during the public hearing; later the committee formed a subcommittee to continue work on the language.