Bill to let housing in commercial zones (HB 631) draws strong backers and detailed caveats from builders and municipal officials

Representative Alessandra Murray introduced HB 631, which would allow creation of residential and mixed residential units within commercial lots in designated urban areas, including rehabilitation of existing structures.

Nut graf: Proponents framed the bill as a tool to increase housing supply, create walkable mixed‑use neighborhoods and retain young workers, while builders and municipal representatives asked for clearer definitions and narrower scope to avoid unintended impacts on industrial parks and financing feasibility for conversions.

Murray said the bill aims to expand opportunities for housing faster than incremental local zoning changes have done, citing statewide rent and sale‑price increases as a driver for bold action. She argued mixed use reduces the need for parking, supports walkability and helps retain workforce. “Bringing residential units into commercial zones is not only a way to expand the area for potential building, but also encourages the kind of building that young people especially want to live in,” she said.

Support came from housing‑advocacy groups and planners. Housing Action New Hampshire, 603 Forward and the New Hampshire Youth Movement spoke in favor, noting potential benefits for commuters and employers, and for young people who want to stay in state. Sam Hooper of the Institute for Justice supported broad property‑rights approaches and warned against over‑restricting definitions.

Builders and developers encouraged targeted drafting. Matt Mayberry of the New Hampshire Home Builders Association urged the committee to narrow “commercial” to retail and office uses rather than broad commercial or industrial parks; he said conversions and financing differ for different commercial building types and voiced concern about opening industrial parks and large commercial properties to by‑right residential use. Multiple witnesses recommended keeping measures flexible for adaptive reuse and strip‑mall redevelopment while removing industrially inappropriate sites from automatic conversion.

Municipal officials urged care about the urban‑designation mechanism and the reach of the bill. Town representatives argued that some small municipalities could be captured by Census‑based “urban area” designations even though local infrastructure or community plans would make mixed use unsuitable.

Ending: The committee heard extensive testimony and closed the hearing without a vote. Witnesses on all sides asked the committee to refine definitions (for example, excluding heavy industrial uses and clarifying parking/retail percentages) in work sessions.