House committee hears broad support and some local-control concerns for ADU bill HB 577

HB 577, a bill to expand homeowner rights to build accessory dwelling units, drew a mix of business, housing-advocacy and municipal testimony at a public hearing of the New Hampshire House Committee on Housing.

Representative Joe Alexander, the bill sponsor, told the committee HB 577 would “enable a property owner to build an ADU by right up to 950 square feet” and allow the unit to be attached or detached, while preserving safety and building-code requirements. He said the bill is intended to reduce barriers that vary from town to town and to help address the state’s housing shortage.

The nut graf: witnesses from the home-building, real-estate and housing-advocacy sectors described ADUs as a comparatively low-cost, infill option that can serve seniors, young workers and family caregivers. Municipal representatives and the New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA) said the bill’s removal of certain local controls — especially on detached units, lot-size constraints and required relationships between occupants — could cause conflicts with infrastructure, land‑use and local planning goals.

Supporters emphasized the housing and economic case. Matt Mayberry, chief executive officer of the New Hampshire Home Builders Association, said the construction trades and affiliated businesses would welcome the authorization because ADUs use existing parcels and reduce sprawl; he described the industry’s statewide economic contribution as “$5,400,000,000.” Nick Taylor, executive director of Housing Action New Hampshire, and speakers from AARP and the New Hampshire Association of Realtors cited surveys and anecdotal cases showing demand for smaller, local rental options, and they argued homeownership and aging-in-place benefits.

Real-estate testimony used specific policy details favored by proponents: the bill would let an owner build an ADU up to 950 square feet, allow separate electrical service, and require that septic, water and wetland buffers be adequate for the additional unit. Sarah Holland, chair of the Public Policy Committee for the New Hampshire Association of Realtors, summarized survey results she said the association collected: “In December, we conducted a survey … 90% said that they supported that statute,” and 81% supported allowing detached as well as attached ADUs.

Municipal and planning officials raised concerns. Sarah Bert Cohen, with the New Hampshire Municipal Association, testified in opposition, saying the bill “would make a local zoning mandate for municipalities” and that allowing detached ADUs without local lot-size authority could strain infrastructure and undermine local land-use planning. Bernie Deshais, also testifying for NHMA, said municipalities may need to consider ledge, lot topography and sewage capacity when deciding whether detached units are feasible on particular lots.

Several witnesses sought clarity or modest changes rather than outright rejection: Representative Reed pressed whether short‑term‑rental uses could be limited; sponsor Representative Alexander said he was open to adding language restricting short-term rentals if the committee desired. Witnesses including Ivy Van (land-use planner) and Chris Freeman (property manager) urged flexibility to allow conversions and adaptive reuse, noting ADU construction costs can be high and that temporary short-term rental income can be an economic bridge for homeowners.

No final committee action was taken on HB 577 during the hearing; the chair said the bill would go to work session for language edits. The hearing closed after multiple proponents and municipal representatives provided testimony for and against the measure.

Ending: The committee left HB 577 for further study, with sponsors and stakeholders expecting subsequent work-session edits to address concerns about short-term rentals, lot-size rules, and municipal authority.