Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Density topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate bill to cap minimum lot sizes draws heated debate over housing supply, local control and infrastructure
Summary
Senate Bill 84 would cap local minimum-lot size requirements to allow smaller residential lots — as small as a half acre where municipal water and sewer exist — to increase housing density and lower building costs.
Senate Bill 84, introduced by Senator Murphy, proposes statewide maximums for local minimum lot-size requirements to increase housing density: roughly 1.5 acres for lots without municipal water or sewer, 1 acre where municipal water is available, and as small as half an acre where both municipal water and sewer exist.
Sponsor Murphy framed the bill as a major step to allow builders to produce starter homes and smaller houses that meet workforce needs, calling large minimum-lot rules “the single biggest tool in the planners toolbox to force builders to only build mansions and keep out new neighbors.” He and home-building witnesses argued smaller lot sizes allow economies of scale for builders and lower per-house costs.
Matt Mayberry, CEO of the New Hampshire Home Builders Association, and Chris Norwood of the New Hampshire Association of Realtors both supported the bill, saying many current zoning ordinances reflect older septic and well technologies and have not been updated. Rob Dappas, executive director of New Hampshire Housing, testified in support and said lower dimensional requirements could complement public financing and expand market responses.
Opposition or caution came from the New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA), which argued the bill would remove municipal authority to account for local conditions such as soil suitability, steep slopes, wetlands, ledge, and infrastructure capacity. NHMA representatives said mandatory statewide minimums risk creating unbuildable lots in some municipalities and could shift infrastructure costs to local water and sewer systems and ratepayers.
Town assessor Jim Michaud raised fiscal and administrative questions, noting RSA requirements that assessors reflect zoning changes in valuations: if lot-size mandates increase a parcel’s development potential, assessed values and taxes could rise, affecting elderly or income-tested exemptions and land-use-change revenues. Michaud also asked whether properties adjacent to water/sewer but not connected should be treated as serviced.
Other testimony from developers and planning board members emphasized implementation mechanics: frontage and setback rules, soil- and site-based design, shared septic systems, and the time it would take for towns to update zoning tables. Proponents urged the committee to prioritize state-level action to reduce barriers to housing supply; opponents urged retaining local discretion and asked for technical fixes to address soils, infrastructure and fiscal impacts.
The bill was not voted on during the hearing; committee remarks later listed SB84 among bills referred to the Commerce subcommittee on housing for further consideration.
