Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Occupancy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears advocates and municipal groups split over ban on municipal ‘three-unrelated’ rules
Summary
Representative Diane Power and supporters urged passage of a bill to bar local zoning limits that cap unrelated occupants in a dwelling; municipal associations and zoning officials warned the change would interfere with local land-use regulation and public-safety oversight.
The Senate Commerce Committee heard testimony on House Bill 457, sponsored in the House by Representative Diane Power, a bid to prohibit municipal zoning ordinances that limit occupancy based on familial or marital relationship — commonly known as “three-unrelated” rules.
Representative Diane Power opened the hearing saying the bill seeks to stop ordinances that “unreasonably limit the number of unrelated people legally permitted to live together” and that such rules “artificially limit housing opportunities” in a state facing tight housing supply.
Opponents included the New Hampshire Municipal Association, which argued the proposal is the wrong place for a land‑use mandate. “Permitting group living in some zoning districts and not others is strictly a land use issue and not discrimination,” said Bert Deshaies of the NHMA. He told the committee that local ordinances addressing congregate or group living often align with fire-code and site‑plan review requirements and may be triggered by changes of use that require municipal oversight.
Representatives of housing and tenant-rights groups, landlord advocates and the real-estate industry took divergent views. The New Hampshire Association of Realtors urged support, saying variances and per-bedroom rental limits can be costly and that protecting private-property rights will increase the available rental supply. Small‑landlord representatives said restrictions in some college towns have taken housing off the market and raised prices.
Supporters also highlighted demographic effects: witnesses from New Futures and speakers who represent older adults warned the committee that eviction or displacement disproportionately affects seniors and other vulnerable groups. “Older adults are the fastest‑growing group of people experiencing homelessness,” said a coalition witness, and testified that forced moves are especially risky for those on fixed incomes.
Municipal officials told the committee the measure’s placement in RSA 3:54‑a (the state’s anti‑discrimination chapter) was an unusual drafting choice and could cause legal and administrative confusion; they recommended local land‑use tools remain with the municipalities. Several witnesses urged a narrower amendment specifically to prevent student‑targeted ordinances that reclassify and restrict student rentals rather than to eliminate a municipality’s ability to regulate congregate living more broadly.
The committee closed the hearing on HB 457 after taking testimony from proponents, municipal associations, business groups and housing advocates. No vote was taken at the meeting; senators said they would consider proposed amendments that more narrowly target student‑rental restrictions or clarify interplay with fire and building codes.
Ending: The committee left the bill pending and asked staff to circulate suggested amendments that address the drafting concerns raised by municipal counsel and to consider language that targets student‑rental restrictions instead of a broad prohibition on local occupancy rules.
