Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor seeks stricter review of certain local residential restrictions; municipal groups warn of legal and administrative problems
Summary
House Bill 410 would create a category of "extraordinary restrictions" on residential property and subject those restrictions to heightened scrutiny; supporters framed it as protecting property rights and enabling housing, while municipal groups said the bill could create litigation and implementation problems.
Representative Ellen Reed, prime sponsor of House Bill 410, told the Senate Commerce Committee the bill aims to return zoning review to a standard tied to public health and safety, creating a category of "extraordinary restrictions" on residential property that local ordinances would have to justify under a heightened standard.
Reed described the policy as addressing exclusionary zoning practices and listed examples of extraordinary restrictions, including minimum square footage requirements above the state building code, lot size minimums in excess of specified thresholds, frontage and road-width rules, prohibitions on residential use in commercially zoned areas, and local amendments to the state building or fire codes for small residential buildings. She said the bill would not prohibit towns from acting, but would require them to demonstrate health-and-safety justification for particularly restrictive measures.
Opponents included Brody Deshaies of the New Hampshire Municipal Association, who argued the bill in practice would impose a strict judicial standard that legislative bodies and voters are not equipped to apply, would create significant litigation, and could conflict with many other housing-related measures. The NHMA urged the committee to consider the legal and administrative challenges, including lack of an adjudicatory process and ambiguity about how to present evidence and appeals.
Supporters included the Institute for Justice (Samuel Hooper) and Mercatus Center (Charles Garten), both of whom argued the bill would reassert property rights and provide clearer statewide standards; the Mercatus witness noted the New Hampshire Constitution protects property and liberty and suggested the bill would require local land-use actions be exercised "more responsibly." Representative Calvin Bollier, a planning-board member and House committee participant, described the bill as a compromise and a way to create guardrails while preserving local authority where health and safety can be shown.
The committee heard extensive testimony for and against the bill and then closed the hearing; no committee vote or formal disposition was recorded in the transcript.
