Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to bar planning boards from treating units differently by bedroom count draws sharp debate
Summary
SB 174 would bar planning boards from differentiating residential units by bedroom count during approval and decision processes; sponsor said the bill prevents discrimination against families, while planners, septic designers and municipal officials warned it could conflict with wastewater, parking and other technical standards.
Senator Keith Murphy introduced SB 174, saying planning boards should not use unit bedroom counts to effectively exclude families from multifamily projects and that the bill aims to prevent boards from forcing small, one‑ or two‑bedroom unit mixes that limit options for families needing three‑ or four‑bedroom units.
Sponsor argument: "If you look at a lot of the apartment complexes that get built...the developer goes into the planning board, the planning board makes it very clear. We don't want any 3 or 4 bedroom units," Senator Murphy said, arguing the bill would remove that barrier and allow more three‑ and four‑bedroom units that families need.
Opposition and technical concerns: Several municipal officials, professional planners, a licensed septic designer and the New Hampshire Municipal Association opposed the bill or urged significant revision. They said planning boards ask about bedroom counts for clear, technical reasons: septic sizing, well/water supply capacity, parking requirements, compliance with workforce‑housing rules, and other statutes tied to unit occupancy or services. Sharon Monahan, a planner and former zoning official, pointed out language problems in the draft — for example, a proposed provision that appears to give planning boards authority to issue building permits, which planning boards generally do not do; she expressed concerns that the bill's phrasing would create legal conflicts with existing codes and DES wastewater rules.
Municipal association stance: Brody Deshaies of the New Hampshire Municipal Association testified against SB 174, saying prohibiting consideration of bedroom counts could undermine septic sizing, wastewater capacity decisions, parking standards, and other long‑standing local controls and could produce legal ambiguity leading to litigation.
Supporters and housing advocates: Developers and the New Hampshire Home Builders Association said planning boards sometimes steer unit mixes for aesthetic or demographic reasons and that the market and infrastructure/health rules (not bedroom counts alone) should guide unit mix. They argued the bill aims to protect families' access to housing types appropriate for larger households.
Committee action: The committee received extensive testimony from both sides and closed the public hearing with no recorded vote; members asked detailed procedural and drafting questions and were warned that the bill as drafted could conflict with existing statutory duties and public health rules.
