Subcommittee debates standard for "extraordinary restrictions" on residential property; lawyers to refine language

A House subcommittee convened to draft and refine language for HB 410, a proposed statute that would treat certain municipal land-use rules as "extraordinary restrictions" on residential property and subject them to heightened judicial review or evidentiary requirements.

The meeting focused on three core questions: what evidentiary standard (if any) a municipality must meet before enacting an extraordinary restriction, whether the review standard should be a form of strict scrutiny or a lesser intermediate standard, and the proper appeals path (direct to Superior Court or after a Zoning Board of Adjustment review).

Proponents and legal advisers argued for a high bar so towns must “show their work” before enacting rules that significantly restrict residential uses. Representative Bullier (and other supporters) said a strict standard would force municipalities to justify extraordinary restrictions with stronger evidence and therefore deter arbitrary or exclusionary changes. Opponents and municipal representatives cautioned that overly specific statutory definitions of “empirical evidence” or peer-review requirements could generate more litigation over definitions and impose practical costs on small towns.

The subcommittee spent substantial time discussing the phrase ‘‘quantitative and empirical evidence’’ and different formulations used in other states. Some members favored statutory language that would require municipalities to adopt detailed written findings of fact supported by peer‑reviewed or publicly available empirical studies. Others urged a shorter formulation that relies on established judicial review standards (strict or intermediate scrutiny) and leaves evidentiary weighing to the courts.

The meeting also covered several subject-matter details that members described as part of an “extraordinary restrictions” bucket: minimum lot-size ordinances above five acres per dwelling, minimum dwelling square footage limits above 200 sq ft beyond the state building code, restrictions on residential use of commercially zoned lots, fees or caps on variance petitions, and limits on how long an owner may camp on their own property. The camping provisions were particularly contested: some members proposed owner-occupier exemptions or public-health safeguards (wells/septic), while others said the camping element should be handled in a separate bill to avoid jeopardizing the broader measure.

On appeals and judicial review, members debated whether an aggrieved party should be required to seek ZBA review before going to Superior Court. Some argued that preserving the ZBA step honored existing municipal processes and offered a lower-cost forum; others preferred direct Superior Court review for clarity and to avoid inconsistent ZBA decisions.

Next steps: the subcommittee agreed to convene a lawyer working group, including the bill drafters and counsel representing municipal interests, to craft a simpler but enforceable standard. Members asked that counsel produce revised language that reconciles: (1) a clear evidentiary threshold that deters arbitrary restrictions, (2) a practicable definition of acceptable evidence, and (3) an appeals pathway that balances municipal fact-finding with judicial review. The chair announced plans to circulate a redraft to members and reconvene the subcommittee for final consideration.

Why it matters: If adopted, HB 410 would raise the bar for local ordinances that substantially limit residential uses, potentially reshaping the way municipalities manage zoning, occupancy limits, lot-size rules, and other land-use controls.

Quotes from the subcommittee “We want this concept that extraordinary restrictions are a thing, and we can define what that thing is,” the subcommittee chair said while introducing the draft language.

“I like the show your work idea,” a member said, arguing that written findings and empirical evidence will deter poorly supported ordinances.

Ending: Members agreed on the bill’s intent but not on precise statutory mechanics. Counsel will draft a revised, simpler proposal for the subcommittee to review before the next noticed meeting.