Lawmakers weigh repeal of religious land‑use protections after local disputes

Senate Bill 265 drew an extended hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee after Sen. Cassandra Prentice described concerns about what she called a potential usurpation of local control by RSA 674:76, the 2022 law that limits local zoning and site‑plan discretion for properties primarily used for religious purposes.

“According to the statute as written, no zoning ordinance or site plan review regulation shall prohibit, regulate, or restrict the use of land or structures primarily used for religious purposes,” Prentice said, adding she was not seeking to restrict worship but to preserve local zoning character. She identified Hanover and other communities where disputes have arisen since the statute’s 2022 enactment.

Opponents of repeal told the committee the statute addresses long‑standing discrimination against religious institutions. Land‑use attorney Michael Cherney, who said he has represented more than 50 religious clients, said discretionary criteria in municipal ordinances have repeatedly been used to deny or delay religious uses. “Anytime a government decides how a church should operate and who should gather is a problem,” Cherney said, and he urged senators to oppose SB 265.

Ian Hewitt of Cornerstone, a Christian advocacy organization, testified the statute prevents municipalities from repeatedly using discretionary criteria to block religious construction. He noted litigation in Hanover and warned repeal would enable the same practices to continue. Several pastors, including Sean Foster of Crossing Light Church in Windham, described local disputes that required substantial legal costs and administrative appeals; Foster said his congregation spent more than $50,000 to obtain a tax exemption fight and later used RSA 674:76 to secure site plan approval for a new building on its 100‑acre property.

The New Hampshire Municipal Association’s representative, Brodie Deshais, told the committee the statute narrowed the universe of site‑plan review powers available to municipalities effective July 1, 2022. Deshais listed typical site‑plan topics—lighting, signs, noise, drainage, erosion control, sidewalks, landscaping and parking—and said the statute now limits municipal authority to objective requirements that apply equally to religious and nonreligious uses. He said municipalities generally support the bill’s goals but stressed the practical tension between preventing discrimination and preserving local review of public‑safety and infrastructure impacts.

Senators questioned whether the statute permits towns to apply objective, nondiscriminatory rules such as setbacks and height limits; witnesses replied that definitive and objective standards (setbacks, height, lot area) remain enforceable but discretionary criteria that invite subjective judgments—"harmonious with neighborhood character," "adequate proportions"—are the parts the statute bars when applied to religious institutions.

Multiple witnesses urged the committee to retain RSA 674:76. Michael Cherney recalled cases where towns used zoning to block religious uses, citing a settlement that cost a town insurer over $1 million. Cherney and others said the statute brings New Hampshire into alignment with similar protections in neighboring states and prevents repeat litigation and discrimination.

The hearing closed without a committee vote. Sponsors and opponents agreed there is room to seek a “middle ground” or a study to balance local zoning character with constitutional protections for religious exercise.