Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Covenants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SB 175 would let municipalities enforce private covenants; municipal association warns of costs and confusion
Summary
Sen. Keith Murphy’s SB 175 would authorize municipal enforcement of private covenants and restrict municipal authority to require covenants; sponsors describe intent to empower local communities and encourage covenants as an alternative to zoning, while the Municipal Association raised legal ambiguity and enforcement‑cost concerns.
Senate Bill 175, introduced by Senator Keith Murphy and heard March 11, would (1) authorize municipalities to enforce private covenants in certain circumstances and (2) prohibit municipalities from requiring or encouraging certain covenants as part of the approval process. Murphy described the bill as an effort to empower property owners and municipalities to use covenants as a tool — an alternative or complement to zoning — and to clarify that covenants should be voluntary rather than imposed by municipal regulation.
Murphy said covenants predate zoning and can be used to preserve aesthetic compatibility, private roadway maintenance, and other neighborhood expectations; he argued the bill would empower municipalities while also protecting property owners from mandatory covenants imposed against their will.
Opposition and legal concerns: Bernie Deshaies and Brody Deshaies of the New Hampshire Municipal Association testified in opposition, saying the bill is vague about the definition of "covenants" and could produce extensive legal ambiguity. The Municipal Association warned an obligation to enforce private covenants could strain municipal resources, create conflicts over what covenants are enforceable, and even require municipalities to enforce potentially discriminatory private covenants — at taxpayers’ expense. They also observed the bill could undermine locally negotiated or state workforce‑housing deed restrictions and other programmatic covenants tied to state economic‑development programs.
Committee exchange and sponsor response: Senator Murphy said he is not wedded to the exact language and invited the municipal association to work with the sponsor and committee on draft changes. Municipal representatives asked for clearer definitions, protections against municipal enforcement of purely private disputes, and guardrails so municipalities would not be compelled to assume enforcement obligations that would create litigation or taxpayer costs.
Ending: The hearing closed with the sponsor acknowledging he would accept suggested drafting changes; municipal representatives asked for further consultation to ensure the bill would not create unworkable obligations or unintended conflicts with existing law. No committee vote occurred at the hearing.
