Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Unit Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing on SB 174 probes municipal limits on number of bedrooms in new units
Summary
Senate Bill 174 would prohibit planning boards from dictating bedroom counts in residential units; proponents argue local limits are used to exclude families, while municipal groups and municipal association oppose the proposal citing septic, parking, and statutory conflicts.
Senate Bill 174, introduced by Senator Keith Murphy and heard March 11 by the Commerce Committee, would restrain planning boards from setting limits on the number of bedrooms in dwelling units. Murphy said the bill seeks to prevent planning boards from using bedroom limits as a proxy to exclude families and to ensure developers can meet market demand for larger units.
Supporters: Chris Norwood of the New Hampshire Association of Realtors testified in favor, saying bedroom restrictions are often used in practice as a proxy for excluding families, and that septic sizing and other technical requirements are already handled by the Department of Environmental Services and the developer. Matt Mayberry (NH Home Builders Association) said developers face creative local tactics to limit families and that the bill would prevent arbitrary restrictions.
Opponents and technical concerns: Brody Deshaies of the New Hampshire Municipal Association testified in opposition and outlined multiple technical and legal concerns. He said bedroom limits can reflect legitimate public‑health and infrastructure constraints — notably septic sizing rules (DES) and parking requirements — and that planning and building functions are distinct: planning boards do not issue building permits, and adding a second definition for "planning board" would create confusion. Deshaies argued the bill could unintentionally conflict with the state’s workforce housing statute and parking regulations. He also voiced concerns about septic capacity and public safety implications of removing bedroom consideration from local review.
Committee exchange: Senators asked clarifying questions about whether the bill would preempt septic and parking regulation (Deshaies said those are legitimate local concerns and that the bill as drafted created ambiguity that could lead to litigation). Proponents stressed they want to prevent arbitrary exclusion of families and ensure the market can provide a diversity of unit sizes.
Ending: The hearing closed with clear divisions between realtors/home builders advocating for removing bedroom-based restrictions and municipal officials asking for precise statutory language to avoid conflicts with septic, parking, and other local regulatory frameworks. No committee vote occurred at the hearing.
