Sponsor says bill limiting local setbacks to 50 feet aims to ease housing supply; municipal, conservation groups urge rejection

Senate Bill 231, introduced at the Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, would limit municipal requirements for front, side and wetland setbacks and for road frontage to a maximum of 50 feet.

Sponsor Keith Murphy, representing District 16, told the committee the measure is aimed at easing New Hampshire’s housing shortage by reining in what he characterized as excessive local zoning: "One of the primary causes of that housing issue is the towns that abused the zoning process," Murphy said. He described the bill as an effort “to maybe restore some semblance of property rights while addressing the housing issues that have been created by those…abuses.”

The bill drew immediate skepticism from municipal and conservation groups. Bernie Deshaies, representing the New Hampshire Municipal Association, said SB 231 is "a very broad zoning mandate, erasing many, if not all, existing dimensional requirements and limiting the lotline setbacks, wetland setbacks, and frontage requirements to no more than 50 feet." Deshaies warned the change could be infeasible in shoreline and agricultural districts and could conflict with state shoreland protections.

Barbara Richter, executive director of the New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions, urged the committee to vote ITL (inexpedient to legislate). She said more than 150 towns already have local shoreland or wetland buffer rules, with setbacks ranging from 25 to 150 feet depending on soils and resources, and argued municipalities need the ability to set science-based buffers to protect water quality, flood control and infrastructure.

Meredith Hatfield of The Nature Conservancy echoed those concerns for wetlands and shorelands and flagged contradictory language in the draft bill. Several senators raised the same point: lines in the draft both limit requirements to 50 feet and say the limits must be “consistent with” existing shoreland protections, a construction that multiple witnesses and senators called unclear in practice.

Supporters included Sarah Holland, public‑policy chair for the New Hampshire Association of Realtors, who said the measure would "open up the opportunity for housing" by making smaller lots more developable and by reducing the need for homeowners to pursue costly variances. Murphy and some committee members said the bill would not affect dense village districts that already have much smaller frontage and setback requirements.

Witnesses also raised practical concerns: Deshaies and others warned the bill could increase the number of “hammerhead” or long‑driveway lots, which they said can complicate fire and emergency access, and increase impervious surfaces that add runoff into wetlands and neighboring properties. Senator Russell and others asked specifically about emergency‑vehicle access on long driveways; supporters replied that town permitting and DOT oversight would address access and safety during any building permit review.

Committee discussion focused on two technical points raised repeatedly by witnesses: (1) whether the 50‑foot cap was intended to override local shoreland protections established under the Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act (RSA 483‑B), and (2) whether the bill should also limit required road frontage. The sponsor said his intent was primarily to limit setbacks, not to remove local environmental protections, but acknowledged the draft language was confusing and that he would accept edits such as removing the road‑frontage provision if the committee preferred.

No formal vote on SB 231 was recorded in the transcript; the hearing was closed and the committee moved on to other bills.