Committee hears plan to create temporary study commission for regional planning

The Municipal and County Government Committee on March 3 heard testimony on House Bill 471, which would establish a temporary, multi-town commission to study growth, traffic and land‑use planning in a set of communities that currently sit in different regional planning commissions.

Supporters told the committee the proposal was a response to shared transportation and growth pressures along major corridors and was requested by multiple residents and town officials. "These towns share common locality as far as — access to Southern New Hampshire, Route 93 — and they're looking at a lot of very similar issues," Representative Diane Power said, reading remarks submitted on behalf of Representative Ron Dunn (transcript). Brookline planning board member Eric Power said the commission could reduce friction when projects cross boundaries of the existing nine regional planning commissions: "When things start spanning across regional planning commissions, that gets a little more difficult," he told the committee.

The bill would authorize a temporary study commission to examine the purpose and structure of the nine regional planning commissions, explore reconfigurations or redistricting of commission service areas, and offer recommendations to better align planning resources with local needs. Proponents said the commission could recommend legislative or administrative changes depending on its findings, though they acknowledged they could not predict specific legislation that might result. Representative Power said the commission is intended to be "temporary to last only until the goal could be accomplished to offer recommendations to the existing commissions."

Committee members pressed the witnesses on whether existing law already provides mechanisms for municipal cooperation. Representative Julie Gilman and Representative Stavis asked about RSA 36:46, which allows two or more towns to form a regional planning commission. Witnesses said they had not thoroughly reviewed RSA 36:46 and suggested the proposed commission might be a different mechanism or could recommend using existing law if appropriate. Representative Fract noted the bill as filed did not include representatives of the existing regional planning commissions and several committee members suggested adding those commissioners as nonvoting or consulting members.

Public testimony was limited: the remote sign‑in recorded two in support and three opposed; one paper blue sheet showed support. After questions and discussion, the committee closed the public hearing.

The bill as presented asks the committee to authorize study and recommendations rather than require a particular restructuring; questions before the committee included whether existing statutes already permit the same actions, how towns were chosen for the study, and whether adding planning‑commission or county representation in the commission would improve results.

Looking ahead: committee members asked staff and sponsors to clarify the relationship between HB 471 and RSA 36:46, to consider adding representatives from affected regional planning commissions, and to specify whether any recommendations would require follow‑up legislation.

Ending: The committee closed the public hearing on HB 471; the transcript does not record a committee recommendation on the bill in that session.