Committee hears HB 731 to clarify licensure exemptions for supportive housing for people with developmental disabilities

Representative Kathy Staub, co-sponsor, and other witnesses told the House Committee on Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs that HB 731 is intended to remove a regulatory barrier that impedes mixed-use affordable housing projects from reserving units for adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDD).

Stakeholders described two common models: (1) a small group-home or home-care providership where an entity hires staff and provides 24/7 supports, and (2) a mixed apartment building in which a nonprofit holds units for residents with IDD while services are delivered by external agencies. Staub and other witnesses said the current statutory interpretation can force an entire building to be licensed as a health facility if even a handful of residents are receiving services, creating construction and compliance costs — for example elevator requirements and extensive documentation — that make projects financially infeasible.

Laurie McIntosh (Our Place NH) and other developers who want to build supportive housing projects described a model with 25% of units set aside for people with IDD, shared common areas, and onsite offices for service providers; they said the amendment before the committee would make certification of individual units possible rather than full licensure of the building in some cases. McIntosh urged the change to reduce developer costs and permit projects that combine independent living with on-site supports.

Doreen Shockley of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) testified that the department worked with stakeholders and helped draft the amendment. Shockley said the statute as originally written would not have achieved the sponsor's goal and that DHHS recommended changes to avoid unintended regulatory consequences. The department is willing to engage in further discussion, including state fire-marshal and local authorities, to refine language. Shockley acknowledged the issue has been under review since late 2022 and said certification is already used for some smaller household models where DHHS verifies basic safety (smoke detectors, drills) but that more complex, all-in-one service models may still require licensure.

Testimony included advocates highlighting the urgency as many families seek long-term housing options while parents age, and as some proposed projects must navigate financing and licensure uncertainty. Representative Kofalt requested a clear matrix of scenarios (which models would be exempted versus which would still require licensure); sponsors and DHHS agreed to provide additional clarifying language and follow-up materials before executive session.

Ending: Committee members asked for more precise draft language and cost estimates. DHHS said it can pursue rulemaking if statute requires licensure but stakeholders said legislative clarification is the preferred first step. The public hearing record closed with plans to refine the amendment for committee action.