N.H. subcommittee debates HB 432 definition, certification and safety rules for recovery houses

CONCORD, N.H. — A legislative subcommittee on Wednesday heard hours of testimony on House Bill 432, a bill that would define “recovery homes” in state law, require certification by a recognized certifying organization and clarify which building- and fire-code waivers certified homes may receive.

The bill matters because lawmakers and stakeholders said it could expand capacity for people leaving treatment while limiting local governments’ ability to treat some recovery houses as congregate or commercial uses. Supporters said clearer state-level definitions and certification would raise safety standards and reduce stigma; municipal officials warned it could preempt local zoning rules designed to protect infrastructure and neighborhoods.

State Fire Marshal Sean Toomey said his office helped refine the bill’s definition and supports the change as written so long as recovery homes meet fire-code requirements and certification standards. “I would love sprinklers everywhere,” Toomey said, later adding that the code allows annual fire-department inspections under Chapter 153 to ensure smoke alarms, alarms for places over eight people, egress and heating systems are functioning. Toomey said certified recovery homes typically get a waiver from full sprinkler requirements but must meet other inspection and certification conditions, and that his office normally walks through each proposed house with the local fire department before it opens.

Bill McKinney, representing the New Hampshire Building Officials Association, told the committee that certification to an organization with clear operational standards is the central protection in HB 432. He said certified homes receive waivers (including, in some cases, from sprinkler retrofits) that uncertified boarding- or rooming-house classifications would not get, and that certification gives code officials confidence the home is monitored.

Operators and certifiers testified that New Hampshire has far fewer certified recovery beds than it needs. Anthony Sabucci, director of business development and community relations for the New Hampshire Coalition of Recovery Residences, testified the coalition and a recent study estimate a statewide need of about 15,000 recovery beds; Sabucci said the state currently has roughly 108 certified homes and about 1,340 certified beds. Operator Jonathan Gerson described his program’s homes and recovery model and said the social model of recovery often requires residents to live together for months; “it saved my life,” he said of his own experience in recovery housing.

Municipal officials pushed back. Brody (listed in the hearing as Bridal) Deshais of the New Hampshire Municipal Association said the bill, as written, would require municipalities to treat recovery homes as single‑family, two‑family or multifamily dwellings in all zoning ordinances and would prevent towns and cities from applying local rules for congregate living. Deshais and other municipal witnesses warned that congregate uses can differ from ordinary dwellings in parking demand, wastewater/septic implications and neighborhood impacts, and that local site-plan or variance review sometimes mitigates those effects.

Witnesses debated operational details that would affect safety and oversight. Toomey said many recovery houses seek a variance or follow an inspection pathway when serving more than four residents; his office typically allows certified homes time (he described timelines of months to a year) to secure certification and documentation. He estimated his office has inspected about 20–24 recovery houses it knows about and said more operate without coming forward because of zoning fears.

Questions from lawmakers touched on: whether residential smoke alarms and monitored alarm systems will adequately protect occupants and neighbors when full sprinkler retrofits are not required; how long a home should have to obtain certification (the bill’s current language lists one year; some witnesses said six months has been used in practice); who enforces certification loss and what happens to houses that lose certification; and whether federal laws such as the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act affect accessibility requirements.

Supporters including New Futures’ Jake Berry said the bill incorporated input from the fire marshal and others and clarified the difference between transient lodging (as defined by the International Residential Code) and recovery housing, noting most recovery-residence stays are well beyond the IRC transient threshold. Building-official and certifier witnesses described annual certification reviews, site walk-throughs and complaint processes performed by certifying bodies.

No formal vote was recorded during the hearing. Committee members took testimony from a mix of state officials, municipal planners, certifying agencies and recovery-residence operators, and left unresolved questions about timelines, enforcement and the extent of state preemption of local land-use authority.