Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adus Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears dueling views on rolling back ADU changes and preserving municipal control
Summary
Lawmakers and stakeholders debated several bills to revise accessory‑dwelling‑unit rules, with sponsors framing changes as clarity and local control and opponents saying new language could restrict housing, complicate adaptive reuse, and harm seniors and small landlords.
Representative David Preece introduced HB 10‑65 as a bid to clarify that multifamily and mixed‑use housing may be allowed on commercially zoned land while preserving local discretion and encouraging adaptive reuse. “This bill clarifies multifamily and mixed use housing may be allowed on commercially zoned land,” Preece said, urging the committee to support the measure.
The committee then took extensive public testimony on ADU‑related language across several bills. Brody Deshaies of the New Hampshire Municipal Association described HB 10‑65 as a priority for municipalities but asked for clearer definitions of infrastructure and adaptive reuse protections. “We wanna extend our appreciation to the house housing committee for working with us on that language,” Deshaies said.
Opponents warned the bills could curb recent ADU gains. Planner Ivy Van and housing advocates—including AARP representative Stephanie Schuyler and the New Hampshire Home Builders Association’s Matt Mayberry—each offered different objections. Van said the infrastructure requirement could needlessly block conversions where private septic or alternative utilities are appropriate; Schuyler said regressive changes could make ADUs impossible to build for families and seniors; Mayberry warned of a “death by 1,000 cuts” that would undercut ADUs’ availability by adding permitting hurdles.
Housing providers who support the concept also asked for technical fixes. Chris Freeman, a Keene‑area housing provider, said the bills generally streamline the statute but urged clarifications to avoid creating traps for adaptive‑reuse projects, such as rigid nonconforming‑structure rules that prevent modest accessibility upgrades.
Why it matters: ADU policy affects aging‑in‑place, small‑scale rental supply and municipal planning. The committee’s choices could make it easier or harder for homeowners to convert existing structures into affordable, low‑impact housing. Several witnesses urged careful drafting so reforms do not unintentionally roll back recent increases in ADU production.
What’s next: The committee closed public comment on at least one ADU bill and scheduled further committee work. Sponsors and municipal representatives said they will work on technical amendments.
