Housing crisis sparks bipartisan interest in efforts to override local zoning codes

Yahoo

11-02-2025

Republicans and Democrats in the House are displaying a stronger desire to take on municipalities directly by overriding zoning codes with state law. (Dan)
When it comes to describing some New Hampshire towns' housing codes, Rep. Joe Alexander likes to use a colorful phrase: 'snob zoning.'
Alexander, a Goffstown Republican and the chairman of the new House Housing Committee, says too many cities and towns have zoning ordinances that keep property sizes large, impose unnecessary environmental restrictions on new developments, and keep too many people out.
'Let's call it what it is,' Alexander said in a hearing last week. 'It's not zoning. It's about keeping people out, and it's been a tactic used in our municipalities to preserve the status quo and exclude those who can't afford to buy into the existing system.'
For years – as housing availability has dropped, rents have increased, and New Hampshire residents have expressed frustration – state lawmakers have pledged to support more housing while avoiding direct criticism of local towns' ordinances, citing the need for local control. But this year, Republicans and Democrats in the House are reframing the housing crisis and displaying a stronger desire to take on municipalities directly by overriding zoning codes with state law.
Less clear is whether members of the state Senate or Gov. Kelly Ayotte are as interested in that approach. In 2024, the Senate killed major legislation to expand accessory dwelling units on party lines, with Republicans arguing the additional development could lower property values.
This year, the Housing Committee is considering three pieces of legislation that could expand housing – and all three have bipartisan support. One would expand New Hampshire's 2017 accessory dwelling unit law; one would prevent towns from imposing arbitrary minimum lot size requirements; and one would allow developers to build residential housing in commercial zones as a matter of right.
Here's what's being proposed.
In recent years, lawmakers – typically House Democrats – have attempted to expand 'infill housing' by giving property owners stronger rights to build accessory dwelling units and take on tenants or relatives.
In 2017, a law took effect that gave all New Hampshire property owners the right to construct one accessory dwelling unit on their property – as long as it was attached to the house and followed other town ordinances. The problem, housing advocates argue, is that the law gave too much leeway to towns to add parking requirements and other regulations that could make those ADUs expensive and impractical to build.
House Democrats, with support from Republicans, have tried proposing major expansions of the ADU law, at various points introducing bills that would give homeowners the right to develop four living units and two living units as a matter of right – without the ability for towns to refuse. Those bills have mostly been defeated when they have reached the full House floor, with opponents saying they impede upon local control.
This year, the goal is more minimal. Introduced by Alexander, House Bill 577 would keep the current number of 'by right' ADUs to one, but would allow that ADU to be detached from the house. The bill would also require towns to allow ADUs 'without additional requirements for lot size … setbacks, aesthetic requirements, design review requirements, frontage, space limitations, or other controls beyond what would be required for a single-family dwelling without an accessory dwelling unit.'
Those additional restrictions could stop towns from imposing unrealistic hurdles on ADU development, Alexander argues.
The New Hampshire Municipal Association has opposed the law, arguing that voters in towns should be allowed to decide whether they want to expand their own ADU ordinances, and saying that some of the requirements, such as parking and lot sizes, are there for practical reasons.
HB 577 is co-sponsored by Democratic representatives, and one Republican senator, Sen. Keith Murphy of Manchester.
Another bill proposed by Alexander would go even further to override the authority of local land use boards. House Bill 459 would disallow minimum lot size requirements for at least 50 percent of a town's lots unless they follow scientific standards tied to capacity.
There are two types of housing lots the bill would affect: those with access to municipal or county sewer and water lines, and those without that access.
For housing lots that don't have sewer and water lines – in other words, lots with their individual septic and well systems – towns could not set a minimum lot size that is bigger than what the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Service requires for individual sewer systems, the bill states.
For those that already have sewer and water hookups, towns could not impose lot size requirements bigger than 22,000 square feet, or about half an acre.
The requirements would apply to 'a majority' of lots in a town, but not all of them.
The goal, Alexander says, is to take on snob zoning. A term in use since the 1960s, when Massachusetts passed the Anti-Snob Zoning Act in 1969, the label is used by housing advocates to describe zoning codes that have the effect of excluding unwanted populations.
'They aim to keep the wrong type of people from moving in,' Alexander said in a hearing last week. 'It's not about preserving the environment. It's not about community aesthetics. It's about exclusion. In my opinion, teachers, firefighters, police officers, bartenders, Amazon Prime delivery drivers are not the wrong type of people, but unfortunately, under our current system, people are zoned out of communities.'
The final prong in House lawmakers' zoning code legislation is House Bill 631. Proposed by Rep. Alissandra Murray, a Manchester Democrat, the bill would allow residential units and multi-use developments 'by right' in commercial zones, overriding prohibitions set by towns for those areas.
The bill would apply only to commercial districts located in 'urban areas,' as determined by the United States Census. And it would apply only to lots served by municipal water and sewer lines.
The idea, Murray and other supporters say, is to allow developers to build apartments in unused office space, or to build apartment units above existing businesses.
HB 631 would allow cities and towns to impose some restrictions. For instance, they could pass height restrictions for buildings – but not lower than 65 feet. They could pass some setback limits for the buildings; they could require walls, fencing, or screenings, they could mandate nonpublic open space or common areas, lot size requirements, and a mandate that up to 20 percent of the ground floor is dedicated to retail.
'Bringing residential units into commercial zones is not only a way to expand the area for potential buildings, but also encourages the kind of building that young people especially want to live in,' Murray said.
However, Matt Mayberry, executive director of the New Hampshire Homebuilders Association, raised concerns and argued the bill should be pared back. Mayberry argued allowing housing development in those zones could price out business development – which he said was more difficult – and hurt the local economy. He recommended the bill be limited to allowing housing over retail businesses and not all businesses.
'We really don't want to have residential units inside industrial parks, and that's where we're fearful this may go,' he said.
Mayberry said the association supports the construction of new housing to tackle the housing crisis. 'We will conquer this challenge, but we also want to make sure that those newly housed individuals have a place to work so they can afford those mortgages and afford those rents,' he said.