Removing parking minimum caps can increase housing density and affordability
HB1496
House · 2026 sessionRepublicanKilled in HouseRepeal of residential parking space cap
AIRemoves the statutory cap on residential parking requirements, allowing municipalities to require or limit any number of parking spaces per dwelling unit.
repealing the cap on residential parking spaces.
Status
Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · February 19, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✕House
- Senate
- Governor
- Law
Division of testimony
17 submissionsDear Members of the Committee, I registered as neutral on HB 1496. Parking requirements should be evidence based data. Parking for single family homes, differ from multi family etc...I believe the goal is to provide off street parking so vehicles aren't in the street. That's why zoning ordinances have some empirical data to "plan" for anticipated number of vehicles associated with each "dwelling". I lean towards support of this Bill Bruce Buttrick
Dear Members of the Committee, I write in strong opposition to HB 1496, which repeals the cap on residential parking spaces and undermines one of the most effective, evidence-based tools municipalities have to promote housing affordability, smart growth, and efficient land use. Parking is not free. Every additional required parking space increases construction costs, consumes valuable land, and directly drives up rents and home prices. By repealing the cap on residential parking spaces, HB 1496 would encourage over-parking, inflate development costs, and make it harder—not easier—to produce housing that working families, seniors, and young people can afford. This bill moves New Hampshire backward. Across the country, states and municipalities are reducing or capping parking requirements because excessive parking mandates suppress housing production and lock in car-dependent development patterns that are costly for residents and communities alike. HB 1496 ignores this reality and reinstates a one-size-fits-all approach that does not reflect local conditions, transit access, walkability, or market demand. Equally concerning, HB 1496 strips municipalities of local control over land-use decisions that are best made at the local level. Cities and towns understand their neighborhoods, infrastructure capacity, and housing goals far better than the state. The existing cap provides reasonable guardrails while still allowing flexibility. Repealing it removes an important planning tool and substitutes state interference for local judgment. The consequences are predictable: fewer housing units, higher rents, more sprawl, increased impervious surface, and higher municipal infrastructure and maintenance costs. At a time when New Hampshire is struggling with a severe housing shortage, we should be eliminating barriers to housing production—not reinstating them under the guise of choice or convenience. If the goal is to support housing, workforce retention, and fiscal responsibility, HB 1496 fails on all counts. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to vote Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 1496. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, David Preece State Representative, Hillsborough District 17 New Hampshire House of Representatives
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.