NH House Testimony

HB577

House · 2025 sessionBipartisanSigned into law

Accessory dwelling unit definition changes

AI

Expands accessory dwelling units allowed by right to include detached units, adds related definitions, and increases the maximum permitted square footage.

relative to modifying the definition of ADUs.

Zoning and PlanningProperty - Real and PersonalMunicipalities

Status

Signed into law · July 22, 2025
  1. Introduced
  2. House
  3. Senate
  4. Governor
  5. Law

Division of testimony

189 submissions
Support 135Oppose 52Neutral 2
Karen BlakeSupportNorth Woodstock, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

As a parent of a child with a disability on the cusp of adulthood I am concerned about affordable housing options for him in our rural community. Currently there is little to no affordable housing options in the small, ski town we reside in, not for people with disabilities, workforce to support people with disabilities nor workforce housing in general to keep our economy healthy in the North Country. While ADU's will not completely solve the housing crisis in New Hampshire done right these units can be a great help and be just right for someone like my child to live on their own with support.

H. HamerSupportManchester, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

Testimony of support for HB 577: Increasing Accessory Dwelling Units and Promoting Affordable Housing Options Dear Members of the House Housing Committee, I am writing about my story of an ADU from 1985 – before the ADU concept was as popular as it is here in 2025. My family home had an attached two story barn. My mother was living in the main house. My husband and I were looking for a house after renting for 5 years. Mom had an idea to convert the barn into a home for us. We would be the financial investors of the construction. Mom was a widow for over 20 years and living by herself and getting older she knew this would be a great asset for her having us close by. We moved into our home in 1985 – mom passed away in her home in 1995. I was her caregiver for over 2 years. Living right next door to her was our greatest fortune, we had our own space and Mom had her own space. I had the opportunity to live in the “barn ADU” right next door and take care of my mom. Being a caregiver was not new to our family. My mother, a nurse, had taken care of her two Aunts in that same house till they passed. Currently my sister owns the house and “barn ADU” with a tenant living there. She’s getting older now too. Her wish is for her unmarried son to move into the “barn ADU” and be close by for her. I urge you to consider supporting HB 577 and to prioritize policies that promote affordable housing and aging in place. There are many families like mine who wished they had the opportunity to have a “barn ADU” or just a plain Accessory Dwelling Unit. Sincerely, H. Hamer Manchester NH

judith JonesSupportConcord, NHfor New Futures/The New Hampshire Alliance for Healthy AgingFeb 4, 2025

This bill will help build housing capacity in New Hampshire and will benefit older adults who are increasingly facing homelessness in New Hampshire.

Elisebeth BardoSupportConcord, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

I feel that this will encourage more affordable housing which we so desperately need.

Lois GrantSupportConcord, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

The passage of this bill is important so that we can adequately house newcomers to our community.

Susan PerryOpposeRichmond, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

I also oppose bill HB685 and HB459. We don't want trailer parks spread all over our town. We don't want certain religious communities taking over our town, who already are living in large numbers in single family dwellings. This is not healthy for people or surrounding environments.

Francesca HeapOpposeRichmond, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

Detached accessory units should not be forced on municipalities. Each municipality should be able to evaluate and prepare for levels of residential density appropriate to its infrastructure and resources.

Roger MurrayOpposeWolfeboro, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

At a time when cyanobacteria in our lakes is a growing problem, Towns should not be required to allow detached accessory dwelling units in the protected shoreland. Doubling the density along our lakes will increase soil compaction, the trampling and removal of vegetation, and increase the runoff of nutrients into our lakes. Allowing existing buildings to be converted into accessory dwelling units will mean that someone could build a boathouse and then convert it into an accessory dwelling unit. Allowing accessory dwellings in the protected shoreland will do nothing to increase the supply of affordable housing.

Kelly MacDonaldOpposeBedford, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

I disagree with Bills that encroach on the right of towns to organize as we wish.

Kevin KingSupportBrentwood, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

I support this bill. It will impact affordable housing in a positive way.

Carmen LorentzSupportBelmont, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

This bill expands the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) law to allow for detached ADUs on any lot with a single-family dwelling. This is a common sense proposal that will help address the state's housing crisis. There are many homeowners who can only accommodate a detached ADU on their property, and they should have the right to build one. This will allow more homeowners to build in-law apartments for their kids or parents or to rent out. This is an important way we can empower NH homeowners to take action to address the housing crisis. Please vote yes on this bill. Thank you.

Robin KingSupportBrentwood, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

This bill supports affordable housing and promotes affordable inter generational living arrangements for (young or older)adults who wish to live and work in New Hampshire. In some building situations a detached ADU will look more appropriate. Thank you.

Grant McGregorOpposeHooksett, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

I am the Town Planner in Hooksett, which is appointed Town position. I did not see such an option, so I listed myself as a member of the Public. I am a resident of Concord. I am opposed to HB577 and HB459. Both bills referenced, if passed, would require mandates that countless municipalities do not have the infrastructure and services in place to accommodate increased development safely. The mandates of HB577, specifically, are not compliant with several municipal Master Plans. Allowing infill development of any lot zoned for single-family use doubles the maximum density of such lots could strain municipal services and infrastructure. This amendment would seem to violate 7/10 purposes of municipal Zoning Ordinances under RSA 674:17, I(a-j). RSA 674:17, II is in place to allow municipalities to appropriately regulate land use because the State is at too broad of a scale to make such decisions. The only permissible reasons, to my knowledge, for a municipality to deny permitted uses is if that municipality does not have the services and infrastructure in place to accommodate the increased development. RSA 674:22 allows for growth management ordinances to be adopted by municipalities. Such ordinances must have an end-date and a plan to provide the necessary capital improvements. Such plans to provide the necessary capital improvements would likely involve increased taxes for property owners. RSA 674:23 allows moratoriums (no longer than 1 year) to be placed against Building Permits and the Approval of Subdivisions and Site Plans. The same basis as used in RSA 674:22 must be used in RSA 674:23 to lawfully implement moratoriums. By mandating that municipalities adopt zoning measures they are not prepared for, the Legislature might be encouraging moratoriums and growth management on development in several municipalities. Municipalities might be inaccurately labeled as "anti-growth". Creating incentives for municipalities that have the resources available to amend zoning to be more “in-line” with the proposed bills may be appropriate. Mandating these changes statewide is not appropriate. Municipalities should retain permission to direct the character of the various zoning districts within the given City or Town in addition to retaining permission to zone certain areas within their borders as appropriate to provide services. I would encourage all parties interested to understand that purpose for creation of zoning in the early 1900's was to allow for municipal control of orderly development. HB577 and HB459 propose a drastic shift in the practice of zoning which undermine the provisions of existing statutes.

Cole MillsOpposeKeene, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

This is a backdoor way to destroy long established neighborhoods. People who bought homes depended on the zoning classification and overall zoning rules. This also takes away from local control as the localities, not the state should determine development.

Lisa PaulinSupportManchester, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

more affordable housing

Michelle DiTomasiOpposeBedford, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

Making decisions that are unfair to Local residents

Bennett MortellSupportUnity, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

This amendment is a sensible and modest improvement that expands the right to accessory dwelling units that may improve help seniors avoid institutionalization and may also slightly ease the affordable housing crisis.

Carol DeVitoSupportLaconia, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

This is a small step to alleviating housing crisis in NH. Quite democratic if offered to all residents that meet zoning qualifications. San Diego is underway a massive and productive ADU expansion. Take a look for a good model. Kind regards - Carol

Christine GosselinSupportBrookfield, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

I support this bill because NH residents need affordable housing and creative solutions to increase the pool of homes. Many hard-working adults cannot afford the median home price of $493k. This change would reduce zoning requirements and give property owners the right to build a new "detached" ADU to help a family member or future tenant. Adding ADU (homes) may reduce homelessness and keep rental prices down with more inventory, while keeping more money in people's pockets, to spend elsewhere for a stronger economy.

Bruce ButtrickOpposeGoffstown, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

Detached ADU's are really: "Additional Dwelling Units" on same lot as the other Dwelling Unit. A detached "ADU" structure is visible therefore has the effect of "crowding" the lot with another structure. ADU's by their pure definition "Accessory Dwelling Unit" should only be allowed within an existing dwelling unit.

Taylor BarrySupportNashua, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

Additional dwelling units (ADUs) are essential components to resolving the extreme affordable housing crisis in NH. They utilize less materials and land-space to construct, reducing costs to homeowners. ADUs also pose solutions to providing the elderly and sick with access to caregivers on their property while providing students with inexpensive housing. Hence, HB577 should be passed.

Daniel RichardsonOpposeNashua, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

ADUs will destroy the quality of established neighborhoods. All it takes is one bad neighbor jamming in an ADU to start the chain of collapsing market valuations. This invites maggot MA house-flippers (having no community-investment) to invade and reap profits in otherwise quiescent NH town. You KNOW the history of this happening in 1990s.

Jane HaighSupportManchester, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

We are in the midst of a housing crisis, with a deep deficit of housing units across the state. Allowing stand alone ADUs will remove barriers to building ADUs and update New Hampshire’s existing ADU law to allow for detached ADUs on single-family properties This will not solve the housing crisis by itself, but we need to enable all of our options. Stand alone ADUs will be especially valuable for seniors and people with disabilities.

Roy SchweikerOpposeConcord, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

Using parking space standards based on major urban areas instead of local norms is not the New Hampshire way. ADUs should be allowed to require one parking space per bedroom as larger units likely have more cars, and local communities should be allowed to require more spaces based on studies of existing units in that community (preferably the number of vehicles associated with 30% or more of that type of unit in that community.)

Lynn CoakleySupportMilford, NHfor MyselfFeb 4, 2025

This bill will help the current housing crisis in our state