SB170

What to say about HB 170? well, first of all it shouldn't exist, it's a convoluted BS nongermane amendment that had no notice online for people to know to come in to testify or to do so online ..... ..... beyond that-- everything Brodie Deshaies from NHMA said, that's what I'm thinking ..... ..... also, today was the second time Matt Mayberry tugged at our heartstrings with his tale of being executor of his best friend and if something tragically happened he and his partner would raise the friends three children Saying that if that happened they could not live in Durham because of their rule about family relations .... .... .... .... first: I lived for years in a college town, Bridgewater Massachusetts which had a similar rule to keep landlords from allowing slews of college kids to clown car into an apartment ..... ..... my young son and I moved in with friends for a spell and were questioned by a town official who said we were fine because my son and I counted as one family unit, my friends and their kids as a second family unit -- not the same as six unrelated people .... ..... ..... the town hired a manager who did not uphold that bylaw and my LL allowed college kids to take over the apt across the hall, I couldn't stand the noise, the stink, and the nasty silverfish anymore so looked to move but because seemingly all other landlords did the same and regular residents like me were priced out -- why would a LL rent to me at one price when they can get that much Each from the kids? .... .... if a town has decided they need that rule, let them .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... oh, one more thing: I called Durham, they got rid of that rule years ago, the story was for nothing

Honorable Housing Committee members, The Town of Newington Board of Selectmen are in opposition to SB170,. This significantly reduces municipal autonomy relative to development and related requirements. Thank you for your consideration, Martha Roy, on behalf of the Board of Selectmen Town Administrator Town of Newington

I am a staunch supporter of local control, and have much experience as a lifelong resident of Surry and having served nearly 20 years as a selectman. I am particularly upset with section IV of this bill which adds a section k to RSA 674:17, I to "limit road frontage and setbacks for lot lines to no more than 50 feet to improve housing density..." It surely would. Is this a typographical error? In rural New Hampshire we're going to do this? I find it hard to believe this is a serious proposal. This has to be defeated. Thank you very much. Bruce Smith

This bill: I. Prohibits cities, towns, and municipalities from restricting certain development-related activities. What the heck does this mean? it is too broad. What are "certain development-related activities"? This should not be considered and approved until this is made clear and specific. This is potentially a VERY dangerous bill that puts all the cards in the hands of developers. II. Requires cities, towns, and municipalities to allow for septic systems, wells, electric systems, drainage structures, and other utilities to be placed in open spaces or perimeter buffers of subdivisions. Normally these items are required to be house on the actual property. This again is a move to HIGHER density and smaller lots which cannot accommodate wells and septic fields. How are these "communal" wells and fields supposed to work? Who will maintain them and pay the costs? Electric and drainage are different, but in many localities storm water generated within that property needs to be addressed and managed on that property, unless there is a central piped storm sewer system to service the area. III. Prohibits cities, towns, and municipalities from mandating that occupants of housing units be related by blood or marriage. This is confusing as well. Apartments have no such regulations. If its a town house, or a stand alone home, yet again why is the State putting its nose into this issue. At best it may be friends sharing a home or a condo, or a townhome. At worst it can become a "flop house" where you can have 8 to 12 unrelated people sharing a 2 or 3 bedroom residence. This is unreasonable. How would a State Senator or State Rep have a single family right next door become a flop house filled with 8, 10 or 12 unrelated people. THINK! IV. Adopts limits on road frontage requirements and setbacks for lot lines to improve housing density, ensuring these requirements are consistent with existing shoreland protection and environmental standards. Yet again this is about giving developers a blank check and taking away individual towns and communities in NH to set standards that are in keeping with their vision for their town. There are reasons for minimum frontage and setbacks from roads, and its about QUALITY OF LIFE and the overall feel and appearance of neighborhood. This is also unacceptable. In summary, based on a review of these proposed legislations here are the following key takeaways: Making these changes will NOT lower the price of rental or owned housing. Those are dictated by the market. All of these proposed legislation is skewed to developers They take away the rights of individual communities They will turn NH in Massachusetts North. If some communities wish to denser it is up to them, their residents, and voters. It should NOT be dictated by Concord Some of these proposals are in conflict with applicable life safety, accessibility, and construction codes. How can the State legislature contradict or override these?

This is potentially a VERY dangerous bill that puts all the cards in the hands of developers. Section ll :Normally these items are required to be housed on the actual property. This again is a move to HIGHER density and smaller lots which cannot accommodate wells and septic fields. How are these "communal" wells and fields supposed to work? Who will maintain them and pay the costs? Electric and drainage are different, but in many localities storm water generated within that property needs to be addressed and managed on that property, unless there is a central piped storm sewer system to service the area. III:This is confusing as well. Apartments have no such regulations. If it's a town house, or a stand alone home, yet again why is the State putting its nose into this issue. At best it may be friends sharing a home or a condo, or a townhome. At worst it can become a "flop house" where you can have 8 to 12 unrelated people sharing a 2 or 3 bedroom residence. This is unreasonable. How would a State Senator or State Rep like to have a single family right next door become a flop house filled with 8, 10 or 12 unrelated people? IV:Yet again this is about giving developers a blank check and taking away individual towns and communities in NH to set standards that are in keeping with their vision for their town. There are reasons for minimum frontage and setbacks from roads, and its about QUALITY OF LIFE and the overall feel and appearance of neighborhood. This is also unacceptable.

This bill is to move for HIGHER density in housing with smaller lots. Higher density in towns and municipalities will require far more infrastructure and raise taxes. The State should not dictate to smaller towns size of lots and influence a towns vision for growth. This seems to me like a developer driven bill that will only have a negative impact on our state as a whole.this is about giving developers a blank check and taking away individual towns and communities in NH to set standards that are in keeping with their vision for their town. There are reasons for minimum frontage and setbacks from roads, and its about QUALITY OF LIFE and the overall feel and appearance of neighborhood. This is also unacceptable. In summary, based on a review of these proposed legislations here are the following key takeaways: Making these changes will NOT lower the price of rental or owned housing. Those are dictated by the market. All of these proposed legislation is skewed to developers They take away the rights of individual communities They will turn NH in Massachusetts North. If some communities wish to denser it is up to them, their residents, and voters. It should NOT be dictated by Concord Some of these proposals are in conflict with applicable life safety, accessibility, and construction codes. How can the State legislature contradict or override these?

I know there is a housing problem in NH [some would say it is a crisis and it probably is], but mandating the same "one size fits all" zoning laws to every town in the State, seems completely counter to NH's 200 plus year history of local control. Each town is unique with it's own geography and infrastructure and applying the same laws to every town seems fairly ridiculous!

It is hard to believe NH would pass laws that take away local control for all the the towns in the State. What happened to local control?

I oppose SB170. While I support efforts to increase affordable housing, I do not support any bill that mandates, from the State level, local zoning regulations. Local citizens and officials know their communities best and know what kinds of regulations serve their interests.

I oppose SB170. While I support efforts to increase the supply of affordable housing, I can not support any bill that mandates local zoning regulations. Local citizens and officials know their communities best and know what kinds of regulations serve their interests. Surely there are other approaches to this problem that don't involve such overly restrictive mandates.

The state should not be mandating one size fits all zoning.

A jerk senator pushing all these housing bills shoots off his mouth and says you are a QUIET SNOB. This short-time resident Senator shill for wealthy developers who want to carve up NH's neighborhoods, culture, and quality of life. His professional career in planning is dependent on hyperventilated schmoozing for campaign donations. "Joe Alexander, whose House district overlaps with Murphy’s Senate district, has also embraced the snob zoning argument." These two clowns are trying to give NH the bums rush with over 30 bills attacking our towns zoning and planning laws. Read how these jerks trash NH residents "New Hampshire Republicans’ Crusade Against Snob Zoning" https://www.governing.com/urban/new-hampshire-republicans-crusade-against-snob-zoning

The bill significantly reduces municipal autonomy and undermines the ability of local governments to address the needs of their individual communities. Banning frontage or setback requirements greater than 50 feet, prohibiting municipalities from capping the number of housing lots on a dead-end road or street, requiring zoning ordinances that regulate road dead-end lengths to match the state fire code (the state fire code does not address road lengths), and mandating dormitories or group living in all zoning districts that permit residential uses will substantially change the Character of Hampstead, contrary to the Town's 2022 Master Plan. Any such changes to setbacks, etc MUST BE OPTIONAL so that the Town can properly sustain its desired character. Moreover, any such proposals to reduce frontage requirements will substantially increase the density of housing and the resultant impacts to municipal services and road capacity adequacy.

I am opposed to Section 2 of the bill which amends RSA 674. The State's affordable housing problem will not be solved by undermining municipalities' ability to zone for their communities.

I OPPOSE this bill. Will these mandates actually encourage the building of affordable housing? How will the proposals be interpreted and implemented at the local level? Will costly lawsuits follow? Will the values and vision of voters in our local communities be disregarded? We have a process to amend zoning laws at the LOCAL LEVEL.

I am the chair of the Lyme Planning Board (speaking as a private citizen) and a retired civil/municipal infrastructure engineer and public works director. I understand the workings of municipalities and the complexities of providing new housing. Based on this expertise and experience, I urge you to defeat this bill. Housing is a concern to many NH residents, with affordable and starter homes being of highest concern. The knee jerk reaction by the NH legislature to remove local control and force a one-size-fits-all approach is not the answer. NH is a diverse state. Some communities are capable of sustaining viable water and sewer systems and other municipal services, while most rural communities cannot afford these amenities. Many towns struggle to even maintain their roads. For the following reasons I implore you to vote ‘NO’. 1. This bill will not move the needle on providing workforce, affordable or attainable housing. 2. Existing infrastructure-not zoning, is the biggest impediment for constructing new housing. 3. Most communities are actively addressing the need for more housing for their workforce and senior constituents. 4. This bill will destroy the local resources and aesthetics that give NH its character. 5. The proposed legislation will lead to fragmentation of farmland and wildlife corridors. 6. One size fits all is a far cry from Live Free or Die! It would be more productive to provide incentives that encourage communities to continue and expand local efforts to increase housing. Please do not destroy the very reason we have chosen to live in NH.

I oppose this bill because I support local, hones, and representative government. This legislation overrides those who are most aware of the growth needs of their own community. To do otherwise is simply to do harm to our state and its history.

I am strongly opposed to SB170. Passing this bill is simply a knee reaction by the NH legislature to remove local control and force a ""one size fits all" approach to this issue. I urge you to defeat this bill.

I Katharine Hewitt of Lyme NH oppose bill SB170 because I believe it is a knee jerk reaction to remove local control and to force a one-side-fits all approach to the housing problem.

*This bill is terrible for smaller towns. Just one example: substandard roads on hilly or remote areas would be prohibitively expensive to upgrade to enable some of the development this bill would allow. *NH already has smart growth guidelines that can help address housing and this bill is contrary to those smart growth guidelines. *Why would the Legislature feel that its imposed judgment from above should negate the will of voters on the local level?

*This is a one-size fits all approach that treats larger cities and small towns the same. They aren't remotely the same and can't be treated as such. Manchester has entirely different needs than Lyme. *This overrides Town Meetings, local elections and authority - traditional bedrocks of New Hampshire governance. *The impact of limiting frontage and setback requirements throws planning into chaos, especially in small towns. These requirements are effective tools to guide development into areas that can handle them, to avoid sprawl and to follow NH's own guidance for "Smart Growth" which encourages infill, redevelopment, etc. and the avoidance of sthe cattered, premature development this bill encourages. *The wording in this bill regarding dormitories, etc. would encourage more short term and transient ownership which eats into the actual housing supply that we should be favoring. *The tools to encourage smart growth already exist without the State mandating and overriding local governance.