SB284

I oppose SB284 because local zoning is best for our towns .... if a resident of a town or city doesn't like the zoning they already have methods -- ZBA, warrant articles etc -- to get around them if need be .... .... a developer will always do the minimum -- if parking spaces are not required then not enough will go in .... .... also, despite a few reps continuing to speak as if the bill was only about large apartment buildings, this is about houses and ADUs, too .... .... not enough spots as deemed by the municipality via their residents leads to road parking -- causing not only blocked emergency vehicles and plows, but in rural areas impedes the line of site and can cause a moose/deer collision .... .... lack of parking leads to parking on someone else's property which leads to calls to police which is a waste of resources or to fisticuffs then the police (wasn't there a shooting over a parking space last week??) .... .... I have two vehicles-- Plucky the Hyundai my daily driver and Truck, my F150 for work and I had the devil of a time apartment hunting this past year because I require two spaces .... .... I landed up moving away from the town I lived in and loved for 14+ years in order to find a decent apartment I could park at (the reason for my move stems from SB84 btw, that's another story) .... .... Sen Murphy has Manchester blinders on and is not considering the rest of the state-- sure as heck not Coös where a vehicle is an absolute MUST and public transport is nil beyond a daylight hours only no snow on the ground van in Lancaster and Berlin .... .... zero Groveton/Milan and north .... .... please let local people take care of themselves

Each condo, apt, house needs at least one space for a car as each family has at least one car and many individuals have one vehicle.

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

I am registering my opposition to this bill which strips a Town's ability to regulate required parking spaces. This is a matter of health and safety in small communities like Warner where we have no public transportation. In rural community's cars will be forced to park on streets with narrow shoulders, which is a serious safety issue especially in the snow-plowing months. Lack of adequate parking will cause conflicts between residents, with neighbors, and endanger pedestrians. This issue is already adequately handled by small towns through easy zoning appeals. Please do not support this bad bill. Respectfully submitted.

Any parking restrictions should consider the nature of roadways along which the properties are developed. Hampstead does not allow on street parking as the roads are narrow, with limited easements and shoulders. The proposed bill needs to be modified to address this condition by adding reference to roads that do not have capacity to permit on street parking.

This bill will create chaos in Cities and Town that do not have any alternative parking accommodations i.e. off the street parking lots and parking garages etc. especially in the winter months. This Bill will clog streets, and make it difficult for emergency vehicles to traverse and snow plowing to occur. Most families and couples have more than one car. How do you expect them to survive in this situation. The one size fits all approach is a disaster waiting to happen! Stop it now of pay the price in perpetuity!

This carelessly written bill is a slumlord's delight. It says "shall not set the maximum residential parking spaces per unit to more than one parking space per residential unit", i.e. developers are not allowed to build more than one parking space per unit even if they want to! Even if that word is changed to "minimum" this is a poor bill. If the developer does not provide enough parking, the community must provide it raising property taxes, or people will park on the sidewalk making neighborhoods unlivable. On a typical Sunday morning in my neighborhood, cars were parked on both sidewalks across from each other, turning what is supposed to be 2 lanes with 2 sidewalks into one lane to be shared by both vehicles and pedestrians, Both properties are duplexes with 5 parking spaces each so the idea of only one space per unit is laughable - they would run out of sidewalks to park on! The legislature needs to allow NH communities to be designed by parking demand measured in NH communities, not based on journal articles about large cities. This bill for example would give no parking bonus to low-income housing where residents traditionally own fewer cars.

I ask that you ITL this bill. It boggles the mind to think the state should have any say in this matter in the first place. Central planning from the state is not what we voted for in November.

Please oppose SB284! The number of off-street parking spaces per unit needed in a neighborhood is definitely a decision for the local planning board and citizenry, It depends on the density of neighborhood, width of street, winter parking ban etc. etc.....in other words it should be under the purview of the Town. One size fits all for the entire State of NH is definitely not a good policy for zoning but in particular for parking, especially when you are trying to change the rules for ADUs (detached units by right that are ripe for short term rentals). Along with my father and brother I built a 6 unit residential condo building in an historic district on the North Shore of MA. The zoning rule for parking was 1.5 spaces of off-street parking per unit (9 spaces). Most units we built ended up having two cars per unit even though we were within a 10 minute walk of a major train station to Boston (not everyone works in the city). The street was narrow and constantly flooded with cars and during a snow emergency people had to scramble. There was a constant battle and tension for the three guest spaces. Due to the congestion and complaints the city increased the required # of off-street spaces required in the neighborhood. The next few buildings we built nearby due to market forces we put two spaces per unit of off-street parking. This is an example of the necessity of local control. Plan and adjust.

I oppose this Bill on behalf of the Wolfeboro Board of Selectman. As it takes away from local control.

Please ITL House Bill SB284. This bill removes the right of local land use boards to determine appropriate parking space numbers based on sightline and lot size.

This is a handout to developers. Reducing parking requirement for development to one spot per unit , regardless of the size and occupancy capacity of the unit, is ridiculous. As a resident of Portsmouth, I have seen time and time again, developers manipulate themselves out of parking spot requirements, making an already difficult parking situation even worse. Parking prices are far exceeding the inflation rate, putting pressure on those who need to park in the city for work, as well as providing a drag on local businesses by raising costs on tourists and day visitors. The taxpayers then face having to shell out to build yet another garage. Leave this alone and let localities determine what is right depending on each project situation.

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 am Timothy Cook, vice chair of the Lyme Planning Board. I have been on the Planning Board for most of the past 38 years. I oppose bill SB 284 because it takes away a towns' ability to adapt the number of parking spaces needed per housing unit, based on the towns' individual needs. A "one size fits all" approach to all towns in NH is not in their best interest.

SB284 should be voted down. Local government is far more responsive and informed about parking needs than cookie cutter state mandates.

*Oppose SB284 because the number of parking spaces is required is project specific and not a one size fits all imposition. *If needed parking is pushed off-site, this can negatively impact snow and trash removal and other important services. This off-site parking pressure policy can ultimately lead to more parking lots that eat up land that could have been used for housing. *This usurpation of power from local boards is a radical theft of power from the voters who elect them. Local boards are far more accessible and answerable to their constituents than any other branch of government. *Please vote this bill down.

Most rural communities cannot afford sustaining viable water and sewer systems. It is fantasy to believe that all NH communities could do so.

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.

I am opposed to this bill because it would require the issuance of building permits on remote and impassible roads and, notwithstanding the waiver provision, place a financial burden on municipalities. I own frontage on Copple Crown Road, a Class VI road, in New Durham which connects to another Class VI road in Brookfield. These roads are part of a snowmobile trail and are also used by cross-country skiers, snowshoers, hikers, dog walkers, horseback riders, and ATVs. These uses would be disrupted if building permits were issued on these roads. Due to their condition, I would not drive my four wheel drive pickup truck on any of them. People come to New Hampshire for its natural beauty, not to find houses randomly sprinkled in remote areas. While land on Class VI roads may be viewed as an inexpensive place to build a house, that is not the case when the cost of making the land accessible, including in winter, is taken into account. Notwithstanding the waiver, if a house on a Class VI road catches fire, the fire department is going to try to get there. Rescue personnel will try to access an injured person. If enough building permits are issued, the property owners will want the municipality to layout the road as a Class V road, creating an added expense to the town.

SB284 Residential parking spaces should not be limited to one per unit. Many family units need 2 cars. The state should not dictate how many cars residents should have by restricting parking nor should they make it difficult for 2 career families to have the transportation they need to commute to work and school. Parking on street and other inconvenient locations could result of such parking spaces were limited. This is bad for the residents and should not be passed.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.