SB564

I’m opposed to this bill for the following reasons: - it undermines safe, effective local planning by creating emergency-access risks and encouraging poorly connected high-density development. - it conflicts with existing statutes allowing towns to prevent premature or inadequately serviced development. - Allowing utilities in open-space buffers could disrupt conservation easements and weaken long-standing planning tools such as open-space and cluster development, ultimately imposing a one-size-fits-all, universal mandate that ignores local conditions. Cluster development was demonstrated through a formal survey with statistical analysis as a preferred model for housing development. It would be very much appreciated if the Housing bills proposed with the intent of helping our state in the future and consider the input of actual housing planners as well as the State’s aging demographics and diminishing medical and infrastructure resources, which I very much doubt have been seriously considered during the creation of many of the housing bills in past year or so.

I oppose this Bill because I don't believe it is in the best interest of the public.

This bill limits our planning board in their efforts to make the subdivision a safe neighborhood for its residents. Vote it down.

I am writing to oppose SB 564 because it would undermine NH longstanding emphasis on encouraging and maintaining open space which is a highlight of the state that brings in tourists from all over the world. It also creates conflicts with existing statues, and undermines safe, effective local existing planning.

Hi. While I understand we have a housing crisis, this is not he answer. I have been a long time member of Brentwood Conservation Commission and past member of Planning Board and this takes away effective tools. Please leave the planning to the local communities since these one size fits all regulations do not work. Developers are already given bonuses for conservation subdivisions and cluster developments and this degrades the value of the spaces set aside. Thank you. Rob Wofchuck

I find this bill to micro-manage small rural municipalities like Orford. Orford is approximately 10 miles x 10 miles with very few monetary resources and a limited fire and rescue volunteer team. Roughly 25% of the roads are class VI roads and very few owners abutting a class VI road, build on their property knowing the town does NOT maintain this road and does not provide emergency support, although we have tried when possible. By passing this law, it is making it is easier for the owner to be set up for loss, with more strain on the municipality. I think I understand the reasoning behind this bill to create more housing and lessen the burden of the very few tax payers, which I have been advocating in my one year as selectman, but this is not the way. The way I have approached this was to give a more incentive break for current use land holders, to bring a lot or lots out of current use with little penalty. In our town of Orford, we have 90% of the land in current use. There is absolutely no harm with having a mere 10% of the current use land transfered to full property tax land and still obtain the majestic land of current use. I also think there should be a very close look at the current use law and how it is being abused in the system for what it was truly meant for. Thank you for your time, Charlie Smith Selectman-Orford, NH

This bill continues to erode local control of land use and is the very opposite of giving the people most directly affected by this kind of development a say in how their communities grow and develop.

This bill takes away local control. As a ZBA member I oppose this bill

This bill defeats the purpose of preserving open space land and wetland buffers by allowing septic systems and utility lines within these areas. The intent of the open space approval was to preserve this land and cluster the development of the residential housing by having smaller lots and less roadways. The need for undisturbed wetland buffers is well documented in the scientific literature as they offer protection to the functions and values that wetlands provide. The length of dead-end roads was always determined with input from the fire departments due to the length of their hoses. This proposal to allow longer dead-end roads may jeopardize those homes serviced only by cisterns where the length of the hoses are not sufficient. Placing such restrictions on Towns without any additional funding is a severe hardship for our citizens, and can cause dangerous situations and undermines our ability to preserve our natural areas using local control and governance that is voted on by the citizens.

This bill defeats the purpose of preserving open space land by allowing septic systems and utility lines within the open space areas. The intent of the open space approval was to preserve this land and cluster the development of the residential housing by having smaller lots and less roadways. The length of dead-end roads was always determined with input from the fire departments due to the length of their hoses. This proposal to allow longer dead-end roads may jeopardize those homes serviced only by cisterns where the length of the hoses are not sufficient. This is most of NH. I would respectfully suggest you leave planning regulations up to the individual towns.

Undermines safe, effective local planning by creating emergency-access risks and encouraging poorly connected high-density development. Conflicts with existing statutes allowing towns to prevent premature or inadequately serviced development. Allowing utilities in open-space buffers could disrupt conservation easements and weaken long-standing planning tools such as open-space and cluster development, ultimately imposing a one-size-fits-all, universal mandate that ignores local Conditions. Bars municipalities from limiting dead-end road length or the number of lots on those roads if they meet state fire code and requires municipalities to permit utilities to be placed in subdivision open-space or buffer areas, which runs counter to conservation or open-space subdivisions and cluster developments, a planning tool used by over 170 municipalities.

I believe it would be detrimental to my local community to allow unlimited residential development on dead end roads with unlimited length. With an all volunteer Fire and Rescue department and removing the local control necessary to regulate development in area's where access may be limited, could prove to be catastrophic without the proper controls in place. I don't believe a blanket regulation fits this situation and is not the answer to housing and development in NH. If you were to allow this type of regulation it would need to include mandatory sprinklers for residential housing. Thank you.

This bill undermines safe, effective local planning by creating emergency-access risks and encouraging poorly connected high-density development. It conflicts with existing statutes which allow towns to prevent premature or inadequately serviced development already. Allowing utilities in open-space buffers could disrupt conservation easements and weaken long-standing planning tools such as open-space and cluster development, ultimately imposing a one-size-fits-all, universal mandate that ignores local conditions. Please stop taking rights away from Towns to zone what fits their community.

As a member of our select board and planning board, I oppose SB 564 based on the following items: - Undermines safe, effective local planning by creating emergency-access risks and encouraging poorly connected high-density development. - Conflicts with existing statutes allowing towns to prevent premature or inadequately serviced development. - Allowing utilities in open-space buffers could disrupt conservation easements and weaken long-standing planning tools such as open-space and cluster development, ultimately imposing a one-size-fits-all, universal mandate that ignores local conditions.

Don't hobble local planning!

Cluster development is a way to preserve open space while enabling the same number of housing units to be built. Putting utilities in the open space negates the conservation value of this approach.

By removing the municipality's ability to limit the length of dead-end roads this bill creates safety issues for access by first responders and does not allow the people that are most familiar with the existing conditions to make the decision on what is best for the community. Further, this is just one of many attempts by the legislature to gut local planning/zoning authority. A one-size-fits-all approach to land use issues is a huge mistake that will destroy the character of New Hampshire communities. Kill this bill.

Undermines safe, effective local planning by creating emergency-access risks and encouraging poorly connected high-density development. Conflicts with existing statutes allowing towns to prevent premature or inadequately serviced development. Allowing utilities in open-space buffers could disrupt conservation easements and weaken long-standing planning tools such as open-space and cluster development, ultimately imposing a one-size-fits-all, universal mandate that ignores local conditions.

I believe there is a safety issue with long dead end roads -- and the Fire Code does not address road length. The potential for higher density housing to be built at the end of a long dead-end road would create problems and greater risks for a larger population living there. With the severe weather we continue to have (such as winds that cause trees to fall and block roads), extra time needed to reach individuals in need in an emergency will have negative consequences. Please do not support this bill.

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.