Committee Summary for House Housing Committee (04/08/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB91 00:05:15.759 - 8:34:06 AM	Public Hearing	allowing one-time special appraisals of residences located in commercial zones.	Murphy, Keith(R)[A]2025
SB173 00:31:30.240 - 9:00:21 AM	Public Hearing	relative to residential property subject to housing covenants under the low income housing tax credit program.	Murphy, Keith(R)[A]2025
SB173 01:01:31.040 - 9:30:22 AM	Public Hearing	relative to residential property subject to housing covenants under the low income housing tax credit program.	Murphy, Keith(R)[A]2025
SB174 01:43:39.440 - 10:12:30 AM	Public Hearing	prohibiting planning boards from considering the number of bedrooms a given unit or development has during the hearing and approval process.	Murphy, Keith(R)[A]2025
SB188 02:23:41.000 - 10:52:32 AM	Public Hearing	(New Title) relative to the state building code.	Murphy, Keith(R)[A]2025
SB284 04:32:11.359 - 1:01:02 PM	Public Hearing	(New Title) relative to authority for municipalities to regulate mandatory on-site parking requirements.	Murphy, Keith(R)[A]2025
Unclear 04:31:05.120 - 12:59:56 PM	General Working Session	Unclear
SB284 04:36:54.639 - 1:05:45 PM	Public Hearing	(New Title) relative to authority for municipalities to regulate mandatory on-site parking requirements.	Murphy, Keith(R)[A]2025

SB91: Senator Murphy, District 16 Support00:05:15.759 - 8:34:06 AM; Senator Murphy introduced Senate Bill 91, describing it as the easiest bill of the day. The bill aims to simplify the process for homeowners living in residences within commercial or industrial zones by changing the requirement to fill out a form annually for appraisal under current use to a one-time requirement. This change is intended to make it easier for these homeowners to maintain a lower tax burden without the annual administrative burden.
SB91: Representative Bolio Information Only00:06:10.080 - 8:35:01 AM; Representative Bolio sought clarification on the purpose of the bill, questioning how properties are currently assessed and how the bill would change this. He expressed concern about the potential change of use of properties and how it would be monitored without the annual form. Senator Murphy explained that municipalities would handle any changes in use and that the responsibility for determining the tax burden should rest with the municipality.
SB91: Birdie Dees, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose00:09:47.360 - 8:38:38 AM; Birdie Dees from the New Hampshire Municipal Association spoke against Senate Bill 91, citing concerns about shifting the burden onto assessor's offices to validate residential use in commercial or industrial zones. He argued that the current process of mailing out forms annually and having property owners respond is effective and less burdensome administratively for municipalities. Dees emphasized that this process helps ensure properties are assessed at their current use value, preventing unnecessary increases in assessed value that could tax residents out of their homes. He questioned the need to fix a process he believes is not broken and indicated openness to amending the bill if there were specific issues to address.
SB91: Patricia Bridges, Raymond Oppose00:14:56.560 - 8:43:47 AM; Patricia Bridges, from Raymond, expressed opposition to the bill, arguing that it places an undue burden on property owners to report changes in property use annually. She emphasized the importance of property owners ensuring their property is correctly valued for tax purposes, suggesting that the current system of yearly reporting helps maintain proper tax categorization and supports the town's revenue needs. She highlighted the challenges faced by volunteer-driven town departments in monitoring property uses without such a system.
SB91: Diana Lush, C1 District Resident Oppose00:18:56.720 - 8:47:47 AM; Diana Lush, a resident in a C1 district, opposed the bill, stating that the current system of annual reporting is not broken and does not need fixing. She argued that requiring residents to confirm their property use annually is not a significant ask and could prevent unnecessary complications and additional work for the town, such as investigating complaints about property uses.
SB91: Don Marryman, Vice Chair of Board of Selectmen, Raymond Oppose00:21:44.159 - 8:50:35 AM; Don Marryman, Vice Chair of the Board of Selectmen in Raymond, opposed the bill, emphasizing the challenges of maintaining accurate records in municipal government, especially during staff transitions. He argued that the annual reporting requirement helps catch discrepancies and ensures that tax dollars are appropriately used, particularly important in the current economic climate. He advocated for maintaining the current system to preserve local control and ensure proper tax revenue collection.
SB173: Senator Keith Murphy, District 16 Support00:31:30.240 - 9:00:21 AM; Senator Keith Murphy introduced Senate Bill 173, which aims to clarify the calculation of property taxes for low-income housing providers. He explained that the bill simplifies the tax calculation to 10% of actual income, addressing inconsistencies in current practices among different municipalities. He noted that this change would provide consistency and ease for housing providers.
SB173: Matt Mayberry, CEO of the New Hampshire Homebuilders Association Support00:33:11.960 - 9:02:02 AM; Matt Mayberry, representing the New Hampshire Homebuilders Association, spoke in favor of SB173. He highlighted that the bill would update the method of calculating assessments and taxes for residential buildings used for low-income housing. The proposed method, supported by NHDR, would base the taxation on 10% of the building's audited and verified income, including rent and other sources like laundromats or retail spaces. This approach aims to provide consistent housing for low-income residents. Mayberry emphasized that without this bill, taxes would be based on market rents, which could negatively impact low-income housing. He concluded by stating that SB173 would simplify the process and ensure financial viability and long-term shelter for vulnerable citizens.
SB173: Don Marman, Alexander Housing House Committee Oppose00:35:42.240 - 9:04:33 AM; Don Marman from the Alexander Housing House Committee expressed opposition to SB173, particularly concerned about the 10-year duration before reevaluation. He argued that the current economic climate is too uncertain to commit to such a long-term tax policy, suggesting that municipalities need time to adjust to recent changes. Marman proposed revisiting the bill in a year or two after allowing time for the situation to stabilize and emphasized leaving the current system to local authorities.
SB173: Nick Taylor, Director of Housing Action New Hampshire Support00:37:16.240 - 9:06:07 AM; Nick Taylor, from Housing Action New Hampshire, supported SB173, describing it as a simple yet impactful fix for affordable housing taxation. He explained that affordable housing projects, funded by the low-income housing tax credit program, are long-term commitments and cannot pass increased costs to renters like market rate units. Taylor argued that assessing these projects based on their real value under the LITC program, rather than market rates, is a thoughtful compromise. He noted the bill's development over years by the assessing board and mentioned a supporting letter from NeighborWorks Southern New Hampshire.
SB173: Diana Lush, Raymond, New Hampshire Oppose00:40:13.440 - 9:09:04 AM; Diana Lush from Raymond, New Hampshire, opposed SB173 due to the proposed 10-year window for tax implications, which she found too long given current uncertainties. As a planning board member, she has seen projects claiming to be low-income that ended up with high rents, questioning the definitions of low-income, affordable, and workforce housing. Lush suggested that clearer definitions and possibly numerical thresholds should be set before implementing such a tax incentive, expressing concern over potential manipulation.
SB173: Betsy Patton, Chairman of the Assessing Standards Board Support00:41:38.000 - 9:10:29 AM; Betsy Patton, Chairman of the Assessing Standards Board, supported SB173, explaining its history and necessity. She described how the current tax calculation process has been unpredictable and burdensome for low-income housing developers since 2010. The bill proposes a simpler and more predictable method by taxing based on 10% of the building's profit, which is already part of existing statutes. Patton stressed the importance of this change for encouraging more low-income housing development and noted that the full board voted to support the bill, urging the committee to recommend it as ought to pass.
SB173: Brody Ducha, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose00:46:17.760 - 9:15:08 AM; Brody Ducha from the New Hampshire Municipal Association expressed opposition to SB173, citing concerns about the tax burden shift that would result from the bill. He explained that under the current RSA 751-A, taxpayers can elect to use an appraisal method that calculates taxes based on either the income approach or 10% of actual rental income, whichever is higher. Ducha argued that by removing this dual assessment, SB173 would decrease the assessed value of properties for at least a decade, shifting the tax burden onto other property owners. He highlighted that the decision on qualifying properties is made by the federal government, not local entities, and stressed the lack of local option in the bill, which influenced the association's move from a neutral to an opposition stance.
SB173: Patricia Bridgio Oppose00:52:07.040 - 9:20:58 AM; Patricia Bridgio opposed SB173, emphasizing the importance of precise terminology in legislation. She pointed out that during the hearing, terms like 'low-income housing', 'affordable housing', and 'workforce housing' were used interchangeably, which could lead to significant issues for towns if such terms were to be confused in law, particularly with changes to the Internal Revenue Code. Bridgio also expressed concern over the potential financial gaps that towns might have to cover due to the bill, questioning whether there were compensatory mechanisms in place for these gaps.
SB173: Matt May, Homebuilders Information Only00:54:25.040 - 9:23:16 AM; Matt May from the homebuilders provided clarification on the terminology used in the bill, emphasizing that the legislation specifically pertains to the low-income housing tax credit program, not to be confused with affordable or workforce housing.
SB173: Senator Keith Murphy, District 16 Support01:01:31.040 - 9:30:22 AM; Senator Keith Murphy, with a background as a town planner, spoke in favor of SB173. He highlighted the common biases in planning boards towards different types of housing, particularly their preference for senior housing and reluctance towards multi-family units due to perceived impacts on school enrollment and property taxes. He referenced a study he conducted which found no correlation between multi-family housing and increased school enrollment, despite population growth. He argued that SB173 would prevent discrimination against larger family units by prohibiting planning boards from considering the number of bedrooms in their approval processes, thus helping to meet the housing needs of families like his own.
SB173: Sharon Monahan, Peterborough Oppose01:05:04.240 - 9:33:55 AM; Sharon Monahan, a citizen and professional in the field of septic design and wetland science with experience on the Peterborough Zoning Board, opposed SB173. She argued that the bill misrepresents the role of planning boards, as they do not approve building permits. Monahan detailed how the bill's proposed sections could interfere with existing statutes and regulations related to workforce housing, accessory dwelling units, and parking requirements, which all consider the number of bedrooms. She emphasized the importance of understanding bedroom numbers for public health and safety, infrastructure capacity, and land use planning. Monahan used a metaphor involving cookies to illustrate her point about form-based codes and concluded that the bill's approach oversimplifies complex planning issues.
SB173: Matt Mayberry, New Hampshire Homebuilders Support01:18:29.120 - 9:47:20 AM; Matt Mayberry, representing the New Hampshire Homebuilders, supported SB173, arguing that it would prevent municipalities from dictating bedroom configurations in housing developments. With 35 years of real estate experience, he stressed that market demand, rather than government regulation, should drive housing development. He criticized planning boards for imposing unnecessary restrictions on developers and emphasized the need for housing that meets the needs of families, suggesting that development should be based on septic and well capacities and market forces. Mayberry advocated for the bill as a means to ensure that housing options reflect consumer needs and not governmental preferences.
SB173: Paige Information Only01:22:16.639 - 9:51:07 AM; Representative Paige raised concerns about the impact of not considering the number of bedrooms in relation to septic and well capacity. She questioned if the bill prevents any discussion on this matter, especially since these considerations are driven through the permitting process with the Department of Environmental Services (DES).
SB173: Diana Lush, Raymond Oppose01:23:02.159 - 9:51:53 AM; Diana Lush from Raymond, who has served on the planning board, opposed the bill. She clarified that the planning board does not dictate the number of bedrooms in proposed projects, emphasizing that such decisions are made by developers. She noted the importance of septic system design based on the number of bedrooms, particularly since Raymond relies solely on septic systems due to the lack of municipal sewer systems. Lush criticized the bill for potentially conflicting with existing regulations and for misunderstanding the role of the planning board, which does not issue building permits.
SB173: Gibbs Information Only01:28:51.120 - 9:57:42 AM; Representative Gibbs inquired about the consideration of the impact of new housing developments on school systems, specifically regarding the number of children that might move into the town. The response indicated that while planning boards may estimate potential student increases for informational purposes, these considerations do not typically affect approval decisions.
SB173: Birdie Ducha, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose01:30:12.000 - 9:59:03 AM; Birdie Ducha from the New Hampshire Municipal Association testified against Senate Bill 174. She highlighted the importance of considering the number of bedrooms in developments due to its impact on septic capacity and local infrastructure like aquifers and sewer systems. Ducha criticized the bill for potentially conflicting with existing laws and creating ambiguity, which could lead to legal challenges and hinder development. She emphasized that municipalities need the ability to limit the size of septic systems for health, safety, and welfare reasons, and that the bill's one-size-fits-all approach does not account for the varying capabilities of different towns.
SB174: Representative Bolio Information Only01:43:39.440 - 10:12:30 AM; Representative Bolio inquired about alternative definitions for 'planning board' in the proposed bill. The response highlighted that the term 'planning board' is already defined in RSA 673:2 and its duties in RSA 674:1, suggesting no need for an additional definition which could cause confusion and conflict. The discussion focused on maintaining clarity and avoiding redundancy in statutory language.
SB174: Representative Dumont Information Only01:45:58.080 - 10:14:49 AM; Representative Dumont asked if planning boards currently have authority over septic approval, which was clarified as being under the jurisdiction of code enforcement or building inspectors. Further, the bill does not eliminate DES requirements for septic systems but allows planning boards and code enforcement to verify larger developments meet those requirements. The discussion touched on the potential for municipalities to deny or suggest modifications based on capacity rather than the number of bedrooms.
SB174: Patricia Bridgio, Rockingham Planning Commission Oppose01:48:14.560 - 10:17:05 AM; Patricia Bridgio opposed Senate Bill 174, emphasizing that planning boards follow existing RSAs and criticized the implication that board members do not take their duties seriously. She highlighted her experience with the Rockingham Planning Commission, discussing efforts to reduce unit sizes and the potential impact of the bill on local control and regulations. Bridgio expressed concerns about legal challenges towns might face due to ambiguous language in the bill and the impact on local water quality and sewage systems.
SB174: Don Mararyman, Raymond Oppose01:57:23.840 - 10:26:14 AM; Don Mararyman opposed the bill, sharing his experience as a Maryland transplant who moved to New Hampshire to escape central planning. He argued against the bills' collective impact on small towns, particularly regarding infrastructure like wastewater systems. Mararyman highlighted the importance of bedrooms as an indicator of occupancy and the subsequent impact on septic systems. He urged opposition to the bill and others like it, advocating for local control over development decisions.
SB174: Theresa Baster Ash, Louden Oppose02:08:39.920 - 10:37:30 AM; Theresa Baster Ash opposed the bill, arguing that it undermines local control and benefits developers at the expense of local communities. She criticized the state's focus on fast-tracking development rather than addressing property tax issues that impact housing affordability. Ash called for more attention to school district budgets and the slow DES permitting process, emphasizing the need to protect local governance and community interests over developer profits.
SB174: Nick Taylor, Director of Housing Action Support02:18:06.638 - 10:46:57 AM; Nick Taylor supported the bill, clarifying its intent to focus on health and safety in zoning decisions rather than using bedrooms as a proxy for capacity concerns. He emphasized the need for housing that accommodates families with multiple bedrooms and criticized the use of proxies like bedrooms in zoning decisions. Taylor advocated for decisions based on factual health and safety considerations rather than arbitrary measures.
SB174: Unidentified Speaker Information Only02:20:19.920 - 10:49:10 AM; The speaker expressed curiosity about the use of bedrooms as a proxy for capacity in housing units. They acknowledged that while bedrooms are not a perfect measure, they seem to be the current best metric available. The speaker questioned if there is a better way to determine capacity, such as considering septic and infrastructure, but did not receive a direct answer on alternatives.
SB188: Keith Murphy, Senator for District 16 Support02:23:41.000 - 10:52:32 AM; Senator Keith Murphy introduced Senate Bill 188, addressing the housing crisis in New Hampshire by suggesting that increasing the supply of housing is essential to manage rising prices. He explained that the bill would allow for independent permitting and inspections, similar to laws in Florida, Texas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. This would permit developers to hire third-party engineers for faster plan reviews and inspections, thereby speeding up the building process. He mentioned that some towns like Bedford already use this approach and emphasized that the bill aims to streamline the process statewide to offer consistency and reliability to builders.
SB188: Representative Paxton Information Only02:26:45.200 - 10:55:36 AM; Representative Paxton from Troy discussed how their town has successfully used independent engineers for inspections, questioning the necessity of the new legislation since such practices are already permissible. He asked if the bill changes the current 'may' to a 'must' for towns, to which Senator Murphy responded that it aims to standardize the practice across the state for predictability.
SB188: Unidentified Representative Information Only02:29:56.640 - 10:58:47 AM; The representative questioned who would vet the third-party inspectors, to which Senator Murphy responded that the bill allows local agencies to audit inspections randomly to ensure compliance, adding a new responsibility but reducing overall workload for local agencies.
SB188: Philip Sherman, Chair of the State Building Code Review Board Information Only02:32:05.840 - 11:00:56 AM; Philip Sherman explained that the model codes included in the New Hampshire State Building Code hold the same weight as statutory language. He noted that bills like SB188 should be addressed by requiring the building code review board to update the code to reflect the bill's intent. He highlighted potential conflicts between the bill and existing codes, suggesting that the bill's intent should be put before the board for amendments, which would then be ratified by the legislature.
SB188: Representative Cole Information Only02:35:34.720 - 11:04:25 AM; Representative Cole asked about the requirement for approved agents under the International Building Code, to which Philip Sherman responded that the code assumes the presence of a building official who approves third-party agencies, and that there's no inherent conflict of interest in farming out inspections as long as the third parties are independent.
SB188: Representative Paige Information Only02:37:53.920 - 11:06:44 AM; Representative Paige followed up on the potential conflict of interest if the developer selects and approves the third-party inspector without the building official's approval. Philip Sherman clarified that the bill as written does not require the building official's approval for the developer's choice, but he did not see this as a conflict of interest as long as the inspector is not part of the development team.
SB188: Representative Gibbs Information Only02:38:47.040 - 11:07:38 AM; Representative Gibbs inquired about the New Hampshire state building code's composition, to which Philip Sherman responded that it consists of eight model codes with New Hampshire amendments, each applicable to different situations.
SB188: Scott Tenny, representing the New Hampshire Building Officials Association (NHBOA) Oppose02:40:21.240 - 11:09:12 AM; Scott Tenny expressed concerns about SB188, stating that while the bill aims to streamline inspections and permitting, it lacks clear definitions and conflicts with existing state practices. He pointed out issues such as unrealistic time frames, the financial impact on municipalities, and the lack of regulatory oversight for third-party inspectors. He suggested working with the committee on amendments to address these conflicts.
SB188: Diana Lush, representing Braven Oppose02:45:56.399 - 11:14:47 AM; Diana Lush opposed the bill, highlighting concerns about the liability duration for independent inspectors after a building is erected and the need for them to have adequate insurance. She also noted that towns can already hire outside sources for inspections and questioned the qualifications of third-party inspectors compared to building inspectors. She emphasized that municipalities should retain control over building permits.
SB188: Matt Mayberry, representing the Homebuilders Support02:51:24.960 - 11:20:15 AM; Matt Mayberry supported the bill, arguing that it helps solve problems in understaffed towns where inspectors can delay projects. He mentioned a specific case where a developer was discouraged by a town's building inspector. He refuted claims of increased burdens on towns, noting that they would still receive permit fees. He highlighted the qualifications required for third-party inspectors and suggested an amendment to work with the building code review board for smoother implementation.
SB188: Representative Newell Information Only02:56:50.319 - 11:25:41 AM; Representative Newell shared a personal experience about a fire in their house and the subsequent repair process involving a licensed plumber and town inspector. They inquired about the independence of inspectors, specifically if a plumber could inspect their own work. The response clarified that inspectors must be third-party and independent, not related to the builder or homeowner, and they must put their license and livelihood on the line when signing off on inspections.
SB188: Patricia Bridgio, Raymond Oppose02:59:11.560 - 11:28:02 AM; Patricia Bridgio expressed strong opposition to SB188, citing a local issue in Raymond where a gas station was improperly allowed on the town's wellhead due to inadequate inspections. She argued that the bill could lead to similar mistakes by reducing oversight, using the metaphor 'wolves in our nurseries' to emphasize the potential danger. She criticized the interchangeable use of terms like workforce housing, low-income, and affordable housing, and highlighted the challenges towns face in meeting housing demands without compromising safety and local asset values.
SB188: Kira Clemens, Raymond Oppose03:04:26.960 - 11:33:17 AM; Kira Clemens, a resident and part-time planning assistant for Raymond, opposed SB188 due to concerns over the potential loss of municipal revenue streams from inspection fees. She argued that having dedicated local building inspectors ensures better adherence to local zoning codes and reduces the risk of misinterpretation by third parties. She noted that while some municipalities have opted for third-party inspections, it should remain an option rather than a mandate, and expressed satisfaction with the current system's efficiency in Raymond.
SB188: Sarah Burke Cohen, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose03:07:49.520 - 11:36:40 AM; Sarah Burke Cohen from the New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA) opposed SB188, highlighting several issues. She mentioned that a study commission on the zoning act, which has not been reviewed in 30 years, was recently established, suggesting that changes to the act should wait for the commission's findings. She criticized the bill for not consulting key stakeholders like the New Hampshire Building Officials Association during its drafting, which could have addressed defects. She argued that the bill would undermine building safety, create confusion in code interpretation, and potentially allow permits and certificates by default. She noted that third-party inspections are already allowed under current laws, making the bill redundant and problematic.
SB188: Senator Keith Murphy, Senate District 16 Support04:04:15.600 - 12:33:06 PM; Senator Murphy presented Senate Bill 188, which aims to standardize the calculation of the floor area ratio across New Hampshire. The bill specifies that below-grade areas should be excluded from the floor area ratio calculation, which is intended to ensure consistency across different municipalities. He mentioned that this change would not impact areas like playrooms or billiard rooms in basements, as floor area ratios typically apply to larger structures like apartment buildings or office complexes.
SB188: Brody DeChase, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose04:06:19.760 - 12:35:10 PM; Brody DeChase testified in opposition to Senate Bill 188, representing the New Hampshire Municipal Association. He raised concerns about the necessity of the proposed changes in the bill, particularly regarding the exclusion of below-grade areas from the floor area ratio. He argued that such decisions are typically handled by local ordinances and questioned the need for state-level standardization. Additionally, he criticized other parts of the bill, such as the potential expansion of zoning board authority and the vagueness of the language requiring municipalities to review and revise height limitations.
SB188: Patricia Bridgio Oppose04:10:12.720 - 12:39:03 PM; Patricia Bridgio expressed concerns similar to those of Brody DeChase, focusing on potential conflicts between the bill's language and existing fire ordinances related to height requirements. She worried about the implications of these conflicts, especially concerning the capabilities of firetrucks and municipal water pressure systems, and questioned whether these aspects had been adequately studied.
SB188: Rainey Marryman, Raymond Oppose04:11:00.160 - 12:39:51 PM; Rainey Marryman, from Raymond, opposed Senate Bill 188, citing concerns about the impact on local zoning boards and the potential for increased litigation with developers. She emphasized the importance of local control and the recent positive changes in Raymond's zoning committee. Marryman urged the committee to table the bill, suggesting that it might be reconsidered after local zoning committees have had time to assess the cumulative impact of such bills.
SB284: Senator Keith Murphy, Senate District 16 Support04:32:11.359 - 1:01:02 PM; Senator Keith Murphy introduced Senate Bill 284, which proposes a maximum requirement of one parking space per residential unit across the state. He argued that builders will naturally provide parking based on market demand, similar to how they provide amenities like laundry facilities, and that this bill would align with market dynamics in different areas.
Unclear: Committee Chair Information Only04:31:05.120 - 12:59:56 PM; The committee chair announced an upcoming field trip to Litchfield, New Hampshire, to tour a tiny house manufacturing facility on May 13th. The event was described as a fun outing and an opportunity for the committee to engage in activities outside their regular meetings. The chair also mentioned that the speaker would join the trip and encouraged members to plan for it, noting logistical details like fitting into a tiny house and accommodating any allergies.
Unclear: Representative Bolio Information Only04:33:18.320 - 1:02:09 PM; Representative Bolio inquired about the future demand for parking in light of emerging technologies like self-driving cars and ride-sharing services. He expressed a belief that the reliance on services like Uber and Lyft might reduce the need for parking, particularly in denser urban areas, though he acknowledged that such changes might take longer to impact areas outside of urban cores.
Unclear: Tim Thompson, Assistant Director of Community Development, City of Concord Information Only04:34:14.160 - 1:03:05 PM; Tim Thompson, representing the city of Concord, discussed the city's concerns regarding a bill related to parking requirements. He mentioned a letter from the city manager and highlighted that recent state amendments limiting parking requirements to one and a half spaces per residential unit have been in effect for less than a year, suggesting it's too early to assess their impact. He also pointed out a technical issue in the bill's language regarding the application of parking spaces to different unit sizes. Additionally, he addressed a question about the city's planning priorities, stating that while housing production is not an issue, the availability of on-street parking in dense urban areas, especially during winter, is a significant concern due to narrow streets.
SB284: Samuel Hooper, Institute for Justice Support04:36:54.639 - 1:05:45 PM; Samuel Hooper, a legislative council at the Institute for Justice, supports Senate Bill 284, which aims to reduce minimum parking requirements. He argues that many municipalities base their parking regulations on outdated and questionable data, often relying on a report that uses minimal and anecdotal evidence. Hooper cites Austin, Texas, as an example where the repeal of minimum parking requirements has been successful, allowing developers to cater to market needs, including areas with high use of ride-sharing and autonomous vehicles. He suggests that the market is a better determinant of necessary parking than current zoning laws.
SB284: Diana Lush, Raymond Oppose04:40:05.760 - 1:08:56 PM; Diana Lush from Raymond opposes the bill, expressing concerns about the practicality of reduced parking in rural areas. She explains that in rural settings, most households have multiple vehicles, and reducing parking requirements to one space per unit could lead to parking issues on streets and lawns, impacting safety and accessibility, especially for emergency services. Lush also highlights the lack of public transportation in rural New Hampshire, making car ownership necessary for residents.
SB284: Nick Taylor, Housing Action New Hampshire Support04:47:56.638 - 1:16:47 PM; Nick Taylor, director of Housing Action New Hampshire, supports the bill, arguing that parking reform leads to right-sized parking that meets community needs. He mentions New Hampshire examples such as Dover and Seabrook, which do not have minimum parking requirements, and have not faced issues with parking. Taylor also addresses a drafting concern in the bill, suggesting a clearer language regarding parking requirements, and encourages continued support for parking reform.
SB284: Sharon Monahan Oppose04:50:17.638 - 1:19:08 PM; Sharon Monahan opposes the bill, arguing that recent legislative changes regarding parking have not had enough time to be evaluated for their effectiveness. She cites her experience on the zoning board in Peterborough, where no variances from minimum parking standards were requested, indicating that the current standards are sufficient. Monahan also emphasizes environmental concerns, such as the need for green space and stormwater management, which could be negatively impacted by reduced parking requirements.
SB284: By Duchess, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose04:54:35.520 - 1:23:26 PM; By Duchess from the New Hampshire Municipal Association opposes the bill, arguing that comparing rural New Hampshire to urban areas like Austin, Texas, is inappropriate due to significant differences in population and public transportation availability. Duchess highlights that New Hampshire ranks poorly in public transportation access, making car ownership necessary for most residents. They also argue that the current one and a half parking spaces per unit requirement is reasonable, reflecting average household car ownership. Duchess warns that reducing parking could shift the burden to taxpayers to fund public parking solutions, impacting municipal character and resources.
SB284: Rainey Marryman Oppose04:58:31.718 - 1:27:22 PM; Rainey Marryman opposes the bill, emphasizing the lack of ride-sharing options in rural New Hampshire, making car ownership essential. She expresses concern about young adults owning multiple vehicles, which could lead to parking issues if spaces are reduced. Marryman also argues against state-level zoning mandates, suggesting they remove local control and do not address the root causes of the housing crisis. She advocates for maintaining local control to ensure development aligns with community needs and infrastructure.
SB284: Unknown Speaker Oppose05:03:52.718 - 1:32:43 PM; The speaker questions the motivation for developers to build more than one parking space per unit, given the housing crisis. They argue that without a requirement for sufficient parking, residents will park in unauthorized areas, leading to enforcement issues and increased tax burdens. They express concern about the long-term impact of such laws on enforcement and taxation.
SB284: Unknown Speaker Support05:05:25.040 - 1:34:16 PM; The speaker discusses the importance of addressing the housing crisis for future generations, emphasizing that state representatives have a role in solving statewide problems. They argue that even settling for a unit with one parking space is better than homelessness, and stress the need for increased housing supply to address the crisis.
SB284: Unknown Speaker Oppose05:06:56.798 - 1:35:47 PM; The speaker argues against one-size-fits-all legislation in New Hampshire due to its varied rural and urban areas. They believe local leaders are better equipped to handle housing issues tailored to their communities. They mention Raymond as an example of a town managing housing well.
SB284: Representative Gibbs Support05:07:33.120 - 1:36:24 PM; Representative Gibbs argues that increasing housing supply could lower prices due to supply and demand. They acknowledge the high costs of materials and labor but believe that legislative action to increase supply could eventually lead to more affordable housing.
SB284: Unknown Speaker Oppose05:08:22.920 - 1:37:13 PM; The speaker counters Representative Gibbs' argument by stating that New Hampshire's housing market is influenced by buyers from Massachusetts, and despite increased supply, prices have not decreased significantly. They discuss the personal challenge of their son trying to afford housing and the high cost of building an ADU.
SB284: Unknown Speaker Oppose05:10:43.200 - 1:39:34 PM; The speaker argues that even large multifamily developments do not necessarily lower housing prices due to market dynamics. They mention a specific development where units are sold at high prices despite their size, suggesting that increased supply does not guarantee affordability.
SB284: Patricia Bridgio Oppose05:13:04.920 - 1:41:55 PM; Patricia Bridgio opposes the bill, arguing that insufficient parking requirements lead to traffic and parking issues, as seen in Massachusetts. She criticizes the concept of 15-minute cities, stating it's unsuitable for New Hampshire's rural nature and reliance on personal vehicles. She fears that without adequate parking, residents could be 'imprisoned' in their towns, unable to travel for work or social purposes.
SB284: Unknown Speaker Oppose05:16:41.760 - 1:45:32 PM; The speaker argues that historic New Hampshire towns have adapted to automobiles with adequate parking, unlike the proposed changes. They emphasize the importance of local control over parking to maintain the quality of life in their towns.
SB284: Representative Gibson Oppose05:17:50.798 - 1:46:41 PM; Representative Gibson argues that carpooling is not a viable solution for everyone due to varying work schedules and locations. They believe that insufficient parking will restrict residents' mobility and social interactions.