HB631

I am the Town Planner in Hooksett, an appointed position. I listed myself as a member of the public because I did not see an option for appointed Officials. I am a resident of Concord. I am opposed to HB631 because it greatly restricts municipal autonomy and has potential to lead to scattered development. By regulating land uses by district, municipalities use commercial zoning districts as a tool to attract businesses, zone for locations which would not disturb residential neighborhoods, and direct commercial traffic to specific road systems. It is inappropriate for the local power to deny residential use in areas planned for commercial use to be overridden by statute. Such power helps shape communities. Incentivizing mixed-use through legislation is appropriate because municipalities would retain the authority to propose new mixed-use districts in sensible areas for such development. Mandating mixed-use in any commercial district fails to consider the numerous factors that differentiate Hooksett's commercial districts from Manchester's commercial districts. HB631 conflicts with several statutes under RSA 674:16-674:23, especially RSA 674:17, I(a-j) and with Master Planning procedures.

HB631 would adversely impact the rights of municipalities to determine their own zoning.

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

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.

A one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate for many towns in NH.

Making decisions that are unfair to Local residents

I oppose this, as it's a top down mandate (from the State) requiring Municipalities to "spot zone" by allowing uses (by right) that might not be compatible and in conflict with their Master Plan.

Whatever became of local control?

While there are good features to this bill, I cannot support the triple/quadruple density features for what is called "Restricted-deeply-affordable dwelling unit". These units are for those earning in the $40,000 range depending on the county, and won't help those needing it most, while at the same time leading to Tokyo-like densities for those communities with reasonable zoning. Density should be explicit and the same for everywhere.

I am a Selectman in Albany. Please oppose this legislation.