SB281

I oppose SB281. Unless a person inherited the land they knew or should have known the town's zoning, so Caveat Emptor. If you did inherit and zoning changed over time you have the ability to attend zoning, planning, and selectmen meetings and work with them to change the ordinances -- even if you're not a resident who can submit a petitioned warrant article. Also, Rep Alexander used a hypothetical CVS going in on a Class 6 and wouldn't they take care of the road -- PLEASE DON'T! Class 6 roads draw tourists. Tourists are the lifeblood of Coös county and we like it like that. Scroll through pics of Coös on Pinterest and I bet they were taken from a Class 6 road.

Honorable Housing Committee members, The Town of Newington Board of Selectmen are in opposition to SB281,. This would prohibit municipalities from denying building permits in certain situations thus taking away local control. Thank you for your consideration, Martha Roy, on behalf of the Board of Selectmen Town Administrator Town of Newington

The Select Board of Town of Dalton opposes this bill. This bill erodes the local control and decision making which is important to our residents and to the State. Local control in zoning related matters is critical because of the variety of situations unique to each community, and therefore it is imperative that municipalities retain their ability to dictate regulations that fit their community, and allow them to take into account their geography and other unique considerations.

I emailed the letter below to each of the members of the House Housing Committee. Dear House Housing Committee, SB84, SB163, SB281 and SB282 are among the many House and Senate bills this session that slowly chip away at local control of zoning and planning. I urge you to oppose these bills that are part of the fundamental shift of control away from municipal authorities (AND VOTERS) to the central state. One size fits all is not a good policy, especially in NH with its varied communities. My Town of North Hampton with its seasonal tourism and ocean has different priorities and needs than a town like Candia or a city like Manchester. Of particular concern is SB84 which mandates zoning ordinances to allow smaller lot sizes for all single-family homes, overriding current zoning regulations. Admittedly, from an outsider's consideration some NH Towns require excessive lot sizes. However, that is just it, from an outsider's perspective; an outsider who doesn't have an inkling of what it is like to live in your community, what makes the community tick or what the Town voters want or need. Lot sizes are a very sensitive issues for a Town and is one of the main parameters that define its character. SB84 would be the start of State control and forever alter the maintaining or fulfillment of the vision the citizenry has for their Town. The changes that SB84 and many of these Housing bills mandate can and SHOULD be done at the local level with the input and vote of the citizenry...through the warrant process for example. Statewide dictates marginalize the vote of every single citizen of a Town. Why should I even bother voting for a Planning Board candidate when I know his or her decision is going to be mitigated or mandated by Concord. Please oppose SB84, SB163, SB281 and SB282. Preserve local control. Thank you! Regards, Jim Avallon North Hampton

I am concerned this opens our town up to overdevelopment and will increase costs to cover infrastructure and road maintenance.

I oppose this bill because it repeals the ability of the governing body in consultation with the planning board to decide if building permits should be issued on class 6 roads. Typically there are very valid reasons that roads have become class 6 in NH, and who better than the governing body and planning board to take that information into consideration before issuing a building permit. I am very much opposed to this bill. Thank you very much,

In the context of roads, a Class VI road, in New Hampshire, is a public road that is not maintained by the municipality and is essentially to reclaim and has not been maintained / rural roads? This bill is all about INCREASING DENSITY and taking away the local town's rights to decide when and where this is appropriate if at all. Unacceptable.

In the context of roads, a Class IV road, in New Hampshire, refers to state-numbered highways located within the "compact sections" of cities and towns . These areas are characterized by densely populated sections where dwellings or businesses are the primary frontage. Class IV roads are maintained by the municipality rather than the state. This bill is all about INCREASING DENSITY and taking away the local town's rights to decide when and where this is appropriate if at all. Unacceptable.

In the context of roads, a Class IV road, in New Hampshire, refers to state-numbered highways located within the "compact sections" of cities and towns . These areas are characterized by densely populated sections where dwellings or businesses are the primary frontage. Class IV roads are maintained by the municipality rather than the state. This bill is all about INCREASING DENSITY and taking away the local town's rights to decide when and where this is appropriate if at all. Unacceptable.

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 and city 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 in the state seems frankly ridiculous!

I can not believe NH would pass laws taking away local control from all the towns in the State.

I oppose SB281. 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 SB281. 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.

SB 281 is a detriment to small towns like Newfields, NH where I am a select board member and recently zoning board participant. The autonomy for small towns with fragile infrastructure is essential to keep residents safe is critically important. We must protect the right to locally restrict building on class VI to prevent overdevelopment of undeveloped infrastructure and, in this case, unmaintained roads and to control scattered and premature development. While the bill requires that landowners sign a liability waiver, it does not consider whether the class VI roads and abutting properties can sustain new development. Additionally, it increases the chance that property owners who live on the class VI road request the road become regularly maintained, which increases costs.

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

This bill imposes new conditions on the Town's Zoning ordinance. It prohibits municipalities from denying building or occupancy permits for property adjacent to class VI roads under certain circumstances. Municipalities currently may restrict building on class VI to prevent overdevelopment of undeveloped infrastructure and, in this case, unmaintained roads and to control scattered and premature development. While the bill requires that landowners sign a liability waiver, it does not consider whether the class VI roads and abutting properties can sustain new development. Additionally, it increases the chance that property owners who live on the class VI road request the road become regularly maintained, which increases costs.

I ask that you ITL this bill.

Please oppose SB281! We don't need the State telling us these requirements.

SB 281 will forever change the rural and environmental fabric of New Hampshire. Allowing development on Class VI roads undercuts decades of sound planning meant to prevent scattered, unsafe, and premature development. These roads often lack access for emergency responders, are prone to environmental degradation, and are not suited for sustained residential or commercial use. There’s a reason New Hampshire towns have traditionally exercised discretion over development on such roads—it protects residents, infrastructure, and the natural landscape. This bill removes that discretion, instead pushing a one-size-fits-all approach that disregards local context. A waiver and proof of insurance are not substitutes for responsible, community-centered planning. Each town must retain the right to make decisions that reflect their unique geography, values, and long-term vision. SB 281 should be rejected in defense of local control, public safety, and the New Hampshire way of life.

SB 281 if passed will forever change the landscape of NH. Being able to build on a Class VI road is not moving forward NH, there is a reason the State has had concerns with this. Premature and scattered development.. It should be left up to each town and how they want to deal with it.

Please ITL House Bill SB281. This bill opens up the door for municipalities to be forced to restore and maintain former Class VI roads at great cost.

Class VI roads are frequently almost impassible, on many, access for emergency vehicles is difficult and dangerous. Absolutely localities should be able to assess the ability for properties on these roads to be safely occupied. The state and localities also have a huge financial interest in this, because if significant development occurs on these roads, some of which are state roads, there could be a necessity to incur costs to adequately develop these roads for safety. Another case where local decision makers, close to these roads and the specifics of a development, need to be able to make the call! If we pass this bill, developers would be able to force localities and the state to assume road improvements costs while they reap the profits. Under a local control situation, localities could enforce project specific costs to be borne by developers.

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.