HB1004

I am writing in opposition to New Hampshire House Bill 1004. This bill proposes to expand the automatic sprinkler exemption from detached one or two family dwellings to detached buildings with up to four dwelling units used solely for residential purposes. This is not a minor technical change—it significantly increases the number of residential buildings that would be exempt from a proven life-saving safety standard. I want to be clear that I understand retrofitting existing buildings with sprinkler systems is often not feasible. However, this bill goes further—it weakens fire safety requirements for new construction, renovations, and conversions, where these protections can and should be incorporated from the start. Equally important is the principle of local control, a bedrock value in New Hampshire. Our communities have historically had the authority to set standards that reflect local needs, risks, and priorities. That control has already been removed by a prior change requiring municipalities to follow state fire codes without local modification. Advancing this bill now further limits flexibility, imposing a one-size-fits-all approach before we even have the opportunity to evaluate the impacts of that earlier decision. In Manchester, with one of the oldest housing stocks in the state, this matters. Many two, three, and four unit buildings are older, closer together, and more vulnerable to fire. Automatic sprinkler systems are among the most effective tools we have to protect residents, tenants, and first responders. Weakening these standards puts people at unnecessary risk. Supporters may frame this bill as a cost-saving measure or a way to encourage affordable housing. But affordable housing should never mean less safe housing. Saving money for developers cannot come at the expense of human lives. New Hampshire has a long tradition of trusting local communities to protect their residents. We should not abandon that principle now. For these reasons, I urge you to oppose House Bill 1004.

I oppose this bill because it reduces transparency or public oversight and does not meaningfully improve outcomes for New Hampshire residents.