New Hampshire House Bill HB410

New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/10/25
• Refer: 1/10/25
• Report Pass: 3/14/25
• Engrossed: 3/27/25
• Refer: 3/27/25
• Refer: 5/1/25
• Refer: 5/8/25

Caption

Limiting local authority to adopt restrictions on the building and development of residential properties.

Summary

HB 410 would limit the ability of local legislative bodies and zoning boards to adopt or enforce certain “extraordinary restrictions” on residential property unless the restriction is directly necessary for community health or safety and is supported by detailed written findings based on empirical evidence from a non-partisan source. The bill also creates an appeal process to the zoning board of adjustment for aggrieved persons who challenge whether the evidence meets that standard, and it requires enforcement or adoption of the contested ordinance to be stayed while the appeal is pending. The bill defines “extraordinary restriction of residential property” broadly to include several types of local rules affecting housing and residential use. These include minimum dwelling-size requirements above a stated threshold, lot-size requirements above five acres per unit, limits on residential use in commercial zones, limits on home-based businesses in residential zones, local amendments to state building or fire codes affecting small residential buildings, certain permit or variance fees for lower-income small-property owners, and restrictions on how long a person may camp on a property in a vehicle or structure without a foundation. It expressly excludes from that definition a restriction on the number of campers when there are four or more persons camping per acre.

Impact

HB 410 would amend RSA 674 by adding a new section governing “extraordinary restrictions of residential property” and by expanding the authority and duties of zoning boards of adjustment under RSA 674:33. In practical terms, the bill would constrain municipal zoning and land-use regulation by requiring a higher evidentiary showing before certain residential restrictions can be adopted or enforced, and it would create a new administrative appeal mechanism that can delay local action while the challenge is resolved. The bill could affect municipalities, zoning boards, property owners, developers, and residents seeking to use property for housing, home occupations, or camping-related uses. The fiscal note anticipates indeterminate local fiscal effects, with possible increases in municipal expenditures for ordinance review, consultants, and administration, and possible decreases in local revenue from capped fees. County fiscal impact is estimated at zero. The bill would take effect 60 days after passage.

Sentiment

The available context suggests the bill is framed as a housing and property-rights measure intended to limit local barriers to residential development and use. The fiscal note reflects a neutral, technical assessment rather than a policy endorsement, but it acknowledges that municipalities may face added administrative burdens and costs. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented recorded sentiment from debate or floor action in the supplied materials.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the bill’s restriction on local zoning authority and its requirement that municipalities justify certain ordinances with empirical, non-partisan evidence. Supporters would likely view this as a check on exclusionary zoning and overly burdensome local regulation, while opponents would likely argue it interferes with home rule and makes it harder for towns to address local planning, neighborhood character, infrastructure, and public health concerns. Additional friction may arise from the bill’s treatment of camping restrictions, home-based businesses, code amendments for small residential buildings, and fee limits tied to household income, all of which could be seen as either housing-access protections or as constraints on municipal discretion.