Relative to the use of covenants by municipalities.
Summary
SB 175 would create a new subdivision in RSA 674 governing the use of private covenants by municipalities. It authorizes towns and cities to adopt ordinances allowing enforcement of private covenants, including covenants created by prior landowners or homeowners’ associations, so long as those covenants remain valid under current law. The bill also expressly preserves an existing municipal authority related to workforce housing developments.
At the same time, the bill limits local and state involvement in covenant creation by prohibiting municipalities and state government from requiring or encouraging covenants as a condition of zoning or land use approval. Any covenant imposed or urged by town officials as a condition of approval would be invalid under the bill. The measure would take effect 60 days after enactment.
Impact
The bill would amend RSA 674 by adding new sections on private covenants and by clarifying that the new restrictions do not apply to workforce housing under RSA 674:60. In practical terms, it would give municipalities a clearer legal basis to enforce existing private covenants through local ordinances, while also restricting land use boards and state agencies from using covenants as a development approval tool. It would affect municipalities, developers, homeowners’ associations, and property owners involved in zoning or subdivision approvals.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears neutral to supportive in structure, with the bill framed as a clarification of municipal authority rather than a major policy shift. The sponsors appear to be advancing a targeted land-use measure, and the inclusion of a workforce housing exception suggests an effort to avoid interfering with housing policy priorities. No recorded opposition or formal vote history is provided here, so the level of support or resistance cannot be assessed from the available context.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s restriction on requiring or encouraging covenants as a condition of zoning or land use approval, which could be viewed by municipalities as limiting local discretion in development negotiations. Developers and property owners may also differ on whether the bill appropriately protects against coercive covenant requirements or instead constrains useful planning tools. Another possible area of debate is the scope of municipal authority to enforce private covenants, especially where older covenants, homeowners’ association rules, or land use conditions overlap. The workforce housing exception may reduce conflict, but it also creates a carveout that could be scrutinized for consistency and application.