[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6559587,"mediaKeyId","3199844-73f917f3435b3ebb03072181d229b647","parentId",3199844,"title","Accessory‑dwelling amendment draws compromise language; committee delays final action","audioSeconds",397,"startMs",853000,"endMs",1250000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3199844-73f917f3435b3ebb03072181d229b647&start=853&end=1250","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3199844-73f917f3435b3ebb03072181d229b647/thumbnail_853000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6559587/New-Hampshire/Accessorydwelling-amendment-draws-compromise-language-committee-delays-final-action","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6559587-42d14041734248b108ebe47b0682362b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771176679&Signature=QRHB2pQcQs4X5LenvPxO7Tu6YSVUQHevEqlMdFZVhuF6qg7VmWYFDpGTIRq5puZnOqykGfP8C58crng3dAodzjtMVWyjQf7H2y14SNieUNdwOTZi-fUowK3en8JUgyqYccY5ZlLt8gb05v2Gu-rqXyECEtnF2mJDITLEdqHSLRrJL5CBBZNMg-ID3GYJ3BarMPr6FcMhhrfHbVliDyM3tdKftHx1qgegTU42pS3ZoYaqznm06NgtEXSEGXdEWA4omXDqe70Jx93rfWu3QfLUvXrt7L2Gz4si5nc9GYOLya227AkAdbmELk-455l2Zla5vKAVskxQnTgkGBi9JEGcrw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-05-06T15:58:04.377Z","article","The Commerce Committee considered an amendment to House Bill 577, a measure addressing accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Senator Fenton spoke at length about amendment 1462 — a compromise intended to make the ADU bill more palatable to smaller towns while preserving the bill’s goals.

Senator Fenton said the amendment restores existing statutory language and adds clarity, including: a new term for “physically connected” versus attached units; adding manufactured housing as defined in RSA 674:31; replacing a potentially confusing cross‑reference so local municipal ordinances — rather than a generic statute phrase — control certain requirements; and allowing municipalities to require adequate parking consistent with single‑family requirements. He described the amendment as a “happy compromise” that “maybe nobody gets fully what they want, but everyone’s getting something.”

Senators pressed over size limits stated in the amendment — a minimum no smaller than 750 square feet and a maximum not to exceed 950 square feet for the ADU in certain clauses — and sought clarity about how minimum and maximum sizes should be reconciled; Senator Reardon opposed the amendment for reasons given privately, and other committee members expressed mixed views. The sponsor and amendment proponents noted the intent to give municipalities until July 1, 2026, to implement any required local ordinance changes.

The committee decided to postpone final action and return to the ADU bill next week. Senator McHugh and others asked for additional time so members could continue discussions and circulate copies of the amendment; the chair directed staff to include the item on next week's agenda.

Ending: Senators agreed to push House Bill 577 to a future meeting to allow for additional behind‑the‑scenes negotiation and to circulate the amendment text to all members; no final vote was taken at the meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Commerce (05/06/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Senators discussed an amendment to House Bill 577 (ADUs) that would add definitions for attached vs. physically connected units, include manufactured housing by RSA citation, allow municipal parking and aesthetic standards and set minimum and maximum unit sizes; committee postponed action to next week for further review.","taxTitle","Commerce, Senate , Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",29504,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6559592,"Bill would let property owners match neighborhood density without a variance; municipalities warn implementation problems",986,4573000,5559000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3199844-73f917f3435b3ebb03072181d229b647&start=4573&end=5559","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3199844-73f917f3435b3ebb03072181d229b647/thumbnail_4573000.jpg","/articles/6559592/New-Hampshire/Bill-would-let-property-owners-match-neighborhood-density-without-a-variance-municipalities-warn-implementation-problems","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6559592-5a9b604153fdb1f7357056e5241b9279/orig.mp4?Expires=1771176679&Signature=gTcSDFSexQNoAy~r2y6BjlGm75QLtbKGejeTSnPqp-DU54NgIyIKvUSK~rldKRMud5k-gh-~umULGNJ3FEau5QXgPGTPmOImVCZKQ1ono6Mpz95301USMH8ViZib2zWdDSJSGkQaCadqx8bc5tuRn3tr52eBV1a55xgxWHAQKdg6K7KDxET8Ukdn~N1BXgb44XV7VL1Izd3Q6K--eBgT~nRuziT0gN5~3vxThB0oIsCtdxy1MzmxDaZRl67Pj5fUp74AGKeu8PtD-UyJYCWE1ir12eLNBGg2UuRoPzev-pWfTB1czW~8LZocqqZ1g91NHO~hvqnh88xiQ4C~SSHBMQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Commerce Committee took testimony on House Bill 342, sponsored by Representative Patrick Long, which would allow property owners to build on their lots without seeking a variance for minimum lot size or lot‑coverage requirements if the proposed building conforms to the neighborhood density as measured by the number of dwelling units per acre in properties built before the bill’s effective date within a 1,000‑foot radius.

Representative Patrick Long said the measure targets lots in older, dense neighborhoods — particularly in Manchester — where minimum lot sizes were raised long after original lots were developed. “A lot of my ward is built … on 50 by 100 foot lots,” Long said. Under current zoning, owners of those original lots often cannot build a dwelling that matches the surrounding pattern without a variance.

Housing advocates, including Housing Action NH, supported the bill as a context‑based approach to allow infill consistent with existing character. “We think this is a really innovative idea to look at context‑based density,” said Nick Taylor of Housing Action New Hampshire.

Municipal officials and the New Hampshire Municipal Association opposed the bill as written. They raised multiple drafting and implementation concerns: how exactly to compute the 1,000‑foot radius around a lot-line; whether the whole parcel or part of a parcel must fall within the radius; which point on an irregular lot boundary determines the radius origin; and that most municipalities do not have GIS software or staff to perform the calculations. The NHMA said the bill would place a new administrative burden on small towns and asked the committee to consider clearer definitions and implementation guidance.

Real‑estate and landlord advocates urged support, arguing variances are costly and the proposal would reduce barriers to adding housing units that match neighborhood patterns.

The committee closed hearings on HB 342 without voting and asked staff to work on clarifying amendments that would define measurement conventions and address municipal administrative capacity.

Ending: Senators said they will consider technical amendments to clarify measurement, specify that the rule applies to dwelling units (not commercial uses) and to set standards for how a “neighborhood” is determined; no vote was taken at the meeting.","House Bill 342 would let property owners build to a neighborhood’s existing density (assessed within a 1,000‑foot radius) without seeking a variance; sponsors said the change will clear obstacles to infill housing, while municipal officials said the rule is administratively unclear and could require costly GIS analysis.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6559596,"Committee hears advocates and municipal groups split over ban on municipal ‘three-unrelated’ rules",1865,5620000,7485000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3199844-73f917f3435b3ebb03072181d229b647&start=5620&end=7485","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3199844-73f917f3435b3ebb03072181d229b647/thumbnail_5620000.jpg","/articles/6559596/New-Hampshire/Committee-hears-advocates-and-municipal-groups-split-over-ban-on-municipal-three-unrelated-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6559596-43da9159fe3b68110379be4e5d8b32bb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771176679&Signature=efhszJ2vZ2zcigLbwyA0K04tD1zhWWW0Em5rOUDJgT8le-la50UdIsr1kHXnfMNMOfh6wn22Y~aEr3OnjVQ330bEG3C8aOyA2t1z~cvvEKWM5KuhQw8AZy3ogLk-dAS5bbJ7d~S4hXR~SU7qjcWIysQeoYLc22-uC8AR8sSf6L~OMri9oUv~7hwz7WUWQVMiGEqJhwc5o4FuS2D0ac0KIMdQ21LZA2TncCdxSgiQbDiOS7iSDg9tjjtKy~XOL4sHglkmm6l9Y3P-PZHtt3FF4o02EF8yWrPR1oupLJojOoOB3coVJyfsbs48xV~BxibnwnS7KS3ejhLm2ojzVxM-QA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Commerce Committee heard testimony on House Bill 457, sponsored in the House by Representative Diane Power, a bid to prohibit municipal zoning ordinances that limit occupancy based on familial or marital relationship — commonly known as “three-unrelated” rules.

Representative Diane Power opened the hearing saying the bill seeks to stop ordinances that “unreasonably limit the number of unrelated people legally permitted to live together” and that such rules “artificially limit housing opportunities” in a state facing tight housing supply.

Opponents included the New Hampshire Municipal Association, which argued the proposal is the wrong place for a land‑use mandate. “Permitting group living in some zoning districts and not others is strictly a land use issue and not discrimination,” said Bert Deshaies of the NHMA. He told the committee that local ordinances addressing congregate or group living often align with fire-code and site‑plan review requirements and may be triggered by changes of use that require municipal oversight.

Representatives of housing and tenant-rights groups, landlord advocates and the real-estate industry took divergent views. The New Hampshire Association of Realtors urged support, saying variances and per-bedroom rental limits can be costly and that protecting private-property rights will increase the available rental supply. Small‑landlord representatives said restrictions in some college towns have taken housing off the market and raised prices.

Supporters also highlighted demographic effects: witnesses from New Futures and speakers who represent older adults warned the committee that eviction or displacement disproportionately affects seniors and other vulnerable groups. “Older adults are the fastest‑growing group of people experiencing homelessness,” said a coalition witness, and testified that forced moves are especially risky for those on fixed incomes.

Municipal officials told the committee the measure’s placement in RSA 3:54‑a (the state’s anti‑discrimination chapter) was an unusual drafting choice and could cause legal and administrative confusion; they recommended local land‑use tools remain with the municipalities. Several witnesses urged a narrower amendment specifically to prevent student‑targeted ordinances that reclassify and restrict student rentals rather than to eliminate a municipality’s ability to regulate congregate living more broadly.

The committee closed the hearing on HB 457 after taking testimony from proponents, municipal associations, business groups and housing advocates. No vote was taken at the meeting; senators said they would consider proposed amendments that more narrowly target student‑rental restrictions or clarify interplay with fire and building codes.

Ending: The committee left the bill pending and asked staff to circulate suggested amendments that address the drafting concerns raised by municipal counsel and to consider language that targets student‑rental restrictions instead of a broad prohibition on local occupancy rules.","Representative Diane Power and supporters urged passage of a bill to bar local zoning limits that cap unrelated occupants in a dwelling; municipal associations and zoning officials warned the change would interfere with local land-use regulation and public-safety oversight.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6559602,"Committee hears broad opposition and agency concerns to bill letting employers and employees set pay method",454,1946000,2400000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3199844-73f917f3435b3ebb03072181d229b647&start=1946&end=2400","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3199844-73f917f3435b3ebb03072181d229b647/thumbnail_1946000.jpg","/articles/6559602/New-Hampshire/Committee-hears-broad-opposition-and-agency-concerns-to-bill-letting-employers-and-employees-set-pay-method","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6559602-a43663ea9191571f9a7a586fbbf959eb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771176679&Signature=fHs0RSajoUQGKQLlG-LScAZ0uSBCNElvZeyh4GNiD-hj6auMCcKK7bHpUSvA5~X9nfhz~1k-cFU9hW9uSEN6GuhV5RmxMxZMZjYEiWI7fcRbmMWDNarwtZQpb9~4OvgL8MS1oyd-UhktX5hbsHa0bcgVDeLwOfkBFugPO9hGsrrBeMxVgoCaqLD9jZcGZLE~tHCe6vsTEtt4M3PdquXhFagNwphByz7mZ16n08TNi0rxlxVXdjMq3~oO~1l-e12KTR7OQeDp6uX7DzuYdtHHUZ9MZZED8HDUrA3IRNevkrAVnuWJHE0yBDKlaObS0WqRxG8zw9RLnzMtYwgMs0B4iQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Members of the Senate Commerce Committee held a lengthy hearing on House Bill 280 on the measure that would strip existing language in RSA 275:43 requiring wages be paid in legal tender and instead provide that “the manner in which payment is made shall be determined by the employer and employee.”

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Greg Hill, who spoke for the absent prime sponsor, said the intention is to reduce regulatory burden and let employers and employees negotiate payment methods without a separate statutory list of acceptable options.

The New Hampshire Department of Labor said it is neutral on the bill but raised several practical concerns. “Our understanding is that the proposed language is ... requiring the employer to give at least 90 days written notification if the employer intends to change the method of wage payment,” Deputy Commissioner Danielle Albert told the committee. Albert said the department is “somewhat uncertain how we would be going in and making determinations in a reasonable manner to resolve” disputes if wages could be paid in unconventional forms, and warned the change could increase wage complaints and prolong investigations.

John Garrigan, general counsel for the department, told senators that the bill would remove existing statutory protections tied to pay cards, checks and direct deposit — such as notice requirements about fees — and that change could leave employees exposed to unexpected charges.

Labor advocates and unions opposed the bill in testimony. Alan Raff of the New Hampshire AFL-CIO said the proposal would “create uncertainty regarding compliance and enforcement of wage payments and likely result in unintended consequences across the entire New Hampshire.” Raff and other opponents also noted there is currently no prohibition on private agreements to be paid in nonstandard forms, and argued the statutory removal is unnecessary.

Several senators asked for specific clarifications on practical scenarios raised in testimony: whether the statute would permit payment in cryptocurrency, gold or other nonconvertible forms; what protections employees would retain if an employer provided 90 days’ notice to change to a less-convertible payment method; and how workers’ compensation carriers would calculate indemnity benefits if wages were paid in nonstandard forms. Danielle Albert said she was not aware of any New Hampshire employers currently paying in Bitcoin or gold, and said federal wage law would remain relevant for covered employers, but that the department would have enforcement challenges under the wider language.

Business and employer witnesses echoed parts of the sponsor’s argument that the bill would increase flexibility; but other business representatives raised concerns about scams involving payroll debit cards and urged the committee to ensure protections remain in place.

The committee closed the hearing on House Bill 280 after multiple public witnesses spoke in opposition or asked for stronger guardrails. The committee did not take final action on the bill during the meeting and left it for further consideration.

Ending: Committee members asked staff to follow up with the prime sponsor and the Department of Labor to answer outstanding technical questions about enforcement, timing of notice and how pay-card fees would be handled if the statute changes.","Lawmakers and witnesses questioned House Bill 280, which would remove statutory requirements that wages be paid in U.S. legal tender and let employers and employees determine payment method; Department of Labor and labor groups warned the change could complicate enforcement and raise consumer-protection risks.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Accessory‑dwelling amendment draws compromise language; committee delays final action

Bill would let property owners match neighborhood density without a variance; municipalities warn implementation problems

Committee hears advocates and municipal groups split over ban on municipal ‘three-unrelated’ rules

Committee hears broad opposition and agency concerns to bill letting employers and employees set pay method