The subcommittee of the Municipal and County Government on Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2025, heard testimony on House Bill 432, which would create a statutory definition for "recovery homes," require certification by a recognized certifying organization, and restrict some local land‑use review for those residences.

The bill matters because it would change how municipalities treat shared or congregate recovery housing, clarify fire‑ and building‑code expectations, and tie certain code waivers and access to certification. Proponents said the measure would reduce stigma, bring uncertified operations aboveboard and connect operators to fire‑safety inspections and certifying bodies. Opponents said it would strip local zoning tools that municipalities use to manage density, parking and sewer impacts.

State Fire Marshal Sean Toomey, for the record the State Fire Marshal, told the committee his office helped refine the bill’s definition and supports the definition as written so long as operators meet the other code requirements. Toomey said his office focused on tying the statutory definition to fire‑code provisions that address egress, alarm systems and heating, and that "we were amenable to to removing that as long as they followed the rest of the process in that, definition." He described the typical recovery‑house occupancy pattern as longer‑term than a motel and said, based on his experience, residents often live a year to a year and a half and develop household cohesion that affects safety and evacuation.

Toomey explained how his office and local fire departments inspect recovery houses: an inspector meets operators, verifies smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, checks fire extinguishers and egress, confirms street numbers, and allows time for operators to obtain third‑party certification. He said the fire code provides a pathway for annual inspections under the state fire code (chapter 153 / "153:10‑D" as discussed at the hearing) and noted that uncertified houses can lose waivers — for example, an exemption from sprinkler requirements — and then be treated as boarding or rooming houses under the codes.

Bill McKinney, representing the New Hampshire Building Officials Association, said building and fire code amendments in 2024 clarified recovery housing in the codes and that HB 432 would align land‑use law with those code changes. "Recovery homes do get some waivers as you've heard from the fire marshal," McKinney said, and he urged certification because certified homes follow standards that give code officials confidence and keep unsafe, uncertified operations from claiming the same waivers.

Operators and certifiers described the certification process and the current supply of certified homes. Anthony Salvucci, director of business development and community relations for the New Hampshire Coalition of Recovery Residences, said his coalition and partners estimate a large shortfall: the Fletcher Group study cited in testimony estimated a need of 15,000 beds statewide while Salvucci said there are roughly 108 certified homes and about 1,340 certified beds now. Salvucci said certification standards (NAR/NH Core standards were referenced) create a common understanding of how recovery housing operates.

Jonathan Gerson, an operator with Interaction Silver Living, said his programs include larger structured homes and smaller step‑down homes and reported average stays well above transient thresholds: "it saved my life," he said of the model, and provided committee figures showing an average length of stay (January sample) of 252 days for people who left the residences that month.

Municipal officials and the New Hampshire Municipal Association opposed the bill as written. Brody Deshaies of the New Hampshire Municipal Association said the bill would force municipalities to treat recovery houses as single‑, two‑ or multi‑family dwellings in every zoning ordinance and remove the ability for local governments to treat congregate living differently in zones where density, parking, septic/sewer capacity and traffic are concerns. Deshaies emphasized the distinction municipalities make between multifamily housing and congregate uses (e.g., dormitories or group homes) and warned the change could prevent local authorities from addressing infrastructure and neighborhood impacts.

City officials who testified described how their local code and zoning rules currently interact with recovery houses. A Nashua official said the city does not require certification for recovery homes but does apply occupancy and unrelated‑occupant rules and can inspect and enforce building and fire codes. Nashua representatives also said municipalities vary in how they handle public input: some conversions are administrative and do not trigger public hearings; others use site plan or variance processes when the change of use or density warrants it.

Several committee members pressed witnesses on specific safety provisions. Representative questions focused on whether sprinkler mandates should be required; Toomey said, "I would love sprinklers everywhere," but cautioned that requiring sprinklers statewide could effectively shut down many existing recovery houses because retrofitting older structures is costly and in some rural sites impractical. He and others said the statutory approach ties some waivers to certification and annual inspection so operators who seek waivers will also be subject to fire and building inspections.

Witnesses also discussed civil‑rights and accessibility law. Bill McKinney and others referenced federal disability protections and the Fair Housing Act; discussions included whether ADA accessibility obligations would be triggered by alterations or a formal change of use. Municipal witnesses noted that local zoning typically applies unrelated‑occupant rules and occupancy thresholds (for example, one person per 300 square feet of livable area was mentioned) to limit density in single‑family zones.

No formal vote on HB 432 was recorded at the hearing. Committee members asked for additional data and clarifications, including exact counts of certified homes from state registries and the relationship between certification status and local enforcement options if certification is lost. Health and Human Services staff referenced an earlier count of about 97 certified residences in a recent conversation; certifying organizations described annual review processes and complaint mechanisms and said revocation is typically accompanied by remediation plans rather than immediate removal.

The hearing laid out the competing priorities legislators must weigh if they move forward with HB 432: supporters say a clear statutory definition plus certification will raise standards, expand safe housing access and align state law with federal disability protections; municipal officials say the bill risks preempting local zoning tools needed to manage density, parking, sewer and neighborhood impacts. Committee members asked for follow‑up information on certification timelines, how many houses are inspected and certified by fire departments, and the practical effects of requiring sprinklers versus relying on alarm/egress measures and annual inspections.

The subcommittee did not take action at the hearing; members said they would consider follow‑up testimony and data before any committee vote.