Representative Ben Koppelman, the bill sponsor, told the House Political Subdivisions Committee that House Bill 1500 would allow owners of residential nonconforming structures to repair, replace, maintain, restore or rebuild their homes even if damage exceeds 50 percent of value, subject to time limits, code compliance and other restrictions.

The bill, Koppelman said, “is trying to ensure that changes in zoning ordinances don't result in an individual being homeless,” and that a homeowner who suffers a catastrophic event not be left with a lot that is unusable because new local zoning would not permit rebuilding. He summarized the core provisions: permit application within six months, construction beginning within a year, rebuilding on the same footprint, limits on height and number of stories, compliance with building, fire and health codes, and flood-plain restrictions.

Nut graf: Supporters said the bill protects property owners — especially lower-income households and long-standing neighborhoods — from losing both their dwelling and the lot’s value after fires, floods or other disasters; opponents warned that the measure would pre-empt local zoning decisions and remove tools cities use to manage land use.

Steve Vetter of Grand Forks, who testified in favor, said the bill applies across single-family and small multi-family residential zoning and stressed that building-code compliance and safety requirements would still apply. He also said some North Dakota cities already have similar ordinances and that courts have been involved in past disputes over setbacks.

Bill Wilkin, testifying for the North Dakota League of Cities, opposed the bill. He told the committee that nonconforming-use issues are typically best handled locally through variances, ordinance changes, or negotiated solutions, and that a state mandate would remove locally available options and flexibility. "These are local issues being handled by local personnel and on an individual basis," he said.

Committee members asked about practical scenarios — setbacks, rivers that have shifted their centerlines, and flood-plain rebuild requirements — and Koppelman and other witnesses described typical examples and limits in the draft language. Koppelman also said he would support a technical amendment to replace the word "law" with "zoning regulations" in several places to more precisely target zoning rules rather than broader statutory provisions.

The committee did not take a final vote on House Bill 1500 during this hearing; the record shows a day-long hearing with questions from multiple members and testimony both for and against the measure.

Ending: The committee closed the public testimony on House Bill 1500 and did not immediately advance the bill; further consideration and any amendments were to be handled in later committee business.