The information contained in this article is not intended as legal advice and may no longer be accurate due to changes in the law. Consult NHMA's legal services or your municipal attorney.
Like Alice in Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, the state legislature fell down a rabbit hole last year. In the legislature’s case, it was not to chase a well-dressed rabbit concerned about being late; instead, it was to pursue more housing by passing a plethora of bills imposing statewide zoning mandates. The state is certainly late for the affordable housing party, but the new zoning laws enacted this year are not the solution. Local officials are now experiencing layer upon layer of state constraints and Mad Hatter requirements as they seek to develop local solutions to address housing shortages. The legislation that passed last year would even make the Cheshire Cat frown (you can review those new laws in my previous article, published in the September/October 2025 edition of Town & City).
I mention Alice in Wonderland because last year reminded me of the Caucus Race in the book. The animals are all wet, and they must find a way to get dry. Mr. Dodo exclaims that they must have a caucus race. When asked by Alice what a caucus race is, Mr. Dodo says the best way to explain it is to have one. He draws a circle on the ground, and all the animals begin to run erratically around the circle. Alice joins them, confused, not knowing where to run. After half an hour of running, everyone is finally dry. Mr. Dodo then declares all the animals are winners and instructs Alice to give them all prizes.
Sometimes, this is how the policy-making process feels, and especially last year when it came to legislation affecting local zoning. It was messy and disorganized; legislation was rife with errors and contradictions, and no clear solutions or goals for affordable housing were ever presented. It then ended similarly to the caucus race. Not a single investment in affordable housing or the infrastructure necessary to sustain it was made; rather, cuts were made to funding for existing programs that did. When the dust cleared, it was declared that policies had been enacted that adequately addressed the state’s housing shortage. And like Alice, we remain confused about the result.
This year, NHMA will advocate for clarity in these newly established laws and for increased and restored local decision-making over development and zoning. There are multiple pathways we are seeking to utilize as we carry out our work this year. Our biggest goals will be to…
- Fix the poorly drafted Mixed-Use / Multi-Family Residential Uses by Right in All Commercial Zones mandate
- Restore local decision-making provisions in the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and Mixed-Use laws
- Return to the previous law for the issuance of building permits on a Class VI road, which better balances property rights with public safety and local resources
- Establish new sections in the Innovative Land Use laws to enable municipalities to better incentivize affordable and workforce housing
- Create clarity in ambiguous or vague sections of newly established zoning mandates, so local officials and property owners can easily interpret the law
We have been supporting legislators in drafting several key bills and amendments to achieve these goals, as well as others that offer alternative paths to success. Some bills and proposed amendments make very limited changes to existing state-imposed zoning mandates, such as updating the definition of “commercial zoned land” in RSA 674:79 to allow municipalities to adopt a local definition for “commercially zoned land” and cleaning up the convoluted definitions for attached and detached accessory dwelling units in RSA 674:71. We are encouraging legislators to repeal the contradictory detached Accessory Dwelling Unit law (ADU), RSA 674:73, and clarify what an “existing structure” means in the updated ADU law, RSA 674:72. These smaller initiatives are seeking to establish clarity in newly established, but poorly written, zoning mandates and will help limit disputes between municipalities and property owners.
Other bills and amendments make substantive and valuable edits to how the new zoning mandates work or may be implemented. Some bills seek to allow municipalities greater flexibility to ensure that new developments and housing units, including ADUs, have adequate on-site parking. For example, legislators are seeking to allow municipalities to require 1.5 parking spaces per unit of housing for large multi-family dwellings (10 or more units) or small units that qualify as workforce housing (one-bedroom apartments), returning the law to the reasonable compromise established in 2024. There is also an effort to require on-site parking for ADUs, provided the ADU parking requirements are no more stringent than those for a single-family dwelling in the same zoning district.
There will be legislation this year to restore the local option for whether a municipality shall allow detached ADUs, and permit municipalities to approve ADUs by either a conditional use permit or special exception, as determined by local ordinance. The same legislation will also include enabling local ordinances for ADUs to meet workforce housing requirements, more flexible design ordinances to ensure continuity with the existing structure and neighborhood, and on-site parking for ADUs that are no more restrictive than those for single-family dwellings in the same zoning district. There will also be a bill to allow municipalities to determine whether to allow detached ADUs in protected shoreland, while still requiring municipalities to allow detached ADUs outside protected shoreland.
Regarding the new state zoning mandate requiring multifamily residential uses by right on commercially-zoned land, there will be a proposal to amend the law before it takes effect on July 1 of this year. The current legislation will better define “multi-family residential development,” changing the term to the more recognizable “multi-family dwelling units” and aligning it with the definition for the same term in RSA 674:43, the law that establishes the powers to review site plans. The same bill will better define “infrastructure” to align with the capital facilities listed in RSA 674:21, V, and make it clear that the municipality’s planning board, governing body, building code official, or any combination of them will determine whether the existing infrastructure is adequate. The bill would also enable municipalities to determine which commercially-zoned land mixed-use developments will be permitted, requiring only a majority of the commercial land to be mixed-use, not all of it.
Another proposal re-establishes the old procedure for approving building permits on Class VI roads, which are discontinued public ways not maintained by the municipality for 5 or more years. The previous process required the governing body to approve building permits for structures built on lots with frontage solely on a Class VI road. The property owner would also sign a waiver recognizing that the municipality was neither responsible for maintenance nor liable for any damage resulting from the property owner living on a Class VI road. And the property owner would register this waiver with their deed.
The new law, which goes not into effect on July 1, 2026, mandates that municipalities must issue a building permit to a property owner whose property only has frontage on Class VI road if the property owner acknowledges the municipality won’t maintain the road or accept any responsibility for losses or damages caused by a lack of services and provides evidence the lot and building are insurable and proof that the waiver is registered with the deed. This new process requires premature and scattered development in municipalities and poses safety risks to residents and first responders. The previous process does a much better job of balancing public safety and promoting reasonable development opportunities on a case-by-case basis. Long-term, it saves the municipality from potential future costs.
There are a few new proposals for our state that have been explored or implemented in other states. These bills would expand local decision-making [MB1] and provide opportunities to make locally tailored decisions to address housing and affordability. First, there is a proposed expansion of the Innovative Land Use Controls law, RSA 674:21, that would allow municipalities to establish “affordable housing investment fees.” This bill would allow municipalities to assess a fee on every new unit of housing that does not meet local inclusionary zoning ordinances or regulations to help the municipality invest in future affordable housing units.
There is also legislation to allow municipalities to require Inclusionary Zoning, a part of the Innovative Land Use Controls law, for new housing units. This would ensure that a portion of the new housing units built in a municipality are actually affordable and prevent developers from opting out of building affordable housing units.
Both bills utilize appeal procedures that currently exist in law.
A few legislators have even proposed fully repealing entire laws that impose mandates on local zoning decisions. While it’s unlikely that these bills will be signed into law, we will still support them in furtherance of our member-adopted policies.
Additionally, there are some disappointing proposals that undermine local decision-making over zoning, and NHMA will vigorously oppose them. Some we have seen before, and others are new. These proposals would…
- Mandate Manufactured Homes (often called “mobile homes”) by Right in All Residential Zones
- Require attached and detached Accessory Commercial Units by Right in Every Residential Zone
- Establish significant limits on subdivision and site plan reviews, including newly imposed, unworkable timelines for these reviews, and unlimited dead-end road lengths
- Repeal the Hardship Requirement for Variances
- Several other bills with innocuous titles that could/will be harmful to local decision-making over zoning (this article was written before every bill became public)
This is only a small sample of all the proposals NHMA has reviewed, worked on, or is actively advocating for or against or tracking. There are even more we follow daily, and you can follow along with us by signing up for our weekly Legislative Bulletin on the member portal or by emailing info@nhmunicipal.org. Feel free to contact the Advocacy Team at governmentaffairs@nhmunicipal.org as well. We can help provide information on proposals before the legislature or support your advocacy.
Back to the caucus race that was mentioned in the beginning. After Alice hands out prizes upon the completion of the caucus race, she tells the animals that her cat, Dinah, would probably love to run in a caucus race. The animals begin to fret because a cat is mentioned, and they all run away. Alice realizes the animals don’t seem to like her cat. However, Alice believes that Dinah is the best cat in the world, and she cries because no one else can see Dinah's value.
Like the animals who didn’t want to hear about Dinah, many legislators don’t want to consider the value of local decision-making over zoning or work to create actual incentives for affordable housing. While some legislators intentionally devalue local governments, many others simply feel the pressure of housing costs and want to do something, while also being faced with the reality that state revenues are limited. But we won’t cry like Alice; we will continue to discuss these topics and educate state policymakers about their benefits. We encourage you to do the same. Call and email your legislators or even invite them to a local meeting to discuss these proposals and others. Contact NHMA for support. Like you, we believe that local decision-making on zoning is best, and we want to help you share that message. As Alice lamented, “It would be so nice if something made sense for a change,” and it starts with our advocacy, educating state policymakers together