Over the last few weeks, legislation passed by both the House and the Senate proceeded through the enrolled bill process and made it to the Governor’s desk. She has now acted on all housing related legislation.
If the Governor signed legislation, it goes into effect on the effective date specified in the legislation. The effective date is typically determined by the type of policy changes outlined in the bill. For example, legislation that requires municipal adoption or department preparation is often scheduled to take effect six to twelve months in the future, while administrative changes that can be instituted quickly may take effect upon signature or 30 days after signature.
Here are a few noteworthy updates on what legislation the Governor signed and vetoed:
Legislation the Governor Signed:
HB 1010, relative to multi-family residential development on commercially zoned land. This legislation – along with HB 1588 – added clarity to last session’s residential-in-commercial law. It specifically added provisions addressing how municipalities and developers should interpret the requirement for adequate infrastructure. This clarity will help add predictability to the process and limit legal disputes. Housing Action NH supported this legislation.
HB 1042, raising the unified contingent credit limit and relative to the cap on outstanding obligations for which the housing finance authority is allowed. This legislation raised New Hampshire Housing’s debt limit to ensure its affordable housing financing programs can continue. New Hampshire Housing’s debt limit does not impact the state’s credit rating or the general fund appropriations. Housing Action NH supported this legislation.
HB 1079, allowing accessory dwelling units to be built within or attached to certain non-conforming structures. This legislation clarified that municipalities must allow existing non-conforming structures to be converted into ADUs provided the building’s footprint does not change. Housing Action NH supported this legislation.
HB 1103, allowing municipalities to utilize community revitalization tax relief credits on a wider variety of properties and structures. This legislation provides municipalities seeking to use the 79-E program with greater flexibility by allowing new construction to qualify for the incentive and enabling municipalities to set affordability standards. Housing Action NH supported this legislation.
HB 1588, relative to the regulation of accessory parking for vehicles by local legislative bodies and multifamily housing within commercial districts by municipalities. This legislation – along with HB 1010 – adds clarity to last year’s residential-in-commercial zones statute. HB 1588 places commonsense guardrails on what local municipalities can regulate when implementing the residential-in-commercial law. This law allows municipalities to continue with site plan review, height, setback, and frontage requirements, but limits their ability to regulate other elements of development to ensure the goals of the legislation – allowing multi-family homes near existing infrastructure – are upheld. Housing Action NH supported this legislation.
HB 1681, relative to the definition, inspection, and local approval of tiny houses and yurts as innovative housing structures. This legislation clarified how municipalities and code enforcement agencies should regulate tiny homes, yurts, and other innovative housing structures. Housing Action NH supported this legislation.
SB 56, relative to consolidating the New Hampshire health and education facilities authority within the business finance authority and establishing a surplus land revitalization program. This legislation updated the process for selling surplus state-owned land. Housing Action NH was neutral on this legislation.
SB 415, relative to a certain exemption in interest in condominium units and abbreviated registrations. This legislation raises the threshold for a Department of Justice condo development review from 10 units to 25 units, and establishes a study commission to consider future legislative changes. Condos can provide a more attainable homeownership option, but the review process can be time-consuming and burdensome, especially for smaller projects, driving up costs. Housing Action NH supported this legislation.
SB 490, establishing a task force to assess the development of housing at Great Bay Community College and authorizing the college the right to use vacant property for the purpose of developing housing. Housing Action NH supported this legislation.
SB 492, authorizing the Department of military affairs and Veterans Services to license and lease property in which the department holds a property interest. Housing Action NH supported this legislation.
SB 564, prohibiting certain municipal development restrictions. This legislation prohibits municipalities from enacting local ordinances regarding the number of homes on a dead-end road or the length of a road beyond fire safety standards. This legislation also provides flexibility in the placement of utilities within buffer areas. Housing Action NH supported this legislation.
The Governor vetoed two housing-related proposals:
HB 1336, relative to regulated conditional deposits. Housing Action NH opposed this legislation because it would allow landlords to charge renters a security deposit equal to two months’ rent if the tenant meets certain criteria, adding costs at a time when many Granite Staters already struggle to afford housing. This is the Governor’s veto message:
“This bill seeks to address the housing access problem of renters who do not meet existing landlord-defined renter criteria such as credit history, income, prior evictions, or references. While improving housing access is essential, requiring these prospective renters to provide potentially thousands of dollars more than current law upfront would impede access to housing. Moreover, the bill’s language is not clear on how long a landlord can keep those funds and allows landlords discretion to unfairly withhold tenants’ deposits. For these reasons, I have vetoed House Bill 1336.”
HB 1726, relative to the sale of surplus state-owned land and establishing a commission to study the sale of state-owned property. This is the Governor’s veto message:
“I agree that we need to improve the management of state-owned assets such as surplus land. However, the change of law in this bill limits the proceeds of sales or leases to the fund originally used to purchase the property. This is not an efficient or fiscally prudent structure for allocating revenues and does not improve state management of surplus land. For that reason, I am vetoing House Bill 1726.”