By Todd Selig
I write today on behalf of the Town of Durham to respectfully request the New Hampshire House “non-concur” on HB 342 and HB 457. Both bills present significant practical challenges for municipalities and would limit a community’s ability to manage housing and protect neighborhood quality of life.
HB 342 – Administrative and Practical Challenges
HB 342 would exempt property owners from local lot size, coverage, and density rules if most nearby lots (within a 1,000-foot radius) do not meet current zoning standards. While this may sound straightforward, it’s not. The bill raises several unanswered questions such as how to define the radius, which properties count, and who would conduct these assessments.
Most municipalities in NH are small and don’t have the mapping software or staff capacity to carry out this type of analysis. Implementing HB 342 would require significant investment in new tools and training, diverting limited resources from other local services.
Durham has revised its zoning over time to match infrastructure capacity, avoid overcrowding, and preserve neighborhood character. HB 342 would override these thoughtful, locally-driven decisions. It’s also important to note that property owners already have access to a clear and fair process to request relief through local zoning boards of adjustment, with public input and case-by-case review.
HB 457 – Disruption to Neighborhood Stability and Housing Balance
HB 457 would require every residential zoning district to allow group living arrangements such as dormitories, fraternities, boarding houses, and similar uses regardless of neighborhood character or infrastructure limitations.
In Durham, student rentals already represent a significant portion of our housing market. Many are rented by the bed, not by the unit, which inflates costs and makes it harder for families and non-student renters to compete. The Senate’s amendment to add school enrollment status as a protected class would further entrench this imbalance, making it difficult (versus easier) to maintain residential diversity.
We have worked closely with the University of New Hampshire to concentrate student housing in appropriate areas while protecting long-term neighborhoods. HB 457 would eliminate our ability to make these local distinctions and encourage further investor-driven rental conversions to high-density high-profit student rentals, eroding options for families and workforce housing.
Preserving Local Decision-Making
Both bills would transfer key land use decisions away from local officials and voters, undermining the ability of communities to tailor solutions to their specific needs. Our current zoning ordinances and established variance process already provide flexibility while ensuring public oversight and neighborhood stability.
For these reasons, I encourage members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives to vote non-concur on HB 342 and HB 457. These bills would impose new administrative burdens and disrupt the ability of local governments across New Hampshire to manage housing, neighborhood character, and long-term planning.
About the Author: Originally from Laconia, Todd Selig is the long-time Town Manager in Durham where he lives with his family.