CONCORD — A committee of conference on Tuesday advanced changes to House Bill (HB) 1588 that would limit some local restrictions on multifamily housing development in commercial districts.
The bill prevents municipalities from imposing additional requirements for multifamily housing within commercial districts in existence as of July 1, 2026 (with some exceptions) and allows local legislative bodies to regulate accessory parking for vehicles so long as they do not require that the parking space per unit be garaged.
Rep. Joe Sweeney, R-Salem, said the amendment brings back the House-passed version of HB1588, with a minor tweak that “makes it a little smoother for the adoption of these special assessment districts and answers to some of the questions that we heard along the way.”
According to the legal language of the bill, a municipality shall not impose additional requirements for multifamily housing proposed to be located within commercial districts in existence as of July 1, 2026, or expanded or created after that date, beyond those specifically allowed under this section, except for frontage, setbacks, and height requirements; provided that such requirements shall not differ from what is allowed for commercial development.
In its exercise of the powers granted under this subdivision, the local legislative body of a city, town, or county in which there are located unincorporated towns or unorganized places may regulate accessory parking for vehicles, but shall not require more than one residential parking space per unit or require that the parking space per unit be garaged.
It also notes that a municipality shall allow pre-existing nonconforming structures to be converted to multifamily dwelling units or mixed-use provided that the structure’s envelope is not altered to further violate zoning district dimensional requirements.
Sen. Keith Murphy, R-Manchester, said a concern he has with the amendment is that it “doesn’t treat property owners equally, and you could have one or two very large property owners that collectively [own] 60-plus percent of a given district, and could just do whatever they want.”
Sweeney responded that the original intent behind the bill was that “this would be one developer coming in to look to do something, and not multiple properties,” adding: “that was just the legal language to make it work.”
Committee Chair Rep. Joe Alexander, R-Goffstown moved to pass the amendment, which he said adds part of the senate language back into 1588 He said the proposed amendment is still valid with the exception of section 4, and had a proposal to replace the original section 4 with new language.
He said the multi-family by-right section was removed from HB 1010 (which permits municipalities to allow multi-family dwelling units on commercially zoned land, subject to the local planning board confirming the infrastructure is adequate) and that he wanted to include it in HB 1588, “with the idea that both bills are tied together, and that if one bill dies, the other will also die.”
HB 1010 was also scheduled for a Committee of Conference meeting Tuesday morning. It also authorizes the local planning board to deny applications to build multi-family dwelling units on commercially zoned land in certain circumstances.
The bill also removes the ability for municipalities to provide an exception for requirements relative to the conversion of structures into multifamily dwelling units, and replaces such exceptions to permit the waiver of requirements so long as the converted dwelling unit is not altered to further violate zoning dimensional requirements.