The House committee hearing on SB 249, the bill that prohibits a municipality from banning short-term rentals, has been scheduled for next Thursday, April 7, at 11:30 a.m., in LOB Rooms 301-03. The hearing is before the Municipal and County Government Committee. Please plan to attend and speak against this bill.

We have written about this bill before. (See Bulletin #4, Bulletin #7.) As we have explained, it would prohibit a municipality’s legislative body from restricting the use of any building or structure as a “vacation rental or short-term rental.” No ordinance could prohibit the use of any house, barn, garage, or shed as a vacation/party destination for any number of people. 

This violates New Hampshire’s long tradition of local control over land use matters. Other than “the tilling of soil and the growing and harvesting of crops,” there is no other form of land use that is exempt from local zoning. Not farms, not churches, not hospitals, not even single-family homes. And yet, while towns have authority, and still would, to prohibit single-family homes in some areas, under SB 249 they could not prohibit the conversion of a single-family home, anywhere, to a rental property for tourists and vacationers. 

The bill also contradicts basic principles of zoning under New Hampshire law. RSA 674:16, which grants zoning authority to cities and towns, states that a zoning ordinance may be adopted or amended for the “purpose of promoting the health, safety, or general welfare of the community.” To that end, the statute further states that a zoning ordinance “shall be designed to regulate and restrict” among other things, “The location and use of buildings, structures and land used for business, industrial, residential, or other purposes.” 

Therefore, the question SB 249 presents is why should this one use of property, above all others, be exempt from zoning? Supporters have presented a variety of arguments, most recently in a newspaper op-ed. 

One such argument is that the bill “grants municipalities new authority to require a registration process while also allowing towns to inspect the property for certain minimum health and safety requirements.” As such, it has been touted as a compromise. 

But this is not new authority. Cities (RSA 47:17, XIX) and towns (RSA 41:11-c) already have express authority to “establish regulations relative to businesses obtaining municipal permits,” and at least a few municipalities are exercising this authority by requiring a registration process for short-term rental businesses. Municipalities also have authority to require health and safety inspections as a condition to granting a special exception or conditional use permit; and again, some municipalities already do this. Similarly, the section of the bill that allows municipalities to regulate noise, parking, health, sanitation, and enforce other town regulations merely restates authority cities and towns already possess. 

Next, the argument for exempting short-term rentals from zoning regulation always brings up the example of a homeowner struggling to pay his property taxes. The op-ed mentioned above stated, “Removing their ability to rent could, in fact, force them out of their primary residences.” 

This is a red herring. We know of no zoning ordinance in any municipality that imposes significant restrictions on a homeowner’s ability to rent a room or two in the owner’s primary residence. Indeed, in an editorial written by a group of concerned local officials, our members explained, “We are not seeking ‘bans’ on short-term rentals, but we are seeking appropriate ways to incorporate them into our communities, rather than allowing them to overrun our communities.” To do so, these municipalities have “used various measures, such as limiting where short-term rentals are allowed; limiting them to owner-occupied houses in some areas; limiting how many days a year a house may be rented; requiring registration with the town; requiring safety inspections; and imposing limits on occupancy and parking.” 

But SB 249 makes no distinction between the rental of owner-occupied homes and the proliferation of investor-owned rentals, and it does not allow municipalities to take into account the effects of this use on the greater community. As such, SB 249 will enable investors to make money by buying houses and using them exclusively as vacation rentals, regardless of what the residents in that community want.  

We have also mentioned previously that the widespread conversion of homes into vacation rentals constricts the supply of housing available for permanent residents. New Hampshire is already experiencing a housing crisis that can only be described as dire, and SB 249 would make it worse. Our members continue to ask us why this issue is not a bigger part of the discussion about short-term rentals. 

The answer we have heard is that primary residences and short-term rental properties “exist in different markets.” We’re not sure what that means, although it does belie the claim that that this has anything to do with homeowners renting space in their primary residences. The point, apparently, is that short-term rental properties are not marketed to residents looking for a place to live. But isn’t that, in fact, the point? 

Finally, a recurring argument against local control—especially favored by out-of-state businesses—on all kinds of issues is that a “patchwork of local regulations” is too burdensome, and only statewide standards can work. Predictably, that argument has been made repeatedly in support of SB 249. 

A patchwork of regulations is exactly what local zoning is. Every town has its own ordinance, and while there are plenty of similarities, there are plenty of differences, too. This reflects the basic philosophy that each municipality should determine what best suits its own needs. As our members wrote, “Local government officials are properly situated to respond to the concerns of citizens and balance the many nuances of the short-term rental business industry through local regulation, including zoning, just as they do with other uses of property.” 

We continue to hear from both local officials and New Hampshire residents who are deeply concerned and opposed to SB 249. New Hampshire laws should be made to protect and benefit New Hampshire residents; therefore, any legislation relative to short-term rentals must preserve zoning authority and the ability of municipalities to regulate short-term rentals of residential properties, including licensing requirements and health and safety protections. 

We urge individuals concerned about this bill to attend the hearing on April 7; contact members of the Municipal and County Government Committee; and talk to your own representatives and urge them to oppose SB 249 when it goes to the House for a vote.

Yesterday, the Senate passed SB 344 by a 13-11 vote with a floor amendment. As amended, the bill now adds new paragraph IV to RSA 91-A:2, creating a local option for allowing remote meeting participation where less than a quorum of a public body is physically present. The new authority must be adopted by the legislative body before it can be used, and it has a variety of safeguards, including requiring at least one quarter of the body to be present at the physical location, adjourning the meeting if the public cannot access the virtual platform, and taking all votes by roll call. 

The bill does not affect existing authority that authorizes a public body to allow remote participation where a quorum is physically present or to allow remote participation where a quorum is not physically present when there is an emergency. 

When the bill comes up for its hearing in the House, it will be crucial for local officials who would wish to exercise this authority to testify about how this local option can be used effectively and for the benefit of their community.

On Tuesday, March 29, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a public hearing on HB 1328, which would allow the New Hampshire Department of Energy to relieve a utility  of its “carrier of last resort” (COLR) obligations. 

Eliminating COLR obligations of incumbent telephone companies would potentially leave residents in rural areas without access to 911 or without any telephone service at all.  In some areas, competitive phone services, cell phone coverage, or alternative services—such as broadband—are not yet available to all households within a municipality. As such, NHMA opposed this bill. 

Under current state law, the telephone company, as carrier of last resort, is required to provide and maintain phone service to all households. If HB 1328 passed, a telephone carrier could petition the New Hampshire Department of Energy on a town-by-town basis to be relieved of its COLR obligations if 95 percent of the households are covered by a telephone company other than the incumbent COLR telephone company and a cell phone service covers 97 percent of the households in the municipality. 

Telephone companies across the U.S. are lobbying to have these obligations lifted as cell coverage and broadband becomes more readily available. If done without proper planning to ensure all residents are 100 percent served by some form of telephone, cellular, or broadband, households in some rural areas could be entirely cut off from accessing emergency services. 

If you are concerned that your municipality currently has no competitive phone service and is unserved or underserved by a cellular carrier or broadband options, leaving 3 to 5 percent households without 911 access, please contact the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and your Senator. 

Speaking of broadband, yesterday the Senate unanimously passed  SB 445. This bill would appropriate $122 million for broadband matching grants using American Rescue Plan Act funds dedicated through the Capital Projects Fund. This bill would allow any broadband provider, municipality, or communications district to apply for a grant of up to 75 percent of the total eligible costs of the project. Using federal funding, the state is actively working to address last mile broadband service and cellular coverage. This work includes the comprehensive mapping of broadband access state-wide. Detailed mapping information will provide the state and municipalities the data needed to deploy broadband in unserved and underserved areas. Mapping will also highlight areas where a disparity in traditional telephone and 911 service would exist if HB 1328 allows telephone companies to be relieved of their carrier of last resort obligations and broadband or cellular services are not available to households.

Thursday, March 31, 2022 

HB 536-FN, relative to death benefits for public works employees killed in the line of duty, and relative to workers’ compensation offsets for certain retirement system benefits. Passed. 

HB 1020, relative to additional lights on emergency vehicles. Tabled. 

HB 1026, relative to budget information provided to a budget committee. Inexpedient to Legislate. 

HB 1040, establishing a commission to study revenue alternatives to the road toll for the funding of improvements to the state’s highways and bridges and their resulting improvements to the environment. Passed with Amendment. 

HB 1318-FN-L, relative to penalties for employer noncompliance with retirement system requirements. Passed with Amendment. 

HB 1497-FN, relative to optional allowances in the retirement system. Passed. 

HB 1553-FN, relative to roadside memorials. Inexpedient to Legislate. 

HB 1681-FN, relative to the state building code and the state fire code. Passed with Amendment.

 SB 267-FN-A, establishing the upland invasive species program, program fund, and program coordinator in the department of agriculture, markets, and food. Passed with Amendment. 

SB 344, relative to the quorum requirements under the right to know law of meetings open to the public. Passed with Amendment. 

SB 376-FN, establishing a committee to study the creation of a board to study mental health incidents among law enforcement officers. Passed with Amendment. 

SB 379-FN, establishing the solid waste management fund and establishing a solid waste disposal surcharge. Passed. 

SB 401-FN, (New Title) making appropriations to the department of transportation for local highway aid and to the body-worn and dashboard camera fund and permitting the department of transportation to operate dash cameras in fleet vehicles. Passed with Amendment. 

SB 402-FN, granting disaster relief for two presidentially declared disasters in response to July-August 2021 flood damage sustained by communities in Cheshire and Sullivan counties. Passed with Amendment. 

SB 418-FN, relative to verification of voter affidavits. Passed with Amendment. 

SB 425-FN, relative to the establishment of an election information portal. Passed. 

SB 434-FN, relative to the reduction in the calculation of state retirement annuities at age 65. Interim Study. 

SB 438-FN-L, establishing state procurement policies intended to promote the use of American materials. Passed. 

SB 443-FN, relative to municipal authority regarding the state building code. Passed. 

SB 445, (New Title) relative to the broadband matching grant initiative. Passed with Amendment.