Grant McGregor | Oppose HB459

I am the Town Planner in Hooksett, which is an appointed Town position. I did not see such an option, so I listed myself as a member of the Public. I am a resident of Concord. I am opposed to HB577 and HB459. Both bills referenced, if passed, would require mandates that countless municipalities do not have the infrastructure and services in place to accommodate increased development safely. The mandates of HB459, specifically, are not compliant with several municipal Master Plans. Mandating 0.5-acre minimum lot sizes where single-family use is permitted and the lot is served by water or sewer increases density to a level which could strain municipal services and infrastructure. This amendment would seem to violate 7/10 purposes of municipal Zoning Ordinances under RSA 674:17, I(a-j). RSA 674:17, II is in place to allow municipalities to appropriately regulate land use because the State is at too broad of a scale to make such decisions. The only permissible reasons, to my knowledge, for a municipality to deny a subdivision is if that municipality does not have the services and infrastructure in place to accommodate the increased development. RSA 674:22 allows for growth management ordinances to be adopted by municipalities. Such ordinances must have an end-date and a plan to provide the necessary capital improvements. Such plans to provide the necessary capital improvements would likely involve increased taxes for property owners. RSA 674:23 allows moratoriums (no longer than 1 year) to be placed against Building Permits and the Approval of Subdivisions and Site Plans. The same basis as used in RSA 674:22 must be used in RSA 674:23 to lawfully implement moratoriums. By mandating that municipalities adopt zoning measures they are not prepared for, the Legislature might be encouraging moratoriums and growth management on subdivisions and development in several municipalities. Municipalities might be inaccurately labeled as "anti-growth". Creating incentives for municipalities that have the resources available to amend zoning to be more “in-line” with the proposed bills may be appropriate. Mandating these changes statewide is not appropriate. Municipalities should retain permission to direct the character of the various zoning districts within the given City or Town in addition to retaining permission to zone certain areas within their borders as appropriate to provide services. I would encourage all parties interested to understand that purpose for creation of zoning in the early 1900's was to allow for municipal control of orderly development. HB577 and HB459 propose a drastic shift in the practice of zoning which undermines the provisions of existing statutes.