My recent article on Housing Bill Madness was published while Nurse Terese and Keith Hanson had Senator Murphy and a few other guests on the air for a ‘polite’ discussion. When time was up, it was definitely a “to be continued” situation, though both chambers are set to meet today. That means some of what I’m about to say will need to be updated. Terese called me on her drive home from the studio and later texted me a nifty little summary of housing-related bills.
I took a look at the compilation of housing bills that “a seacoaster” who didn’t want to be identified put together, and first want to recognize him for doing the grunt work of making a brief summary of their unintended consequences. The words shared are his and not mine, though I happen to agree with most of what he said. The following bills are not an exhaustive list, as I personally support two from the original list, and some of them have been retained in committee, or their ships have already sailed. However, I’d like to offer some real-time status updates to complement Bill’s signpost warnings, which is not to say that an amendment could or could not resolve the problems cited. Some of them, like HB 138, I don’t outright reject, but I definitely pause and say, “Not so fast, we need to talk some more.”
Let’s start with 2 House bills (HB 342 & 457) that have Senate Commerce hearings on Tuesday morning.
HB342 – Neighborhood Conformity Density Exception
Why it can be abused: Let’s developers bypass variances just by pointing to a single dense property nearby. In practice, one exception sets the precedent to cram in multi-unit buildings on streets of single-family homes — undermining town zoning.
HB457 – Ban on “Unrelated Occupancy” Zoning
Why it can be abused: Removes a town’s ability to prevent investor-owned group rentals — encouraging “party houses,” short-term rentals, and crowded boarding scenarios.
The next 3 bills already had hearings, but are still awaiting a Senate Commerce committee vote, which means there’s still time to email those members.
HB413 – Subdivision & Permit Appeals Streamlining
Why it can be abused: Gives developers 7 years of legal protection after subdivision approval — even if town circumstances change. Also gives them easier court access to fight local building/fire decisions, tipping the scales in favor of well-funded legal teams over volunteer planning boards.
HB577 – ADU Legalization
Why it can be abused: Requires towns to allow a second home on any lot, regardless of neighborhood or road capacity. Out-of-state investors can buy up homes and double their rental revenue overnight — without paying to upgrade roads or utilities.
SB90 – High-Density Housing in Commercial Zones
Why it can be abused: Opens the door for developers to drop 4-6 story buildings with little local oversight, turning small-town intersections into urbanized hot spots with no input from the people who live there.
The following 5 bills are awaiting votes from the whole senate, 2 of which are on the Consent Calendar, which means that they will sneak through without any discussion unless a senator removes it. Let’s start with those 2.
HB138 / HB284 – Tax Impact Transparency
Why it can be abused: A good idea on the surface, but likely to be ignored or spun by developers when towns are overwhelmed with permit requests and don’t have the staff to calculate true impacts.
HB382 – Statewide Abolition of Parking Minimums
Why it can be abused: Eliminates local power to manage traffic and parking impacts, enabling oversized developments with no regard for town layout or safety.
The next 3 will have discussion in the senate chamber, though it’s unknown how much detail will be discussed. I will also add some personal input that I have mixed feelings about 2 of them, one is because I happen to live in a manufactured home community and the other one is because I’ve heard Laurie Ortolano complain about TIFs. My layperson knee-jerk concern is that landlords and tenants might get sucked into a current or future TIF and become their beneficiaries or victims.
HB631 – Residential in Commercial Zones
Why it can be abused: Forces towns to accept apartment buildings in commercial areas. In practice, this turns quiet business districts into congested mixed-use zones — often without the tax base to support the influx of new residents.
HB685 – Statewide Manufactured Housing Zoning Reform
Why it can be abused: Bans towns from excluding manufactured housing, regardless of aesthetic or environmental fit. Towns with scenic landscapes or traditional New England character may be forced to accept trailer parks or modular developments.
HB296 – Permits on Private Roads
Why it can be abused: Lets developers use cheap, private roads to build full-scale housing — but towns will likely end up footing the bill for upgrades and maintenance when residents complain.
And lastly, for now, the next 5 senate bills are in House Housing awaiting an executive session on Tuesday and I will start with the all-Dem sponsored one, which is SB 170.
SB170 – Housing Development Guarantee Act
Why it can be abused: Eliminates local control over who can live together, forces towns to provide utility access through buffer zones, and caps setbacks — all of which pave the way for denser, urban-style housing in rural and suburban neighborhoods.
SB163 – Ban on Building Permit Moratoria
Why it can be abused: Prevents towns from hitting “pause” on building when infrastructure is maxed out. Out-of-state developers can rush to flood the market before towns can adjust master plans or expand schools, roads, and emergency services.
SB281 – Class VI Road Development Access
Why it can be abused: Class VI roads are often remote, rugged, and not maintained. Letting developers build here pushes infrastructure costs onto taxpayers for roads never meant to serve permanent housing.
SB282 – Single-Stair Reform for 4–6 Story Buildings
Why it can be abused: A cost-saving move for developers, this allows high-rise buildings with a single staircase. Local fire departments may not have the equipment to respond safely, but towns can’t stop it.
SB283 – FAR Exemption for Basements
Why it can be abused: Incentivizes developers to pack more units into each structure by not counting basement square footage — overbuilding with fewer limits.
Now it’s time for the conclusion, which I will copy and paste. It’s unclear if I’m quoting Terese or “that seacoaster,” but either way, it still needs to be shouted from the rooftops.
Final Word
The Real Danger:
These bills may sound “pro-housing,” but taken together, they strip away local control and invite high-density, investor-driven development. Towns lose the ability to say “no” or even “not yet” — especially to wealthy out-of-state developers who don’t live here, don’t vote here, and don’t pay the price when infrastructure fails or property values drop.
The Right Question:
It’s not just “How do we build more?” It’s “Who’s building, what are they building, and who has to live with the consequences?”
