All citizens of the state benefit from a balanced supply of housing which is affordable to persons and families of low and moderate income. Establishment of housing which is decent, safe, sanitary and affordable to low and moderate income persons and families is in the best interests of each community and the state of New Hampshire, and serves a vital public need. Opportunity for development of such housing, including so-called cluster development and the development of multi-family structures, should not be prohibited or discouraged by use of municipal planning and zoning powers or by unreasonable interpretation of such powers;

Existing affordable housing shortage creates negative impacts for the state including barriers to the expansion of the states labor force, adversely affects the ability of communities to host new businesses. Serves to achieve a balanced supply of housing which is a compelling public policy goal This law codifies the requirements of Britton v. Chester (134 NH 439 (1991) to provide the maximum feasible flexibility to municipalities in exercising the zoning powers under RSA 674 consistent with their obligation to provide reasonable opportunities for the development of workforce housing, and is not intended to create a system of statewide land use regulation or a statewide zoning process.

SB 342 goes much further than RSA 672 as an instrument to create workforce housing Defines affordable housing, multifamily workforce housing, reasonable and realistic opportunities for the development of work force housing Provides a process for planning board review Provides an appeals process for workforce housing applications that are denied by the planning board Amends RSA 672:1,III-e to prohibit zoning from discouraging the development of workforce housing

Affordable Housing is defined as housing with combined rental and utility costs or combined mortgage, property taxes and insurance that do not exceed 30% of a households gross annual income. For the RPC region this means a mortgage in the range of $239,236-$287,985 and monthly rental in the range of $1,045-$1,160 Multi family housing is defined as a building or structure containing 5 or more dwelling units

Reasonable and realistic opportunities for the development of workforce housing means opportunities to develop economically viable workforce housing within the framework of a municipalitys ordinances and regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter and consistent with RSA 672:1, III-e. The collective impact of all such ordinances and regulations on a proposal for the development of workforce housing shall be considered in determining whether opportunities for the development of workforce housing are reasonable and realistic. If the ordinances and regulations of a municipality make feasible the development of sufficient workforce housing to satisfy the municipalitys obligation under RSA 674:59, and such development is not unduly inhibited by natural features, the municipality shall not be in violation of its obligation under RSA 674:59 by virtue of economic conditions beyond the control of the municipality that affect the economic viability of workforce housing development.

Workforce housing must incorporate both single family ownership opportunity and multifamily renter opportunity Workforce ownership opportunity must be allowed in a majority of land zoned for residential use Workforce multifamily rental housing must be provided Inclusionary zoning as defined in RSA 674:21, IV(a) can be utilized to meet the requirements of the law. A town whose housing stock already provides its regional fair share of workforce housing is deemed to be in compliance with the law.

Applicants submitting workforce housing projects for planning board consideration must include a written statement of such intent upon application. Failure to do so waives the applicants rights under RSA 674:61 for a builders remedy. If a land use board approves a workforce housing application with conditions, the applicant can consider the economic impact of these conditions upon the proposal. The applicant has the right to submit evidence of the economic impacts of the conditions within 30 days of the issuance of the conditions. A meeting with 10 days notice will be called by the board to allow review of the economic impacts of the conditions by the applicant.

The results of this discussion may result in altering rescinding or affirming any or all of the conditions or restrictions of approval. No final decision made be made by the Board until such meeting has taken place unless the applicant fails to supply evidence within the timeframe established by the Board. If an applicant notifies the board in writing at any time that the applicant accepts the conditions and restrictions of approval, the board may issue its final decision without further action.

Appeal of a board denial or of conditions of approval that result in substantial adverse effect upon the viability of a workforce proposal may be taken to superior court based upon the municipalitys failure to comply with RSA674:59. A hearing on the merits of the appeal shall be held within six months. A referee (qualified with experience in planning and zoning law) appointed by the court will be supplied if the court itself is unable to hear the action within six months.

In the event the decision of the court or referee grants the petitioner a judgment that allows construction of the proposed development or otherwise orders that the proposed development may proceed despite its nonconformance with local regulations, conditions, or restrictions, the court or referee shall direct the parties to negotiate in good faith over assurances that the project will be maintained for the long term as workforce housing. The court or referee shall retain jurisdiction and upon motion of either party affirming that negotiations are deadlocked, the court or referee shall hold a further hearing on the appropriate term and form of use restrictions to be applied to the project.