WEST LEBANON — In an effort to alleviate the statewide housing crisis, New Hampshire legislators are backing bipartisan proposals that would override some local zoning ordinances.

Several bills being debated in Concord this year pit two long-held ideals against each other: A desire for fewer housing regulations and support for local control.

“The dream of homeownership is beyond reach for anyone who is not wealthy,” Sen. Keith Murphy, R-Manchester, said in a phone interview Monday. “If we don’t increase supply and lower prices the people with the most money are going to get the property.”

To that end, Murphy is sponsoring Senate Bill 84, which the Senate passed last month, 13-10. The House has yet to vote on the proposal.

The bill would restrict municipalities from requiring lots in single-family residential zones to be larger than one acre if served by town water. Under the proposal, municipalities couldn’t make building lots on town water and sewer to be larger than a half acre.

The bill also would bar municipalities from requiring a lot size of more than two acres for the majority of lots not served by town water and sewer.

The bill seeks to increase housing supply by giving property owners more flexibility with their land, Murphy said.

“Obviously it costs less to buy two acres than it costs to buy five,” Murphy said. “Bringing down the cost of acquiring and developing raw land will result in lower housing prices for buyers.”

Murphy’s proposal comes as housing costs have spiked in recent years.

In Grafton County, the median cost of a single-family home in March was $424,000, an increase of about $200,000 from 2020, according to reports from the New Hampshire Association of Realtors.

In Sullivan County, the median price of a single-family home in March was $378,000, also up about $200,000 from 2020.

While Murphy says he’s seeking to slim down regulations, some town officials say the Legislature is overstepping.

“This legislation is to destroy all local control,” Croydon Planning Board Chairman Jim Morgan said in a phone interview last week. “The bills are extremely problematic for keeping New Hampshire, New Hampshire.”

Morgan cited another bill sponsored by Murphy, SB 281, that would prohibit municipalities from denying building or occupancy permits for properties adjacent to Class VI roads under certain circumstances. He also finds fault with SB 163, a bill that would ban towns and cities from putting a moratorium on building permits and subdivisions, sponsored by Sen. Howard Pearl, R-Loudon.

To become law, the bills must still pass the House and be signed by Gov. Kelly Ayotte.

“Don’t get me wrong, I’m a Republican but I don’t support any of these bills,” Morgan said.

At Town Meeting in March, Croydon approved a one-year moratorium on all major subdivisions in its rural zoning district. Currently, Croydon’s minimum lot size in the rural district is 3.5 acres. Since Croydon does not have town water or sewer, SB 84 would decrease the minimum lot size to two acres for half of the lots in the district. “That’s the difference between 50 and 75 homes,” Morgan said.

Morgan argues that the proposed laws would encourage out-of-state developers to come in and destroy “the most pristine beautiful areas of the state.”

“This is taking a wood chipper to the entire state,” Morgan said.

The Lyme Selectboard also has qualms with the proposed legislation that would take away local zoning control.

At their April 1 meeting, the board approved a letter to the town’s state representatives opposing SB 84 and SB 281, as well as three other pieces of legislation.

Last month, the Senate passed SB 170. The bill, would require municipalities to allow for utilities, like septic systems, wells and electric systems to be placed in open spaces or perimeter buffers of subdivisions. It also would prohibit municipalities from mandating that occupants of housing units be related by blood or marriage, and adopt limits on road frontage requirements and setbacks for lot lines to increase housing density.

Similar to SB 170, SB 231, adopts limits on road frontage requirements and setbacks for wetlands to increase housing density.

House Bill 410, prohibits municipalities from creating “extraordinary restrictions” on residential properties. “Extraordinary restrictions” the bill would prohibit include: Large lot sizes, road frontage requirements, and minimum square-footage requirements, as well as prohibiting residential use in areas zoned for commercial use and rules on whether a home can be built on or offsite. The House passed the bill in late March.

“Together, these bills remove virtually all local control of land use and are not what we believe to be ‘smart growth’ for our community. In a small community such as ours, we lack the resources or infrastructure to meet anticipated demand for public services if these bills are enacted into law,” the Lyme Selectboard wrote in its letter. “By mandating a minimum lot size, this legislation would effectively urbanize the rural character of our small New Hampshire town.”

In its rural district, Lyme’s minimum lot size is between 3 and 5 acres and its minimum road frontage is 300 feet, both of which would change if the proposed bills become law.

“It was pretty clear to the Selectboard if those bills pass they’d have a devastating effect on Lyme,” board member Ben Kilham said in a phone interview. “You can’t suddenly double or triple the amount of development.”

Sen. Sue Prentiss, D-West Lebanon, represents Lyme in Concord and is a co-sponsor of SB 84.

“As a principle I don’t like to get in the business of local bodies,” Prentiss said in a phone interview Monday. “But I weighed that with the lack of housing. People can’t continue to talk about how housing is a huge issue if we’re not going to do anything about it. This bill is an opportunity to kick-start this.”

Prentiss said she has offered to speak to Lyme’s three-member Selectboard about the bills they’re concerned about, but has not heard back yet.

In response to the town’s letter to representatives, four Lyme residents wrote a letter to the board stating it should have warned the public if members planned to take action.

“There was no notification that a town position on this legislation was being contemplated...This is not the way town business should be conducted,” states the letter signed by Phil Kinsler, Jan Williams, Sue Mackenzie and Michael Whitman.

Kinsler not only disagrees with the process through which the board sent its letter to representatives, but also the content of the statement.

“Lyme could use more senior housing and workforce housing and the current zo ni ng co de makes that hard to a ccomplish,” he said in a ph one interview. “I don’t think Lyme is ever going to turn into a town that has 16- story apartment towers. I think it’s possible to preserve its rural character while also developing housing that people who work in the town could actually afford to live in.”

Emma Roth-Wells can be reached at erothwells@vnews.com or 603-727-3242.