HOA Transparency Requirements
House Bill 1523 would establish new governance and recordkeeping requirements for homeowners’ associations (HOAs) in New Hampshire. Realtors who work with HOAs may want to inform owners of these important changes impacting their governance.
Under the bill, associations would be required to maintain detailed financial records, including receipts and expenditures related to the administration of the association, along with board meeting minutes and other official records. Those records must be made available for inspection by association members or their authorized representatives.
The legislation also establishes clearer standards governing when an HOA Board of Directors may enter into executive session and the limited circumstances under which closed-door discussions are permitted.
In addition, the bill creates conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements for HOA board members. If a board member, unit owner, or an immediate family member has a financial interest in a company seeking to perform work for the association, that interest must be disclosed, and the interested individual would be prohibited from voting on the matter.
The legislation is intended to largely mirror existing requirements currently found in New Hampshire’s condominium statutes under RSA 356-B. Both the House and Senate have now passed the bill, and it is expected to head to the Governor’s desk next month.
During the legislative process, NHAR recommended delaying implementation to allow HOAs additional time to become aware of and prepare for the new requirements. The final version of the bill includes an effective date of January 1, 2027.
Multifamily in commercial zone: the sequel
Last year, the legislature passed, and the Governor signed into law, a new statute requiring, under certain circumstances, municipalities to allow multifamily housing in commercial zones (RSA 674:80). That law is set to go into effect this summer, but some communities have already taken steps to thwart it.
HB 1588 would limit how municipalities regulate multifamily housing in commercially zoned areas. Cities and towns could not impose additional requirements on multifamily developments beyond those specifically authorized in the statute, except for frontage, setback, and height standards that are applied equally to other commercial development. The language is intended to ensure multifamily housing is treated similarly to other permitted commercial uses within those districts.
The legislation would also require municipalities to allow existing nonconforming structures in commercial zones to be converted into multifamily or mixed-use buildings, so long as the building envelope is not expanded in a way that increases the nonconformity. Importantly, if a property owner is improperly denied approval or subjected to unlawful local requirements and must sue to enforce these rights, the municipality would be responsible for reimbursing the owner’s reasonable attorney’s fees.
Both the House and Senate have passed HB 1588, but the House version added language delaying its implementation for another year. The Senate is concerned that delay would create the opportunity for towns to pass ordinances undermining the bill’s intent. A committee of conference will meet this week to finalize the language.
Multifamily in commercial zone: Part III
House Bill 1010 also attempts to amend the soon-to-be-effective multifamily in commercial zone law. The House version of the bill leaned toward giving municipalities additional opportunities to prevent such development. Those included mandating that applicants receive a “well permit” from the NH Department of Environmental Services (DES). The problem, as pointed out by DES, is that no such permit exists, so it would be impossible for them to issue.
The House version also allowed a planning board to require a “water supply study,” to which NHAR objected. Again, no definition of a “water supply study” exists, and, again as DES pointed out, certain water supply requirements are unnecessary, expensive, and could be indiscriminately applied.
The Senate version removed both provisions while adding language which makes such developments by-right but ensuring that typical site plan review oversight is applied, including adequate water supply.
Again, a Committee of Conference will attempt to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill.
Quote of the Week
“The bill is simply a local option. So all the bill says is that if the municipality chooses to permit this type of housing, these building and fire codes will apply. … Towns still can say no.”
—Rep. Joe Alexander (R-Goffstown) speaking on the House floor in support of HB 1681, which is intended to promote construction of tiny homes by setting fire and building code standards.
Even the NH Municipal Association did not oppose the bill, and the state fire marshal supported it; however, 102 state representatives still opposed even giving towns an optional choice to provide for tiny homes. Fortunately, the bill passed comfortably, 242-102, and is headed to the Governor’s desk.
Follow NHAR on Instagram (nhar603) and Facebook (New Hampshire REALTORS).
For more information, contact New Hampshire Realtors CEO Bob Quinn: bob@nhar.com.
