By PAULA TRACY, InDepthNH.org

CONCORD – The governor announced Friday she signed into law 18 bills passed by the legislature, including ones related to cyanobacteria and Senate Bill 619, establishing procedures for expedited court hearings and disposition of confiscated animals.

Gov. Kelly Ayotte, a Republican, also vetoed three bills including one enabling alternative treatment centers to operate a greenhouse cultivation location.

“I do not support expanding the cultivation of marijuana in our state. For this reason, I have vetoed SB 468,” she wrote in her veto message.

Also vetoed was HB 1072 relative to employer notice of department of labor investigations.

“While this bill is the product of thoughtful conversations and important considerations, it unnecessarily restricts the Department of Labor’s critical authority to swiftly respond to emergent situations where employers have failed to pay wages to their employees. New Hampshire families depend on timely paychecks, and we cannot delay the Department’s ability to react in those circumstances,” she wrote.

HB 1643, relative to the report of a guardian ad litem, was also vetoed.

“The role of the guardian ad litem is to assist the court in determining the best interests of the child. To that end, under current law guardians ad litem are directed by the court to gather information and, only if specifically requested by the court, make certain recommendations relating to parenting plans, schedules, and decision-making responsibilities. Ultimately, the court is responsible for making determinations relative to a child’s welfare. This bill would strip the authority of the court to request a guardian ad litem provide recommendations for consideration by the judge and limits information available to the court, which could impede its ability to ensure the best interests of a child,” Ayotte wrote.

The three vetoes will be returned to the Senate and the House in the fall to see whether they are sustained or overridden.

Ayotte did sign the following bills which are now law:

HB 656 — Relative to the authority of local school districts to accept federal grants.

HB 1073 — Clarifying when the secretary of state shall complete the registry of New Hampshire decentralized autonomous organizations.

HB 1381 — Extending the time of the party filing period.

HB 1425 — Relative to the development of an online wetlands permit processing system.

HB 1495 — Allowing a reimbursement anticipation note to be used as collateral in certain circumstances.

HB 1549 — Establishing that titles, bills of sale, and identification documents are required only at initial registration or transfer of ownership.

SB 499 — Relative to the membership, duties, and reporting requirements of the traffic safety commission.

SB 500 — Relative to restroom access for certain commercial motor vehicle operators.

SB 505 — Relative to applications for guide licenses and repealing the fee for temporary registration of nonresidents relative to OHRVs.

SB 516 — Relative to certain unclassified positions in the department of health and human services.

SB 595 — Relative to rulemaking for transient non-community water systems.

SB 598 — Establishing the cyanobacteria mitigation loan and grant fund task force.

SB 600 — Requiring the governor to submit and present a quarterly fiscal year budget report about the general and education trust funds to the general court fiscal committee.

SB 610 — Allowing the insurance commissioner to approve innovative short or long-term care policies.

SB 619 — Establishing procedures for expedited court hearings and disposition of confiscated animals.

SB 633 — Relative to donations received by the granite patron of the arts fund.

SB 644 — Requiring background checks for solid waste and hazardous waste facility owners.

SB 655 — Relative to employee leasing companies, workers’ compensation coverage options, and a minimum wage exemption for minor league baseball players.

The New Hampshire House and Senate sent three bills to Gov. Kelly Ayotte, intended to enable more housing construction, overcoming opposition from the New Hampshire Municipal Association and others.

In a series of votes on the last standard session day of the year, Thursday, the House and Senate approved final versions of House Bill 1010, House Bill 1588, and Senate Bill 564, which address housing developments in commercial zones, parking requirements, and development on dead-end roads.

The bills now head to Ayotte’s desk and face strong prospects: Ayotte signed and celebrated a slate of bills in 2025 meant to spur housing, in large part by overriding perceived restrictive municipal zoning.

But they also overcame opposition from some who said they eroded needed guardrails for cities and towns, and could lead to safety issues and overcrowding in commercial areas.

“New Hampshire needs more affordable housing, but we also need smart growth, responsible planning, and local decision-making,” said Rep. David Preece, D-Manchester, speaking against the bills. “Housing and local control are not mutually exclusive.”

HB 1010 and HB 1588 are companion bills intended to update last year’s transformational housing statute for commercial zones.

That law, House Bill 631, is not set to take effect until July 1, about a year after it was signed. It requires municipalities to allow multi-family residential developments on commercially zoned land, as long as there are adequate roads, water, and sewage, and no issues with the site “incompatible with residential use,” such as air, noise, odor, or transportation impacts.

Both HB 1010 and HB 1588, if signed by Ayotte, would update HB 631 just one minute after it takes effect next month.

HB 1588 would tighten the law. It would clarify that the developers could build housing that passed the requirements “by right” in commercial zones — a stronger legal status. It would also limit the types of restrictions municipalities could place on that development to frontage, setbacks, and height requirements, excluding other factors such as density.

And if a developer sued after being improperly denied a permit by a municipality, the developer could seek attorneys’ fees from the city or town, the bill states.

“It addresses the ambiguity in the existing law that will result in taxpayer‑funded lawsuits, and also grants municipalities greater local control by clarifying that municipalities can do site review,” said Rep. Joe Alexander, R-Goffstown, who is the chairman of the House Housing Committee, in a speech on the House floor.

HB 1010, in contrast, would give municipalities tools to potentially limit certain developments. The bill would allow municipalities to carry out studies to determine whether the water, sewage, and traffic infrastructure is adequate before approving. If the road design did not support the expected traffic volume, for instance, the proposal could be denied.

Traffic studies could include increases in vehicle traffic on the roads, the availability of sidewalks, and other pedestrian safety measures. The bill would allow cities and towns to require developers to obtain approvals from the owners of public water and sewer systems before proceeding.

Together, the two bills are meant to clarify the intent and scope of last year’s commercial zoning bill, Alexander said.

“The only thing that we’re going to run into is that municipalities may be open to more lawsuits if we fail to clarify what we mean by these laws,” he said.

HB 1588 also includes an unrelated provision that would allow cities and towns to create “special assessment districts,” in which municipalities can issue bonds to pay for infrastructure upgrades and then levy fees on the developments that would benefit from the upgrades to pay off the bonds.

But opponents, such as the Municipal Association, warned HB 1588 would tie the hands of municipalities with reasonable concerns. In a handout given to lawmakers ahead of the vote, the association called the bill “one of the most anti-local control bills of the session.”

Preece agreed. “This bill goes further by overriding local zoning protections and by exposing municipalities to costly litigation, forcing taxpayers to pay attorneys when disputes arise,” he said. “This is not a housing policy; it is a mandate that shifts the risk and the cost onto local communities.”

SB 564 would address restrictions on dead-end roads. It would prevent cities and towns from imposing a maximum road length for new housing development, as long as that new development adheres to the state fire code.

It stops municipalities from capping the number of homes on a dead-end road, unless the cap is necessary to comply with the fire code or guidelines from the National Fire Protection Association.

And it requires cities and towns to allow utilities such as septic systems and electric distribution infrastructure to be installed in buffer areas, open spaces, as long as they aren’t wetlands or protected shorelands.

Again, opponents cited concerns of overdevelopment if the bill becomes law.

“Let’s take a look at what could be built on 100 housing lots,” said Rep. David Fracht, D-Enfield. “One hundred single-family homes? Certainly. One hundred duplexes or triplexes? Why not? How about 100 apartment buildings with an unlimited number of dwelling units? This bill places no cap on the number of dwelling units that can be built on these long dead-end roads.”

Alexander argued the bill would bring needed development while respecting safety concerns.

“This bill now clarifies and provides statutory requirements for local jurisdictions to follow relative to the state fire code,” he said.