A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Builders urge 'one state, one code'; municipalities and associations push back

January 28, 2025 | Executive Departments and Administration, Senate , Committees , Legislative, New Hampshire


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Builders urge 'one state, one code'; municipalities and associations push back
Senator Mark McConkie introduced Senate Bill 94 to prohibit municipal amendments to the state building code, citing concerns that a patchwork of local codes increases costs and delays for builders. Matt Mayberry, CEO of the New Hampshire Home Builders Association, said, "We are 1 state. We deserve 1 set of adopted building codes," and testified that some local code variances can add at least $17,000 in mandated cost per home in places that have adopted the 2021 energy code ahead of the state.

Bernie Deshaies of the New Hampshire Municipal Association testified in opposition, saying last year’s Senate Bill 437 already substantially altered local amendment authority and that municipalities need time to implement those statutory changes. Deshaies said the municipal association supports a state building code but warned that SB 94, as drafted, is broader than prior changes and could remove needed local flexibility for safety, inspection procedures, and fee schedules.

Phil Sherman, chair of the Building Code Review Board, said the board takes no position but asked that administrative amendments be preserved to allow technical adjustments and to avoid forcing municipalities to rework ordinances twice if both SB 437 and SB 94 move. State Fire Marshal Sean Toomey said he supports the goal of consistency for end users such as contractors and homeowners but recommended preserving limited administrative exceptions for permits, fees, and small operational items; he offered to work with sponsors on amendment language.

Supporters argued the bill would reduce training burdens for contractors and speed housing production by eliminating inconsistent local interpretations. Opponents warned against eliminating local control entirely and urged the committee to let statutory changes from last year take effect before further changes are considered.

No vote was taken. Several witnesses offered proposed amendments and asked the committee to consider harmonizing SB 94 with last year’s statutory changes before acting.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee