Date: Thursday, January 16, 2025 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm
Meeting Notes:
District 4 Executive Councilor (EC) John Stephen:
Thank you all for coming here tonight to talk about the important issues impacting our developers and contractors regarding permitting delays and local zoning and planning obstacles. I can tell you firsthand, being a candidate this summer, I heard a lot from developers, builders, those that are trying to develop housing, and those that are trying to develop businesses, commercial space to help continue to grow our New Hampshire advantage, that the permitting process is broken, and that local zoning and planning is often an additional obstacle to meaningful growth.
Thus, we decided to host this Roundtable, our first of many, to discuss the overall process, hear concerns from stakeholders but also to hear solutions going forward. We are not going to fix this issue tonight, but the good news is that the Governor has taken on the issue of streamlining the permitting process as a top priority of hers and we are happy to have two members of her staff with us tonight. In fact, I can recall going door to door with the Governor over the summer and we spoke about her desire to ensure state agencies were all working together to speed up the process and ensuing efficiency. As many of you know, I operate a company that helps governments across the country with efficiency and this is also something I care about deeply.
It does not matter if you are a Republican, Democrat, Independent, you deserve a government that works as efficiently as possible. I also want to also say, in my first few days of office, I am quite impressed and happy to see some of the directors and commissioners of state agencies desiring the same purpose and it is great to see some of them here tonight. I think over the next few months we will hear much more about this issue and I know that these Commissioners and Directors will be available to take our calls or your calls if there are unreasonable delays and similar issues impacting growth in both housing and commercial development.
The notes of this Roundtable will be made available to the Governor and her staff, as well as the legislature and department heads that are in attendance.
I am so happy to be joined tonight by two of the leaders in both the House and Senate that are taking on this issue this session. With me is Representative Joe Alexander and Senator Keith Murphy. Representative Alexander is the Chairman of the House Select Committee on Housing and Senator Murphy is also heading up this issue for the Senate.
So let’s begin the discussion and let’s have great dialogue.
Representative Joe Alexander
My name is Joe Alexander. I’m serving my fourth term. I represent the Town of Goffstown. I am Chair of the Committee on Housing, which is the first year that this committee is an official standing committee of the NH House. A lot of improvements are hopefully going to be made this session related to the issue of housing and permitting. I am here today to listen and get feedback on what are the needs of all your projects and what the problems are on the state level? I believe I have a general idea about some of the local issues but I would like to know that as well. Also, as soon as I was appointed Chairman, I had my research clerk review and write up the handout you all have tonight that compares all our housing-related statutes and permits and identifies the timelines for any agency approval. This information was compiled by state agency heads. The document also identifies the RSA and the average timeline it takes and reasons for permit delays. When you take a look, let me know if there’s something additional that I’m missing or something that we should look further into.
I am also excited to hear feedback today because our first Bill is being heard next week in Executive Departments and Administration, which would streamline the State Building Code and have that Code be the only Code to follow. There’s no municipal amendments to any state building code, energy code or electric code. So that’s being heard next Wednesday. I believe it’s House Bill 428 and we are going to push hard for that to pass and I think it’s important to have one building code statewide. The Towns, unlike today, would not be able to enforce a different code.
Senator Keith Murphy
Thanks, John. This is my second term, after spending four terms in the House. A lot of folks may know me, however, because I own Murphy’s Taproom Restaurant. Beyond that, my background is in construction as that was what my family had done for four generations. I spent summers crawling through ceilings, selling lights and wiring, and I realized that 6am is better bedtime for me than it is a time to wake up. So that was my experience in construction. But I grew around the industry beyond that, I’ve got a master’s degree in city planning, so I know how City Planners think and they are very good at designing that community to match a certain esthetic. That is usually how they think that community should look circa 1895 and in pursuit of that esthetic, they write codes, and the codes slow everything down. They make everything cost a lot more than it should. I heard throughout my district when I was campaigning last year, housing, housing, housing, housing. But we cannot build housing. We can’t find housing. I can’t afford to buy a house less than $700,000 anywhere in my experience, it is just that difficult for so many to own a home. I have met with some builders and they all have said the same thing. This is their number one topic. I heard it more than taxes. I heard it more than gun policy. I heard more than abortion. I heard more than everything. They would ask, “what can you do to bring down the cost of housing?” So, this is going to be my major focus going into this session. We have filed over 10 bills dealing with housing. I will not go through all of them tonight. Some are minor and some offer tweaks, but some are pretty major. And when you follow those 10 bills on the general court website, it is critical that if you believe that the Towns need to roll back their interference with how you do your jobs, than you need to show up at those hearings and testify in favor because I can guarantee you the opposition will be there in full force. I have heard a lot from them: “we do not want this in our town. We don’t want small leagues, small lots. I don’t want to look out my window and see a duplex. I don’t want these houses in my neighborhood. That’s what I hear right now. “We don’t want small starter homes in dense communities and dense developments in our amazing community with our 10 acre lots.” Countering that mentality is going to make a lot of work and a lot of support, and I’m really counting on everyone here to show up in those hearings.
The single biggest Bill that I have in out of 10, sets a maximum lot size of 1.5 acres. No town could require any more than 1.5 acres to build a home. If you have a lot serviced by water and sewer, public water and sewer, it’s a half of an acre. That, by itself, will do so much to lower the cost of land and the cost of development here in NH. I have many, many more to go over, but I don’t want to be talking about in great detail right now, I want to tell you that you have support in the House and the Senate, and frankly, surprisingly, bipartisan support on this issue. We really need your help and I want to thank you all for being here and I really look forward to hearing your personal stories so that I can talk about what I have heard at the State House.
John Stephen, EC District 4
Thank you, Senator.
So, we are going to start this process off, and I want to also point out that we have the building Associations represented here tonight and want to thank you all for being here and thank you for helping to let people know about this important issue. I represent Executive Council District 4 and I intend to conduct these Roundtables throughout my term on various important issues that impact my constituents. This issue is a top priority of mine as well as the Governors. Please when you speak tonight also offer solutions to this problem because it is these solutions that will help us bring Government efficiency to every community. Let’s open up the discussion.
Craig Jewett – Contractor, Jewett Construction
Thank you, John, and congratulations on your victory. It’s good to have you back in public service.
Dan Ray – Jewett Construction
We have been working through our Alteration Of Terrain permit process in a development in Raymond NH for over three years. It has been mostly contained to the local level, but there is a parallel path with the Department of Transportation in obtaining our driveway permit. We have gone back and forth for probably two years. I think some of our frustration in that timeline is we’ve gotten a lot of information, kind of piecemeal. In 2020 when you look back a lot could have been streamlined. We were fortunate enough to secure the permit but in looking back everything that kind of took us through the home stretch of receiving that permit probably could have been done a lot earlier in the process. It could have all been handled at once with one swoop. So we spent a lot of time with DOT back and forth with review letters and all that kind of stuff and it just got stuck in the water. I would like the ability to just pick up the phone and talk with someone and move things along. There are certain checks and balances that we certainly respect, and frankly, there’s a lot of engineering behind all of this, and we respect that, and want to make sure it’s all done the right way. But being able to pick up the phone, talk to somebody like a human being, getting all of the information up front, rather than in bits and pieces would make the process so much easier for us. That has been our experience in obtaining driveway permits. The experience has been a bit unreasonable.
There are other pieces that we also have to go through and one is with natural heritage from the review of Fish and Game Department. We had one with black racer snakes. We were flagged for a potential concern with the black racer snake. I think it’s a fairly prevalent species of snake further south, you know, even to New Jersey, it’s everywhere. But up here, as we understand, it’s sort of the further northern reach of their territory, so it’s considered a protected species. So that was flagged as a concern by DES and then they submit the review to Fish and Game by rule and there is a very specific window of time seasonally that you can monitor for these things and survey for these things. So there was a lot of back and forth with New Hampshire Fish and Game and on scientific means and methods on which to survey for these snakes, the protocol, the timing, how many surveyed days, and what the weather needed to look like. This created another unreasonable delay and we were faced with a lot of rude communication. I am just being honest and frank here, instead of being helpful we had to go back and forth and our means and methods took so long to verify that we missed the first season window and we got kicked back to the following season, which was another six month delay, all said and done. I think you look at it and none of it was intentional, I’m sure. But if the DES and Fish and Game, in that moment, was more privy to that window of time and were encouraging a speedy resolution and truly cared about our position and what the delay would cost, I am sure we could have gotten that process done before the season ended. There is probably some streamlining that could have been done there. And, again, if we were working with a private business, I would probably pick up the phone and I would talk to them as individuals and have a pretty casual conversation about what our goals and agenda is, and what we need to get done and when. When we work collaboratively through these solutions and the criteria that needs to be adhered to is clear, it would be probably signed off on, and we would have hit that initial window instead of waiting another six months to get back out there and do our survey. After missing out on the initial season we went back out there and found that the problem really never existed in the first place. Nevertheless, they held us hostage for the better part of a year,
Dan Humphrey – Stonefish Development
My name is Dan Humphrey. I’m with stonefish development. And just to tie on to what was just said, I found over the years that you generally get the answer you want after maybe a year of headache and an adequate number of pounds of paperwork that you submit, so you ultimately get the answer that you need, that you want, that moves the project forward, but the delays introduced by it are just extraordinary. I have also been at the other side of the table being a long time member of my local planning board. So, I understand the processes a little bit, but ultimately it’s just people adding so much complexity to the process and there is so much delay, and ultimately you wind up doing the same thing, or eventually get what you had planned in the first place. Now not always. I mean, maybe sometimes you don’t get to complete the project because there’s a very, very important impact, and it’s not covered in the process, but streamlining the process and getting to the answer faster somehow would be so much better. And I don’t have any constructive examples to how to fix the problem, but it is important to shed light on the process and try to streamline the best you can and remove as much complexity as possible.
Adam Crepeau – Department of Environmental Services, Assistant Commissioner
The wildlife consultation part of the rule is contained in state law. It is a state law under RSA 2:12 A that requires all agency actions, whether you are DES or any other state agency, to consult with the executive director of Fish and Game, or their staff to provide consult and decisions on wildlife impact. We are not the experts at DES so we rely on Fish and Game to do that. And it’s basically a review process that goes through them, and basically what you do is you get a natural heritage database check. Once you check that box, it will say you either have a threatened, endangered species on the property or not. If not, you do not have to go through the Department of Fish and Game review. If it does say that there is a threat and endangered species on the property, then you do have to do a review process.
Chris Evans, Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Verani Realty
I have been on a planning board and also a member of the New Hampshire Association of Real Estate Brokers. I just heard something that I have also experienced with Landing Turtles. We heard that there was a sighting of a Landing Turtle in proximity to a development. And nobody could say where and when this Landing Turtle was seen, it wasn’t on the site. Is it on the site? And the agency said, “well, it’s a three mile range that they could live in…” It is very arbitrary. Like chasing ghosts. And I had one long Eastern Hog Nose Snake, and it was sighted three miles from the site on a stone wall with a different type of terrain, across a six lane highway. And that snake, they run about 10 inches long. The state agency wanted me to put in 336 inch culverts across this driveway that we’re crossing for the snake that was seen in 1968 three miles away, across six miles of six planes of I-93 and when I finally was able to discover where this sighting actually was, I was able to go straight to DES and I said, I’m going to ask for an answer today on this and I’m going to go straight up to the governor’s office if we don’t get it. My project has been held up for months, and nobody can respond because this alleged snake that was not even on my site I was developing. The Heritage Commission does not disclose it’s like it’s top secret information about where these turtles and snakes live or are seen, and that never seems to be disclosed. Maybe we should know where that was seen so we could protect or not protect, but nobody will tell us where it is because that is a secret.
John Stephen – EC, District 4
If you feel the process is unreasonable, as you just described, is there any recourse that you have other than going to the DES Commissioner? Is there recourse in the Courts? Is their recourse anywhere in the law that allows you to get a speedy and immediate resolution? Or are you just at liberty of the agency.
Michael Yeatman, Pro Con
When you have a plan and need approval you usually have 60 or 90 days and then 30 days for a resubmission. But it is a very inefficient game and there is really no timelines as they just keep continuing the clock. It is most often open ended. So as you’re talking about developers trying to plan your execution for a project when you have those two agencies (DES and Fish and Game) that have no limit of time, so you’re just at their mercy, and then so many times, the conversation leads to a call to someone that knows someone at DES so you can get your project moved to the top.
Adam Crepeau – DES Assistant Commissioner
Most often we adopt the Fish and Game recommendations because they are the subject matter experts on the issue. But you know, there are certainly, over the last year, efforts to streamline with Fish and Game and we have been working with them to figure out a way to streamline this process and make it more efficient. And I know the new director is very focused on that as well. And you know, we wouldn’t be here if we were not committed to streamlining our policies. It is something very important to me. Previously I was in the Governor’s office and this issue was something that I worked on heavily. So I am very excited to be here and hear some of these concerns.
Stephanie Simek, Executive Director, Fish and Game
I am the new director, and I am very focused on this issue, and in fact, so focused that I actually brought our staff member that is that has been recently hired and put in point to help us fix this issue and address these concerns. And I’d like to have Kevin Sullivan go ahead and speak to you all so that you can get to know him as well. Many of you may already know him, but some of you may not.
Keving Sullivan – Fish and Game Department
Kevin Sullivan, I’m with the Fish and Game Department. I’m the environmental review program supervisor, and have only been in this position since February of last year, so there’s been a lot of changes since then. We’re trying to do exactly what Commissioner Crepeau said, get efficiencies in there, streamline the process and help you all move these projects forward. I think we’ve made big strides towards that goal. These timelines are in our rules that we have to abide by. We have a 60 day project review window without any pausing. It should be done within 60 days. We strive to do much less than 60 days. We don’t want to sit on a project longer than we have to, because they’re coming in every day. So we do have the ability to pause the 60 day window if information isn’t provided. You can find on our website that we have resources that tell you the minimum items you need to supply. It’s a checklist that you could use if all of those are there. The 60 days starts from the day you submit the plan, we start running our clock internally. We would pause it if we need information, such as, just an example, wetland delineation, if you’re doing wetland impacts, and there’s no wetland delineation, we might ask for that and then we’ll wait for it. So if it takes a week to get it, the total time on that clock might be 67 days, and that that’ll continue the review for one week. By rule, we’re supposed to end a project at one year.
We do have a clock and it has been more dynamic or more flexible than in the past, but we’re really focusing on trying to get the projects approved within that time frame.
With regard to the issue of the snake, I will preface this that I’m not a snake biologist. I am actually a Marine Fisheries Biologist. I said a lot about fish snakes. We have internal biologists who tell us those things. So for the process, we do have a time frame for some species that are shorter lived, and they get scrubbed off at 20 years. They’re not long with species, species like turtles that some of them can live up to 80 plus years. They stand on longer, but I don’t want to get in the weeds on this, but the thing to remember is, there’s one spotting that you’re seeing on your letter, but you got to remember, those are communities. They’re reproducing with other individuals of the same species. We aren’t constantly checking an area. That’s just a record that we have. We know they’re there now. We might go back in five years, but we’re not going out and looking for that individual every year. It’s just knowing that that’s a habitat type that they’re using, but they will get scrubbed off. They don’t stay on forever along the species. You know, we try to be brief. Thank you.
Chad Kagelerry, Summit Development
I am a developer primarily operating in the Dover market. And I’m going to disagree with what the commissioner said about the wildlife report when it comes back with no hits that you then can avoid the Fish and Game Department. It still requires a visit or consultation with Fish and Game. And I found, more often than not, they say, well, even though there may not be rabbits here or turtles here, it could be a favorable environment for them so we’re going to look for some sort of mitigation from the developer to address protecting wildlife that’s not even there. It’s a really, really difficult paradox to get around, especially when we’re often put on a time demand from customers and what not, and as these requirements from state agencies continue to grow, we often have to make concessions that really aren’t appropriate, and then compensating for land and conservation species that aren’t there. Sometimes you just have to take that and just do it to move the project forward. I do not think that was the intent of the law. I mean, it’s to protect endangered species and provide appropriate gardens moving forward.
I will start talking about possible solutions. I think that these agencies do have timelines that they are supposed to abide by but the timeline is not much of a barrier, because all they have to do is ask for more information to add to the timeline. So, there is no real teeth to these timelines. One thing that would be helpful is to have some legislation that creates a presumption that the permit should be granted at the end of the period. This will force these agencies to pay attention and use their time wisely and provide cogent arguments of why a project should be denied. We don’t have that now, and essentially, I have no idea how to quantify this, but the sum of the projects that have been sponsored by people in this room that have been denied, not because the agency gave an adverse decision, but they just ran out of time, is substantial. And the proponent just left the state or on to another site, it’s huge. So I think it’s high time we required the diligent and knowledgeable people at the state agency
to work within a reasonable timeline, and put their arguments in writing, and we see the basis for either approving or denying the project within a reasonable timeline, where, you know, the new headquarters of some multinational corporation wanting to move the Hampton doesn’t have to move to Massachusetts. This would be a positive and big change.
Also, along those lines, I think one of the best things that happened to the housing industry in this state
was the housing appeals board. And at the time, I wondered, why can’t we just have essentially a permitting review process like this across all industries? That reviews arbitrarily, capricious decisions, not just by state agencies, but also by municipalities, and reviews them against the standard reason, and has the authority to reverse decisions that are not reasonable.
John Stephen, EC District 4
I see that Greg Moore is here from Americans for Prosperity that was responsible for helping pass that Housing Appeals Board law. Greg can you comment as to the process in that legislation.
Greg Moore – Americans For Prosperity
Sure, in 2023 we worked closely with former Chief Justice Bob Lynn, and the House Majority Leader, Jason Osborne, to pass a land use docket in the Superior Court. And I remember the first time the Bill came around, Representative Joe Alexander was on the Judiciary Committee and it took us a couple tries to get it, which is pretty typical in New Hampshire legislature. And what it did is really acknowledged the fact, first and foremost, that the process, the legal process, was just completely out of whack. Chief Justice Gordon McDonald said that land use cases went from the bottom of the docket, and they would often linger for two to three years before you get a resolution, and when you’re waiting all for all these other approvals, waiting for a resolution for a court case, and a lot of cases, your financing can’t hold on and the whole thing falls apart. So, we were able to help pass a land use docket, and it’s in place now. If you go to that docket, it’s designed to be a very quick process: 30 days for your structuring, hearing briefs within 60 days after that and a resolution to that case 60 days later. So five months now is a lot better than two to three years, which we had been seeing in the past, or even longer. So hopefully it means that the wheels of justice will grind faster and look at resolution on a lot of these issues quicker.
To add to that, the current Chief Justice told the Judiciary Committee yesterday about feedback on how quick these cases are going through. So, the legislature is looking specifically at the data and how it’s speeding these up. So I think we’ll know a little bit more information in the next couple weeks on how effective, how effective it has been.
Margherita Verani – Berkshire Hathaway Home Services, Verani Realty
I just wanted to make a few comments. So, I do real estate, and I also do land development, and I just wanted to say it’s not just the state, it’s also the local planning and zoning. And with the locals, they have certain time frames that they’re supposed to review things, and they never renew them during these timeframes. I have a seven lot subdivision in Londonderry that took me three years to get approved, and $14,000 per lot for engineering, and then you have the planning board sitting there saying, “these damn developers, they they’re making all this profit,” and it’s the regulations that the towns are putting on this process. Why do I need granite curbs? I don’t know. Just so you can pop your tires quicker, and it’s a lot more money. I think the planning boards must go to a meeting every year and say, “Okay, how can we get developers out of the town?” “Let’s add this, this, this, this, it’s going to cost all kinds of money and therefore they won’t build.” Well, they do build, but the houses just become less affordable and less affordable, and then they think that the developers are making so much profit. But there’s no regulations in town. They’re supposed to review a plan in 30 days, maybe 120 days, you get to see it. You get your comments back. You fix the comments. You put them back in and they come back with a whole new bucket list of comments that they were completely different from what they had the first time. They’re sending it out to outside engineers.
It is your property and it cost you three years that you’re carrying this piece of property. For the DOT now it is 18 months out where they’ll even look at your site. So you’ve got developers that are trying to buy things, that have sellers that are saying, I have to wait three years to close on this. It’s costing the developers all kinds of money to carry this, plus the engineering that they’re paying for, plus all of these other things that they’re paying for, and there’s no repercussions to account for the unreasonable delays. The Planning Board is made up by people that do not have any background in development, because then they consider it a conflict of interest. It’s made up of people that don’t want to see their towns grow. And you have a public southern Planning Commission that is saying, we need smaller lots, we need more conservation. And the towns don’t do any of that. They don’t abide by any of that. So at that point, you might have dodged the Conservation Commission and say, What do you need them for? Why are we paying for this? There needs to be some ramifications to the towns if they don’t meet reasonable standards. And if you question it, forget it. Your plan is denied, or you’re put off for another six months out before they say anything more.
John Bisson, Attorney Cronin Bisson & Zalinsky
We do land use work. Our firm does it all over the state. And I do want to address two things I just heard about the housing appeals board and the land use docket. They look great when you read them in the book, but they don’t work. The Housing Appeals Board was started as a solution, and when you read the statute, it’s wonderful a place where you go with people who are going to rule on it that have the skills necessary to rule on it. But their docket is full and they were underfunded by the state. They couldn’t get three people on the Board. They are supposed to issue decisions within 60 days. We’ve had stuff hanging up there for a year at the Housing Appeals Board. So, then the Housing Appeals Board was replaced by the land use docket, which also looks great on paper. Now we’re going to have a judge. We have one in the entire state, Michael Class, who was on the Housing Appeals Board, a very gifted land use attorney, he gets it, understands it, and is talented. However, he’s one judge. He’s sitting in Hillsborough County, North, by himself, handling the entire land use document. So, if you have an approval in Salem, you’ve got to come to Manchester for your court hearing. That judge is getting overworked. So, if you want a land use document, docket votes, you’ve got to staff it. You need more than one judge, because it’s nuts. It would be like having a divorce court for the entire state. It doesn’t make sense. One judge can’t handle it all, and the statutory restrictions about when and how are gone and when you call the court as an attorney saying, hey, you know, we argued this 60 days ago, and we should have a decision by now, the poor clerk who answers the phone says it’s with the judge, and you say, Well, what about the 60 days? And they say it’s with the judge, and if you’re lucky, you’ll get a decision in six months.
The other comment I want to make and then I’ll stop. Is that, the courts are not the solution to solve the problem. I have been doing this for 30 years. Courts are not the place to make these people’s lives better, they should never have to see me to go fight to get something that someone said about a turtle two years ago resolved, because when you come to a lawyer, you’re throwing money into the legal process. You’re not building a house, you’re not spending it on curbs or on pavement or anything. You’re making a lawyer wealthy. And that is not a solution. So to suggest that if there’s an issue with DES you could we have a direct appeal is not the solution. The solution is to fix the process.
Jack Frank – Avanru Development
I have developed in the state workforce housing, senior housing. I actually was at the Appeals Board just a little while ago, and I found that it was great. We were heard very quickly. The folks that were on the Appeal Board did a tremendous job in asking questions, and we were waiting for them to respond to the to the hearing, we had a parallel zoning board challenge in the town of Newport that was at the Superior Court that was on another side of it. So we actually filed two lawsuits, just one for backup. So my experience at the Appeals Board was that it was great, and they did a tremendous job.
One story and then a solution. We were working on a development for affordable housing in Walpole, New Hampshire, Abenaki springs. We got hit for $40,000 and had to hire a UMass archeologist and it took over a year. The reason is that we could not really dig in the middle of the winter. So we lost an entire winter. $40,000 later, they found a burn pit from the early 1890s that an old farmer said was going to be there anyway. That is what we ended up with. We ended up with some great reports, $40,000 later, and a year delay. I think if all the agencies accepted the fact that we have professional engineers in this state and we have professional wildlife biologists. So why don’t the folks at DES and Fish and Game and other agencies get together and qualify engineers for Alteration of Terrain permits because they all have to build and they are all professional engineers. If they have repeatedly demonstrated that they are committed to effective standards and are certified, then maybe that will alleviate some pressure on DES to do the work. What I’m saying here is, let’s sub this important function out. Let’s get some folks at the table that know this work and if I have to hire a wildlife biologists that has been pre-certified by the State I will and I will pay them four or $5,000 dollars.
The redundancy in this process, be it building permits, zoning board applications, landing board applications, is absurd. That is why, with the cost it takes to get these projects done, these folks that are professionals who have the capacity can come in and help and we just go with the results they come up with. Let them do their work, and we go with the results that they have. I am sure DES can use another dozen engineers for Alternation Permits, but we’ve got them here in this state in these professional engineers who all do a wonderful job. They’ve got professional insurance and we should be looking at that as an option to add to.
John Stephen – EC, District 4
That is a really good idea Jack. I would love to see a list of pre-approved engineers that state agencies can sub out work to that they would pre-approve. It is almost like a per se approval. We go forward to the next step. I think with our new Governor and some of the agency heads I have met with you have people in place now that are really wanting to be collaborative and make this process work so they may embrace an idea like this.
Ken Scarpetti – Sierra Development
You know, when we were talking about having different, you know, subbing out different engineering duties, towns are doing it now. Looking at AOT permits, I’m working on a project right now in Somersworth. It’s at the old armory site. So, part of the part of the property is going back to the town and it is on a seven acre parcel. It is a level site and there is not a tree in site. It has water and sewer already. Why then would you even need to go through the AOT process for something like that. There is no clearing of trees, or a lot of drainage. This is a city lot, and so something like that, instead of paying $100,000 for an AOT permit because it is going to be at least 6 months, have something like this pre-approved and not needing all this review. That could work here easily.
Senator Keith Murphy
About 20 years ago, then DES Commissioner Tom Burack, was determined to do the same thing and change the policy to allow for pre-certified engineers in private practice to review AOT permits and their decisions would stand and then if there were problems the developer later on would be on the hook and the engineers license as well where the department would retain the right to audit. Engineers will be very careful and would not make a mistake here because their professional license would be on the line.
No Name Given
Well, there’s an analog to that already that the Federal Aviation Authority already uses. My background also was an airline pilot for a long time, and there are designated Pilot Examiners that are professional pilots and designated by the FAA to do exactly what the FAA can do. And every once in a while, the FAA will pop in and do a surprise check on they check Airman and make sure that you’re still following the process. But it’s done in a completely different industry quite well. I mean, the United States essentially, is accident free for part 121, Aircraft Operations.
Matt Mayberry – CEO NH Home Builders Association
I’m the CEO of the New Hampshire Home Builders Association, and we have some answers to some of your concerns, a big one that we’ll deal with right now came from a meeting with Senator Keith Murphy, who’s an amazing champion for us and our friends at Elm Grove development.
We are not reinventing the wheel because Florida does this, it’s been done. In one of the Bills we have filed LSR 356, you would have a preset of vendors that you’ve already worked with, and if you as a developer, say, we’re working with our friends at TF Moran for example, and they’re going to say, storm, wide, drainage, great. What happens is the developer sends that to DES. It gets stamped as received. And then the firm can go build. If your vendor messed this up and you have to go back and redo it, you’re going to pay for it. As long as you trust your subs to do good, Storm water, drainage, leach fields, water, AOT permits, as long as you trust them, we’ll trust you. But there will be an Audit when DES gets around to it, but the system moves forward with trust. If it’s wrong, you, the developer, have to pay to get fixed.
There are 153 pieces of legislation filed right now that affect housing. The New Hampshire Home Builders Association is waiting on every single one of them. There’ll be a document coming out next week that you can look and see where we stand, why we stand, and what we’re doing about it. We are tired of talking about it and we are going to do something about it. We are also changing the timelines to 60 days for a regular driveway cut 90 days if it’s considered a major traffic. There is no definition of major traffic, by the way.
And, Councilor Stephen, Senator Murphy and Representative Alexander, thank you for being Champions on this issue.
Chad Kagelerry, Summit Development
What would it take for DES to simply change the standard for AOT submissions. Right now it is 100,000 square feet. What if it became 200,000 square feet, and what percentage of the applications for AOT are 100,000 to 200,000 square feet? Is that 5% of the applications? Is it 25% of the applications? Because whatever it is, if we raise this number so as to loosen the standard, we’re going to unburden the department for the time being. So that could happen very quickly. But, I will also go out on the limb here with a number of developers in this room. Maybe we would even be ok with paying more for the higher number and loosen standards. If it is a big project, I think most developers, given the time that it would save and the monies that it would save along the way, would say, I’ll happily pay a small premium to make sure that my work gets done quicker.
Matt Mayberry
Noted that raising that standard could involve endangered species act EPA federal challenge.
John Stephen – EC, District 4
I appreciate that Matt, but we have a new Administration and I just think our agencies and state should go forward and then can work with the Federal government to be more flexible and I am sure with this incoming Administration that we can see a lot more flexibility given to states.
Jack Franks, Avanru Development
We also have redundancy at the town level too. Lots of times you’ll ask for a peer review. So we had a peer review in Hillsborough and that cost $50,000. It was a month, month and a half of delays. Then you’ve got the water sewer, which is separate from the actual town. They have their own commission there. And we had AOT permits ready to roll, and they wanted to lower the sewer, because they have guys on their team that they wanted that done, which was another expense and by the time it was all said and done, we added another $75,000 in expenses. And again, the whole aspect of redundancy is great to a point, but you know, when you’ve got affordable housing project that’s being looked at by the investors, you’ve got your own engineering firm, you’ve got the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority looking at everything that you’re doing as well. You’ve got three really qualified folks there. Then you go to the town that doesn’t believe anybody, and wants to do things their way. So maybe there’s something that can be done legislatively where, you know, we could just cut that extra 20, 30, 40, $50,000 out because it’s just absolutely ridiculous, and we’re paying great engineers, like you said over there, we just need some legislative support.
Giovanni Verani – Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Verani Realty
My name is Giovanni Verani and I also serve on the planning board for the town of Londonderry. I’m a realtor, and I also represent developers. So what I see at the town level, and I see the delays on the state side too, is where we are having the biggest delays. That process goes on and on, and the towns are also understaffed, and they constantly abuse their timelines. It seems like there should be something in place that says to a town, if you go beyond your required timelines, then you have no more comment, or it needs to go back, or it’s approved, or something to that effect. And then it seems as if the planning at the planning board level would work. You would get a conditional approval and the planning board, the public hearing, is like the show. So everybody’s there, and you have all this input and all the departments reporting in, and the project gets initial conditional approval. Because after that there does not seem to be any expediency, and the towns will sit on that conditional approval, or the staff will sit on that conditional approval. And to satisfy those conditional approvals, by the time they get back to you it could take as long as the original approval took, so that’s the time delay I think a lot of you folks are experiencing. And time frames are in the RSAs, they just do not work. But, I may be wrong but I do not think there’s any statutes or RSAs that say, okay, you’re conditionally approved. You need to get back to this applicant at this point, and it just sits there. And it is a painful process and painful delay.
It is a painful process Joe and I appreciate what you’re saying and what you’re doing with regards to hopefully streamlining the process. In these towns after they do their work DOT will then come back and say you have to analyze four intersections for a traffic study. The last project I was involved in the DOT for our town, came back with 16 different things and it just drives the cost for everybody up in the time lane lines. So, we need to say you have a certain period of time and that is it.
Kevin Smith, Smith Horizons
Thanks John for hosting this Roundtable. My name is Kevin Smith with Smith Horizons. I was a town manager in Londonderry for nine years before going over to the dark side of development. I want to echo what Gianni and Margherita Verani saying, that there needs to be legislation that brings uniformity and statutes that put teeth in these review periods on the local level. As far as I know, the only statute for planning boards is that once you submit formally to a planning board, it has to be heard within a certain amount of time. But there are no statutes into how long these reviews can go on for, and these timelines vary by municipality. It is the municipality where the authority rests, and in some it’s with the planning board, and in some it’s with the staff, and some it’s with the third party reviewers. So, you have to navigate and figure out who is actually making the decisions.
The authority lies really with the staff and the third-party reviewer on the planning board. It’s more of a formality, but they put all of their trust in what the staff is saying. And I know it works that way in a lot of other municipalities, but in some they do the reviews in house, and really it’s just the planning board that’s looking through what are really complex reviews. But there, in my opinion, there needs to be legislation that puts actual timelines on these reviews on the local level, and if they’re not reviewed within a certain amount of time, then those plans are deemed approved, because they are becoming more and more cumbersome.
And as far as the members themselves, whether they’re again, they’re elected in some communities, they’re appointed in other communities. But very often, you have board members that have no knowledge of land use regulations. We have board members in Londonderry right now that are calling for building moratoriums. Besides being illegal, they do not seem to care. They could actually be putting the town in significant legal Jeopardy. So there’s a lot of reform that needs to be done on the local level. The other thing I will quickly say is that, you know, looking at this handout here, you look at average approval time from DOT and you notice they are not bound to anything. And these are all generalities on how long these driveway approval times are taking? Marguarite is correct. There’s a huge, significant backlog and time delay and how they’re reviewing these. Senator Sharon Carson sponsored legislation, I want to say, like five years ago, to put a 60 day review time on driveway permits. The department fought that adamantly, and the department won at the end of the day. That legislation was killed, but it would have put a review time on their reviews, and at the time, they said they didn’t have the staffing to properly review and turn those around in time.
Eric Jackson, Stabile Companies
I just wanted to comment on that, because we’re currently involved with two projects that are requiring the driveway permit. In one we received a permit in October. It took 18 months. And the second one is tracking for about 18 months as well. We were looking at the documentation today, and I think if we’re interpreting it correctly, there is currently a time frame at the DOT. It basically is that you have to review the documentation within 60 days, and I think you have to turn the driveway permit around within 120 days. But the problem is, every time you submit new information, they reset the clock, and so it just keeps going on and on and on. So, we added up the total time we anticipated DOT would be reviewing this project that we’re working on now, and it came to about 10 months. And so we calculated the cost of a 10 month carry and it’s enormous, and every single one of those dollars goes into the value of the price of that house. So the cost of housing, that’s one of the reasons why we’re here. So we would support reasonable timeframes that are adhered to. And to Chad’s point, we would support some kind of a fee. And the reason is because ultimately, you’re saving money in that carry cost. So, the money that you save, if we could take 10 months and trick it down to four or five, and put those costs back into the project it will be less expensive in the long run.
Arthur Sullivan, Brady Sullivan
We do a lot of conversions of commercial property into residential. We need residential units in the State. We are able to pretty much, 60, 70, 80 unit conversions and probably put them on line within 12 months. But that is just a fraction of the time it takes with all of these reviews in these towns. It is just brutal, and it’s just a lot of nonsense. The towns look for every reason to just continue the process and causing you to come back one more time, one more time. We can turn these projects into housing very quickly. We’ve done many in downtown Manchester. We take empty office buildings that sat there empty for years, and we are changing the dynamics of even our city in Manchester, with all these
New units. There are several – over 1000 new people that are living in our city, and it’s evolving. I think it’s a great for Manchester and our neighborhoods and I love to see that happening. But there is no reason why these conversions can’t be done in a much faster and quicker manner in all of these towns and not delay with many excuses, and one meeting after another. So it is refreshing to hear that we may be able to do something to shorten the time period for many of these important projects.
Chris Evans, Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Verani Realty
I think there’s 238 towns and 17 cities, which leaves about 200 and something small towns. And I happen to live in a small town. There’s some vast different thinking of like, this is our little town, our special characters, our town is very special. It’s got the same rocks and trees as the town, you know, a mile away or whatever. Every single town has a different set of rules and guidelines and people that are thinking up new ways to trip up developers, I think a statewide passing of certain legislation, such as you suggested, with the limit of one and a half acre lots is a great start. You know, if you have no town water, which is most of the towns, no town sewer, and you have to abide by state DES rules for septic systems, which you know you can have a lot with as low as 20,000 square feet with the right soils, why do we need to have to have five acres to build. We should tell the towns that you are in the state and you have to follow these rules. DES has professional engineers that design septic systems and know what to do, and you’re the planning board members, and you don’t know anything about this. So you shouldn’t have discretion to say what is required in your state. So, I think that would be one thing just to a statewide passing, just like the ADU legislation that was recently passed.
Representative Joe Alexander
I am going to put my political hat on for a second. We have to do a better job of reframing the argument, especially with Republicans, about this being a property rights issue. Like, why do you not have the right to have an in-law apartment in your yard that is detached from the existing structure? And I have a bill in to address that. But, like, in order to get people on board, we have to talk about generational like living. We need to talk about zoning in the form of like having too much control over your own property. And when we frame that, I think we have a better discussion around that. So I have another Bill in HB 399, which is a commission to study the New Hampshire zoning Enabling Act, which is actually conveniently turning 100 this year. Under that Act, the New Hampshire legislature 1925 said towns have the right to do this, this, this, this and this. And since then, over 100 years, there have been court challenges. There have been amendments, and what we need to do as a legislature is really study what this is doing and how it’s changed over time, and say, is that the true legislative intent that the legislature put in 1925. But in order to do that, you need to frame the argument of being like, okay, the legislature gave towns this permission in 1925 and how is that changed over time? So that’s something that I’m pushing through, specifically the Housing Committee. And I think that’s what the state needs to do to fix this housing crisis.
Gary Thomas – NorthPoint Construction
Gary Thomas from North Point construction. The 18 month situation is obviously a huge concern for all of us, but I think more than ever over the last couple of years, I wish I had $1 for every time a client would hit the pause button because of the cost of money. To start a project, you know, you start getting, you know, toe deep into it and by the time you are knee deep the interest rates have gone up because 12 months have gone by with still no approval. My clients are like, hold on a second. I have to figure out if this is even going to work out for me. These unreasonable periods have been a big issue for us at least over the last couple of years and I completely agree with what everybody’s saying about 18 months with DOT is just insane. We have talked about affordable housing. Well, it’s only going to become affordable if we all work together to make this happen. And it’s getting harder and harder to do that whether it’s for ourselves or the client.
Dylan Cruise, TF Moran
I represent TF Moran and am from the engineering side, and one of the biggest hurdles is in the review process. New Items keep coming up in the second, third, fourth review process. We had one project, and we had a pavement detail in a certain section. Then we were asked to do something different on the fourth iteration of a review. We need to be told what we need to address in the first submittal and that needs to be reviewed in a lot more detail, and then the next review should only be what was questioned or what was commented on during the initial review. In that way, you could actually get to holding time frames, because we see it, and they ask more questions, they ask for more information. But, right now it’s this back and forth where we’ll talk to developers, and they’re like, Well, of course you got to answer that question again, and of course you got to give that extension to a timeline, because they can’t say, No, or the project will be denied and you will miss out on two years. So it’s this constant. Well, I know that’s an overreach, but we have to agree to extending these timelines just to keep the project moving. So if there is any way of limiting subsequent reviews to the comments that were made on the initial review that would be great. So that way, at least you’re able to whittle the issue down to fewer and fewer issues, rather than you think you’re at the at the finish line, and all of a sudden, something else comes up that’s been on the plans for 10 iterations, that was never brought up as an issue. And it just makes engineers look bad. It delays everybody here. So, I don’t know how to do that, but that’s a big challenge. And we’ve had review agencies. They’ll switch reviewers just for whatever reason, and it’s a whole new ball game. The new reviewer gets to come in, and they get their personal preference. So, somehow we have to limit the scope of each iteration of review to actually be able to hold to any of these time frame in statutes.
Martin Bucha (planning consultant).
I was a municipal planner for Pretend Air, so I’ve been in the belly of the beast. To this point, a lot of communities, especially smaller communities, will hire out 30 party engineers because, to review, they don’t have any staff. And even lodging communities, they send out their plans for review. My client in Londonderry spent as much, almost as much money paying for that third party review for his project as he spent on the engineer to design the project. Communities can do it. And the letters got longer and longer and longer, 10,15,,20,30, pages. You answer all the questions, the next letter is the same. So 30 part review can be very, very expensive and delays. Planning boards don’t have a clock. Once an application is accepted, the planning board has 90 days to approve. However, after that 90 days, you go to the planning board and say, I want my approval. Oh, you want your approval tonight? Well, we have this long list. You have an answer, so you either request an extension or get a denial and have to wait another 90 days. Well, we still have questions. You want approval tonight. We want to answer tonight. Alright, tonight. Oh, another 90 days. So there is a clock in statute, but it just gets on and on and on.
Sarah Stewart, Commissioner, NH Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
My name is Sarah Stewart, and I serve as the Commissioner of the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, which is home to five divisions, the biggest one being Parks and Recreation. The State Library, and the Division of historical resources, the division of forests and lands and the New Hampshire state council on the arts. So, we like to say we are everything that you love about New Hampshire, but you’ve probably bumped into us on occasion through the Natural Heritage Bureau, which is in our division of forests and lands and with the historical Resources Division, we see a lot of permit requests. I have some numbers here, and Councilor Stephen I will share the paperwork that we submitted to the Governor, because, as you mentioned, she’s hot on this and has asked us to submit documentation summarizing the process and areas where we can do better. I will send that to you. For me tonight was great for me to just listen. I’m stuck in Concord a lot, and I, you know, having a chance to be face to face with some of the folks that are doing work with my staff is really important. My takeaway is that all of us, state and local developers want to try to get beyond the us versus them mentality and do more of a team approach to get to yes. And sometimes getting to yes is tricky, but if we flip a switch in terms of how we’re approaching these processes and incentivize, as you said, a way to get to yes, either faster, cheaper, but without sacrificing some of the importance that I know my staff cares about, because they’re hired to do a specific job per RSA, and they’re very passionate about it, I think that would be a fantastic outcome. I think if we do some more
Stephanie Simek, Executive Director NH Department of Fish and Game
My name is Stephanie Simek and I am the new Executive Director for the Department of Fish and Game. I am new to the state and new to all of you. I do want to start building relationships. Councilor Stephen, thank you for inviting us and putting this event on tonight. This is a great opportunity for me to meet you all. You all get to get to know me. This is exactly what I needed. I needed to hear from you what the concerns were and, as I said earlier, I am dedicated to and committed to trying to face this and see what the issues are and see if we can’t streamline this. I’ll even go so far as to speak for my colleagues, DES, DNCR, we’re working together right now to try to address this. It is a collaborative effort for us, and this is very helpful for us to gain this information from you all. I do also want to say I do have some information as well. Councilor I will also provide you with information that the Governor has asked from us. As Sarah said, we want to work with you, not against you. This should be a collaborative effort, and so please. This is partly why I invited Kevin tonight. He’s going to be the main person, and feel free to contact him. Contact me if you’re running into issues or concerns. We want to make this right for our state, while protecting these resources. While protecting those resources, we want to make sure we’re ensuring these economies and New Hampshire is thriving, so we want to help you all be successful as well. Thank you very much for your time here and for your candid comments, thank you,
Adam Crepeau, DES Assistant Commissioner
Thank you, so I did want to provide the LSR number for you. It’s LSR 1050, that increases the threshold from 100,000 square feet to 200,000 square feet for AOT permits something that that will be weighing in on and working with folks throughout the process.
As I mentioned, we know many of you in the room and work with some of you including Representative Alexander. I know DES will be working with other elected officials as well to make sure that we get to a good spot on this. I think it’s very important. You know, I worked in the governor’s office before coming to DES, and it was certainly a high priority for the Governor then as it is now for Governor Ayotte. And so one of the things that we’re looking at is we’re rewriting our rules to be more streamlined, so it’s more linear. It hasn’t been adopted yet, but currently, what you basically have to do is you look at one bar, and then, of course, do another part. You have to go on a scavenger hunt to get to the answer. And so one of the things that we felt was very important was making sure that the process is very linear. You’ll see some of these things coming out in the next month or so.
You know, my door is always open, and we pride ourselves, as you know, in making sure that I make the time to meet with folks on this issue is on the top of mine and the Commissioner’s list. We want to find ways to solve the timeline issue. I heard many other issues here that I wrote down, and I want to take back to my team to see how we can address them. I have business cards here tonight that has my cell phone on it, so feel free to call me anytime you know. Feel free to talk to me after and get my card. Again, I want you all to know that door is always open for discussion.
John Stephen, EC, District 4
So Adam, you mentioned that DES is moving forward on rule changes that would streamline. Can you explain what that is about more clearly?
Adam Crepeau, DES Assistant Commissioner
We are attempting to augment the current process of wetland approval and make it more streamlined. We’re making it better. The draft was released to our Wetlands Council earlier this week, and so that that was the process to make it public so folks can look at that. We are hoping that you all will provide some substantial comments on that so we can understand how we can make that work for you. I think, I think it’s much improved over the prior rule set, but always, always room for improvement and efficiency.
John Stephen, EC District 4
Adam will you ensure that the people in this room get a chance to see those draft rules and have a chance to weigh in and comment?
Adam Crepeau, DES Assistant Commissioner
Yes, absolutely. We just released them to our Wetlands Council, which is our process to make it public, because an audit said a long time ago that you can’t meet with specific outside groups until you go through this process. That way, everyone has a transparent way to interact with us. So, we will be releasing this draft and we want to meet with anyone who wants to meet with us on these rules. There will also be an opportunity for public comment.
Are
Roundtable Discussion Concludes.
Summary of Key Highlights from Interested stakeholders and observers subsequent to discussion:
- Have a checklist for applicants/citizens so they get everything in up front and it is streamlined and easy to follow.
- All Departments do a thorough review first time around and not continue to ask questions related to issues that should have been addressed earlier.
- Once reviewed, Departments should not get a chance to go back and re-hash the original application, only what was new/requested after the initial/last review
- Should be 30 days tops to complete a review (maybe with certain circumstances of a large project taking 60 days); apply, 30 days to review, request for additional time would receive updated application, 30 days to review only the updated/new information.
- Put teeth into the review process – meaning, why do we have restrictions on timelines in the first place if they are not followed. Developers and landowners should not have to sue, just put teeth into the law. Agencies need to be held accountable.
- Have metrics/KPI for departments to follow (run it like a business!)
- Have dedicated account representatives, don’t shuffle us between workers (run it like a business!)
- Ensure the cost/fee schedule is sufficient to provide good service (like a business!)
- Must have a rush option (that costs more, but must have a way to expedite the process by cutting in line, and reducing overall time by half.) Ideally there would be “congestion pricing” so that the rush option is always priced in a way that it actually works.
- The culture of the departments has to be more business-like. I’d be looking at what the incentives are while acknowledging that every action creates some unintended incentives (perverse incentives.)
Some other recommendations from contractors I spoke to prior to the discussion.
- Identify rubber stamps (if a process is a rubber stamp 98% of the time, find ways to avoid the process for 98% of applicants)
- Licensed professionals shouldn’t then also need an inspection. What was the license for then?
- One from my electrician buddies; Journeymen electricians should be able to pull permits.
One comment from a landscape designer. We build many decks. Decks are considered “impermeable” surfaces as if they are the same as a roof or parking lot when it comes to run-off. Decks are almost always very permeable. And usually very small compared to a roof or parking lot