Nashua Zoning Recodification Committee Meeting - September 30, 2025

Introductory paragraph: The Planning & Economic Development Committee held its seventh session on the zoning code recodification, led by Planning Manager Sam Durfee. The meeting focused on the proposed use table, site standards, and an inclusionary zoning update. No public comments were offered. The committee discussed simplifying the use table from 293 uses to broad categories, debated the classification of residential uses (including co-living and services), reviewed sign regulations, and provided direction on inclusionary zoning options for payment in lieu, off-site units, and penalties.

Discussion Items

• Use Table Simplification: Sam Durfee presented a history of 53 use variances over five years, mostly approved. The proposed table reduces uses to categories (e.g., "retail sales of consumer goods") with specific call-outs for uses like funeral services (excluding crematoria). Aldermen questioned the difference between conditional uses and permitted uses; Durfee explained conditional uses require a planning board permit with criteria. The new table would prevent situations like a crematorium in a residential district.
• Residential Use Classification: Durfee proposed four residential categories: separate facilities (single-family, multifamily with separate cooking/bath), co-living with shared facilities (e.g., dormitories, room rentals), co-living with services (e.g., halfway houses, assisted living), and commercial lodging. This aligns with state law HB 457, which prohibits regulating based on familial, marital, employment, or educational status. Alderman Clemens argued that co-living operations (e.g., recovery houses) are commercial businesses and should be regulated differently, possibly with occupancy limits per square footage. Alderman Jetty noted that calling a use "single family" might itself violate new state law. Alderman Thibault asked about enforcement and short-term rental regulations. There was consensus to explore occupancy limits for co-living categories but not for standard residential.
• Site Standards and Signs: Durfee noted most site standards (fences, walls, landscaping) are being carried over from existing code. Alderman Jetty raised an issue about ground signs: current ordinance restricts only the text area, not the supporting structure, allowing very large sign structures as long as the lettering remains within size limits. He requested clarification to regulate the entire sign structure. Alderman Clemens asked about distinctions between signs and art; Durfee said commercial speech is regulated, but murals not advertising a business are exempt. Alderman Govea confirmed that changes made during COVID (exempting umbrellas) were retained.
• Inclusionary Zoning Update: Durfee presented options for payment in lieu, off-site unit construction, and penalties. The committee expressed a strong preference for on-site affordable units. For payment in lieu: Option A (formula based on value gap), Option B (flat fee per square foot, $15–22 range), and Option C (discretionary case-by-case for large projects). Alderman Govea favored Option B for simplicity and ease of inflation adjustment. Alderman Clemens noted that the $15–22 amount is the additional cost to build an affordable unit versus market rate; the payment would capture that delta. For off-site units: Option A (strictly on-site but conditional use permit possible), Option B (with radius requirements), and Option C (developer proposes off-site location subject to city approval). Aldermen favored Option C with guidance (e.g., near bus lines, quality standards), as it allows flexibility and avoids concentration. Alderman Thibault thought Option B was unrealistic given land constraints.
• Penalties for Non-Compliance: Options included withholding certificate of occupancy (CO), daily fines, and financial surety (bond/letter of credit). The committee agreed on a combination: start with Option A (no CO until units delivered or payment made) and allow Option C (cash surety) as a backup if a developer demonstrates need, but only via a conditional use permit process. Alderman Clemens stressed that Option C should not be offered upfront to prevent deep-pocketed firms from simply paying a premium. Durfee noted they already use COs for final inspections and could issue floor-by-floor COs. Alderman Jetty asked about protections if a developer goes bankrupt mid-project. Durfee said the market typically steps in and that building inspectors monitor safety.

Key Outcomes

• The committee generally supported a flat fee per square foot (Option B) for payment in lieu, with the fee set to reflect the cost difference between market and affordable units plus a premium for buy-out.
• For off-site units, the committee leaned toward a flexible, case-by-case approach (Option C) with location criteria (e.g., transit access, services) rather than strict radius requirements.
• Penalties will use a tiered approach: mandatory no CO until compliance (Option A) with the ability to apply for a conditional use permit to post cash surety (Option C) as an exception. Daily fines (Option B) were considered unnecessary.
• The planning manager plans to step away on paternity leave; staff will work on site plan and subdivision regulations. A unified land use code is targeted for Q1 2026 with potential adoption by July 1, 2026. The committee may not meet in October unless legislation arises.
• No formal votes were taken; the discussions provided direction for drafting the code.