Oh, so we're getting through zero.

If you can let me see that, it doesn't look like anyone's logged on.

Do we need this?

I'll mute Zoom in my end so it doesn't play it twice.

But no one else is in, they don't need it in the test.

Test?

Test.

All right.

Sounds like it's working.

All right.

Um meeting of the planning and economic development committee was held today, Tuesday, November 18th, 2025, at 701 p.m.

in the automatic chamber, and duly noticed in two places, including the city's website, in accordance with the requirements of RSA 9182 Section 2.

Uh with the Kirk Clerk, please call the roll.

Well, Matlarge, Melbourne Moran Junior Chairman.

Here.

Alderman Derek Thibault is here.

Alderman Ernest A.

Jetty?

Here.

Alderman at large, Ben Clemens?

Here.

Alderman Tyler Govea, Vice Chair.

Here.

Thank you.

We also have Matt Sullivan, community development director, and Sam Durfee, planning manager who's on Zoom, I believe.

Is he on there?

Or he is, okay.

I wonder if I can.

Okay.

Um so we're gonna have open up a public hearing for O 25-073, amending the land use code regarding approved subdivision exemption.

Is there any introduction to each of these before we call for testimony?

Director Sullivan.

Yes, uh, thank you, Mr.

Chair, Matt Sulvin, Community Development Director for the City of Nashua.

Uh Manager Durfee and I have prepared some brief comments on each piece of legislation.

Um perhaps what I can do is just provide a brief overview of why we're here with these five pieces of legislation, dive into the first piece, 025073, and then we can either go right in a row or happy to allow the public hearing between each piece subject to your discretion, Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, let's just go straight through.

Okay.

Great.

Um and I did note that the clicker wasn't working for me all earlier, so perhaps if the clerk or chair could advance the slides when when we get to we can stay on the slide for a minute, but unfortunately I couldn't find a way to move the slides along from up here.

Um the first piece of legislation before you this evening, uh before I jump into that actually, there's a reason why we're here this evening for these five pieces of land use legislation.

You're well aware that we're underway with our land use code update, the recode effort that Mr.

Durfee has been before the committee presenting on for several months.

Um you're also aware that we're doing our best to avoid substantial changes to the land use code while their effort is underway, recognizing that the code will likely not be in place until mid-2026.

But the five pieces of legislation before you this evening are actually uh initiated completely at the state level through legislature changes over the last uh two years, with four of these amendments being the result of 2025 uh legislative actions at the state level and one being the result of a 2024 effort.

And so with the exception of a few small items tonight, a few small items within the five pieces of legislation, all of these changes are well prescribed by state legislative actions.

And I'll talk about what those exceptions are as we go through uh the items this evening.

I did just want to quickly note the text in italics there.

And that is to say that these five pieces of legislation are not the only changes to how we apply our land use code based on recent state legislative actions, one example being uh HP 631 that changed how uh certain uses are allowed in in different zones.

But these are the five that required immediate action on our behalf because of their effective date and immediate changes that were needed to our ordinances or in order to comply with the state law changes.

So uh Mr.

Clerk and Mr.

Chair, if you wouldn't mind going to the next slide, I'm happy to jump into the first one and uh Manager Durfee who's on as well will cover any of the gaps in my knowledge.

He and his team directly developed the language that you see before you, uh, but we'll fill in any gaps that might arise during certainly our our overview and then during the public hearing and the committee meeting.

The first change to O twenty five seventy-three is a modification to what's referred broadly uh to what is referred broadly as the vesting statute.

Currently, within the city's land use code, when it uh when applying for a subdivision, if an applicant is granted an approval, uh their approval lasts for a period of five years.

There or there's their approval is vested from changes in land use regulations for a period of five years.

They get that five-year vesting or protection from changes only if they complete what we refer to as active and substantial development within 24 months of the approval.

So if you receive your approval today, within 24 months of today, you have to complete active and substantial development.

And if you do that, you get five years of protection from changes to the land use code or other regulations that would impact your proposal.

If of course you don't complete active and substantial development or you don't complete the work within five years, you'd be subject to changes to the regulations and the ordinances and would have to come back before the planning board or any other applicable board in order to comply.

But the change that happened recently is that those uh those deadlines have been extended.

Uh state statute now mandates that we provide applicants or approved uh developments with three years for active and substantial development, and then seven years is granted to them should they achieve active and substantial development within that three-year initial window.

Like many of the proposals before you this evening, there are some challenges with this.

I think these uh state changes were well intended.

Uh but ultimately this will provide more time for a given development proposal to move forward.

Uh so applicants or approved applications will have more time to actually go forth and finish their work and more resilient to perhaps to changing market conditions that happen after their approval.

One of the other interesting features of this is typically we look forward when we implement a land use change like this, and it impacts only proposals that happen in the future.

This piece of legislation was interesting because it actually was very explicit about the fact that any approvals that had happened as of July 1st, 2023, so going back in time, would now be subject to this.

So there's actually a retroactive impact where had the planning board approved a subdivision on August 1st of 2023, they would be given the three-year active and substantial allowance, and then the seven-year protection under the ordinances should they achieve active and substantial development.

I realize this is a relatively technical concept, uh, one that staff deal with quite a bit, and certainly our planning board does as well, uh, but one that we are again required to implement here in the city as a result of the state level changes.

Happy to answer uh any questions during the committee meeting or address any public comments that might arise.

If we can hold uh the questions uh to the committee.

And I'm happy to go into the next change if you'd if you'd like.

Uh this is uh the one product of a 2024 action.

This was 2024 HB 1567 that dealt with uh really or was really focused on the creation of more opportunity for child care facilities and reduce removing some of the barriers to creating small home-based child care facilities around the state of New Hampshire.

And what it functionally required is that municipalities allow child care facilities within dwelling units by right, that they're permitted without any additional zoning action being necessary, provided that those child care facilities met all the requirements of DHHS administrative code under HEC 4002.

If you have questions that are specific to that section of the administrative rules, I can absolutely pull that up this evening and try to answer those.

But generally, these child care facilities have to be accessory to the residential use on site.

But the idea is to allow more small child care facilities.

So there are a few things that we had to do to bring our zoning ordinance into compliance.

One within our use table that you may have seen, it has hundreds of uses.

You've talked about this at your prior PEDC meetings.

We specifically uh made an amendment to allow uh use number 241, which is daycare family uh uh daycare family as a an accessory permitted use within all residential zones.

So this is the use that most clearly aligns with the change that was made at the statutory level.

So what we've done is we've made it permitted in all the appropriate zoning districts as an accessory use.

Further, within our major home occupation section of the ordinance, we've uh made some changes to remove size restrictions that existed within that section 19047.

And you can see this within the language that you have before you this evening.

And then finally, not as specific to the change that happened at the state level, but uh we actually had some content-based signage regulation for home uh home occupations.

That's something that was actually uh it's not it was made illegal several years ago by a different uh Supreme Court action.

We've taken out those content-based regulations as well, just to as a matter of cleaning up the ordinance to make sure that it's legally compliant.

But again, the goal here is to make child-based, uh uh sorry, home-based child care facilities permitted in all residential zone zones when accessory to residential uses, and I believe we've done that.

Happy to go into the next change.

Uh 025074, uh, this is relative, or rather, 75.

And this is relative to on-site parking requirements.

This has gotten a great deal of press over the last year.

Uh, what this essentially did under SB 284 is it prohibited municipal zoning ordinances from requiring more than one par parking space per unit.

And we refer to a unit here in the city of Nashua, we're talking about several different housing typologies, accessory dwelling units, dupe duplex dwelling units, single family dwelling units, multifamily units, and modular homes.

So for any one of those housing types, for every unit, the city cannot require more than one parking space.

Uh in some sections of the code, as you'll see in the amendment, we require 1.5 spaces.

Uh, we had some other requirements as well, but those have essentially all been leveled out to be one space per unit across the board.

And again, we have no uh ability to really change that.

And honestly, I think for the city of Nashua, this already aligns pretty well with a lot of our uh goals when it comes to parking, particularly in our downtown core.

So I put this last bullet in in just to remind folks that at least in our current zoning code where there are sections of the city where no parking is required.

This doesn't change that at all.

Again, no parking will be required.

We just can't require more than one space for each dwelling unit that's created.

And happy to answer any questions or address public comments as they may arise.

Moving on to perhaps the piece of legislation that uh received the most public attention.

Uh this is HB 577 relative to accessory dwelling units.

This was made effective, as many of these were earlier this year, so it's been effective in effect for quite some time.

Uh, this changed several of the parameters around accessory dwelling units and their uh how they can be treated within by zoning ordinances across the state of New Hampshire.

Uh there are a few sort of critical changes that I wanted to highlight here before we get into the the changes that are proposed in our ordinance.

Um critical thing is that um there was a change to not only do municipalities have to allow accessory dwelling units in attached form, but you now have to actually allow detached accessory dwelling unit while still having the ability to restrict it to one accessory dwelling unit per property.

Further, for all accessory dwelling units, whether detached or attached, they must be allowed by right.

Therefore, municipality cannot require a special exception or a conditional use permit.

Our current current ordinance contemplated that each ADU required a special exception from our zoning board of adjustment.

It was an additional permitting process requiring applicants to meet several uh conditions in order to get a permit, being subject to a public hearing and a butter notification.

That requirement is functionally wiped out, and we'll get back to that in just a second here.

One other thing that the language modification was really clear about at the state level is that uh shall be allowed without any additional requirements that were specific to ADUs relative to lot coverage, setbacks, aesthetics.

So basically, if you're doing an accessory dwelling unit, a municipality cannot choose to apply other dimensional or other standards simply because you're doing an accessory dwelling unit.

Uh sort of an interesting um stand taken by the legislature here to really say that they'll sh shall be no different treatment of ADUs than any other dwelling unit.

And so I think they were explicitly clear.

So when it comes to the changes that we're making in our ordinance, if we could perhaps go to the next slide, uh we're really just mirroring these conditions uh that exist within the new statute.

Uh of course, they're all all accessory dwelling units, provided they meet certain conditions that we've laid out, are by right and do not require zoning relief from the zoning board via special exception.

They may be detached or attached.

Just to be clear, we've maintained a one accessory dwelling unit per primary dwelling unit standard, so you can't have multiple accessory dwelling units in our proposed ordinance.

Uh one thing that I know uh one of the committee members grabbed me before the meeting to ask a great question about uh our maximum ADU size increasing from 750 to 980 square feet.

Uh I know manager Durfee's on, he can explain a little bit how we got to that 980 square feet, because that's one of the few items this evening where we have gone above and beyond what the statute calls for.

Um the statute called for a 950 maximum.

We've actually gone above and beyond that, allowing up to 980 square feet for either detached or attached accessory dwelling units.

And we can talk a little bit about how we got to that number.

One carve out is for if you are creating an attached accessory dwelling unit within an existing structure, provided that you're not expanding the existing structure to build the ADU, you can actually have an accessory dwelling unit up to 1200 square feet.

So again, you have an existing building permit and existing structure.

You can create an ADU provided that that ADU does not result in structural expansion, up to 1,200 square feet in size.

So that's sort of the first slide on the changes that we're making.

Please would an example of that be a garage that's turned into like a room.

Yes, it could.

Well, it would have to be an attached accessory dwelling.

An attached garage.

So that could, yes, that absolutely could.

Yes.

If it were an attached structure, certainly that would that will qualify, yes.

Okay, thank you.

And if we could just go to the next slide very briefly, I want to comment on a few other uh changes that we're making again, very much in alignment with the statutory changes.

We've removed some of the aesthetic or design considerations that we had in our current ordinance.

We're no longer able to require these because the statute is now clear that you cannot have unique design review requirements related to accessory dwelling units.

Uh so we had some clear standards in our current ordinance that we now need to take out.

We've made it clear that one parking space is required per ADU in alignment with the previous change that we talked about.

Uh, but that space can either be provided on-site or can be provided off-site if there's a permanent uh or rather there's a um dedicated parking space for the ADU, whether that's on an adjacent property or on the property itself.

So we're providing some flexibility there.

One thing to be clear about is the ADUs are not permitted as accessory to multifamily housing units.

So if you have a um a four or five-bedroom multifamily building, you can't add a unit as an accessory dwelling unit.

That's that's a different um, there'd be a different zoning interpretation applied to that.

It can only be to really single family dwelling units in that that format.

Uh we haven't taken away the requirement for a covenant.

One thing we have changed is that the covenant and fees have to be paid prior to the building permit for the ADU rather than prior to the COB granted.

We've actually accelerated the need for the covenant to be recorded.

And that covenant, all it does is it says, I'm aware of the ADU restrictions, I'm aware of the rules, I'm going to comply with them, and we've always kept that as part of our ordinance and intend to do that moving forward.

And then finally, we are asking because the statute allows us to for proof that adequate water and sewer supply exists.

So if you're creating an ADU, your existing water sewage sewer service or sewer service have to be proven to be adequate.

So if you have an issue that needs to be addressed, you're required to address that prior to adding additional dwelling unit demand.

Those are uh that's a summary of the changes that we're proposing to make within the ADU amendment.

And then finally, an interesting one and particularly interesting in the context of several conversations that have happened in uh in this committee and elsewhere.

Um we had several debates over recent years about unrelated individuals and occupancy limitations.

Um you may recall that we had gone back and forth about whether to introduce new occupancy requirements, uh, particularly in the context of recovery housing.

We had had some pretty substantial com uh committee debates.

Uh the state has, I don't want to say taking care of this issue because I think it depends how you feel about um unrelated occupancy thresholds.

Uh but the state has made it very clear as I've bold underlined italicized there not to overdo it, that zoning ordinances that base are that are based on familial or non-familial relationships, marital status, occupation, employment status, or educational status, shall not be enforced.

We we cannot enforce uh any ordinances that do that.

If you recall, within our ordinance, table 16.1, which you'll see in the zoning change before you does exactly that.

It regulates uh households based on whether they're related or not.

So how have we rectified this?

We've taken table 16.1 out.

There are no longer any limitations on uh unrelated occupancy within our zoning ordinance because we frankly don't have the legal right to regulate that way any longer.

Uh I expect there could be some conversation this evening about in a future change whether we should add occupancy limitations.

Um either Manager Durfee or myself can speak to that.

Uh it's beware of the unintended consequence kind of thing, where um because you can't regulate household size or occupancy based on whether it's a family or non-familial relationship, it could have substantial unintended consequences when you have families that are non-traditional or required to occupy smaller spaces.

There may be cultural differences.

I think I'm being clear here with what my message is.

We really would need to understand if there's any conversation about trying to limit occupancy with any types of dwelling units in the city.

Uh we would have to do a really clear and full analysis to understand what the implications of those changes would be.

And as a result, we've proposed to remove any occupation uh any occupancy standards that exist in the ordinance.

Happy to answer any questions on the committee or address those from the public as well.

On that last one, I just want to note um for the public hearing that um my colleague from Ward 6 had reached out to me to ask why this because it's almost the opposite of what he had proposed.

Yes.

And because he saw my name come on the legislation, and I said state mandate, we're just updating it's not a direct result of um some kind of back and forth on what we consider right on this particular ordinance.

The states decided for us.

Absolutely.

I agree.

Yes.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

So um I'll start the public hearing uh in order.

Uh 025-073, amending the land use code regarding approved subdivision subdivision exemption.

Uh anyone testimony in favor, please uh state your name and address for the record.

Seeing none testimony in opposition seeing none again, testimony in favor and testimony in opposition.

Seeing none, I will declare the public hearing on O25-073 closed at 721 p.m.

And I will open the public hearing on 025-074 at 721 p.m.

Amending the land use code regarding family daycare facilities.

Any member of the public testimony in favor?

Please come up to the microphone.

In opposition.

Seeing none in favor.

Seeing none in opposition.

Seeing none, I will declare uh the public hearing of 025-074 closed at 72 p.m.

and open the public hearing for 025-075 at 72 p.m.

Amending the land use code regarding on-site parking requirements for residential uses.

Testimony in favor.

Seeing none testimony in opposition.

Seeing none testimony in favor.

See none testimony in opposition.

And the public hearing on O25-075 was declared closed at 72 p.m.

And I'll open the public hearing for 025-076 at 72 p.m.

Amending the land use code by amending the accessory dwelling unit ordinance and definition of dwelling unit accessory.

Any testimony in favor?

Testimony in opposition.

Your name and uh address of the record, please.

My name is Dan Richardson, live at 70 Berkeley Street, Nashville, New Hampshire.

I come in opposition to 02576.

There's a these two uh ordinances, this along with uh 77, are intent on destroying what some of the better qualities of Nashua.

And excuse me, I have to wear double glasses because a single prescription doesn't uh work for me.

Take your time anymore.

Um back in the 1990s, 19 and 2000.

Uh it is well known that there were a number of folks that came from Massachusetts and did what's known as property flipping.

That's where they purchase a property which is perceived to be undervalued, they give it modest or minor improvements, and then they uh resell it for a higher value.

Uh that uh is something that come can come back to bite us with these ADUs, which if you take the better parts of Nashua, which are the properties with the larger lots, and uh they start adding ADUs in them, creating residenti uh uh rental areas.

They're called ADUs, but they can be used for rental purposes.

Um flipping those uh eventually after having put in uh ADUs uh on otherwise previously uh the better parts of Nashua, larger lots, uh it's inviting a great deal of damage to the city to the character of the city.

Um from the prior gentleman, uh the staff person who talked about setbacks in by its interpretation from what he said is that setbacks do not imply for these ADUs.

I could be wrong, it would be great for him to clarify that.

But setbacks are are very important, and the intrusion in the setbacks are only in the event that there is a hardship for the primary residents currently.

For ADUs, allowing them into a setback would be devastating.

His material also said that there's a limitation of one ADU, and I'm not terribly sure that that is accurate.

Looking at the O seventy-six changes.

The very first one talks about changing the limitation on the number of square feet for the ADU from 750 to 980.

Now you have to recognize you take the square root of that and assume a square property.

So we have figuring.

That's a 35 by 35 footprint for a single family for a single-level house.

That is, that is the footprint of a house.

Basically, what you'd be doing is you'd be allowing another house on the same lot of equivalent size or even greater, depending on the primary residence.

Kind of asinine, my my opinion.

Going to the next page, talks about uh making provisions for adequate water supply and sewage disposal.

What is adequate?

It's undefined.

I think you really ought to define it, either reference some other ordinance or something.

But adequate doesn't do it for me.

It could be anything.

And instead, it inserted building permit for the accessory dwelling unit.

Shall be contingent upon the receipt of the covenant and fees.

This is a place where people are gonna live.

You need a certificate of occupancy.

Not just a building permit, I mean, unless you just don't care about your fellow citizens.

So I would consider looking at that with a greater degree of skepticism.

Moving on to where number seven, where it says one additional off-street parking space is required above the minimum standard for a single family house.

Deemed acceptable by the administrative officer.

That's basically the guy in charge of the planning department.

Deemed acceptable.

What does that mean?

There's no definition here for it.

He can just sort of wing it.

Could be his opinion.

Moving on.

So I'm going over to the table 15.1 use matrix, where in the use matrix under uh row three, which is accessory dwelling units, all of the S's in there have been crossed off.

And S's means special exception.

We required a special exception before, now we don't, apparently.

And instead, inserted in there across the board are A's, and A means as an accessory use, including what was previously a blank.

He didn't allow accessory dwelling units in airport industrial areas.

Now apparently, with this ordinance, we would be accepting accessory dwelling units in the airport industrial area.

In addition to that, there's other areas.

P's for what is it?

Downtown, D1 downtown and D3 downtown.

And now there are A's there, which is accessory dwelling unit.

So basically you took away the by right there and you put in as an accessory dwelling unit.

I don't know if that was intentional or not, but that's what you got there.

And that's what I have for O 2576.

Thank you.

Director Sullivan, would you be able to respond to the member of the public's uh questions?

And then that will allow him and others.

Umless there's someone else in opposition who would like additional questions, I probably should ask.

And then that'll allow the other setup in favor opposition to come up after you, Director Sullivan, if there's additional questions.

But all right, go ahead.

Looks like you're good.

Thank you very much, Matt Sullivan.

Uh I I appreciate uh Ms.

Richardson's questions and comments because they give me an opportunity to clarify some of the statements that I'd made.

Um the first regarding the application of setbacks and other dimensional controls to accessory dwelling units.

What the statute provides for is that you cannot make unique setback and other requirements for accessory dwelling units, but the customary setbacks that exist for structures within the zone continue to apply.

So ADUs are still subject to all the same dimensional controls, and that's what's a good question because the way I stated it initially, I almost suggested like the dimensional controls do not apply.

They certainly do.

They continue to apply to ADUs when they're created.

So setbacks, height restrictions, all of those things continue to be in place.

Um there was a question raised relative to the reference to RSA 485A38.

This is water and sewer adequacy.

Um I want to be careful to not give uh uh uh an indirect answer here, but 485A38 lays out exactly what's required for adequacy.

Uh and we rely heavily upon either our septic reviewers in public health, our water utility at Penachuk, who does a review of the water connection, or our sewer department who does a review of the sewer tap to determine whether or not the line running to the property is adequate.

I to be honest, I can't speak to every case, and I'm not asked I don't think that's what Mr.

Richardson is asking me to do.

But for 85 A38 does lay out exactly what water and sewer adequacy are.

Um and if we want to try and provide an overview of that, we certainly can, but I didn't come prepared to do that tonight.

That's the customary reference that we use throughout our code, however, when we're talking about adequate utility provision to a site, whether for ADUs or something else.

Um happy to provide further information if necessary, but um that reference is pretty standard and it's actually provided for it within the the ADU statute as well.

Uh another item that Richard Richardson, Mr.

Richardson raised, which is I'm happy he did, is the striking of certificate of occupancy to replace with building permit.

Um we absolutely still require a certificate of occupancy.

That's not what our intent is with this change.

This is a timing-related section of the code.

It says that the covenant dictating the ADU rules in the old code had to be recorded prior to when a certificate of occupancy was granted at the very last stage of a construction project happening for an ADU.

What we've now said is actually more stringent.

We're requiring that the covenant be recorded prior to building permit, but that a certificate of occupancy would still be absolutely required for any accessory dwelling unit.

So we're actually adding an additional requirement to protect the occupant, the property owner, et cetera.

So I I'm glad that that opportunity for clarification was was provided.

Relative to uh the table 15-1 and the changes there, um, we certainly could have changed uh those A's to P's.

Uh however, in our zoning code, the term A we believe is a more clear identifier because A includes that the use is permitted.

It is defined as a permitted use and A use, but it also makes it clear to someone reviewing the use table that that use is only permitted when accessory to another use.

And in this case, it's accessory to a to a principal dwelling unit on a lot.

And so when drafting these changes, staff felt that rather than putting P that A would be the proper identifier because it would make it clear that it had to in fact be accessory.

So I hope that explanation makes sense, but that's why we chose not to put P in place within within the table.

Uh I'm gonna have uh call an alderman's uh Clemens just because the um interest of the public on this uh particular matter.

Uh Alderman Clemens.

Thank you.

And further, uh and and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but A meaning accessory dwelling dwelling unit by state statute, they are by right.

So if it says A, we're gonna know it's by right anyway, because the statute says so.

Correct.

Okay.

Yes, correct.

Thank you, Alderman Clemens.

Um I believe I may have missed one of Mr.

Richardson's comments, but the other that I did want to just speak to quickly is the uh item seven, the administrative officer discretion.

Um I'm happy to include to amend this language if the committee feels it necessary.

Uh the intent here was to frankly uh avoid trying to be too prescriptive in what um an acceptable dedication of a parking space would look like because it can look very different in different forms, whether that's uh an abundant property, a property a hundred feet down the road, uh the the mechanism may be different.

We were hesitant to lay out every potential possible dedication of a parking space here.

What I would welcome a conversation about during the committee meeting is whether that needs to be more clearly defined as to what those possible alternatives are for dedicated parking space.

I think we're happy to add more language there.

Uh we weren't intending to provide entire latitude to the administrative officer.

We were just attempting to try to limit uh the text needed to capture the same concept.

So happy to talk about that more in the committee level if the if the group feels unnecessary.

And I think there may have been one of Mr.

Richardson's comments I didn't grab, but I think I covered and he'll be able to have an opportunity to come back up in a moment.

And um, but I can certainly appreciate the merits of the public being concerned with this combined with the next one.

Sure.

Um, where Airbnb and such could take advantage uh maximizing space if they were to uh buy a property.

So I I understand the fear and concern in in the community.

Sure.

Thank you.

Um again I'll call for testimony in favor and testimony in opposition.

Uh Dan Richardson, 70 Berkeley Street, Nashville, New Hampshire.

I think what he missed was the rationale in accessory dwelling units in highway business area, park industrial area, airport industrial area, and general industrial area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you for that.

Um that's a great question.

Uh so within our AI district, our PI district, our GI district, our industrial districts, there are single family homes.

Uh those districts are not exclusively occupied by industrial tenants.

We have to provide those single family homes with the ability to add an accessory dwelling unit.

Uh this would not mean that um a factory could add an accessory dwelling unit.

In fact, that that wouldn't be allowed, but if an existing single-family home existed uh and wanted to add an ADU, they would have the right to do that.

And so that's why we've codified it that way.

Uh I hope that addresses the question.

I think the intent was not to provide for proliferation of accessory dwelling units in those industrial zones, but to instead allow existing non-conforming residential uses to take advantage of the statute in the same way that they're allowed.

Uh that was the intent there.

Great, thank you.

Yes.

And um there'll be another opportunity to comment on all of these at the next um after public hearing to open up the committee at public comment uh as well.

So with that, uh anyone else in opposition.

Seeing none, I will declare O25076 closed at 7.39 p.m.

and open the public hearing for 02507 at 739 p.m.

Amending the land use code regarding unrelated households, uh testimony in favor and testimony in opposition.

Daniel Richardson, 70 Berkeley Street, Nashua, New Hampshire.

Um back a number of years when Alderman Presley was on the board of Alderman.

The issue of uh density of unrelated individuals living in single homes or homes, uh let's call them houses, they're not homes.

Uh and that came up, and uh it was found through uh little research at the time that there were people living in uh houses like cockroaches, packed in there.

Tens to 20 individuals in a house.

So it's my understanding that came to naught.

So Nashua still has that presently as a situation.

Uh not much you can do about it, I understand.

However, this ordinance, as it is appearing to present itself, would completely eliminate any such restriction at all, uh, even if it's an unenforceable ordinance.

What's crossed off is no household other than a family shall have a number of members exceeding figure provided in table 16, one below entitled occupancy restrictions.

And that's that.

That will that, in addition to the prior ordinance that we looked at, 076, uh very damning to the city of Nashua.

We're not talking about my neighborhood, we're talking about the quality of life in the city of Nashua.

We're talking about ward six, ward eight, ward nine, ward three.

We're talking about a lot of different places in Nashua that can be affected by this.

Uh on uh further, one further change here is that table 16-1 is crossed off.

This is occupancy restrictions, and this table provides for a limit on the type of dwelling it has a number of persons per square feet that can be there.

And previously it was a limitation on 300 square feet, number of persons per 300 square feet.

So the first line is single family dwelling, one person.

300 square feet.

Do you understand what 300 square feet is?

If you use a simple square root to come up with a square area, that's 17 by 17.

That's a size of a room, a single room.

So we allowed one person per room.

Now we're completely eliminating that table.

We are not we are saying that we don't care how many people we pack into any of our residences.

We don't have a fire code restriction.

Nope, they don't go around inspecting for fire code on these places because we don't have it in we won't have an ordinance on that.

So it goes on and talks about duplex townhouses, apartments, bed and breakfasts, rooming, dormitory, fraternity, sorority, nursing home, elderly housing, you know, getting rid of the uh limitation on elderly housing too.

Let's pack in grandmas and grandpas.

Uh talk talk about devastating to the quality of life in Nashua.

You really got to pay attention to this.

Thank you.

I'll call for anyone else in opposition, and then Director Sulvick can respond to those members.

Publix comments.

Anyone else in opposition?

Director Sullivan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I don't know that there are direct questions to be addressed relative to the prior comments.

Um concerns, sorry.

Yeah, no, absolutely.

And I think Mr.

Richardson has raised some very valid concerns that have been debated in this chamber, several meetings in the past.

Um I think given an opportunity to set realistic and clear over-occupancy thresholds.

I think members of the board would choose to do that for fire safety and life safety reasons.

However, uh, we functionally lost that ability, and it's very well, it may seem that there's a clear line as to what over occupancy looks like.

I'd suggest that that's really not the case.

Uh we have couples living with a young child in apartments that are 750 square feet that wouldn't meet this requirement.

We have young adults that are struggling to make student loan payments living in small apartments and small homes that are overoccupying based on the table that you see before you.

So I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be some life safety standards.

I'm simply saying that it's very difficult to define what the appropriate occupancy is.

Um as I mentioned before, I expect that this change may spark a conversation about whether or not we should have again, we can't regulate family versus non-family, but whether we should have general occupants occupancy standards.

Again, we can't regulate family versus non-family, but whether we should have general occupants occupancy standards.

But again, I would I would urge caution because we have many situations throughout the city where people are living far beyond the limitations that are laid out in this table.

And in some cases, it is just fine.

And there isn't over occupancy.

So where do you draw the line?

And you certainly can't draw it based on whether people are related by blood marriage or the other.

We know that now through the state statute that has passed.

But I really can't, I really can't offer additional comments.

I don't disagree with Mr.

Richardson, and I'm not I'm not debating him at all because I think there is some line where safety becomes an issue and overcrowding does happen.

My challenge is it's very difficult to actually define what that line is, and you can't do it based on familial relationship.

So we need to have a broader conversation if that's something that the board would like to do.

So I guess that's a general response to to Mr.

Richardson's concerns.

Yes, of course.

Thank you.

Um so one, this is laws coming down from the governor in the state legislature.

So that's part of this.

But the one thing I thought I read in there is about fire code.

That still holds up, right?

There there are still fire code requirements, and I expected I might get that question.

I don't have that number right in front of me right now, but there are still fire codes that apply, but they apply based on the occupancy classification, right?

So they're gonna apply differently in a single family home versus in a multifamily context.

Uh there are different code requirements for that.

Um and they focus on fire suppression and adequate ingress egress 202 unit.

So I can try and grab some of those numbers for you, but those codes do still exist.

Those have not been undermined.

It's simply that a land use code can't further regulate based on familial relationship.

Again, you you have the right to to you have the right to regulate occupancy.

It's just a bit of a dangerous game as to what the right way to do that is and what the what the right numbers are that mean over versus under occupancy.

That's not a it's a very challenging thing to do, I guess I would say.

Alderman Clemens.

I I'll actually I'll wait for the committee.

Okay.

Um thank you, Director Sullivan.

This is one I appreciate uh the the comments.

Uh so then again I'll open up for testimony in favor and testimony in opposition.

Seeing none, I'll declare the hearing of 025-07 closed at 747 p.m.

And I'll declare the regular meeting uh open at 748 p.m.

And we don't have to do we have to redo the role, no.

Um so public comment for anything to be acted upon tonight.

Please come on and state your name and address seeing none communications.

Uh do you want to take the one that's uh without objection?

I'll suspend the rules to allow for communication that was received after the the agenda was um prepared.

And that was from uh Ullman uh Lopez regarding um the ADU legislation.

We have communication from Connor Muse, Deputy Planning Manager uh regarding referral from the Board of Alderman on ordinance 0-25-073, amending the land use code regarding approved subdivision exemption.

Uh we have one from Connor Meuse, deputy planning manager regarding referral from Board of Alderman on ordinance 0-25-074, amending the land use code regarding family daycare facilities.

Uh we have a letter from Connor Meuse, Deputy Planning Manager regarding referral from the Board of Alderman on ordinance 0-25-075 amending the land use code regarding parking requirements for residential uses.

We have one uh from Connor Muse Deputy Planning Manager regarding referral from the Board of Alderman on ordinance is O-25-076 amending the land use code by amending the accessory dwelling unit ordinance and definition of dwelling unit accessory, and we have one from Connor Muse Deputy Planning Manager regarding referral from the Board of Alderman on ordinances 0-25-077, amending the land use code regarding unrelated households.

There being no objection, I'll accept the communications and place them on file petitions, none unfinished business.

New business resolutions.

New business ordinances.

Okay, O-25-073 amending the land use code regarding approved subdivision exemption.

Uh is there a motion for final passage, recommendation for final passage.

I can make the motion to uh recommend final passage.

Thank you.

Discussion on the motion.

Okay.

Seeing no discussion, um all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed?

The ayes have it.

We have O 25-04, 074 amending the land use code regarding family daycare facilities.

I'd like to make a motion to recommend final passage.

That motion is in order.

Uh discussion on the motion.

Alderman Jetting.

Yeah, uh I think I have something, but I'm having trouble catching up.

Um the uh so I I guess the you know the changes in uh in paragraph in paragraph B where we say that um although Jetty, hold on one second.

Alderman, I'm sorry, Director Sullivan, could you join us?

Um I'm sure most of these questions will probably be uh more apt for you or uh manager Durfee to answer.

My apologies can I continue Alderman and Jetty.

I believe a comment was made relative to Alderman Jetty using the microphone just to make sure right in there, Alderman Jetty, right into the microphone.

Thank you.

Uh thank you for pointing that out.

So um so as I'm reading the uh paragraph B, child care facilities located within a dwelling unit are permitted by right as an accessory unit to the primary residential use uh provided all requirements for such programs uh adopted by rule by the Department of Health and Human Services are met.

And um and then paragraphs subparagraphs one, two, three, four, five, six are eliminated.

So my question is does this now allow um the uh you know someone to um you know to care for children in their home.

Um in any number of children, there are no restrictions on the number of kids that can be in there, or or does the health and human services rule take care of that?

Director Sullivan.

Yes, thank you for the question.

And and I should have mentioned that you may you may have heard me say at the beginning I was a little hesitant to go into the detail of HEC 4002.

Um HEC 4002 is an 85-page document of rules and regulations produced by the Department of Health and Human Services, and included within that is a variety of different uh child care typologies, uh licensure requirements for different sizes, facilit sizes of facilities, licensure requirements for child care providers.

Um I'm going to give a relatively undefined answer, Alderman J to say that I believe that would limit size to a certain number of children based on the size of the care facility that a small household would not be able to take on 50 or 75 children without adequate space because there are spacing requirements within that administrative rule, but I can't speak to the detail of whether that would be uh five individuals or five children, uh ten children, but I do know that those space requirements and area requirements do exist within that administrative code.

So we're very much relying on the state to continue to apply the same thresholds for child care as that they have uh for many many years.

But if there's specifics about what those numbers are, I'd have to I'd have to return to the committee to answer those questions.

I apologize for not knowing that the answer tonight.

Alderman James.

Okay, well so um maybe I could ask some quite more questions, and if you don't know the answer, you could sure say so.

But um so uh what I'm concerned about, you know, without knowing a whole lot about this, but what I'm concerned about, you know, is are we uh are we going to be allowing um unlicensed people to care for children in their homes?

Uh no, director sells it.

Yes, they nope.

I'm happy you asked that question.

All the majority of the answer the answer is no.

Uh they're still subject to the licensure requirements of the of DHHS.

Uh there's just an alternative process for these facilities.

Yep, there's still the the string stringency of the licensure has not changed as I understand it.

It's simply that for smaller in-home facilities, uh, there's an alternative process that they get licensed through the state of New Hampshire.

But uh these are still, as I understand it, qualified individuals providing child care, and there's still a review process by the state for each of these, uh for each of these physical facilities.

It's just that there's a slightly modified process to do that.

Okay, and so I I guess the carrel area of that is um so is it is it prohibited for you know a um you know a a someone uh uh a a woman who has small children and wants to go to work, um you know, is there any is there anything prohibiting her from leaving her children with a relative or a friend?

You know, what workers are exactly uh uh you know what what's the difference and how is that defined?

Sure.

Um I'm gonna I'm gonna take a stab here um and I think there's a certain level at which I can't speak to, and I'll get to that in a second.

Uh certainly a component of this is whether there's a financial transaction happening.

So if someone is operating a commercial child care facility and they're getting paid to provide child care, uh that's when certainly in the context of our zoning ordinance and also I believe in the context of DHHS's administrative code, there becomes a requirement for licensure when you're providing child care as a as a commercial service.

So if I were to leave my children with you, Alderman Jetty, and you're doing me a favor to watch them, that that wouldn't require a child care license through the state.

Um what I don't know the answer to is whether or not there are any uh exemptions in the state administrative code for one child or two children, or if I have a babysitter overseeing my two children off site, I I can't speak to what the administrative code calls for there, Alderman Jetty.

Um there's certainly a you know it if you see it and likely a definition within the administrative rule, but I do not know what that number is, and I'd have to get back to you, unfortunately.

Okay.

But uh but by amending this um ordinance, what we're dealing with is you know not the supervision of child care, but we're dealing with whether or not we allow child child care in uh you know a a use uh from a zoning use point of view.

Correct, from a residential from an accessory residential perspective, yeah.

That's absolutely right, yes.

Yes.

Okay.

So in summary, if someone is licensed by DHHS uh and meets their state uh the state level requirements, the state is saying there's no additional steps you need to take locally uh for your facility to operate, we've determined it's uh appropriate to continue without that additional burden.

That is correct, subject to any permitting that's needed to build out inside or or make the facility ready, um, they are they are by right.

Um I would want to confirm this, but I believe it's possible we'd still require what we refer to as a land use permit, which is basically a signal to the city that you're implementing a new use within a given area.

Uh but again that would be by right.

Uh, there wouldn't be a public hearing process or anything of that that nature, but we would document that uh child care use is being created within a given area, and we'd also be ensuring that uh they have an adequate license through the state of New Hampshire and in uh the context of these requirements here.

Great.

Ultimate email.

Thank you.

Um I think too, based on what I read in that 85-page document, and I didn't read the whole thing, but some of the stuff I looked at is it's still there's still rules around it you gotta have I believe a so a fence, you have kids have to be in the backyard, there's gotta be certain uh place in the house that's separate from that that's so many footage.

So all those rules still exist.

We just no longer are the gatekeeper of that's the state.

I mean, obviously we would be involved, but the state rules now apply, and if we didn't pass this, we can't really apply our our rules to it because we gotta go by the state rules.

That's basically what all these all this legislation is, all the one pieces we have tonight are the state has made changes, and our rules do not exist anymore for the things that they have altered or changed or required.

So we might as well put in line with what the rest of the state has.

That is that correct?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

And that's a lot of the feedback I've gotten from my peers.

Like, why are you putting this forward?

Like what's going on here?

Yeah, and the conversation has been it's dictated by the state.

Um it's almost like we have no choice except for some minor little changes here and there.

Alderman Govea.

Thank you.

I just pulled up the uh kind of the regulation document from the state.

And based on my two and a half, three minutes of just searching through it, it does seem that there's a a minimum of 35 feet of net floor area per child inside the rooms used by children, and then there's a bunch of other kind of calculations that go into that as well.

But it does seem that 35 feet of net floor area per children was the basis block of size.

And oh man, Jetty, go ahead.

Through you to Alderman Gouvea.

So your quick reading does it talk about uh you know the exception that I was kind of looking for where you know a a parent who knows somebody, whether it's a relative or a non-relative, a friend or whatever.

Um does the parent have the right to entrust their child to that other person without having to go through the state?

Oh yeah.

Uh I swear I thought I read something that said it was like two or more, but I'm not positive.

Yeah.

Uh it's it was in here, I found it, and I have not been able to find it since.

But if I do, I will let you know.

I will say that the DHH requirements for a lot of the services that they oversee, just like this one, are rigorous.

The issue is enforcement.

Um but it may be a benefit that the city of Nashville doesn't have to enforce this and the state is taken out of our hands uh as we've seen recently with the uh disabled homes that have come under scrutiny.

Uh this is a uh a move that they find that they need to oversee, and that's where we probably should leave it if that's if they think that's best, and hopefully they can enforce uh their their law Alderman Clemens.

I think this may be a situation where if you're if you hire a babysitter to babysit your three kids, maybe they should have a license.

They should probably also report that income to the IRS, and whether or not both of those things are gonna happen.

I don't oh my it is what it is.

Uh spark mic.

If I could people could report their income, I would just be happy.

Because then it'd make me feel better about all the taxes I pay.

Um sorry for the going off.

Um any further conversation.

All right.

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

I all those opposed?

And the ayes have it.

We have O-25-075, amending the land use code regarding on-site parking requirements, residential uses.

I'd like to uh recommend uh for final passage.

Uh any conversation?

Alderman Clemens.

Uh thank you.

So um, yeah, I had a question on this one on the uh the maximum parking spaces that we put in for manufactured home, and then also uh multifamily dwellings of three or more.

Looks like that one stayed the same, but the manufactured home it it looks like it said 22.

Is that correct?

Or directors, I'm gonna continue to call on you because I really don't want to set uh Samsung baby.

Uh yeah, and I think we're actually having audio issues, so he said he can't for him.

He has a 90-second delay right now.

Um so uh yes, he'd like to contribute, but it hasn't um when you say correct, that's a matter of perspective.

It was clearly an error that existed in the code.

We don't know how it got there.

It wasn't supposed to be a maximum of 22 spaces.

That's what I thought.

Uh what we found is that it was supposed to be two.

So we're we're simply frankly, we're just maintaining this at what it was before.

Um question I was actually a little nervous about getting, so you know, here I'm offering uh is the 1.9 per unit on multifamily.

We did a little digging on that about where that number came from.

I think there was some study that created that number in the past.

We're we're gonna change that obviously in the new code, but we're we're not proposing to modify it whatsoever.

Um, but there was a data-based approach to develop that 1.9 number on the multifamily.

But 22, that is not it's not right.

So we're changing it and correcting it.

All right, thank you.

Do we do that now or wait for the state to or is it just a copy paste?

What's going on?

I think you can take a leadership role and do it now.

Yeah, uh does anyone have an uh offer an amendment?

No, it's uh it's it's already in there.

Oh, okay.

Sorry.

Yeah.

My mistake.

Alderman Govea.

Thank you.

I I guess my question on the go off of that was why are there maximums?

If I'm developing or building, why why put a cap on extra parking?

Yes, uh, that's a great question, Mr.

Chair.

If I can just address that.

So certainly um within our downtown core area, particularly, we have tried to make most efficient uh the use of land.

And so we have tried in some cases, particularly urban environments, to limit the creation of parking uh to not create large vacant parking fields where they may not be needed, and to try and align parking strategically with dwelling unit demand.

And so uh it's not uncommon in urban community settings to see maximums established to create to prevent the creation of parking that won't be a productive use of land because it won't be used by the surrounding uh multifamily dwellings.

And so uh that number was studied to be sort of a demand number.

Uh we actually see the demand number range anywhere from uh 1.1 to 1.3 to 1.4 spaces.

It's a number that manager Durfee, Director Cummings, and others and I go back back and forth on all the time, but the goal is essentially to create eliminate the creation of large parking areas that won't be used.

Okay.

That's why.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

I all those opposed.

The ayes have it.

We have uh O 25-076 amending the land use code by amending the accessory dwelling unit ordinance and definition of dwelling unit accessory.

I'd like to make a motion for final passage.

Um that motion is in order, and I'll say that we do have one meeting left before the end of the year, so if there is amendments that need to be made, we can do that sufficiently if we can also commit on being present in a quorum uh before the holidays.

Um but otherwise, if we do leave it tabled and we can't get back here in December, it'll continue to the next board.

Uh because I know this is this one and the next one are of some contention and uh the no need to rush.

Are we on 70?

Which one are we on?

I'm sorry.

76.

76, yeah.

So I think the most specific thing here, and correct me if I'm wrong is the square footage of um what the maximum can be, etc.

Yes, that's correct.

Uh Mr.

Chair, there are a few other things that we've changed here based on Nashua's processes, but the I'd say the most substantial deviation is the creation of that 980 square foot maximum.

Uh and I know Manager Durfe can't speak verbally, but um if you'd like more explanation on that, we'd certainly be happy to provide it in written format.

Uh as I mentioned before, it was derived from study of ZVA actions.

And yeah.

And to represent to the um to the like the committee, I did meet with manager Durfee uh before this legislation was introduced, and that's as what he represented to me through the consultants that the city uses.

This is identified as a uh ideal square footage uh based on the um overall uh bird's eye view of the um of the need for the city and our current requirements.

I may have misrepresented that, but you can correct me if I'm wrong.

I think that's correct.

All right, Alderman Clemens.

So am I understanding this correctly that the minimum is 750 or is the minimum nine eighty?

The uh maximum is nine hundred and eighty square feet, Alderman Clemens.

What is the minimum?

There is no minimum.

The minimum would be controlled functionally by how small you can build an accessory dwelling unit, uh, fit the kitchen uh cooking, sleeping, and bathroom facilities in one area.

So technically you could create a very small accessory dwelling unit.

Alderman Clemens.

Yeah, so I'm I'm thinking like if you were to put a tiny home in a backyard or something like that, 350 square feet maybe so um to address I get very antsy when we talk about tiny homes.

It wouldn't be a tiny home.

It wouldn't be it'd be an ADU.

Yeah, because I know what you mean though, yes, yeah.

A very small home on a permanent foundation connected to sewer and water could absolutely exist at about 400 square feet.

Absolutely.

Um as long as it's on a permanent foundation and has the facilities.

Uh absolutely.

There's sort of this battle going on right now in the construction world as to how small you can make a unit, but it turns out to be around 350 to 400 square feet in size.

Alderman Clemens.

So my other question is uh why would we so the 980 is only for a detached and it's 1200 if it's within the unit, is that correct?

The so the 980 applies both for a detached unit and also for an attached unit where structural expansion is happening.

So if you're adding on an addition to build an ADU, you're capped at 980 square feet.

Where you get an exemption is if you have an existing footprint and you're building fully within that existing footprint, you get up to 1200 square feet.

The idea there is that if it's an existing structure, uh sort of to some of the public testimony, it's an established structure that your neighbors and the neighborhood is aware of.

And so if you're keeping within that, the impact is lessened.

That's sort of the theory there.

Uh I think hopefully that makes sense.

Yep.

Full up.

Now on all of these, uh if someone wanted to go to the zoning board and get an exception because maybe instead of 980 square feet, they want to do a thousand square feet.

Or vice versa, if it was in within the existing unit, and for some re excuse me, for some reason it was 1,300 square feet, they could go and get that um exception.

Church was eleven.

They could absolutely uh seek a variance through the zoning board of adjustment.

They they'd have full rights to do that, absolutely.

And that and they may there may be some hardship that would uh justify that.

So yes, that could be an option.

Okay.

I just want to make sure if I could I just want to make sure that that opportunity exists because you know, having I I I like having limits, but you know thinking for old you know, older units or or older houses, you know, where there might be the opportunity to do something within an existing structure, you know, you might run into a situation where if you're splitting a duplex, for example, right, and in there, or or you're you have a single family house and you're making it a duplex with one on one floor, one on the other, but they're both 1400 square feet, but it's a very easy divide, right?

Then that's that's something that I you know you'd want to you'd want that person to be able to go to the zoning board and ask for a variance to be able to do something like that, right?

So that's that's kind of um my thought process behind you know the the ability for somebody to be able to do that.

And uh before I move on to Alderman Gobaya, it's just one ADU poor uh per residence, lot, uh dwelling you dwelling unit.

Yes.

So if someone had one dwelling unit on 10 acres, they could only do one ADU.

That is correct.

Great.

Um I'll say more for a little bit after Aldman Google.

Aldman Govair.

Uh no, mine was just what Alderman Clemens brought up about turning a house into a duplex in that kind of situation.

Because I could see this kind of opening the door for that a little bit more, uh, which I don't think in some areas of town is necessarily the worst thing in the world, but it it I'm glad that question is being asked because it it duplexes are allowed in a large portion of the city.

So it ignore the ADU law for a second.

You know, there are several properties in some of our most sensitive neighborhoods that could be converted into duplexes today.

I mean, that that could happen.

Some of the city's most historic structures could theoretically be divided into equal footprints and converted into duplex and even conduized.

I'm not saying that would happen, but it it it could be done.

So I mean I just want to like ADU legislation may be viewed as being very problematic, but a lot of the permissions, the ADU or a lot of the fears around ADUs are actually things that could already be done today in the existing zoning code.

Not every neighborhood, certainly, but some of these permissions already exist.

Now can you put an ADU on the property and then five years later split uh uh split up the land with one now?

You have a one on that's a that's a great question.

If if you had a lot and you had a house on it, and you added an ADU, you were allowed to do so by right today, but you had enough land to subdivide, build another house, and build an ADU with that, you would technically have that right today.

Yes.

There have been prior iterations at this bill at the state level that had two ADUs by right for every dwelling unit.

Um be very frank, uh city staff, uh well, I'll speak for myself only.

Um we expressed concern about that those pieces of legislation because we felt that for many neighborhoods that would have been it would have been too impactful to the character of those neighborhoods.

Um so I think there is a line where this could go too far, um, but I believe that one detached ADU can be done in concert with the existing fabric in most neighborhoods in the city.

But keeping in mind, oh sorry, um uh keeping in mind the members of the public too, like uh the the square footage, my first house in Dickerman Street here was 950 square feet.

That is a house.

Yep.

Uh and we're dividing the where the state is saying that that's now an ADU, depending if it's on an existing dwelling uh unit or detached, etc.

So I could see how the risk of one side people can build these, have generational living, have their in-laws move in, stabilize their um immediate family, nuclear family, then just like we've seen in other communities, which I've been attuned to is the people coming in like VRBO ing it Airbnb, uh, not that platform specifically, but a company that buys it up, makes these ADUs.

Next thing you know, they're writing out the main house, the ADU, and there's you've lost your neighborhood.

It's uh it's it it happens, and but again, out of our hands.

Alderman Thibault.

Thank you.

Um say classic or historic.

I'm on the historic district commission.

Uh I I don't want you touching any of those houses.

And I know somebody in your department would probably uh maybe be after you tomorrow morning.

Um don't don't split up those places.

Um you may have answered this when we talked about the parking, but so you put one of those little tiny houses in the back on a foundation and hooked up to water, and they didn't never had a parking space available for someone else.

Do they have to build one there?

Do they have to make one?

Is it required?

Is it not?

Like how does how do they I guess rectify that or so let's take a few different scenarios.

Um, you have an existing home, it has one parking space on site, and I want to build an ADU.

Um and I can't fit a second uh a second parking space.

Well, that's a problem because for each ADU you're required to have one parking space.

And if you only have one on site, that's your single family parking space, you need to find another one.

You can reach an agreement with an abutter to have a you know a perpetuity restriction on a parking space there, dedicated parking space.

You can reach an agreement with an abutter down the road, or maybe not direct abutter, but someone down the road for a dedicated parking space.

You can provide parking in a variety of different forms in the ordinance as it's drafted, but you gotta find that parking space.

Now let's say I have a single family home, but I have two parking spaces on site right now.

I can add an ADU without any issue.

I have two parking spaces available to me.

State law says the city can't require me to have more than one per dwelling unit, whether it's a single family or an ADU.

I've met the requirements.

Now, am I going to run into practical concerns because you know my family has three cars and the ADU is going to have one or two more cars?

Yes.

Um I think that's some of the challenge with the one parking space per dwelling unit legislation that the state passed, quite honestly.

I think it's a little bit context ignorant.

Um, but technically that would be allowed today.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Um how do is that something that you guys need to look at before they can put the ADU?

Is that part of the all the stuff that you have to fill out?

Because I mean I could they can just park on the street, right?

I know it's against the rule, right?

Overnight parking, but I see it throughout the city all the time, even on my street.

Right.

So I I mean, somebody could just park on the street, that they could say, yeah, we don't have it, but we're fine, we you know, whatever.

You guys have to prove that first for them to get it.

So that could prevent someone from putting an ADU on if they don't have the parking space.

Absolutely.

Okay, thank you.

Any further conversation?

Alliman Jetting.

So um so Alderman Tebow brings up a good point.

He mentions the historic district.

He said, I don't want you touching the historic district.

But if we pass this ordinance, you know, you you you can we we won't be able to eliminate ADUs from the historic district.

Director Sullivan.

Well, um you won't be able to limit ADUs within the historic district from a use perspective.

The historic district will maintain fully its jurisdiction when it comes to applying the historic district review process to building permits necessary for ADUs required within the historic district.

Now there are a couple different scenarios here.

If an ADU is being created in an existing structure and the building permits that are necessary are just to fit up that structure, that the HDC's review is going to be very limited, and I would urge them not to deny any of those permits.

Now if my if in the historic district I am building a brand new very modern structure for my nice detached accessory dwelling unit, I believe the historic district has some discretion to review that proposed building and determine whether it's compliant with the historic district rules and guidelines.

Provided that that HDC review is in no way different from any other permit review that it does, I believe they can equitably apply those rules and regulations.

So I hope I'm being clear without being unclear.

HDC could deny building permits related to accessory dwelling units.

They simply could not do so on the basis of use alone.

They would have to do it on the basis that it doesn't comply with the historic district standards.

Okay.

Um follow up.

I I thought I I I don't I'm not finding it right now, but I thought I thought they were um in the proposed ordinance um there were specific things like no exterior design of the accessory dwelling unit should be compatible with the single family dwelling dwelling through architectural use of building form scale and construction materials.

That's struck out.

Director Saltman.

Correct.

But what the ordinance does so that's correct.

Those very specific focus requirements that exist in the ordinance before that were applied uniquely to accessory dwelling units, those have been removed because we can't treat accessory dwelling units uniquely any longer.

But what can be done, Alderman Jetty, in my opinion, is that the historic district rules that would apply to a new single family home being built can absolutely apply to an accessory dwelling unit that's being constructed.

You just can't unduly restrict or regulate ADUs any more than a single family home or other.

I don't I hope does that make sense?

I I I found what I was uh thinking about.

Okay.

It's um it's in uh paragraph B, um subparagraph 11.

Uh this is being added.

Yes.

It says where the standards of this section conflict with those found elsewhere in Chapter 190 land use, the standards of this section apply.

So I'm reading that as saying that this overrules anything else that might be in Chapter 190.

Um I'm not sure about that, but I'm just raising the question.

What I believe the function is of number 11 is to identify any areas where there's direct conflict between provisions of the proposed ADU language and Section 19.

But conflict does not exist between the proposed language and the historic district regulations.

They're completely different sets of regulations that I think would both apply to an accessory dwelling unit.

I think what we're really talking about is something more direct, such as if the parking table said that 0.8 parking spaces were required for an accessory dwelling unit, but this ordinance says one space is required, this ordinance would supersede the parking table.

But I view the historic district regulations and this accessory dwelling unit section as entirely different and not conflicting in the way that Section 11 is meant.

If I can add maybe this is a question that if we continue to move forward and it doesn't get tabled, uh question through you and I corporation council?

Uh that way if it does get to the full board either way, that there's a clear answer, so all the members, not just here, but the full board has a clarity on it.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, and Alderman J's question is uh is a good one.

So it requires a thorough answer.

I'm not I'm I'm answering it, but I think we should look at it further uh if there's any question.

Turns out the conversation is uh I got Alderman uh T bow after Alderman Clemens.

Um but if it turns out that it's um the conversation continues and there's not many more clarifying uh if that's just the one or two, then maybe we can just clarify at the full board as well.

So you have a straight answer from legal direct uh Alderman Jetty.

Are you asking?

Yes, would that be sufficient to get making sure you have the right answer?

Yeah, so uh so how do you feel?

I mean, would you rather have time?

Would you rather we we uh table this particular ordinance?

And so you have time to come back to the committee or are we?

I can tell by the expression on your face, the answer is no.

Um Mr.

Chair, if I may.

Yes, yeah.

Chair, if I may I I am I'm always concerned about waiting until the last meeting of the session.

So if I'm being transparent, that is my concern.

I'm also thinking that the answer to your question relative to Section 11, Alderman Jetty is a fairly simple one that I can get you prior to a full board meeting.

However, if there are other things that you think you need clarification on that I can't answer tonight, I'll accept that I have to gamble on a December PEDC meeting.

But my goal would be to take all of the questions that you have tonight, go to work before Friday of this week, developing a communication for full board that addresses the committee's questions and take my chances next week with you.

That would be my that would be my goal.

And I'd be happy to be there next week to speak during public comment or during the consideration of the legislation as well to address any of those items.

Okay, if I if I could respond, yes.

You know, I I agree with you wholeheartedly about doing things at the last minute.

But aren't you the one that's bringing this to us at the last minute you know, I mean, is there you know, if we don't pass this this year, I mean, is is the legislature requiring that we do this before the end of the year?

I can I just jump in.

I don't want to uh uh have the that energy go straight to Director Sullivan, but it was the end of the term of the state house coming in uh in the summer, followed by the having enough weeks for the public hearing uh notices and making sure that we wrote and updated the ordinances in between these.

I mean, it wasn't like a jam through, it was just the the time from passage to here.

Alderman Jetty's correct.

We could have we could have brought this lay legislation in in in September.

Um so it's it's a self-inflicted procedural dilemma.

I tried to get you out of these.

You did times.

You did, and I'm gonna accept for director coming.

What I'm gonna do is I'm gonna blame Manager Durfee for having a child.

No, I'm just kidding.

Uh he knows I'm kidding.

No, uh no, in all seriousness, I I I do accept I do accept blame for that.

And I think to to answer directly, in the event that this needs to continue on to next year's session, that's fine.

Um if we think we need more time.

I guess what I would ask is if we at the end of the discussion this evening, I would like to try and get you a communication in advance of next of next week.

If you don't feel comfortable, I accept that we'll go to a December PEDC and have a discussion.

And I'm absolutely okay with that.

But so far, what I've heard this evening, they do not seem like significant issues that need to be addressed.

And frankly, my tendency is to try to get you a communication like tomorrow or Thursday that so that you have an answer immediately so that you have enough time to prepare for a meeting next week.

Um but again, I I agree we would absolutely accept if we have to go into the next session.

It is a matter of timing, and um we we accept that that's not a problem at all.

Alman J.

So uh do I still have the floor?

You do have the floor, yes.

So the other issue is the uh you know the the restriction on the number of people that can occupy um you know, whether it's the ADU or or any of these things.

Yeah.

I mean, we're you know, we had this discussion some time ago um when we were looking, you know, in anticipation of the new code uh changes.

Yeah, you know, we we had uh a discussion with uh uh Mr.

Durfee.

Um, about the you know you know the I I guess we didn't know about what the legislature was doing at the time because we we had a big discussion about family members and non-family members.

Mr.

Chairman, that yeah, that's the next ordinance.

That's 0257 uh 077 uh Alderman Jetty.

Uh thank you, Alderman Clemens.

Thank you.

Yeah.

So uh I I think if there's any further conversation, um my gosh, you're right.

I forgot Alderman Clemens in the Alderman T Bow, sorry.

Alderman Jetty.

Extract me.

So it was your fault for bringing up the historic district commission.

Um the we probably wouldn't remember to even talk about that.

I look at it this way.

If you want to put an ADU in the back of a historic district house, and it's shaped like a UFO, it's not gonna fly with the historic district commission.

And I think we have that kind of leniency to deny that.

If you're gonna put one in the back that has a similar feel to it, I think it it works, right?

Because you don't want to go against the ADU, but you want to still have that that feeling that you're in the the historic district.

It's like saying we're all have the right to put windows on our house, but in the historic district, those windows need to fall in line with the the period, right?

So I look at it that way.

And so I think historic district is separate from the ADU because it goes against things that are in the in the law now that reside within the rest of the town, right?

So that's how I look at that.

Otherwise, we don't even need the historic district commission anymore if they can't rule on things like that.

But you're right, the ADU would still be part of that.

You still could put that in a historic house.

It just has to have the feel of it.

That's from my experience with the Historic District Commission, that's how I feel it's going to run.

Now, again, I would certainly check with somebody and make sure that it's it's aligned.

But these changes that we have here are it's not like we're coming up with them and we're like, hey, we gotta do all this stuff for the end of the year.

It's these our rules now aren't in effect anymore.

The the state rules are in effect.

That's right.

So it doesn't matter if these are in our books now or not.

There except for a couple of tweaks.

We can't enforce the stuff that's in our ordinances for these things because the state law takes effect.

So believe me, I don't like some of these things.

I don't like the next one, certainly, and I don't like the the this one to a certain extent, but that's gonna be state law no matter what.

We can't change that.

None of us here are our state legislators, so we're not gonna be able to change that.

So that's how I look at these.

I don't look at it as a big a problem as is if we were creating the leg the legislation ourselves, and then we could say, oh, we don't like this, we don't like to change this, change that.

That's different because it would be in our control.

I don't think a lot of this is in our control.

So uh Alderman Clemens also uh director Sullivan, is there a way to find out um who uh did and didn't vote from the national delegation, both state reps and Democrats?

Just I'm sorry.

Both state reps and senators.

I I'm sure there is a way.

Just curious if this is something that they advocated for and supported and represented on behalf of the city for changes.

I uh let me discuss that with the mayor's office.

I'm not sure who vote who voted, but we can't.

No, I know but I would just be curious if we can find out if the full board here would not make some of these changes, and then our state delegation support as such, it doesn't seem like there's a good cross communication between the two bodies uh of local and state government representation.

Sorry.

No, I'm I'm good.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

Mr.

Chair, may I just ask the items?

So I I owe some response on the function of item number 11 and how it relates to other sections of the code.

I'd like to specifically address the HDC standard application and how whether these ADUs would be subject to the HDC and all their power and authority.

I'm gonna give you a little more depth on 980 square feet.

I think you've addressed it, Mr.

Chair, but I'll get something in writing, and I can certainly get something about uh what members of the Nashville delegation weighed in.

Um I'm not aware of any other specific items that you'd like information on.

I was just trying to remember if Alderman Jetty had any other questions that I needed to follow up on.

And if anything comes up afterwards, feel free to direct them through me.

I don't I don't think so.

I I think you know what Alderman Tebow, if if what he's if he's reminding me that if what he's saying is true, that that this is being dictated to us by the state legislature.

And I I thought there were tweaks that you kind of hinted that we could make, but if we can't, we can't, and I I accept that.

I don't want to I don't want you to be chasing down stuff just out of curiosity.

I I think if if we're stuck with what with what has been proposed, but then we're then we're stuck with it.

But if we're not, then it's worth pursuing.

But if we have if we don't have any choice in the matter, I don't want to make extra work for you.

If I can just briefly respond, thank you so thank you.

And Alderman J.

There are a few items in here that are of our own making.

Um the item the 980 square feet certainly exceeds the 950 that's contemplated in the statute.

We've gone 30 square feet above what the statute contemplates as a maximum ADU size.

So that's one example.

The 1,200 square feet that we've included for contained ADUs with existing structures is something of our own making as well, that flexibility to provide for bigger ADUs within existing structures.

That's something that our team came up with based on experience in our office reviewing applications.

Um the timing of the uh the covenant restriction being tied to the building permit, that is something that we devised to try and get that covenant in place earlier so that enforcement could happen easier if the conditions weren't being met.

That's something that our team came up with.

Parking must be provided, or the municipality has the right to require parking.

We wanted to provide more flexibility for off-site parking, and certainly that's something that we came up with.

So section seven could be amended.

The final section that I'm aware of that is a is a creation of ours is item 10, though I'm not I think there might be backing for this in the statute, and that is to say sp explicitly the ADUs are associated with single family dwelling units and not with multifamily dwellings.

We we wrote that language more for clarification purposes.

I think the statutes implicit about that, but that's something that I believe our team came up with to make it very clear what we attended by ADUs.

So there's there's some there's some creative thought at work here based on our staff's knowledge of the process, but the other pieces of this, the bigger pieces where it's detached, that's all coming from state statute.

So hopefully that summarizes it.

All right, and we'll look forward to all those questions.

If there's anything else, feel free to email uh myself and director Sullivan.

I will add one benefit of this is uh for folks who do own property and are um maybe in have the ability to add on an ADU and then make extra income through renting it out to support um uh retirement or whatever it might be, just like we talked about earlier, side gigs and 1099s and people not wanting to pay their taxes.

This way it's much more um likely someone will have uh legitimate revenue that they can make uh leveraging their property value at the same time.

Uh but again the side fear for me would be who's scooping up properties and building ADUs and are they short-term rentals, long-term rentals, are they actually impactful to the housing crisis?

Those things to be have taken really taken away from us uh with this state legislation.

But we're dealing with state.

Alderman Jetty.

Before we leave, so now that you kind of reviewed things, it kind of reminded me of um you know paragraph B's paragraph uh subparagraph ones, sub-subparagraph A, um, you talk about um if an access if an accessory dwelling unit uh is proposed to be developed within an existing structure and no expansion of the footprint of that existing structure is proposed, the accessory accessory dwelling unit may consist of an area up to twelve hundred square feet.

I I guess I don't understand you know what why that's necessary.

I I'm thinking of somebody who owns a large home and uh you know it's it's a parent who you know a single parent now living um you know, a widow, for example, living in a large home, and um you know she wants to invite um her married daughter and her two children to come and live.

Um but they want they want separate units.

Um the house could be I don't know four thousand square feet, and um you know Alderman Clemens talked about making a duplex, but it even without making it a duplex, if if one of the units is a smaller unit in the building, and then the the other unit you know is larger, or if they're both equal both equal but exceed the uh the 1200 um you know, requiring them to go before the the zoning board to show hardship to get a variance doesn't seem fair to me.

Um I'm not sure what what your why you're limiting it to the 1200 and what what what problem are you trying to solve and are you creating different problems that um unnecessary director Sullivan on and or does Oldman Clemens also you want to add on to that or that's that's a great question, and I um I think I need to think about that alderman jetty.

I mean, I think we have to remember first that or I guess I'm remembering first that that scenario you've laid out makes a lot of sense to me.

Uh and I don't think there should be really any restriction.

Uh, and I don't think there should be really any restriction, but our ordinance needs to our ordinance cannot contemplate whether the ADU is being occupied by a family member or non-family member.

And so I think the question is at what point are you functionally creating a duplex arrangement within a single family home?

And and maybe that's okay.

I mean, maybe this committee, this board feels that duplexes by right are something else that should be discussed across the city.

But I think our goal there was to look at the average single family home size and come up with a reasonable maximum square footage that would still keep the unit size accessory in nature.

But I I think that's another one that I should come back with a more thorough response on, because I think if you were to ask me why 1200 square feet ultimate jetty, I don't know that I can answer that question well.

So I think it's worth me getting more insight from the team as to why they came up with that number.

But I do think whatever we come up with has to work in the scenario that you've just just discussed, and it also has to work in a scenario where you know a family of three is occupying the accessory dwelling unit and are fully allowed to do so, or three unrelated individuals are occupying the accessory dwelling unit, and it's in an existing single-family home neighborhood, should the size of that unit be limited.

And I think that's what we were tempted to do here.

But let me get you let me get you more of an answer.

I'm just thinking out loud in front of the committee and probably shouldn't be doing that.

Thank you, Director Sullivan.

Uh Clemens.

Personally, I like it.

Because I think what it does is it strikes a balance between what the state has contemplated, and it strikes a balance between the concerns that Mr.

Richardson brought up, which is you know what are we just gonna allow every single house everywhere to have one of these without going through some sort of process.

I think it's reasonable to say that 1200 square feet, okay.

If you're in the 1200 square feet, go ahead, you can you can do it, right?

It kind of meets the spirit of the intention of the law from the state.

But I think if you're going over that, yeah, you should you should have to go make your case in front of the zoning board and decide you know, and they should be able to decide whether or not it fits the character of the neighborhood.

And I think you know, and we have the the zoning variant signs out there, your neighbors would be able to know.

I think it's a good thing.

I think it strikes the balance of compromise.

And so I I don't have a problem with it.

Um I I think it should remain the way that it is in the ordinance.

Own jetty.

So I I would just like to uh you know I hear what you're saying, and and I just like to remind you that when you talk about going before the zoning board for a variance, and you talk about how you know the zoning board would have to make sure it's consistent with the the neighborhood.

So you remember variances have five specific requirements.

And one of them, and the most difficult to meet, is the hardship.

And the heart hardship has been defined as you know, not being you know, a poor widow who needs income, you know, a hardship has to be, you know, there's something unique about this particular property which makes it different than other properties in the neighborhood.

So, you know, if you've got a neighborhood of you know of large houses, you know, they're all similar situated.

There's no hardship.

You know, I I suppose somebody could probably prove a hardship, but it's not that easy.

And uh, you know, it's you know, you you have to show that that your property uh you know that you know the typical law school example is you've got a pie-shaped lot, and uh and so now the the setback requirements you know don't work very well for you because it's a pie-shaped lot and you've got a rectangular house, and uh so that's that can be a hardship.

Uh but just you know, saying that you know somebody is on needs needs uh extra income, or they you know they have a you know a family that needs a place to stay.

That type of hardship is not what's in what's contemplated by the law uh when you're talking about variances, so you know it's different than a special exception where you just you know uh you just have to show that it's not out of character with the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Uh one last point I can make, hopefully it's the last point, but uh one other thing that this benefits is the small business developer, because these aren't great big builds that's gonna that gonna aren't going to happen.

This is like a local uh builder, general contractor who's gonna have uh um these um opportunities to expand their business through the use of uh the uh the changes to the ADO uh ADUs, so it's another benefit uh to more working class uh stable housing options in the city as well.

So with that, all those in favor say aye.

I all those opposed, the eyes have it, and director Sullivan, you'll get us the answers, please.

We also have uh O-25-07 amending the land use code regarding unrelated households.

I'd like to recommend final passage.

Discussion, older Clemens.

Yeah, I do have questions uh on this, and it's in related to the uh table 16.1.

And my question is in here, um, you know, there's there's things listed like bed and breakfast rooming, uh boarding, nursing homes, elderly housing, fraternity or sorority, things like that.

Is there another section in the code that does have occupancy limits for those for example bed and breakfast or elderly housing?

Um I'm gonna confirm on elderly housing in just a second, Alderman Clemens, but there's no further restriction of occupancy relative to uh bed and breakfasts that I'm aware of.

Um we don't further stipulate uh square footage anywhere else that I'm aware of within the code.

Um I'll confirm elderly housing in just a minute because we do have a set of supplemental use regulations that refer to to that use, but uh I'm not aware of anything related to bed and breakfasts or any of the other uses on this table that might sort of fall into that category as well.

I'm I'm not aware of any such restrictions.

Yeah, I I'm I'm not gonna support the way that this is not gonna support this tonight because I do believe that when you have a for all intents and purposes, a business which is offering units to the public to rent, right?

So that would be a nursing home, that could be a dormitory because it's uh it's it's a college, right?

Um that could be a uh a rooming house, it could be a bed and breakfast, um things of that nature where it's a commercial property, and anything that has more than four units is considered a commercial property, at least in Nashua and New Hampshire.

So I think we do need to put limits on the occupancy of those types of places because they're a business, and I think that it would serve the public for us to figure out what that limit is.

If it's you know, if it's a I understand if it's a single family house, if it's a duplex, an apartment, an ADU, you know, basically a private residence if it's if it's below that four unit mark, fine.

We can leave it out of the code, it's it doesn't pass state law.

But if it's above that, I think we should try to figure out what it is that we as a community have a standard on what how many people per square foot we should have in those places because it's not like these folks are not gonna know, you know, and I while I don't want to limit like families and things like that, right, to rent an apartment or something.

I think we need to think about other situations like like the nursing home or like a dormitory or or things like that.

So I I I I think there's a larger discussion here that needs to be really like fine-tuned for us to be able to move forward with legislation that that really uh does what we want it to do on the many different scenarios that exist out there.

This discussion to be lost down the line because we pass this and then forget about it, or we pass this, and it's not a priority to the administration anymore.

I think and not to say that it wouldn't be, but I'm just saying because people are busy and because there are other more important things going on.

I I would prefer not to pass this and instead try to figure out what it is, which types of property we want to restrict, and get that into the code.

Um we do it for hotels, right?

I I think we should really think about our nursing homes.

We should think about our dormitories, we should think about things like that.

Uh Director Sullivan?

Alderman Clemens is raising a point that I think some of us thought about when we were we were actually drafting this legislation, and that is that the line between what the statutory change said or called res uh dwelling units, residential dwelling units, and what is a commercial use that's residential is a little bit murky.

Uh and so Alderman Clemens, I think we took a broad approach here, but I think we could work to try and narrow that approach a little bit.

What I would say is that we we are fairly adamant that single family dwellings, duplex or townhouse, apartments, and elderly housing are required to be removed from this table because they are true pure residential uses, and we cannot restrict occupancy within those.

Um I would agree generally that for bed and breakfasts, rooming houses, dormitories, fraternities, potentially, uh and nursing homes, they cross a line of being quasi-commercial, quasi-residential, and there may be some ability to further restrict.

I will just note that within our ordinance we do have supplemental use standards for bed and breakfasts where we restrict the number of uses or sorry, the number of rooms.

We have a tiered system that says certain numbers of rooms are allowed in certain contexts.

We don't restrict occupancy, but we do restrict the size of the of the B and B.

So I guess where I'm landing on this, um, unlike with ADUs, where I think we can address the committee's concerns on ADUs, we can go back over the coming weeks and have a conversation about whether or not some of these uses could be reclassified out of that residential dwelling unit category and produce an amendment to this legislation that might address that concern.

I've just been texting with manager Durfee, and I think we're agree in agreement with your concern, and we'd welcome some additional time to come back to the committee to maybe uh present an alternative strategy to address that.

It's possible we'll come back and say for this reason or that reason we we don't think we can do that, but I I think we should at least explore that option, and we did have some discussion at the staff level.

Yeah, so the my only follow-up would be obviously, you know, I would not be looking for you know the unrelated part, right?

This would just be across.

How many people per square feet, right?

And you know, I don't know, base it on a fire code, I guess.

You could and and and and kind of you know use that as as our as our standard and come back for these commercial properties that fit into these areas that are quasi-residential, and that's what we I guess would be my ask.

Okay.

So I appreciate it.

We can do that, yeah.

Uh Ellen T Bowl.

Thank you.

Um, I tend to agree with what Alderman Clemens said.

Um, I mean, I don't want to be stacking up grannies either.

Um the thing that you said about murky, if something is murky and we have we think we can have some control in there, I say we take that control because if they're gonna leave it that way, murky, then we decide as the city how that should be done.

And I know some of those other things are very specific in some of their the statutes, but if this isn't defined and we can define it, I say we do that.

Um because uh you know when the state doesn't give you you gotta make the the rule, right?

And uh I think if if you're saying this is murky and this is something we can actually my question before you kind of answered Alderman Clemens was what tweaks can we make to what's here compared to the other ones where there was some things we couldn't do except for like square footage and stuff like that.

So if we can actually do this, I say let's work on that and and and do it.

And I probably wouldn't support it tonight either and hope to have something something stronger with those particular things.

Okay.

Thank you.

I was just gonna make a motion.

Um those people at the state house just taking over uh local control and removing uh our ability to govern is very difficult.

You know, I just don't understand the philosophy behind those politics.

All we're getting uh so um so I I heard you say that um uh when it comes to uh you know residential single family residential homes.

Yes, there's there's nothing we can do to restrict the number of occupants.

You you certainly can.

You can establish across the board occupancy limitations in any residential use.

It simply can't be different based on familial relationship or any really any other status as defined in the statute.

So you could say we shall now have no more than one individual per 500 square feet in any residential use across the city of Nashua.

I think what I was suggesting, Alderman Jetty is and I'm not saying you're suggesting this either, but I would be very cautious doing that because we have a lot of arguably very reasonable and acceptable living solutions around the city that would likely violate any such restriction.

So I think you you absolutely can though.

You there's no question you just can't change how you treat family versus non-family.

So I I guess the problem you're alluding to is somebody might think you know, we don't want to allow a single family home to be occupied by 20 unrelated people, but you know, if if you have a family there that starts out with two people and they keep multiplying each year, they add another person.

Um it's you know, it's hard to say you can't have any more children, or if you have another child, you gotta move.

Yeah, I I guess that's what you're somebody is alluding to, I guess.

Director Sullivan.

I I think that's that's right.

I mean, that's an extreme example, but I do think I brought up the example earlier because I I know folks who have been in this situation where folks are renting a 900 square foot apartment or 750 square foot apartment, you have a young couple and they have a child, and they technically exceed that limitation.

I mean I think we all know people who have been in that scenario where they've lived in a small apartment and and had uh started a family 950 square feet in a house.

And we units are smaller even smaller now, and so it's just I and I don't think that's what any of you are trying to regulate, right?

It's it's or even uh manager Durfee and I were chatting today, and he brought up a 2,000 square foot home.

You may remember we had talked about a 600 square foot limitation in this chamber and some committees.

If you have a 2,000 square foot home and you have two adults and two children, you violate a 600 square foot requirement.

So I there's just it depends, you know, it depends.

And and different cultures feel comfortable and different densities of living.

Um it's really hard to regulate.

And I also, you know, from an affordable hard housing perspective, this gets thrown out a lot, but it's real, like you have young adults that are living in fairly dense environments as well, renting individual bedrooms within apartments, and it just I don't think any of you want to restrict that.

I think what you're trying to get at is real clear overcrowding.

And that's a tricky thing to grab, but I think in commercial settings, we certainly can regulate that.

But in residential, I think it's a slippery slope.

No, I think generational housing is here to stay.

Yes, uh I grew up in that, um, and my family still lives in in that uh generational type living because of affordability um issues, but again, the ADO ADUs help solve part of that problem if people can afford to build um and shift a generation uh and see a uh detach or attached unit.

These are some pieces of relief.

Getting to the nuance of of it uh is practical, of course.

So we'll look for a motion from Alderman Govea.

So I'm hearing we want a table.

Is there anybody else who wants to talk?

Table boom break.

All right, Paul move the table.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All the opposed, all right.

We'll bring this back on the next uh PDC meeting uh before the Christmas break and after I return from Washington State.

Um I'll do that.

Mr.

Chair, and maybe I probably should have mentioned this while we were discussing it.

once of of it uh is practical of course so we'll look for a motion from alderman goa so i'm hearing we want a table is there anybody else who wants to talk table boot right all right i'll move the table all those in favor say aye aye all the opposed all right we'll bring this back on the next uh pdc meeting uh before the christmas break and after i return from washington state um i'll do that mr chair and maybe i probably should have mentioned this while we were discussing it general discussion okay there we go go ahead so uh um nothing tabling committee um the we might we may want to look at the calendar too because yeah the it you know the if we make a substantial change to this it's gonna require another public hearing so um i'm I would just look at the calendar and and we've done this but where I can be at a state and Alderman Vayor can uh chair uh if we needed to make it earlier although and I don't know what his holiday plans are but or yours for go and such but yeah and I would just also say that we are aboard until that first Sunday in January so don't forget you know January 2nd and 3rd which I believe are I could be wrong but I think it's a Thursday Friday.

I I've been telling everyone December 31st my term ends I think that's on the website too no it's not though it's till the next inauguration and we've had business like that when the inauguration falls so I just wanted to capture that day into the into the conversation as well and if folks if we can do something yeah I appreciate that and if folks are on vacation or have requests for this month and the very couple days of January please let me know I only have something planned at this start of December or anything else I'm local for.

So my my mistake it's actually January 1st is Thursday January 2nd's a Friday January 3rd is Saturday but so the second would be the so maybe the Friday if we're all around I I you know I'm just throwing it out there.

Worst case all right um public comment or any other general discussion all right public comment remarks by Alderman none um alderman Govea I move to adjourn that's in order all those in favor say aye aye aye uh the eyes have it and I'll declare the meeting of PDC closed at 902 p.m.

Have a good holiday off before Matt you still want to catch up yeah