All right, it's 7 o'clock.

I guess we can go.

As we'll get started.

All right.

A meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Committee was held Tuesday, June 16th, 2026 at 7 o'clock in the Aldermanic Chamber.

And duly noticed in two places, including the city's website in accordance with requirements of RSA 91-A two.

Two.

Can the clerk please call the roll?

Yes, Alderman at large.

Amber Morgan.

Not here.

Alderwoman Patricia Clee.

Here.

Alderman John Sullivan is here.

Alderman at large Ben Clemens, Vice Chair.

Not here.

And Chairman Alderman Derek Tebow.

Here.

We have three in attendance.

Also attending tonight.

Alderman James Ravan.

And Deputy Planning Manager, Sam Durfee.

Thank you.

I do not see Matt Sullivan on.

I don't know if Matt's coming tonight.

No?

Okay.

I will cross him off.

All right.

So the first thing we're doing tonight is the public hearing.

And so do you want to read the legislation?

Public hearing for 026-013.

Amending the zoning map by rezoning land along Northeastern Boulevard and Industrial Park Drive to Highway Business.

Parentheses HB.

Mr.

Durfee, do you want to talk on it?

Or evening.

Sam Durfee, landing manager for the city management for the record.

So this piece of legislation, as uh read by Albert Sullivan, does change the zoning from existing uh parcels of PI artificial to highway business.

Uh effectively what this does is it changes uh majority industrial use base area to a majority commercial use classification area.

Um as well as restaurants, retail, and other things like that.

Uh it's more or less in keeping with the vision of this quarter uh in terms of what the master plan is articulated.

Uh there are elements of the kind of commercial and industrial nature of this area that is uh perpetuated by this rezoning.

And this uh does it's not like we're taking a chunk right in the middle of a PI block uh turning into highway business.

We're extending existing districts slightly further into uh the existing PI area.

Uh happy to turn any more detailed questions, but I just want to provide a very brief overview.

Any clarifying questions from the committee?

Uh Alderman Clee.

Oh, just just a real quick one.

This does not affect any real residential areas, correct?

Correct.

They're just across the street, correct?

Yeah, thank you.

Um and it's just extending for the lot that we're in question, right?

It's not extending further than that, or is it so there are I don't have the map in front of me, I do apologize.

I believe it's two, maybe three.

Uh but basically the parcels that uh are on the eastern or southern side of uh industrial park drive until it uh intersects with uh northeastern boulevard.

Okay, great.

Any other questions before I turn it over to the public?

Alderman Clee.

So in this it's the red one, right?

Right, yes.

So yeah.

Thank you.

All right, uh now I will take testimony in favor.

I see none.

Testimony in opposition.

I see none.

Uh again, testimony in favor.

None.

Uh testimony in opposition.

I see none.

Um I will close the public hearing on 0-26-01 uh 3 uh at 7 04 p.m.

Uh and I will open the regular meeting at 7 04 p.m.

Um do we have any public comment?

I see none.

Uh do we have any communications?

Yes, from Sam Durfee, planning manager.

Referral from the Board of Alderman on ordinance uh 026-013, amending the zoning map by rezoning land along Northeastern Boulevard and Industrial Park Drive to highway business.

There being no objection, I will accept a communication and place it on file.

Petitions?

None.

Unfinished business.

None.

Uh new business resolutions.

None.

New business ordinances.

Uh let's see.

We have first reading of 026-013, amending the zoning map by rezoning land along Northeastern Boulevard and Industrial Park Drive to Highway Business.

I would like to make a motion to recommend to the full board final passage of 026-013.

Do we have any questions?

Alderman Clee.

Did you receive that email that I know Alderman Sullivan forwarded to you as well as I did for Santander Bank about the question that they had on rezoning?

Were you able to satisfy that question that it doesn't really affect them?

We provided a response, but we have not heard anything back.

Operating as a bank in a PI district, that is a conditional use, but in highway business, that is a permitted use.

So they become more informing as a use if you will.

So this is actually benefits them in many ways.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

Is there a traffic study, Mr.

Durfee, on this one?

Or rezoning?

Well, we know what's going in there.

Like, or does that have to come later?

That would be part of the site plan process.

Oh, okay, so that comes later.

This is just the rezoning part, it's not about what's going in there.

Correct.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

We don't have to.

I um I was happy to uh endorse this.

I know many other of my colleagues on the board endorsed it.

I think that it's good to uh you know it's in keeping with the master plan.

I think to uh you know, understanding the the history of Northeastern Boulevard and what's in there now, I think to amend as times change.

I think that we should adopt to those changes and to allow different businesses in there.

Uh I drove by there the other day, and I can't recall if there's if if that building is even uh occupied right now, but um it would be good to get some more business down on Northeastern Boulevard for sure.

So happy to endorse it.

That's it.

Great.

All right, we don't have to do any roll calls.

So uh all in favor, say aye.

Aye, aye.

Aye.

All uh not in favor?

Say nay.

The eyes have it.

Uh motion carries, nice.

Um all right, uh tabled in committee, done.

All right, um, I don't know why I went that far.

Um Director Durfee, you or manager Durfee, you have a presentation for us tonight?

I know it's it's not on my remarks here because I know you added it late, I think.

Uh number four.

It was amended.

Number four on the number four agenda.

Yeah, on the agenda, but not on my script.

Oh, okay.

Um so yeah.

Oh, you gotta straw.

This is the one.

All right, no one's coming on Zoom, we don't really need some.

There you go.

Perfect.

I see I neglected to change the date.

My apologies.

Uh thank you for having me back for another installment of these recode presentations.

And uh thank you for continuing to indulge me.

Uh I've been enjoying these.

I hope you have as well.

Uh you haven't told me to stop, so I'll take that as uh keep going.

So uh this evening, uh we're revisiting uh something that we had talked about a little while ago.

This being a uh redevelopment case study, if we will.

Uh Alderman Sullivan, you had asked a question because we were talking about the idea of a uh sustainable development modifier for a density factor, right?

So we have our base density factor, you have a inclusion rezoning density factor.

Uh, this is a way of incentivizing via density bonuses to provide affordable housing, and then we have something that's gonna land in the middle of those two called sustainable development density factor.

So we're gonna do a little uh add-on to that uh to explore that, and then uh if we have time and interest, we can continue on our little uh policy discussion uh excursion that we've been plotting along through.

Um this is a little tracker slide of all the topics that we've covered, all the dates, all of these are on YouTube.

Uh I do go back to these every once in a while to make sure that I actually said accurate things so I don't have to come back and correct things for the record.

And uh so far so good.

Um but it is just nice to kind of look back and see all that we've talked about.

So, right into it.

Sustainable development.

Uh Russ from Principal Group, uh, our consultant on the matter.

He uh so kindly put these slides together.

These are quite literally hot off the press, more favorively.

We're not printing these.

Um so we talk about uh again, what is how do we get higher uh order site design and site performance standards, and how do we incentivize that?

This is pulling on a vision from the master plan in terms of how we incorporate more green into our built environment.

Um, aside from just our minimum standards, how do we incentivize going above and beyond?

So, this is that mechanism.

So I kind of just summarize you know the why and the what and how we're we're trying to do this.

Um, but again, the context.

Um we looked at this larger parcel on Amherst Street.

This is part of a redevelopment overlay.

Uh so this is a single building within that redevelopment context, and how it would play out at that building scale.

Uh we're making some assumptions, total floor area just south of 140,000 square feet.

That's important because we know density factor is you know, basically that X amount of square footage divided by density factors is what you get for unit count.

We'll see that play out in a couple of tables.

Uh, and we're assuming a six-story general building.

Again, general building is a building type within our builded type library.

And as always, please stop me with any questions at any time.

So, rather than just plotting on and saying, here's what this means, we want to compare it to the base and the uh inclusionary zoning development.

So we can see density factor, how that breaks down in the base, it's 850.

You get something slightly more advantageous with sustainable development at 775, and then with inclusionary zoning, the most favorable density factor at 650.

So when you plot that out, you can see the difference in the maximum number of dwelling units from 163, you get an additional 15 with sustainable development, and a possible additional 50, 33 of which would be affordable under the IZ approach.

And uh we introduce sustainability menu.

We've talked a little bit about this, but this is basically points on a menu of ways that you can achieve these points.

Basically, site performance standards and what you would have to do to achieve this to unlock this sustainable development density factor.

Uh just a refresher on green score, it's how we're regulating landscaping.

We're applying values to certain landscaping practices, be that strict plantings of trees and uh shrubs, but then also a more intentional design around rain gardens and things like that.

Everything gets a score, and then all of that is then uh basically added up, divided across the total square footage of the site, and that gives you a uh uh green score, usually in a some sort of zero point XX number.

Um we assume and request Yes.

Hold on, Sullivan.

Uh thank you.

Uh just before we get too far afield here.

When you say green, are you thinking environmentally friendly or are you thinking landscaping?

Landscaping.

Okay, thank you.

Environmentally friendly landscaping, yeah, if you will.

Got it.

So the green score requirement, this is associated with a given building type.

Some building types have higher green score requirements than others, some are lower.

Uh, but we're taking this general building example.

This has a point to green score.

We'll see how that plays out.

Um, yeah, so as this example notes, uh, the constraint is room, right?

You only have so much land area to work with.

Um, so it becomes a matter of how do you maximize the site.

So when you put a large building on a site and you've you've covered a lot of that land with building, and you're only left with about 50, 200 square feet.

How else can you incorporate landscaping?

And then you can actually begin looking at the building as a surface upon which to landscape as well.

See how that plays out.

Um, in this example, you know, the base requirement is 0.2.

Uh under the sustainable development, it is 0.26.

Um, but you'll see in the example we actually go a little bit further beyond, just so that we can visualize what those differences would look like.

Um really the street trees stay the same, but the additional square footage of bioretention and rain gardens, this is a stormwater management practice.

Right now, you'll typically see site plans will deploy large underground uh infiltration and retention systems, basically storing having large capacity to store rainwater, and then either letting that infiltrate into the ground over time or slowly discharge into the city system if that's appropriate.

Um but this really tries to capture stuff on site, uh you know, in open areas, which then also double as landscaping areas, but then rather than using more expensive means of of excavating a large amount of earth, installing a system, this kind of serves multi-purposes, uh, and now we're actually trying to give credit to that for this sustainable development score.

Um vegetated green roof and uh also rainwater harvesting irrigation, trying to be efficient with uh the rainwater that falls on site, recognizing this as a practice and giving it credit towards this was a way of trying to incentivize creative uses of the resources on the site.

Alderman Ravan.

Does the excuse me, does the rain garden require aeration?

That is, is does there need to be a fountain or something to make sure it doesn't stagnate that kind of thing?

Good question.

Uh no, we don't require it.

It typically the rain gardens, they don't end up being ponds.

Uh they'll have uh a median where there will be infiltration.

It basically has a lot of area to hold rainwater during storm events, but then it will infiltrate uh outlets or uh they end up being dry.

So there won't be standing water.

Correct.

It'll okay.

Thank you.

Part of the the very detailed standards in which we have prescribed for the construction of rain gardens in the code.

Excellent question.

Uh so here is a visual of this building uh in the base, right?

So this is not the sustainable development uh scheme.

You still see the street trees.

Um there are some plantings uh directly around the building, maybe a little bit of greenery up on the penthouse as well.

But this is just kind of standard landscaping uh practices, you know, things that we would require regardless.

Um gives you a sense of also the scale of the building, and this would be set uh again in that same area that we had talked about.

That actual pond is reflected in another photo that we'll we'll look at.

But then in the sustainable development scheme, you can see there's a lot more.

This doesn't point well, does it?

No, it doesn't.

But you can see along the the sidewalk right next to the road, that is where you see the the rainwater.

So you would actually have in practice curb cuts where water could flow off the street and into these uh retention areas.

Um you can see greenery on the roof.

There actually are solar panels on the roof as well.

Uh that also provides some credit.

Um I can give you.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Durfie.

Um can you just um uh remind us where this is because I think it's in ward one, right?

Uh I believe so.

And I don't think uh Alderman Ravan was here when we started to do this example.

This is not something that's this is all hypothetical.

I don't know if you cut we're here for that.

Yeah, I'm I'm wondering which side of Amherst was on.

I don't know if you could.

Yeah, the the south side, south side.

Okay, so it's ours.

Right around where exactly.

Uh right around uh I believe one of the cross streets nearby would be Sharon, you know, the airport would be behind it.

Okay.

Okay.

Yep.

Thank you.

But I know it's hypothetical, it's not to be applied anywhere under the redevelopment overlay scheme.

Um but I'll flip back and forth just so you can see a little bit more uh of the difference of how the greenery is deployed and really around the streetscaping elements, that's that's where you see it deployed the most.

Uh but then also on the roof, oops, as well.

Ultimately.

Uh thank you.

I mean I I understand when you're talking about the the roof greenery and so on, but um so when it gets developed, we say that that's a mandatory thing, but if they decided as time went on, they didn't want to maintain these gardens and they didn't want to.

Um that that green score kind of goes out the window because it's not part of it.

I understand the increased greenery around it and the the rain garden and and catching the the rain and so on.

But if you were to say, okay, well, there's X number of patios out there and they're gonna have greenery and so on, but people end up living there and buying, and they don't necessarily keep it up.

Um maintenance for the life of the development is a requirement.

Oh, it is a requirement.

So the city can come in and say you need to do this, you haven't been doing it, even if it changes hands.

Absolutely.

Well, and it's and we have that now.

We've enforced against removal of landscaping because it was part of an approved site plan.

Okay, right.

So landscaping is part is just as much as parking or any other site improvement that is part of the site plan approval, you cut down a tree, you are violating violating your site plan.

Okay.

And the same thing would apply here, especially when you are earning a more advantageous density factor, you need to maintain that which you have provided to earn that benefit.

Okay.

I'm always concerned when things change hands more than anything else.

Yeah.

Thank you.

So looking at the hypothetical rear of the building, you can see in the base, not too much greenery, but then you can see the rooftop.

There is coverage up there with some uh greenery, uh, but also making space for additional plantings uh throughout the site, that really is is the goal.

And this is also then from a more um technical standpoint reflected in the stormwater management report that is submitted as part of the site plan.

You will see through the that typically very lengthy report, how uh large storm events are attenuated through these practices, uh, and rather than you know, spending additional money uh through an underground system, but using these alternative methods.

And we're in conversations with DPW of exploring um plan details, details in terms of um little sketches that you find and kind of in the back pages of plan sets that show you exactly how to build these sorts of things.

Um developing a library of what we would call green infrastructure detail sheets, so that there are details and and spec plans that we would approve, and then should any engineer who's drive a set of plans say, hey, look, I I need a spec for a rain garden or whatever you and and we would have that available because we we've reviewed it, we've approved it and said this is this is the way we want to see it done.

And there already exists many examples of those across the country that we can pull on.

And I'm I'm assuming with this picture there.

Thank you.

Sorry.

No worries.

Um with this rendering, there is enough space allotted for parking.

And where is it?

This is this is a very much a hypothetical, um, more a rendition of how the landscaping would come into play.

We have parking under the building here.

There would likely be off-site parking as well, or in that uh kind of tan area around the building that could also be parking with with limited time to simply focus on visualizing the landscaping.

We didn't do a full uh site.

And at the um highest density, how many units were we talking again, please?

Uh I'm gonna go back to that sheet just so that we have that.

And again, this is a um this is a rendering of focusing on the so 213 was the highest.

Uh this is hypothetical under that density factor.

You know, that building may not actually be able to hold 213.

In fact, that's actually a building that's designed for 178 because this is a sustainable development building, not an inclusionary zoning building.

Thank you.

Scale may be off.

Uh McClee.

Just a quick question that has nothing to do with what you're talking about, but based on um Altimara Van's um comments.

The um and it's the the parking when we're talking about sustainable density, is this a high density type of thing that we have the same issues with the downtown when there's no requirement, or would this fall under the one um per or is this are we looking at this as not being housing but looking at more this being industrial?

So this this example would be mixed use, and we would be requiring parking.

Um, and the way that parking can be uh modified is through um what we are currently still developing is like a mobility management uh manual.

So basically a list of ways that you can demonstrate that you're reducing your parking demand.

It's no longer going to the planning board just asking for a waiver because the data supports it.

Now show us how you actually can earn it by buying bus passes, providing bicycle accommodations, all sorts of uh it's a fairly lengthy list of ways to do it.

Thank you.

Great idea for a future session.

Yeah, I'd like that idea.

Certainly.

Um so this is how that we've reached those those 12 points that are needed in order to achieve the sustainable development density factor.

Um so by going from 0.2 to 0.6 of our green score, that 30% increase awards three points.

Uh we're through our enhanced stormwater practices, we're meeting 150% of the required stormwater management.

So, say we have to manage the hundred-year storm that has you know X amount of water that's anticipated.

We're handling 150% of that anticipated volume uh through these practices, another three points are awarded.

Um, we're increasing tree canopy uh for an additional point.

Um heat island reduction, uh so basically covering hardscape surfaces uh with greenery to help uh mitigate the the absorption of heat into concrete and other hard surfaces, that awards points as well.

And we have standards in the code for measuring that.

Uh EV ready parking, basically uh bringing conduit to spaces, uh, that is another uh two points, uh providing bicycle parking, there is a minimum percentage of bicycle parking required, and going above that can award a point.

Uh and then again, rainwater harvesting, um being able to preserve meet at least 50% of your uh landscape irrigation needs by harvesting rainwater on site uh provides an additional two points.

All right, so uh again, going back to more of a comparison, you see the density factor, uh, the number of units provided.

Uh obviously affordable units only come into play under inclusionary zoning, uh, but the green score increases on the sustainable development.

Uh there's a green roof provided, there's enhanced uh storm water management uh and additional EV uh bicycle and and rainwater standards apply uh in the sustainable development, but across all three uh landscape requirements uh apply for the life of development and the ongoing maintenance of that settlement.

Thank you.

Incentive to the developer is so if the base density factor is not advantageous enough, say they really they have the ability to provide 178 units uh, but they really don't want to do inclusionary zoning.

Maybe they could do 200 units, but they're not set up to do affordable housing that from a management perspective.

Uh but 163 units just does not move the needle for them.

They need a bigger project.

The idea is to provide another option that kind of lands in between, uh, and it's a very different approach to a density bonus than affordable housing.

Okay.

But we also recognize that providing the affordable housing, that is a very clear ongoing uh revenue drag, you know, right?

So you are hamstrung on your ability to uh full rent uh a number of apartments, that has a much higher cost than providing uh a higher level of uh site design, therefore the density factor is is mitigated uh accordingly.

You know, we would not award as strong a density factor for the IZA uh or for sustainable development as we would I Z simply because of the costs associated with those.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So are you saying that if they go with sustainability or sustainable development, they can kind of bypass the IZ, the the inclusionary zoning?

I I wouldn't quite say bypass.

Um they could have less or so.

Think of this in a this would also apply in let's let's take this out of the redevelopment overlay context, right?

So anytime you're in the redevelopment overlay, you're gonna have to do IZ anyway.

Okay, but you can also still get the inclusionary zoning density factor outside of an overlay.

You could do this anywhere in the city, but you could also, if that doesn't work for you, but the base density factor is not advantageous enough, you could then also lean on sustainable development as a way to get a lesser density bonus.

Example, in this case, if it were 200 units, we would be looking at that they would have to normally if it was inclusionary zoning, they would have to have what 20 units.

240 total.

Okay.

Right.

Right.

So with this uh sustainable development, and I apologize, Mr.

Chairman.

I should have asked for a follow-up.

Um sustainable um development.

What would in numbers?

What does that mean?

So they would not have to do as many of the right.

Yeah, so actually I'll just refer you back to this table.

So say in the base development, you would get 163 units.

If you provide 33 affordable units, you could do 213 units total.

Uh but if you did not, if you were not set up to do affordable housing, but you wanted more units, you would go for the sustainable development option.

I apologize, I wasn't paying enough attention to that.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Um I guess I'll ask a dumb question.

Um, why would a developer look at this and want to do the IZ only?

Like why would they want to offer affordable units when you got the other two options?

Well, so I aside from just the fact that it's it's a lot more units because it's not just that you get um you just you know you get to provide additional IZ units, you get units on top of that, right?

So the delta between 163 and 213 is is 50 units, right?

But only 33 of those are affordable.

So you're getting that additional 17 units at market rate, right?

So the idea is that those are helping to internally subsidize.

Now, that's one part, but the other part is uh providing uh a or sorry, income restricted housing that opens up other financing opportunities.

Um so that can also move the needle in significant ways as well.

Um and if a developer is very familiar with pursuing those financing uh options, but also is set up from a management standpoint, this could be all they do because they've they've this is how they've built their model around it, and this is then very attractive to them, but we want to provide options for developers of of all types and methods and business strategies.

Uh and we also know that the master plan really seeks to improve site design to the extent we can incentivize it, so this serves that option.

Great, thank you.

So, again, just another way to visualize the difference in in unit delivery um with the inclusionary zoning of providing the only one with uh affordable units.

And yeah, just another uh visualization of that uh sustainable development.

So that's all I had on uh the sustainable development part.

Um now that I see the picture.

Um what is the rainwater catcher that is, what is that rainwater used for?

Irrigation.

Okay.

Of the you know, the more robust landscaping, yep.

You can see it there, the little silo on the corner.

Probably not where it would be in uh in real life, but uh for visualization purposes, it made sense.

But I but I thank the artist because it reminded me of the question, so thank you.

Very good.

Yeah.

Uh Alden Sullivan.

How do you take this idea beyond this room once we pass this?

How does it how does it get out into the community to uh show developers what it is we're doing, what we're open to doing, what their incentives are, what the possibilities are.

What how does that happen?

Sure.

So aside from the fairly common practice of you know picking up the phone, calling the plane department, I've got a property, what can I do with it?

Um, you know, that's always one.

The alternative is also developers who you know do projects, they can fairly reasonably read a zoning code.

Can simply open up the code and say, you know, either they go to the building type that they want to build and say, oh look, here are my density factors, and they'll see you know the base, sustainable development, and then I Z.

So they'll get a sense of, you know, okay, what I have the appetite for.

Um, but then any time that there's real intention to file an application, uh, any project of of significant size, they're always coming in for a pre-application meeting.

You know, what are we missing?

How's this look?

You know, there's a lot of conversation that occurs before a formal submission is ever made.

There are multiple opportunities to talk about these different approaches to density.

Okay.

Um excellent.

Thank you.

Does uh something like a flatly and others, I know they obviously do business elsewhere as well, it's not just here.

Do they do businesses uh or they do they do this in towns and cities that have kind of a similar code and have gone through this type of thing before?

I can't speak for I haven't had this conversation with developers.

Um inclusionary zoning is is not a new idea, right?

Um even you know, different performance standards, whether in some states you can have um with more building code based stuff.

There's been some recent changes up in Concord that have precluded us from doing that.

We had originally kind of set off down that path, uh, but we have now pivoted, and that's why what you're seeing is really site design and landscaping focused.

Uh we're not reinventing the wheel here.

You know, it happens across the country.

Um I think the way we have assembled everything together, you know, we we take the the master plan as the direction, and then we're working with a great uh consultant who has exposure to different ideas and has partners all over the country that's doing you know really cutting edge work elsewhere.

You kind of we're just cherry picking the different things of like, okay, this this matches really well with what we're trying to achieve, and we're just trying to then bring all of these, weave it all together to make a cohesive uh regulating document that is you know compliant with state law.

It's been really interesting to try and fit all of these pieces together uh and make it all work and make the numbers work as well as we test different development scenarios.

That's been really interesting to see how that all similar to what you did in Concord.

This is Did you you helped rezone them at one point?

We we were working on uh a land use code when we were several years in.

Uh it ended up not moving forward, but this is I would say a whole different animal.

Okay I I like this one much better.

Okay, Alderman Clee.

Uh thank you.

Um prior to doing all this, the zoning changes and land code use and so on, you did meet with like developers and so on to try to get ideas from them.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, so you've had input.

This isn't just you're just not just pulling, just I'm saying this because um for people that are listening because you kind of made a comment that we haven't discussed this with them, but you may not have discussed the current details with everybody, but you got a lot of input from developers as well as we've had a lot of meetings with the public and so on.

So I just don't want anybody to think you were doing all this in a bubble, correct?

Certainly, yeah.

I'll I'll clarify that statement.

I hadn't asked developers, have you built a building under sustainable development standards and other that's a very specific question.

And I just never have asked it.

No, we have had ongoing conversations with developers.

Frankly, they come in and they'll have a project in mind, they're like, okay, so what do you think?

Should I do it under current code or should I wait for the new code?

We have these conversations very frequently.

Uh, and I think we're at a point now where the number of projects that are waiting for the new code now exceed those that are trying to rush and get applications in before we update the code, which is I think a good indication that there's general support from the development community for this code.

May I?

Yep.

I I've kind of heard the same thing from different developers that that have both come into planning as well as that I've talked to that have said that you know it's why am I gonna waste my time going to planing for them to say no only to come back in three months, and and that's why I often ask you that question.

If we say no to this, they're gonna be able to do it anyways in September or whatever.

And your answer usually is yes.

Yes, quite often, yes.

So um, yes, and I I appreciate you working with everybody on this.

So thank you.

Alman Ravan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Do you know how I don't know how common or how regular or how many of these kinds of buildings there are in the city?

Are there two?

Are there two thousand idea?

These kinds of buildings, are we talking about the sustainable development kind of buildings or buildings of this scale?

Uh buildings of that scale.

Oh, fair question.

Yeah.

Um, I'd say where we are in the city right now on Main Street, we have quite a few, you know, four, five-story buildings.

Um we've had a few that were recently built as well, uh, high street flats, just uh really out that window.

Um, you know, some of the more recent uh multifamily developments are really coming in at a at a three, four, five story scale simply because of cost of construction, you need that scale to make the numbers work.

Uh uh main homes just on major drive off of Burke Street.

Uh there was just a groundbreaking ceremony.

Those are four-story buildings.

Uh, I think a couple of them might be five-story buildings.

I mean, that is the scale that we're operating at.

Uh, and you know, with that scale comes the ability to you know put a little extra money in the budget for the landscaping side as long as there's a return on on the density as well.

So, yeah, we're trying to test these standards uh against building types at all scales, right?

You know, so this can be done even at you know the the triplex level, um, or I guess more the multiplex level because you know a triplex is three units, there's no density bonus for a triplex.

Thank you.

All right, well, uh I have more slides in this deck to talk about some policy points.

Um, but if any for whatever reason, some of those trigger some additional questions on sustainable development, we can always flip back over to these very pretty pictures.

All right.

So I kind of took my last presentation and cut it from where we had left off, and so this is uh what's left of that.

Um, and this actually kind of dovetails nicely uh with our case study.

So we had talked a little bit about civic space, and I have a couple of slides that follow this that will help visualize it, right?

So in a redevelopment overlay context, you're developing 20 plus acres.

Um, you're creating a new neighborhood.

That's that's the context.

That's really important, right?

There's gonna be new streets, you you're really creating a neighborhood where one doesn't exist.

This is really on the um commercial corridors, Amherst Street will stick with that example.

Big box building, you know, it's written out as depreciation schedule, it's ready for the site's ready for a new life, and and this comes in.

All in clean.

Just as a quick question, you know, listening to you and so on, it um my my brain triggers to Elm Street, where we're trying to create, and and both of the planes that kind of came through talked about having um civic space or common area that people outside of that general neighborhood could come do.

Is that what you're talking about with the civic space, meaning that it doesn't just belong to the owners but people outside of that can use it?

Is that what you're talking about with civics?

Yeah, that's uh excellent way to frame it.

Okay.

Yes, exactly.

Okay, thank you.

So it really becomes a public amenity.

Uh I think another way that you can think about this is we heard time and time again during some of our public sessions with Recode.

Um, we really want to see more green space.

You know, these buildings go up, there's there's not enough, it it just becomes more concrete, more brick, more there's no green, right?

And we just that was a very common thing that we heard.

So we said, okay, how can we fix that?

Right.

And you know, I think part of that is also there's this that that pushback of like we're just building housing and housing and housing and we need it, yes, we know, but also you know, the the impact of of large buildings, you know, the visual, the aesthetics, but also just there's this more, right?

And green space, civic space really plays a role in softening that.

And so if a development can come in and it's it's benefiting from you know the rents of 200 units, but also you know, people are benefiting from having homes.

How does how does the neighborhood benefit right now?

They they've just had this large building inserted into their neighborhood.

What's what's in it for them, right?

So if if we can then through this process require a certain percentage of that space in that development be allocated as civic space, and it's you know, maybe lightly programmed civic space with the playground, there's screen space.

Now you actually have a community amenity that is part of this development, and it softens that blow, if you will, of that new development coming in.

Um so I think just another way to contextualize the civic space uh aspect.

Um so a few questions on this.

Um we have had some initial conversations with uh DPW about civic space because civic space can really come in at all shapes and sizes, quite literally.

It could be a very large park, right?

In a large redevelopment with 20 plus acres, you know, you are dedicating land that could be sufficient to really warrant, you know, this is now a city park.

And Director Photo has indicated that if it is of that scale, you know, city ownership and maintenance would make sense.

Uh if it is a smaller development or it is a larger development, but there are multiple small civic spaces scattered throughout that and really serving you know a cluster of buildings here and there, uh, that may not be appropriate for city uh ownership and maintenance.

And so I think that you know what we would talk about is a uh the ability for the city to kind of pick and choose, or we set a a threshold for um if it's above this size, this becomes a city uh maintenance obligation, a city uh park.

Um but that is a conversation that is ongoing, and I think uh you know, we can prove out this through some more test cases with DPW uh just to better contextualize it and get their further thoughts on it.

Uh but just uh you know, a general question uh to you all uh that you know your reactions to that approach.

I think the hiring staff in DPW to take on the extra parks.

That's what it's the first thing that came to mind for me is like, oh no, we're gonna have to hire more staff for these parks, especially if there's big ones.

Um I you know, I'd like them to maintain it, but then when they maintain it, they may have you know it may not seem public-y, you know, I guess that's not even a word, but public, right?

So that's that's my thought kind of on that.

But I could go either way, probably, Aldaman Clean.

Thank you.

Uh I'm echoing the words that you're just saying because that's exactly what was going through my head, and I'm sure that um director Foto is probably having a little bit of anxiety about I I can't really see in the city that someone is gonna give up acres of land and say to the city, here you take care of it when they could develop it.

Um but if that were to happen, if they had space, um I mean the Mohawk tannery did give the city some kind of property there and said you guys can have it.

Um but if they were to develop that, you know, cut down those trees and do that.

Um if they were to when you say turn it over, turn it over to the city for responsibility, but not technically owns it, uh what do you mean by that?

So they would maintain the ownership on the deed and so on, but the city would have to maintain it, mowing any playground equipment the city would have to replace it and so on.

Is that what you're talking about?

And I think there's there's many ways that we can structure these agreements with these developers, and that's something that really does require some finer detailed work.

Yeah, I I do have concern as to what that can do to a to a budget.

If a developer came in and said, hey, I'm gonna build this and I'm gonna get all these bonuses for it and so on, but guess what, city you have to maintain it.

Um I don't see that being beneficial, although the community can benefit from it, but the taxpayers are gonna have to own it.

So yes, and we're very deferential to DPW on this.

We don't want to be putting them in any specific situation that they are not assenting to.

Right.

I mean, we we struggle over every street when they're building a development as to whether it's going to be city owned and maintained versus that.

So this would be even on a bigger scale as far as I'm concerned.

Because that you're looking at trash and ploughing and maintaining those streets, but a park could be very expensive.

So thank you.

All and Sullivan.

Thank you.

So in the example that you had, I think you said it was 20 plus acres.

So in using this, that would be two between two and four acres would be civic space, actually.

Yes.

Um I guess you know it it it it seems in in developments today, you're seeing more of the HOA type of a situation where a resident would have to pay an HOA to the association in addition to their property tax.

So I'm just thinking that that may cause friction with some of the residents that say, well, I pay an HOA fee.

So I I don't know where I'm coming down on this argument.

I'm just trying to paint, you know, what seems to be going on in the marketplace where if you have a resident that pays an HOA fee, let's just say it's $300 a month, and they get different amenities for that, one of which might be the civic space.

They can and then if it's classified, so if we go in one direction, we say, well, it's open to the resident of Nashua or anybody.

Does that cause friction to say, well, we're we're paying to maintain it, and everyone else is using it?

That doesn't seem fair.

I don't I don't know.

So I'm just trying to come up with a different scenario to say this could this could be tough to navigate as we go through.

Um but uh I I I would have to really think on it.

Um and I guess it would be a case by case basis.

And I think that's the way this is really shaping up.

Um we've had all of those exact same thoughts.

You know, we really tried to pull on this thread, you know, what are all the possible ownership scenarios, you know.

I think you bring up a really good point with the HOA, the structure, and then also the dues, but oh wait, the public has to enjoy it.

Um the way I've tried to contextualize this, if it is a very small pocket park that's still open to the public, you know, size really matters.

And size is a um, I think there's a direct correlation between size and draw, right?

So Greeley Park, huge park, huge draw for the entire city.

You know, I'm sure people all the way from the Southwest squadron go up to Greeley Park because it is such a fabulous amenity.

But you know, Los Amigos Park, much smaller, much more of a you know, that's for that neighborhood, right?

Um so if you have very small pocket parts that do serve those those civic space and amenities for you know, maybe a building or two, the citizens of Nashua, more broadly speaking, are not flocking to that simply because it's just not an amenity of the same scale as Greeley Park may be.

Um so you know, obviously though the HOA fees associated with the maintenance of that are then comparable, you know, right?

So the the smaller the park, the smaller the fees theoretically.

So there's yeah.

Oh thank you.

I was thinking of maybe a follow-up on that was you know, if you go through with this and you say, okay, anything above say 10% is um it's a civic space owned and maintained by the city.

So maybe there's a way that you assess it differently.

Could be.

I'm not sure how uh the state laws allow for that.

Uh I know that is certainly a question that I think that we've we've talked about and we'd like to explore.

I just don't know if that's possible.

But then also, you know, is the land just turned over to the city and is now exempt?

Yeah, you know, that's another question.

Okay.

Alderman Clee.

Um I I know this is kind of an obscure thing, but to to Alderman Sullivan's comments about the HOAs being on the hook.

I mean, when I was in Cantigate, we had tennis court, we had the pool there.

Um basketball court kind of thing.

Um, if suddenly the entire public was coming in and using any of those amenities as a person who was paying higher and higher um, you know, fees um we were a condo, so it wasn't quite the same as the HOA, but it is the same.

Um I I think I would have been a little upset to to see this because I moved into this community.

However, you're not talking about existing communities, you're talking about new builds and new conversions and so on.

So they would know that ahead of time, correct?

Yeah, and and the truth is the community space would not necessarily be a pool or tennis courts or anything else like that.

It would be more green space.

Is that what you're looking at?

Kind of a playground kind of.

You're talking about two potentially different things.

They don't have to be different, right?

So the civic space, right, generally speaking, is more park-oriented, right?

Um tennis courts, pools, these are true amenities that are typically in this code looked at as because we do have amenity space requirements for multifamily development, um, that those would then serve that purpose.

And those are far, those are private in nature.

Um while they could potentially serve both purposes, uh, that is a developer decision.

Um but I think you are hinting at a potential flaw in uh having those amenities serve both purposes, right?

You know, so then the the residents who they're really meant for potentially are competing for those amenities with the general public.

Right.

Okay, thank you.

My question's been answered.

Okay.

So this is uh this slide from uh an earlier example, uh the same redevelopment, right?

So this is where you can see in the green, that is that civic space, right?

So um we calculated that that's about 18%.

So this gets to that, you know, is it 10%, is it 20%?

Is that enough?

You know, should wetlands be included in it, should they be exempted from it, and if the area calculation, um there's a number of different ways that we can approach this.

Uh, but this helps to give a little bit of a visualization in that uh sustainable development uh visual that we had just looked at.

That would actually be in that uh if you take the middle block, it would be on the northeast quadrant.

So you had the pond right across the street, so that helps to contextualize that a little bit for you, hopefully.

But also to get back to the question of 10 to 20 percent.

If this is 18, is that a lot?

Is that a little?

Um so curious to get your thoughts on uh on a number for civic space requirement I don't have one.

Alderman Ravan.

Um I I I take this in sort of a um I guess a holistic view.

Um the need is families need a place for their kids to play.

And I think what we're asking is how much room does a does a 10-year-old need to roam around in to feel comfortable.

Um from the looks of that, I would say somewhere north of 10% and 20% is probably what I had when I was a kid.

Um but we were not in town, so thank you.

I I truthfully, I don't I don't have a number.

I think you your previous slides had said that about you know that it um it's dependent on context, and I think it is, it's dependent on the location of this build, it's dependent on all of those things to to give a flat number.

Maybe 10 to 20 is um again dependent.

I mean, if you're looking on Amherst Street, um where you're putting that and there's not a lot of neighbors in the area, um, it kind of almost seems silly to do that in that particular area.

But if you were looking in um even like the Mohawk tannery home that being built where they've got all of those neighbors that are just literally on the other side with a lot of kids that don't have this, there are a lot of green space there.

Um you may want to to push it a little bit more, but then again, to Alderman Sullivan's comments, you have to look towards the developer as to how is this negatively going to affect your HOA or your condo or whatever it is that you're you're building.

I mean, because I when I look at something like Canigate, um there were areas that had a lot of green space.

So where I lived, the way the condos were, we had a lot of green space in between, the common areas we used to call them.

But it the further you went up or a little bit, they didn't have that.

So, you know, um, I don't think I would have been really thrilled having, you know, granted there's not a lot of kids in that area because it's it's Amherst Street, but I'm not sure I would have necessarily been really happy because it would have felt like kids in my backyard type of type of thing.

So I think it it depends on where this is in context to neighborhoods and so on.

I think civics location of civic space does matter.

Yeah.

You commented about Greeley Park that people it's people from Massachusetts are coming to Greerly Park, let's be honest.

They're coming to Mine Falls or they're coming to these big uh parks.

They're not necessarily coming to these pocket parks.

I'm not gonna have I'm not gonna have people from the South End coming to Shaddock Street taut lot.

Um that's just really truly at a neighborhood park.

Um so if you're looking at these to be more pocket parks that the the community, or if you're looking at them to be miniature greeley parks where they're going to be, that's I think really where this just and I I don't necessarily feel comfortable.

I think it's something that probably would have to go through the planning board to say between this and this and let them look at it based on what the development.

I don't know how the rest of my colleagues feel.

Yeah, I mean I'm not sure like so.

I think of like I don't I mean I don't think every development needs to have green space depending on where it is.

Again, it's location, like I mean, what would we do with the bronze scenes if we rebuilt that today?

Like that's a place where a lot of kids live and there's zero green space there, or very little.

There's a playground, very little.

There's a lot of green space there.

Is there?

Yeah, I can complain still that there's not enough there.

Um I think or school street.

School street's another example, right?

There's really no green space there.

So if depending on where you're building something, if you're building it in a place that's turned torn down or had a fire, and you're just building up and there's no where you're gonna put it, right?

Um but there's other places that could cut away some of the maybe the extra apartments or development or whatever, and put in some civic space.

So I don't know what the right answer is, 10 20 percent.

It really depends on where you are.

I think probably somewhere in the middle there, 15% or so is probably a good a good number, but I can't I don't know.

All of them is all thank you.

Uh what are they doing at Major Drive?

So there's a fair amount of it's a large site, right?

So there's they're able to do surface parking, they have some community gardens, they have a playground, so they may have it.

They also have Joyce Park right south of it.

So there's also that context.

But the bridge that goes to it we're taking into consideration as well.

What is the benefit of providing civic space a large amount of it when you are already right next to something?

Yeah.

So we we have a path to getting out of that requirement when you you know, again, it's all contextual, I guess that's really important, and we're still kind of fine-tuning how the the contextual considerations impact these standards.

Mr.

Chairman, click on the thank you.

Um that bring brings up a good point.

So where they're building the NIMCO and Bagshaw and so on, that but mine falls, they would not necessarily have to create community space because they're attached to a very large community space.

Is that correct?

Or what they would be providing is connectivity to that, right?

So that the milliard is in a way, you know, uh a barrier between mine falls and downtown, if you will.

Um obviously the boardwalk is now extending along the river.

You know, we're gonna have the next phase, the milliard has to be a connection point, right?

So the civic space really can materialize this connections as well, right?

And that can be you know, landscape multimodal paths, ways to travel to these larger amenities, and you know, that would also be considered as part of that civic space requirement.

Yep.

So um, although this is already happening and the the city is technically paying for it, the the bridge that the um Mohawk Tannery is building that connects them to mine falls and so on, that is what you're talking about, something not necessarily on that large scale, but something to that nature that allows people to get to it as well as to get back to the communities.

It doesn't have to be green space, it can actually be connectivity.

I think that you can you could modify the the Mohawk example to I think really highlight this point, right?

So if if you are building a significant enough number of units to warrant a three million dollar pedestrian bridge to get across the river to access Mine Falls Park, I think you know there's an argument to be made that you know we can maximize this site, you know, instead of providing two to four acres of civic space for us, we'll build a bridge instead.

So they don't have to pay the money to build the civic space, they can then turn that into more apartments, and maybe that calculus makes sense to build the access.

I think you know a bridge is a very extreme example, but I think that still illustrates the the value of connections.

Okay, so it's connection to green space or connection to allowing the green space to go through because I'm sorry.

Um the the so when you're talking about like uh connectivity from mine falls, the the mill yard, allowing pedestrians to kind of go through without trespassing.

Um they're allowed to go through.

I know technically when we used to go from the the head, they often call it the head of one of the the um the park heads there.

You and then you would walk through the parking lot to go to another entrance of mine falls.

Technically speaking, we were trespassing, doing that, but it wasn't gonna stop anybody from doing that.

If they built something that allowed that to happen, either to go to downtown or connect the park to the park, that would be sufficient enough.

There's context that needs to be considered, but that would count towards the city.

That would count towards it.

I I shouldn't say sufficient, but that would count towards so again.

I'm just kind of focusing on the fact it doesn't have to be a green space, it doesn't have to be a pocket park, it does it just has to allow the community ability to walk through or or something without being considered trespassing.

Yeah, and I think I think what you're talking about is giving me some thought in and allowing some flexibility at the planning board level in terms of how it administers these standards and you know, seeing value in other amenities, deliverables and and you know, these connections, while you know, from an area standpoint, they may not meet the letter of the law uh from you know what they have to set aside, but the value that it creates for not only their residents but the broader community that meets the intent of the ordinance, so therefore it's sufficient.

You know, I think that that's something that we would need to enshrine in in the ordinance to uh make sure that connections keep happening.

I I like that, but that I do see one flaw in it, if I may, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay.

Um so I'm gonna bring up Walden Um and that area and through there.

Um they at the time of the build, there was um an agreement that the city would have a right of way to create um that path.

That path has since gone into the river with all of the and and so on.

So I guess that's so when the city or the conservation commission was going to create this, they said no, no, no, no, no.

Our our ground is falling into the river, where you had said that is now like halfway into the river.

Um that's the only thing.

My concern would be what was talked about with Walden Pound is forcing them or create creating a hanging walkway type of thing, you know.

Uh yeah, they kind of went a little crazy over that, and it was like, so we got that stopped.

But I'm just that this is something that I'm thinking of.

So if we agree with this and say, potentially you're going to be building this, or we're you're gonna let us build this, or something to that nature.

So my my question is the point I'm trying to get to is that can this be um created at the time of the development, not a promise, not a future promise.

Oh, certainly, yeah, we would this is part of the site plan approval, it's a condition.

It has to be delivered.

We probably conditioned it prior to the final CO.

Okay, okay.

That's that that's that's pretty standard.

That would have to be because like I said, the the thing that happened with Thurlows Landing because of the the falling into the the river, um, and they're since now having to bolster up their their their walls and so on.

That was a when we feel like doing it, you're gonna let us do it kind of thing, and now it's too late because it doesn't exist anymore.

That piece of land no longer exists.

So that's only my concern.

That's that was where I could see uh, but if they have to do it prior to CO or prior to within one year or two years, that would thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Yep.

Uh so in a somewhat similar vein to the civic space, um playground walkability.

Um we have existing patterns in the city, uh largely in the French Hill area where you have these little neighborhood parks that you really could comfortably walk from one to the other.

Um this is indicative of of a development pattern pre-automobile, right?

Um natural neighborhood centers really kind of popped up and developed usually within five minute walks of each other.

Now to replicate that pattern, you know, we have to understand what these distances are and how you focus development around these common destinations, whether they're you know a main street, a civic space or or what have you, what are these common destinations.

And so one of those being uh a playground.

Now, this is important because the context here is a neighborhood residential or an urban residential district.

These are not mid-rise districts.

You're not seeing you know a six-story building.

Um we talk about the applicability of this in terms of um how we might see this deployed and it built the overlays.

We typically anticipate these to be delivering higher order developments in terms of really utilizing those mid-rise building types.

Um but there are instances where NR and UR, neighborhood residential and urban residential, appear in the district groups.

So some of the less intense district groups, and these have to be you don't have to build all NR or UR, but you have to provide a small percentage.

Um and so uh the also the the context here could then be adjacency to other NR and UR.

So if there is no playground within a certain walking distance, that new district would then provide that amenity not only to meet their own requirement, but then it benefits uh the community because we'd be asking as part of these larger redevelopments where there's subdivision and there's true organization of land to be cognizant of these amenities in the surrounding area.

Again, we don't want to be building a playground next to the playground, but if you're building a development where there are no playgrounds for a mile around, you need to build a playground because you are coming in, you're redeveloping, you're getting these bonuses to provide a playground as part of your civic space because we have observed that that is something that is lacking in the neighborhood, that becomes the the community benefit.

Um so you know the question is really around 800 feet, 800 feet, and it represents uh approximately a three-minute, four-minute walk.

Um I know it's it's a highly specific number and and uh situation to ask a question on.

Uh I I'm curious how you feel about it though.

Uh McClee.

Uh thank you.

Um I I I do like this area because when I think of French Hill and I think of the two tot lots that are there, they're they're also close to each other as well as to the people who live in that area.

Um, and yet they're not that far from Greeley Park.

But people with small kids want to stay within their within their neighborhood.

So I do like this, and this would be for one that doesn't have anything within the area.

Um so I I think that's and you're not asking for anything large.

Right.

A tot lot doesn't take up a whole lot of a whole lot of space, so something like that.

I I do think that um that would be uh um uh a good requirement.

Again, um, you know, I'm looking at this in the same vein that we were looking at the others, um, meaning that if if it was an HOA or something that was built there, um how does that affect them?

Because if they have to have certain amenities as part of the requirement of having this this facility, they have to have amenities for that, and now we're also putting a requirement in there.

Are we uh stopping them from doing it?

And having said that, um, you keep using this words um that they get um a bonus or they get um different things.

Can you kind of just for those that are listening, kind of explain what they're getting?

Because a lot of people are gonna take it away as that they pay less taxes, and that's not you're talking about that you allow them to build more than would have been required within that space.

Correct.

This is all within the redevelopment overlay context.

It's it's an opt-in sort of thing, and uh the benefits are uh more flexible zoning, uh more intense building types and and flexibility around organizing land.

Um so it's it's more of a land planning bonus, if you will.

Um, but there's many uh technical specifications around those that would take some time to uh articulate.

May I I I'm not asking you to do that, it but basically the the bottom line is it makes it easier for them to build without having a strict rules and so on.

I just think that people are gonna hear the word bonus or hear this or um and they're gonna go right to the word taxes and think oh they don't have to pay as many taxes and um and I know we we have different things with senior housing and and and so on.

So um everybody looks at now we're gonna help these developers and those people don't have to pay the same amount of taxes I do.

So but thank you.

Ward eight doesn't care about parks.

I mean we have to go to ward nine if we want to park.

Um I'm just kidding.

But yeah, I mean I think it's a good idea if there's you know developments going up and there's no uh playground around there.

Um we've heard it before, and now we you know we've had to put things in to try to get more parks in areas that don't have them.

So I mean I I'm I'm fine with I'm fine with that number, I I guess.

Um but um, you know, we do have a lot of little taut lots and stuff like that.

So but if we do have areas that don't have that and we we build something, I'm fine with that, yeah.

Right.

Um so next topic is is neighborhood types.

This is directly related.

Um so again, we're talking about the redevelopment context, we're taking clues from existing neighborhood patterns, we have a list of neighborhood types that those then inform the districts, right?

So um building types characterize the districts, collection of districts characterize a neighborhood.

So there's your kind of hierarchy there.

Um so in this redevelopment context, you have three, four different districts.

This falls into a specific neighborhood type.

So the question is really around um thresholds for neighborhood type.

And this does tie directly to thresholds for redevelopment overlays and how much land do you need to assemble in order to uh qualify for a redevelopment overlay.

So I want to put the 20-acre number in context.

This is the tree streets, that is four or five blocks between Hanover, Vine, Kingsley and West Hollis, you know, 18.3 acres.

That's what that looks like in an urban context.

That's almost the cemetery almost.

Yeah.

I think the cemetery is uh a little little bigger.

I think it's like close to 25 or 30 acres.

Yeah.

So this is uh very different context, Shadowbrook, Cameron, Spindlewick, and Clearview.

This is four suburban blocks, and this is 21 acres.

Uh and so to flip back and forth, you can see, I mean, just the oops, the the density pattern, the development pattern, the lot size, incredibly different characteristics.

Um but this helps to frame the idea of how how big is a neighborhood?

It's 20 acres a neighborhood, right?

And what happens when you superimpose 20 acres around you know the downtown core where you have much larger buildings, right?

So going back to the question.

20 acres, uh, is that the you know appropriate threshold for how we're defining neighborhood types?

Uh I think it's almost like everything is this answer, but it depends on the context, right?

You know, if you have it's the scale of the buildings, it's the size of the lots, it's the setbacks.

Um with a a lower density, uh, you know, say uh neighborhood residential, you know, maybe that context is needs to be larger, but maybe um clean.

Thank you.

Um what you just said is exactly what I was thinking, because I'm thinking of you know, neighborhoods maybe in ward nine or ward um um eight or even ward one are gonna have a different feeling, and I can just take my ward in general.

If I were to look at um the neighborhoods down Berkeley and Wood and Chester and all that area versus looking at the neighborhoods within the French Hill area where there's a lot more density and a different type of um I would not necessarily say that those two neighborhoods should be combined into one neighborhood, just simply because of the different outlook of it.

Right.

Um and so on.

So you know, 20 acres in the downtown area is actually gonna physically take up more housing, more everything, and things will change quicker than if you were looking at like ward nine or um the north end of ward three, even in my neighborhood, um, which is just kind of a probably very similar to their neighborhoods, you know, very middle class area, um, and and so on, where houses aren't too far apart, but they're not like on top of each other like they're in in that um in the French Hill area.

And then I look at like I said, Berkeley Street, Chester, Raymond, all those where there's a lot more larger houses.

So that 20 acre, when I look at 20 acres of that type of property, I'm looking at not much space necessarily versus 20 acres in the French Hill where they're denser.

Does does that make sense?

It does.

So I think context again, you know, if if you set a standard of 20 acres and then anything had to go to plan, anything greater than that had to go to planning where they could maybe make an exception to it.

I could see that.

Um is that what you're looking for?

Or is that yeah, pretty much, and I I think it's it's also more just discussion, right?

I don't necessarily need 20, no, 22 is the number.

You know, this is it's more it's more the the thoughts and the the iterative process that we're having now is is very helpful.

Um and I think this is an opportunity to also plug the idea of when we go live is allowing you know a blanket five to fifteen to twenty percent waiver of our standards, right?

We've crafted all these standards, we've done the best that we can to pull on existing patterns and then replicate them in the standards.

Um we may have narrowed them too much.

We don't know.

We haven't tested it in the real development world, right?

So the idea is, okay, you know, we have a blanket waiver for some time that if you fall, you know, five to twenty percent outside of the standards, go ahead.

No problem.

You know, that for us is a data point.

We don't want to send you to the zoning board simply because we got our standards wrong, we just miscalibrated.

Um so that is one approach that we're we're considering implementing it as as we launch the code.

Uh thank you.

We we did have this discussion about a committee or a group that would um review this if it was within you know a five percent or you know of of what the um the minimum or maximums are.

Um I think we've had that discussion both here and in the in the planning so that they didn't have to necessarily go to zoning and planning.

Um and I know that kind of met with some anxiety about um, but to be honest with you, if it's a small percentage, it's probably gonna be more more than likely it's going to be approved as as long as it doesn't create any, you know, true adverse to that.

So I don't see a problem with it, you know.

But the the comment that I really want to make is I think we've also had the discussion of where you've been giving scenarios and so on, but if you and you showed those those two neighborhoods, um, but if we could literally I think that's why I was bringing up Berkeley Street and so on, because I was trying to put this into context of my own ward.

If we could actually see a true life of a developer coming in and saying this and where we know that development's gonna happen.

Um but I know someone's gonna say I'm rambling.

I apologize for that.

Um, but the you're not just talking about a developer coming in to develop, you're actually looking at neighborhoods throughout the city currently existing and creating these type of overlays, or you're only looking you're only looking for someone who's got a lot of acres, and they're saying, I'm creating a neighborhood, right?

You're not looking at current existing neighborhoods.

You're saying I've got um this great piece of land and I want to develop um multi-use kind of type of thing.

I'm gonna put little convenience stores, I'm gonna put high rise, I'm gonna put some smaller type condos.

That's what you're talking about, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

We when we talk about neighborhood types, we we observed and surveyed the existing neighborhoods.

We recognize the patterns, and we we try to replicate those patterns through regulatory standards.

Right.

And then use those to guide development that is creating new neighborhoods so that those neighborhoods don't look outrageously different than the existing patterns that already exist.

We're trying to extend the character of Nashua to new development.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

I appreciate it.

Uh Alderman Moran.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, one of the things I think is an issue with any kind of quantification of neighborhood size, is that people decide what is what is a neighborhood.

And I don't know how you quantify that.

I mean at neighborhood side and size in French Hill versus neighborhood size and in Ward 1 are completely different animal.

Um just the I I don't know to call it quant quality or density.

It's it's it's a different sort of animal.

Um I think what you're could could you speak a little bit more about what is the what is the reason that you want to define neighborhoods by size?

Yes, I do.

Uh and thank you.

That's a that's a really insightful question.

And um because you haven't been around for these other presentations, I haven't worn out my favorite saying that I've developed in through what it is is basically with form-based code, we are quantifying the qualitative look and feel of neighborhoods through these standards.

Um your observation of of you know, is the people who define neighborhoods is very deep because neighborhoods have developed over time.

They've taken a long time, and they and once they're established, they continue to evolve.

Individual homeowners continue to invest in their property and in neighborhoods, just they morph, they change, nothing is static, and that is the beauty of these older neighborhoods in Nashua.

The context we're talking about now is we're building a neighborhood to a finished state.

Like that's just it's very strange.

There are um examples all across the country, and I've been to some of these, you call them new towns, right?

It's just like someone just had they had a large amount of acreage and they they built a town, and you're like, this is weird, it's like Disney World, like it's it's like yeah, I get it, but it's not it's not Main Street, right?

Because everything's just too shiny and fresh and polished, right?

Because there was no um natural organic maturation and evolution of a neighborhood, right?

So we're almost trying to we're trying to draft these standards so that you know someone's gonna build a neighborhood anyways that can still happen, you know, without this code, right?

Someone's still gonna assemble land and build a neighborhood.

And it's gonna feel odd, right?

So the idea is that you know we try to create these standards to fake it till we make it, right?

We're we're not saying that you get to build all of the same building.

We're saying here's your district group, right?

So you have to provide a certain percentage of a variety of districts so that we create a variety of building types.

We're looking for diversity in the streetscape, um, but also a combination of building types in their relationships of the street that don't feel disjointed, right?

So that's a really hard balance to strike.

And so we have to set numbers as a way of you know, you want to unlock all this great stuff in these new ways of doing development, well, you gotta bring together enough land to be able to do it.

I don't think that you're able to really effectively create this diverse and interesting dynamic environment with 10 acres.

I just don't think that's enough land to really do it.

But what is enough land, right?

And so we're finding that 20 acres, you know, this test case as 23 acres, and when we plot it out like this, we can begin to see that this actually might work, right?

And I think that we may even be, we have probably more than enough land here, and even when we have an a fair amount of wetlands on this site, this still plots out as a neighborhood that could offer significant diversity.

Um but it's a really great question.

That's really insightful.

Thank you for that.

Old McClee.

Uh thank you.

Um I do like this idea, and the reason I like it is because I don't want to end up with French Hill versus what everybody thinks of is North End.

I mean, when the when the factory owners built Berkeley and Raymond and so on, they literally drew a line called Leighton Street and said everything on this side is gonna be where the workers are, and everything on this side is where gonna be.

You're talking about building a neighborhood that's gonna have like maybe a little French Hill, maybe a little bit of this, and uh maybe a little bit of a business and so on.

So there's gonna be a diversity of sizes of houses, looking at houses, but yet the edges will match what's around it.

Is that kind of what you're talking about with with this?

Yeah, and you even you've touched on um the the abutting context and how new developments should blend into rather than a real abrupt, you know, we're concentrating the more intense buildings, the height in the center, and then letting it graduate out into you know, meeting whatever the context is next to it.

Yes, that's very important, the transitions.

Yeah, so you're truly not building an emerald city in the middle of a you know, uh a field where it's not welcoming for the rest of the neighbors.

You you talked about shiny buildings and so on.

You don't want to you don't want to do that to the city because that basically creates borders and says you're not welcome.

And when you drive through it, you feel that way, and it it does not add to the benefit of the city.

Is that correct?

I mean, when you're looking at other kind of context, so you don't want to just see something like I said, the emerald city suddenly just kind of exploding out and nothing else matches it.

Right.

Okay.

We're trying to avoid the that sticks out, and because it sticks out, I don't like it.

Like that knee-jerk reaction that can very easily happen with new development.

Yeah, that's why these form standards that's where they really shine in terms of trying to mitigate that and just make buildings that fit.

Okay.

Yeah, thank you.

Appreciate it.

I mean, the more I think about it after listening to everybody, is like I think about the 20 acres as being probably a pretty good guideline.

Um, a lot of the city is well, I shouldn't say a lot, but a good portion of the city, if somebody owns a house or a building, it's no longer part of the neighborhood that was originally purchased for all that land, right?

It's a hundred years ago, a mill developer built this.

Now everybody owns their own house, right?

The the mill doesn't own that whole section, or you know, I think uh what do you call up Link Lancashire Heights over by me, right?

Well, that department that company doesn't own those buildings anymore.

We each those each each of those people own their own houses.

So this is more for really you know, if we have land, which we don't have a lot, like we have that land that flatly's building over and sp off Spindlewick there, where it's about 48 uh houses, that's a development, that's a neighborhood.

That seems about the right size to me, you know, um for a housing neighborhood, you know, um without getting too big, and then everything looks like rows of you know the same type of housing, we don't want that.

Um so I I mean I think that's a good standard, and I think if it goes 21, 22, we look to look for variance or whatever.

Um, they can go over this is a minimum that we're gonna do.

Oh, it's the minimum.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Um I think 20 is a good minimum, then yeah, absolutely.

And this will we'll still apply our you know, our flexible, you know, for like maybe it's like one year we have this blanket waiver, and then we come back, we do an analysis of all the development applications we've had, and you know, I've said it before, we're probably gonna be back the month after with some amendments.

You know, when this goes live, you know, the first application that walks through the door is just gonna hit us in the face with like wow, we've never thought of that.

Um but that that's you know, we're we're always you know we were just talking earlier tonight with a rezoning, right?

Codes evolve, right?

And codes get tested, the market changes, and that is just us being responsive to what we're hearing and and evolving with the market and with neighborhoods as well.

Yeah, that makes more sense with a minimum.

Um you don't want a neighborhood too small.

Um you're right, it would look weird next to another neighborhood.

Yeah, I get it.

Alder McClee.

Thank you.

Um I I think this came up in the um in the planning board as well, um, about bringing examples, live examples of permits that may have met this type of thing and what's kind of going there now, or if you how you were to how were you to apply these standards to that, how would it change what is approved now and so on.

I think that would give us a better visual um, you know, um type of thing.

Um there's not a whole lot that's gonna build here, but I mean I I do think of things sometimes as if the Pheasant Lane Mall ever went away.

You know, it's quite a quite a property there.

Um I don't have 20 acres, I don't think in other well, there could be some areas in Ward 3, but um, you know, it would have to infringe on Greeley Park and so on.

Um but you know, just to see live examples, whether it's this one or whether it's some of the other ones that you're talking about with the playgrounds or someone to see how this would have gone.

I don't know if we even have anything that meets.

Well, it's an interesting question.

You know, we certainly have developments of sufficient size.

The variables that this code unlocks, yeah, it's I mean it could send that potential development in so many different directions that it'd be really hard to say this is the direction this development could have gone in assuming certain market conditions and uh I think very generally speaking, if you look at Mohawk, if you look at Maynard homes, you would have a greater diversity of buildings because they're all this that the buildings are repeated.

And we want to avoid that.

Um but then again, this is in the redevelopment overlay context.

So if I I don't know how many acres uh Elm Street is.

Um I believe it's eight.

It's only eight.

Even though they do seem to be kind of fitting this model, both of the different um things that we've heard.

And I want to be very clear.

Okay.

So where these redevelopment overlays occur, there's two different types of redevelopment overlays.

There are the district group ones, which really is on the commercial corridors.

Okay.

That's where we're introducing different zones.

Because in the downtown area, that is also a redevelopment overlay.

But we're not using district groups.

Because there is sufficient diversity in the existing neighborhood patterns that it would be inappropriate to use district groups because one, you probably can't assemble 20 acres of downtown land.

That's that's very difficult to do.

I mean, Elm Street is an outlier, and that's only eight, right?

So that isn't gonna work.

Um so on working on a smaller scale, the overlay works as a straight upzoning, and we're controlling for um we look around these areas and say, what is the like the next reasonable increment of intensity that we can upzone to without blowing the neighborhood?

That's kind of the question there.

Um so I just want to be clear there there are two very different types of overlays, and the downtown context is far more, I guess it's less flexible because we're leaning on the existing character because that's guiding what would be appropriate.

Mr.

Chairman?

Yep.

Thank you.

Um so in that context, if I if I were to look at a property like building 19.

Sure.

I mean, I know that there's some stipulations with there that it has to be, yeah.

But putting all that aside, um the if that were to be developed, that's got to be at least 20 acres in that.

But there's not um there's no neighborhood connected to it other than businesses.

So if they were to build this, how would something like that work, or would it would that even apply to something like that?

This that's exactly the context, right?

So this is where we introduce building or sorry, district groups.

We need that diversity of districts because there is no neighborhood pattern to inform the the newly developed neighborhood pattern.

So we lean on the regulations to guide responsible neighborhood pattern development.

Again, these are being calibrated based off existing neighborhood patterns that we've observed elsewhere in the city.

So it's not like we're taking standards, we're not opening the door for like a Tampa, Florida neighborhood to come here, right?

Because it's totally out of context.

Right.

So again, all of the standards that are in this code are drawn from what we've observed in the city.

And so we're trying to, in this clean slate scenario, and where you aren't drawing on the existing neighborhood character because there's no residential neighborhood character in this area, we have to create it from scratch, but we're leaning on what we've learned from our surveys around the city, so it's not totally otherworldly.

Okay, okay, I get that.

Thank you.

Okay.

I think uh well, my last slide is the we're getting into IZ.

I don't know if we have the last slide you said?

Um last topic?

Yeah, that works.

Second to last topic.

What do you want to talk about?

I Z or building standards.

These are my last two.

Oh, this is just accessory structures.

We could talk about sizes of accessory structures, that's far more digestible.

All right, let's do it.

Okay.

Sheds, right?

You know, the the building that you have to support your operations as a homeowner, that's one context here.

Basically, structures that are accessory to the principal structure that is on the lot.

That's that's a very straightforward definition.

How big can they be?

Right now, we say accessory structures cannot exceed 40% of the principal structures square footage.

That's very straight, clean, easy, but it ignores context.

Um now we're taking another approach where we say in the more rural districts to the extent that we have rural districts in Nashua, R40, R30, R18, 50% of the primary building footprint or 600 square feet, whichever is greater, is allowed for an accessory structure that then drops in the NR or sorry, the uh yes, the NR, the R9, the R75.

Uh still maintains the 50% footprint or 400 square feet.

These are smaller lots, smaller buildings.

Um all accessory structures still have to abide by setbacks and lot coverage ratios.

Um there's no exception there.

Um welcome your thoughts.

Alderman Clee.

Uh two questions.

One is are these accessory structures, these are actual um buildings, like you said, shed and something, but does it does it um also apply to those types of sheds that people can buy from Home Depot or anything like that?

So enclosed structures.

So like a a carport would not be an accessory structure in terms of how it regulated the size of it.

So whether it's something that they you know buy this kit to put together or they've actually built it and whether it's attached or not attached.

And then my second question, if I may, this is not ADU, so this is just like sheds and so on, or is this also affected?

No, this is not a good thing.

Okay, this is gonna be separate from that.

Good.

Okay, okay, thank you.

I just got a little nervous when you said 50% of the the footprint.

No.

We're carrying over the legislation that was recently passed in the new code.

Yeah, and uh may I just one quick question.

When you say 50% of the footprint, so if if it's um a two-story home, it's just the physical footprint and not the square footage of the entire property.

Exactly.

Yeah, that matters, right?

Because that's a massing problem.

Right.

So say you have a 800 square foot footprint, but it's a three-story house, and so now you're looking at 2400 square feet, you know, you get a 1200 square foot shed.

Yeah.

You know, that footprint is bigger than the footprint of the main house.

Yeah, exactly.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah or no.

I I think I'm fine with it, I guess.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with this.

I'll take that.

No, it it it may it makes sense to put it as you said in context based on um the the whether it's an R40 or an R9.

Um just to follow up.

So if it are does this mean that you do not need a permit.

Well, you would still need a building permit in most instances.

Yeah.

But from like a you're not going to planning board.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

All right, yeah.

Just a question.

So when it doesn't go to planning board, it doesn't go to zoning board, that means no notification of a butters.

Correct.

So that's that's always just the negative of it, but something like this I can't see in a butter.

As long as they have to meet all the setbacks and everything like that.

I can't see in a butter having too many problems with it.

So thank you.

Yeah, again, I think the context of this being a shed.

Yeah.

Uh was that too much of a softball topic?

Do we want to try and do some ISI stuff?

Yeah, I'll leave it up to the committee.

What do you guys think?

If if I were to say I'd say stop here because I gotta be on a fifty of my hives are starting to make crazy.

All right, then all right.

Okay, there you go.

Let's do that.

We'll save a reclusionary zoning.

Thank you.

We're still developing some more questions on it.

So good.

That makes sense.

We'll we'll stack it.

Okay, that sounds good.

Well, thank you, uh, Mr.

Durfee for going over that.

Um Mr.

Chairman, yeah.

May I, while while Mr.

Durfee is still here, the gentleman that had come in here, he was here for the public hearing, and he was shocked that it was ended so quickly.

And I said, Well, nobody was here.

So he lives on the other side of the highway, but he's technically considered in a butter.

He got the notification of it.

Um so once I explained to him that this really is not going to affect him because the highway is between him and so on, he felt more comfortable by that.

But he was he was afraid that um by doing this that that someone might be able to take property by eminent domain, and and I said no, that had nothing to do with it.

So um, but that's who I was talking to, and and so on.

So I was gonna ask you about that.

Um, yeah, because it's far, it's way on the other side of the highway.

Exactly.

But just clarity for those that are listening, there's no eminent domain when they changing zoning, it's just allowing a business to be able to apply for and build and and so on, and to exist there.

Yeah.

Um general discussion.

That was mine.

Okay.

Um public comment.

I see nobody.

Um remarks by Alderan.

I just want to say uh thank you for everyone coming in so we could have a meeting today.

Thank you for Alderman Ravan for sitting in with us.

Thank you for Alderman Sullivan for being my clerk, Alderman Morgan and Alderman Clemens both let me know that they weren't able to make it tonight.

Uh and thank you for Mr.

Durfee for going over that.

Um, I am looking for a motion.

Alderman Clee.

Um I motion to adjourn.

All right, we are adjourned at 841, I'll say.

Or 840.

I'll go with 840.

Okay.

We're adjourned.