Planning & Economic Development Committee

PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 19, 2026 A meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Committee was held Thursday, February 19, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber and duly noticed in two places, including the City’s website, in accordance with the requirements of RSA 91-A:2 II. The roll call was taken with 5 members of the Planning and Economic Development Committee present: Alderman Derek Thibeault, Chairman Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons, Vice-Chairman Alderman-at-Large Amber Morgan Alderman Patricia Klee Alderman John Sullivan Members not in Attendance: Also in Attendance: Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly Sam Durfee, Planning Manager Liz Hannum, Economic Development Director ROLL CALL ELECTION OF COMMITTEE CLERK Chairman Thibeault called for nominations for the Committee Clerk for the 2026-2027 term. ALDERMAN KLEE NOMINATED ALDERMAN MORGAN AS THE PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CLERK MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS TO CLOSE THE NOMINATIONS MOTION CARRIED MOTION TO VOTE ON ELECTION OF ALDERMAN MORGAN AS THE PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CLERK FOR THE 2026-2027 TERM MOTION CARRIED PUBLIC COMMENT - None DISCUSSIONS AND/OR PRESENTATIONS - Code Update Chairman Thibeault recognized Planning Manager Sam Durfee. - Riverwalk Update Chairman Thibeault recognized Economic Development Director Liz Hannum. COMMUNICATIONS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS - None NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES - None TABLED IN COMMITTEE - None Planning & Economic Development Committee – 02/19/2026 Page 2 GENERAL DISCUSSION - None PUBLIC COMMENT - None REMARKS BY THE ALDERMEN ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN KLEE TO ADJOURN MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared closed at 9:27 p.m. Alderman-at-Large Amber Morgan Committee Clerk Planning & Economic Development Committee February 19, 2026 Session 8: Recap & Work Planning  Recap and Forecasting What we have covered so far and what is/could be next • October 9, 2024: General introduction to re-CODE • April 15, 2025: Building Types, Density, Test • June 5, 2025: Redevelopment Overlay Districts • August 21, 2025: Mobility & Parking • August 26, 2025: Inclusionary Zoning • September 16, 2025: Zoning Map & Green Score • September 29, 2025: Use Table & Site Standards & IZ Update Agenda • Where we are in the process • Where do we go from here • High-level refresher of regulatory structure and major changes from current code • Policy guidance requested • Future PEDC sessions Where we are in the process • Goal: Unified Land Use Code • Zoning Ordinance + Site Plan & Subdivision Regulations • Zoning Ordinance • Code Structure and Drafting: Complete • Final Tweaks: Ongoing • Site Plan & Subdivision Regulations • Discovery/Audit: Complete • Integration into the Land Use Code: Ongoing • Engagement with Public and Design Professionals: Pending • Final Tweaks: Pending  PEDC Meeting Dates Where we go from here February 19th March 17th April 21st Working backwards…. May 19th June 16th • Target Effective Date: July 1, 2026 • Adoption Date (2nd reading): June 23, 2026 • Latest PEDC Meeting: June 16, 2026 • Latest Planning Board Meeting: June 4, 2026 • Latest BoA Referral (1st reading): May, 26, 2026* * We expect robust engagement as part of the formal legislative process. As such, targeting April 28th for 1st reading AT THE LATEST Code Contents • Article I. General Standards • Article IX. Site Standards • Article II. Definitions & • Article X. Parking & Mobility Measurements Standards • Article III. District Standards • Article XI. Development Benefits • Article IV. Special Districts • Article XII. Nonconformance • Article V. Overlay Districts • Article XIII. Administration • Article VI. Building Standards • Article XIV. Environmental • Article VIII. Neighborhood Standards Regulatory Structure Building Types Physical Limitations Inform & Influence Character Lot Dimensions Districts Establish Standards District Standards Primary Building Standards Massing Component Standards Architectural Component Standards Accessory Placement Standards Accessory Building Standards  District Standards Building Standards Predictable & user-friendly Component Standards framework for regulating development at all scales Architecture Standards Accessory Standards Accessory Building Standards  District Standards Building Types and Components Building Standards Component Standards Architecture Standards Accessory Standards Accessory Building Standards  District District Standards Standards Building Building Standards Standards Component Component Standards Standards Architecture Architecture Standards Standards Accessory Accessory Accessory Standards Standards Standards Accessory Accessory Building Accessory Building Standards Building Standards Standards District Standards Building Standards Component Standards Architecture Standards Accessory Standards Accessory Building Standards District Standards Building Standards Component Standards Architecture Standards Accessory Standards Accessory Building Standards District Standards Building Standards Component Standards Architecture Standards Accessory Standards Accessory Building Standards Opting Into the Redevelopment Overlay A Voluntary but Transformational Choice Key Point: The Redevelopment Overlay is opt-in. No property owner is required to use it — but for those who do, it offers powerful tools and incentives. What It Means to Opt In: • Applicant chooses to follow the Overlay procedures (Regulating Plan, Master Plan, IZ, Site Performance P) • In exchange, gains access to expanded development potential under the overlay standards Applies To: • Properties located within mapped Redevelopment Overlay District boundaries Relationship between the Inter-lot relationship Inter-Neighborhood relationship building(s) and the lot District Standards Neighborhood Types * Land Types * Building Standards Hamlet L-1 Preserved Edge L-2 Reserved Residential L-3 Restricted Component Standards Minor Center L-4 Controlled Mid-Rise L-5 Intended Architecture Standards Urban Quarter L-6 Infill Main Street Major Center Accessory Standards Fabrication Core Accessory Building Standards This relationship/transition only * comes into play for developments above a certain scale P Flagging for a deep-dive Major Changes Re-CODE Current Code Form Standards Limited to Downtown, vague Calibrated District Standards & New Zoning Map Mass non-conformity across the City Target Redevelopment Areas MU & TOD districts offer flexibility, but lack structure Calibrated IZ Standards & Incentives Ineffective Public Realm Standards Limited to Downtown Use Categories Individualized Uses Earned Parking Relief Waiver Green Score Landscape Standards Areas Requiring Policy Guidance • Article I-II General Provisions & Definitions • City Property Zoning Exemption – Affirm if the City property should remain subject to local land use regulations (RSA 674:54) • Overnight Camping Trailers – Policy on towable vehicles for temporary lodging outside campgrounds. • Article III-IV District Standards • Civic Space Dedication – Does the City wanted required civic spaces to be dedicated to the City? P • Permitted Building Types in Neighborhood Residential (NR) – Multiplex (4-6 units typ.) in NR? 3 stories. P • Commercial Industry (CI) Walkability – Form standards and frontage/site requirements to promote walkability, desired? P • Article V – Overlay Districts • Balance between incentives and requirements • Structured Parking Threshold – Require parking to be podium/garaged for developments of a certain unit and/or Comm SF threshold? • Sustainability Performance Standards – How far do we take this? • Downtown Architecture – Finalize weather language about complimenting historic architecture is appropriately enabling or potentially limiting. Areas Requiring Policy Guidance cont. • Article VI – Building Standards • Exterior Materials / EIFS Prohibition – Confirm approved materials list and discuss EIFS ban. P • Façade Design Applicability Threshold – At what redevelopment/addition scale is façade design review required? Where? P • Article VII – Use Standards • Stand-Alone Self-Storage – Continue to allow as a principle use, or require higher-level of development? • Permitted Building Types in Neighborhood Residential (NR) – Multiplex (4-6 units typ.) in NR? 3 stories. P • Commercial Industry (CI) Walkability – Form standards and frontage/site requirements to promote walkability, desired? P • Work/Live Studio Size – Is 200sf or 30% of total floor area too restrictive for size of living space? • Bed & Breakfast Unit Count – Determine how density is regulated for B&B rooms. • Residential Use Classification – Household living, Group Living, Group Living with Care • Rooming House and SRO Standards – For discussion Areas Requiring Policy Guidance cont. • Article VIII – Neighborhood Standards • Neighborhood Type Acreage Threshold – 20 acre minimum for applicability? P • Civic Space Quantity Regulation – Confirm applicability and set aside (10%). 20+ac Neighborhoods, Overlay Development • Civic Space Ownership and Maintenance – Should all privately developed Civic Spaces be dedicated to the City? P • Playground Proximity – Maximum walking distance from project to playground (800-ft, 2.5 min walk) • Article IX – Site Standards • Landscaping Payment-in-Lieu – Developed a CUP-based tree fund PIL ordinance. P • Building Material Standards for Downtown – Are district-specific material standards needed/desired? • Article X – Parking & Mobility • Required Parking Programs & Services – Menu of Transportation Demand Management options and their associated relief values • Article XI-XII Inclusionary Zoning & Subdivision • Rental and Ownership – Should both models be subject to IZ requirements? Term length of affordability covenants? • City Purchase of IZ Units – Require City right of first refusal for ownership units? • Payment-in-Lieu Formulas – Establish a clear calculation for a per unit buyout cost P • Buyout Fund Recipient – Where do the buyout funds go and how should they be deployed? • Article XIII – Administration • Technical Review Committee – Should TRC have site plan approval authority? Thresholds? P Code Contents • Article I. General Standards • Article IX. Site Standards • Article II. Definitions & • Article X. Parking & Mobility Measurements Standards • Article III. District Standards • Article XI. Development Benefits • Article IV. Special Districts • Article XII. Nonconformance • Article V. Overlay Districts • Article XIII. Administration • Article VI. Building Standards • Article XIV. Environmental • Article VIII. Neighborhood Standards Use Variance History 53 Use Variances since January 2020 • 45 for uses not permitted in districts - 22 for commercial uses in residential districts - 10 for Multifamily in Single-family zones or Single-family/duplex in Comm/Ind. - 9 for estheticians in industrial zones - 4 for daycare uses (legislative fix coming) • 6 for uses not in the use table • 4 for transitional housing and shelters • 1 detached ADU • 1 Federal firearm permit, not a gunshop or gunsmith • 2 for exceeding 25% limit on non-industrial uses in an industrial building Regulation of Uses What is changing and why? • Use Table is being simplified. Currently 293 uses. ~124 proposed. • New use category approach. 11 categories. • Some uses within those categories are called our for additional regulation as warranted. • Provides flexibility in the classification of uses that may be new to Nashua. Consolidation into Use Categories Retail Sales Category: Consumer Goods  Residential Use Classification Accessory Dwelling Units Single room occupancy units Residential (separate facilities) Conservation Subdivisions Multifamily dwelling, 3 or more units Co-living (shared facilities) Condominium Overnight camping trailers Duplex (two-family dwelling) Business residence/residential hotel Co-living with services Dwelling, manufactured home, on an Dormitories for the students of college, individually owned lot commercial schools, staff of hospitals Commercial lodging Dwelling, manufactured home park Halfway houses Dwelling, modular home Hotel, motel, and tourist court State Laws and Other Codes Dwelling, room renting, no more than four Bed-and-breakfast inn roomers, no separate cooking facilities • HB 457: municipalities can no longer regulate on the basis of Dwelling, room renting, no more than four Lodging house, including guest homes familial, marital, employment, roomers, separate cooking facilities and tourist homes or educational status. Elderly housing, with residents in single- Orphanages, children's homes, and family detached housing only similar uses • Building and Fire Codes Single-Family detached dwelling Boardinghouse/room renting  Site Standards • Driveways & Access • Stormwater Management - Widths, location, materials - Performance, easements, maintenance • Loading Facilities • Green Score - Design, location, drive-throughs - Quantity & quality of landscaping • Accessory Structures • Outdoor Seating - Screening, setbacks - Dimensions, safety, materials • Fences & Walls • Lighting - Height & opacity - Lighting zones, shielding, brightness, temp. • Sustainable Development • Signs - Build and site performance - Types, location, size, lighting • Screening • Mechanical Equipment - Industrial exemption - Screening & location • Landscaping • Communication Towners - Installation, maintenance, buffers • Transit Station Site Design • Hardscape Signs IZ Update What we heard: • Preference for required IZ units to be built on-site • Alternatives are not an automatic option • Payment-In-Lieu and Off-Site options need to be properly calibrated • Penalties for non-compliance • Concerns regarding concentration of low-income housing Three approaches for PIL, Off-Site, and Penalties Payment In-Lieu • Not a default option—Conditional Use Permit required. • Fees to be set high enough that on-site provision is financially competitive. • Fees must be proportional to actual housing costs, indexed to market trends, and updated regularly. Payment In-Lieu Option A: Formula-Based Payment • Fee based on affordability gap: difference between market-rate cost and affordable cost for required units. • The formula typically multiplies the gap by 2×–2.5× to reflect the public subsidy needed to build affordable housing elsewhere. The fee is designed to provide capital to fill this gap in other housing projects, not to cover the entire unit cost. • Funds directed to the Affordable Housing Trust. • Ensures fees are proportional to actual housing costs and indexed to market trends. Payment In-Lieu Option B: Flat Fee Per Square Foot • Projects pay a set fee (e.g., $15–22 per sq. ft. of residential development) instead of building units. • Clear to administer and predictable for projects. • Fee levels can be updated annually to reflect inflation and changes in construction costs. • Can generate large funds for other Affordable housing projects, though less directly tied to actual unit affordability gaps. Payment In-Lieu Option C: Discretionary Approval • Approval is subject to the determination that the in-lieu payment advances Affordable housing goals better than the on-site provision. • Provides project-to-project flexibility, but may reduce the predictability of Affordable housing production. • Considers other community benefits delivered by the project. • Appropriate only for large projects Off-Site IZ Unit Construction • Off-site is an alternative compliance tool, not the norm. • Developers must demonstrate why off-site delivery produces a better overall public benefit. • Goal: Prevent concentration of affordable units in already low-income neighborhoods. • Require that off-site housing be located in areas with access to transit, schools, jobs, and amenities. • Encourages partnering with affordable housing developers to scale projects – leverages LIHTC programs Off-Site IZ Unit Construction Option A: Strict On-Site (Exception Only) • Require all Affordable units to be built on-site. • Construction of off-site Affordable units is only permitted in exceptional circumstances, such as when a significant community benefit (e.g., transit investment, civic space, environmental remediation) offsets the impact. • Must be discretionarily approved (CUP). • An exception could be paired with heightened affordability requirements or additional contributions. Off-Site IZ Unit Construction Option B: Nearby Radius + Guarantee • Off-site units must be within ½ mile of the principal development to maintain neighborhood integration. • Off-site project must be comparable in construction quality, amenities, and affordability standards. • Require the Project to post a performance bond or a cash deposit equivalent to the cost of providing units or the in-lieu payment. • Guarantee held until financing and construction are secured for the off-site project. Off-Site IZ Unit Construction Option C: City Discretion, Case-by-Case • A project may propose an off-site alternative anywhere in the city. • Approval contingent upon demonstrating equal or greater community benefit—such as producing more total affordable units or serving lower-income households. • The review considers location, accessibility to transit and jobs, and whether the off-site units enhance housing in areas of need. Penalties for Failing to Deliver Off-Site Units Penalties Option A: No Certificate of Occupancy • Developers cannot occupy or lease any units in the primary project until affordable housing obligations are met (on-site, off-site, or payment). • Creates substantial leverage to ensure compliance. • Provides certainty that Affordable units or payments are secured before market-rate units are occupied. Penalties Option B: Daily Fine for Non-Compliance • Each day that a project fails to meet requirements counts as a separate violation. • Fines escalate over time to increase pressure for resolution. • Revenue from fines can be directed into the Affordable Housing Trust. • Useful for projects already occupied but not yet in compliance. Penalties Option C: Cash Guarantee Held Until Delivery • Developers required to post cash or bond equal to in-lieu payment or construction cost of off-site units. • Funds remain with city until off-site units are completed. • If project fails, city may use guarantee to directly finance equivalent affordable housing. • Provides financial security while allowing developer flexibility. Summary Policy Conservative Moderate Flexible Element In-Lieu Formula-based fee tied to Flat fee per sq. ft. or Council Rare; case-by-case Payment affordability gap discretion Off-site allowed within ½ mile + Off-site allowed anywhere with Off-site Units On-site required; exceptions only guarantee City approval Penalty No occupancy until compliance Daily fines Cash guarantees until delivery • Conservative: Maximizes on-site units, ensures strongest enforcement. • Moderate: Balances developer flexibility with enforceability. • Flexible: Provides widest compliance alternatives, requires strong monitoring and administration. NASHUA RIVERFRONT PROJECT PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE UPDATE FEBRUARY 19, 2026 PROJECT OVERVIEW Why the Riverwalk Matters Catalyzes Private Investment & Expands the Tax Base ▪ High-quality public realm infrastructure reduces perceived development risk and increases land value. ▪ Riverwalk improvements signal City commitment —unlocking mixed-use and residential development like the recently High Street Flats and future NIMCO development nearby. Drives Downtown Residential Demand ▪ Walkable, activated riverfront amenities are a top site-selection factor for developers and renters. ▪ Higher residential population increases: ▪ Local spending ▪ Evening foot traffic ▪ Perception of safety and vitality Increases Small Business Revenue & Commercial Stability ▪ Public spaces extend “dwell time,” directly impacting restaurant and retail sales. ▪ Increased visitation reduces storefront turnover and vacancy risk. Tourism, Brand Identity & Regional Competitiveness ▪ A signature waterfront park strengthens Nashua’s identity as a destination — not just a pass-through commuter city. ▪ Enhances marketability to: ▪ Visitors ▪ New residents ▪ Employers evaluating quality-of-place metrics. ▪ Supports broader branding investments and downtown activation strategies already underway. RETURN ON INVESTMENT EXPECTED… Short-Term (1–3 Years) ▪ Increased visitation and event capacity. ▪ Immediate support for downtown businesses. ▪ Marketing and branding lift. Mid-Term (3–7 Years) ▪ New residential and mixed-use development proposals. ▪ Higher property assessments within the TIF district. ▪ Reduced vacancy rates. Long-Term (7–20 Years) ▪ Sustainable tax revenue growth exceeding initial capital investment. ▪ Stronger downtown real estate market. ▪ Lower infrastructure lifecycle costs due to proactive investment. BACKGROUND TIF District Boundaries as of 2018 PROJECT TIMELINE & MILESTONES Quadrant 2 ▪ Project Bond Approved 2019 for $21m ▪ Construction Began in May 2024 ▪ Park Opened November 2025 for Winter Stroll ▪ Landscaping/Planting Completed by May 1, 2026 ▪ Memorial Day 2026 Grand Reopening: Renaissance on the Riverwalk COMPLETED PROJECTS Quadrant 2 ▪ Boardwalk & Park improvements ▪ Public access and accessibility upgrades ▪ Lighting / safety improvements ▪ Reed Sculpture (Substation Screen) 30TH ANNUAL WINTER STROLL 2025 ▪ 21.1k Attendees ▪ 50.1% of attendees where not from Nashua Renaissance on The Riverwalk ▪ Memorial Day Weekend – May 2026 ▪ Planning for: ▪ Drone show ▪ Music all day Saturday ▪ NAKED Kayak Parade ▪ Fire water? ▪ Paddle Boats ▪ Downtown Business Scavenger Hunt with prizes ▪ Unique art seek and find ▪ NASHUA Sign ▪ Goat Yoga? BOND BUDGET AS OF FEBRUARY 17, 2026 Quadrant 2 Previously Budgeted Projects Quadrant 2 Yet to be Contracted Estimated Cost Gateway Arches $250,000 Lighting for Reed Sculpture $100,000 Interactive Sculpture $70,000 HOLD: Allocation to Lighting $300,000 and Sidewalk on Water Street (after Water Street Bridge rehab) HOLD: Allocation for East $125,000 Side Pedestrian Bridge – Match for Federal Money Total Estimated Cost $845,000 Remaining Elements to Continue Project Quadrant 2 Staff Recommendations Estimated Cost Public Restroom $300,000+ Permanent Sound System $80,000 250th Anniversary Sculpture (using $15,000 original base for 200th Anniversary NH Sculpture) Improvements to Greeley House $50,000 Lawn Utility Box Covers $5,000 Clocktower Connection (Pedestrian ??? Upgrades) Shade Structure for Grass Area $250,000 Total Estimated Costs $700,000  DISCUSSION LIZ HANNUM, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR