NASHUA, NH – An ordinance that would change the occupancy requirement for unrelated occupants in a single-family dwelling from 1 person per 300 square feet, to 0.6 people per 300 square feet (O-24-042) was given an unfavorable recommendation by the planning board to the Board of Aldermen.
According to planning department manager Sam Durfee, the controversy regarding a recovery home at 16 Archery Lane – which involved a zoning board appeal, public opposition, and a lawsuit – was the impetus for the ordinance.
The ordinance would effectively change the occupancy requirement for unrelated occupants in a single family dwelling from 1 person per 300 square feet, to 1 person per 500 square feet. This would mean that instead of 12 unrelated people being able to live in a 3,600 square foot house – which is the case at Archery Lane – only seven people would be allowed.
“I think the approach there is to try and reduce perceived public impact just simply from a density standpoint and I believe that’s the driving factor here,” Durfee said.
When asked if there was concern from city health and safety officials or departments that led to the new requirement numbers being chosen, Durfee said that building official Bill McKinney doesn’t see any life safety benefit with the change.
“The existing maximums in the current code are established to reflect best practices in building and life safety, so there’s no real added life safety benefit from making this change, at least from his point of view,” Durfee added.
“It seems to me like this was an immediate reaction to a particular instance and it seems premature and not as well thought out as I think it needs to be,” planning board member Adam Varley said. “I think what ultimately this needs is more time, more thoughtfulness in terms of what maybe the appropriate standard should be and one that’s based on objective criteria rather than just ‘oh, this particular use in this particular location was unpopular so lets apply sort a generalized standard.”
The board discussed unintended consequences that could come from this ordinance, such as an unmarried couple not being allowed to live in a house that is less than 1,000 square feet.
Durfee said that the risk for such unintended consequences already exists with the current code, but the change could “cast a broader net in terms of catching people who might be in violation.”
He later said with more than 90,000 people in the city, enforcement of the current occupancy requirement is “very difficult” and that it is “primarily complaint driven” when they are made aware of an occupancy issue.
Board member Scott LeClair wondered if the ordinance would “essentially outlaw” tiny homes, which – for Durfee – begged the question of affordability, which he said he is most concerned about.
“In a detached form, we’re mandating more house for unrelated people,” Durfee said. “If we want to encourage through the new code or other incentive means a detached form of either rental or ownership, and it becomes a product that is smaller in size [and] is more affordable than the true starter home, and now we’re asking that to be larger than may otherwise be necessary, I think that’s a significant unintended consequence.”
Varley noted how under the proposed ordinance, two unrelated people couldn’t live in a 900 square foot home, but 15 family members could.
Cameron Green said that allowing for unlimited family members while limiting the number of unrelated occupants in a home of a certain size seems like a very strict regulation without much benefit to the city.
“It’s a little discriminatory,” Maggie Harper added.
LeClair said that the ordinance was not consistent, but opposite, of the city’s master plan, and offered a different approach to occupancy restrictions.
Instead of putting a cap on the number of square footage, he suggested that there be no “x” amount of people for “x” amount of square feet requirement until a set number of people in a home is exceeded.
Instead of solely looking at single-family dwellings, Varley said that the code should be looked at comprehensively, and that the city should look at the purposes behind the standards.
Durfee said that they are working with coding consultants who have exposure with this issue across the country.
“Addressing it wholistically, we totally intend to with the new code,” he said. “I think that this particular issue will likely come back. This won’t be put to bed until it’s really settled and legislated.”
The planning and economic development committee will hold a public hearing on O-24-042 on Tuesday, Dec. 17 at 7 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber.