Bedford planning board debates 10 draft zoning amendments; asks for more data on assisted‑living impacts

The Bedford Planning Board spent the second half of its Nov. 17 meeting reviewing a package of 10 draft zoning amendments that staff will refine in two December workshops and, if posted, public hearings in January. Planning Director Becky Hiebert walked the board through proposed changes to align local code with state law and local policy goals.

Key items and debate highlights:

- Retaining‑wall measurement (Amendment 1): Hiebert recommended clarifying that retaining‑wall height be measured from footing to top of wall to match the building code. Members supported clarifying the definition and discussed terraced (two‑tier) walls and engineering sign‑offs.

- Assisted‑living and nursing‑home uses (Amendment 2): Hiebert said Bedford has “a lot of beds for nursing homes and assisted living units” and argued that those land uses put strain on emergency services. She proposed prohibiting those uses in the Performance Zone and certain commercial zones while leaving waiver authority for special cases. Board members requested hard data from the fire chief on call volumes and response impacts before deciding whether to advance the amendment; one member urged public education about service‑level consequences.

- Banks and financial institutions (Amendment 3): The board discussed whether to make banks a conditional use in the Performance Zone to preserve diversity of uses; members split on whether land‑use controls should counter market behavior.

- State law compliance (Amendments 4, 6): Several amendments are driven by recent New Hampshire law changes: definitions for boarding/rooming houses and required revisions to accessory apartments/ADUs. Hiebert said state rules require removing some conditional‑use requirements and certain design controls; the result would allow attached or detached accessory apartments by right in most single‑family zones subject to building‑code and septic requirements.

- Cottage court housing (Amendment 5): Staff proposed modest changes to density, clustering and how finished basements count toward size. Board members debated whether the proposed 1,500 sq. ft. above‑ground cap and density numbers risk turning cottage courts into larger houses and asked staff to return with alternatives (partial finished lower levels, garage‑under designs, or dimensional constraints that limit packing density).

- Multifamily in commercial zones (Amendment 7): To comply with state law that requires allowing multifamily uses in commercial zones, Hiebert proposed permitting residential uses above ground‑floor commercial, restricting ground floor to commercial, limiting building height/scale (proposed maximum 3 stories or 36 feet) and requiring municipal water/sewer. Board members discussed possible tradeoffs—height limits, roof pitch and defining multifamily by unit count to avoid unintended consequences.

Members repeatedly asked staff to prepare clearer ballot language, include maps to show where amendments apply (especially the General Residential amendments that previously failed), and to invite the fire chief or emergency services to present data on call volumes and response impact for assisted‑living uses before the board advances amendments toward public hearing.

Hiebert said the board has three meetings (Nov. 17, Dec. 1 and Dec. 15) to shape the package before posting amendments for public hearing; petitioned amendments must be submitted by Dec. 10, and the town ballot will be set after hearings in January for a March 10, 2026 vote.