Committee reopens review of zoning ordinance 025-15A after public concern, votes to send parts back to staff

The Planning, Licenses and Development Committee on Thursday reopened discussion of ordinance 025-15A, a recent change to the land development code that expanded allowed residential density in medium-density districts and revised setbacks and lot-size rules.

The committee’s review focused on two disputed sections: the increase in units allowed by right (from three to six per building in specified zones) and reductions to minimum lot and setback requirements. Senior Planner Mary Brunner told the committee the changes originated from a private petition and explained that the joint committee had removed a proposed 600-square-foot unit-size cap, leaving a by-right allowance of up to six units per building in the medium-density district. Brunner said staff recommended setback adjustments to preserve buildable area on smaller lots after the minimum lot area was reduced.

"None of this was from state law changes," Brunner said, explaining the petition origin and the committee modifications that resulted in the adopted A version.

Council Williams raised a procedural objection, saying the letter that prompted the review bore signatures from three committee members — a committee majority — and expressing concern that the approach could violate the intent of New Hampshire RSA 91-A on open meetings. "What worries me ... that appears to be a violation of RSA 91-A," Williams said, adding he had discussed the matter with the city attorney.

Later in the meeting a member of the public, Dory Masten, asked for an independent investigation into whether a council member failed to disclose or should have recused on matters related to property purchases tied to the petitioner. Masten said the timeline of transactions and votes created the appearance of a conflict and requested an ethics review. "I respectfully request a formal independent investigation of council B's involvement in the zoning proceedings for 5359 Marble Street," Masten said.

The city attorney responded to the committee that, based on inquiries to date, the attorney’s office had not identified a procedural flaw or a conflict of interest in the way the prior ordinance process was handled. "There's not been any procedural flaw or conflict of interest in the way that the previous ordinance was handled," the city attorney told the committee.

Councilors pressed staff for detail on how often applicants had sought added units under prior rules and on alternate processes such as cottage-court conditional-use approvals. Mary Brunner said staff had seen occasional inquiries about adding a third unit and that larger multi-unit cottage-court approvals had produced about 50 total units historically.

Committee members diverged on next steps. Some argued the ordinance bundled too many changes into a single package and could be usefully split into separate ordinances; others urged caution about reversing a recently passed code change that supporters say addresses the local housing shortage. The chair ultimately accepted a motion to place the item "on more time," directing staff to focus specifically on setbacks and the by‑right increase in units and return with clearer, separated options. The committee voted to send the matter back to staff for further work; the item will return to the committee next month for additional consideration.