Nashua planning staff seek guidance on facades, EIFS, housing rules and TRC as code rewrite advances

Sam Durfee, Nashua’s planning manager, told the Planning and Economic Development Committee on May 19 that the city is in the late stages of a code rewrite and needs aldermanic policy direction on where standards should be strict and where the code should remain flexible.

Durfee framed the conversation as a choice between prescriptive regulations and guidance. On building facades in the downtown redevelopment overlay he asked whether language that requires facades to "complement the historic architecture" is too limiting. "We can use terms like may, should, or we say shall," he said, noting the different outcomes those choices produce for design review and predictability.

EIFS/materials: Durfee explained that EIFS — exterior insulation and finish systems, a stucco‑like cladding — can be energy efficient and cost effective but can also trap water if installed poorly. He noted the code currently allows EIFS downtown yet calls for brick and native masonry on some commercial corridors, a mismatch he said the rewrite could resolve. Several aldermen warned that broad allowance of EIFS downtown could dilute historic character and recommended district‑specific design guidelines or architectural review for sensitive areas.

Self‑storage and form: Durfee described three self‑storage forms (metal shed rows, vertical multi‑story storage with windows, and mixed‑use buildings with storage floors) and asked where each form should be permitted. Committee members favored allowing higher‑design vertical or mixed‑use forms in visible locations and restricting low‑design shed‑type facilities to less prominent districts with screening and buffering.

Housing classification and sober living: Durfee said the rewrite consolidates many specific uses into three residential buckets: household living, group living, and group living with care. He clarified that "sober living with no treatment is household living," while facilities providing on‑site treatment are regulated as group living with services (halfway houses), a distinction he said was informed by fair‑housing and ADA case law. Aldermen pressed how parking and density rules will be applied when large houses are converted to multiple units; Durfee described a square‑footage based density factor with lot‑size modifiers to limit excessive conversions on small lots.

Technical Review Committee (TRC): Durfee proposed a statutory TRC to expedite approval for small, code‑compliant site plans (two‑ to three‑week turnaround) while reserving planning‑board review for projects needing waivers or conditional use permits. Planning‑board members and several aldermen urged strict thresholds and a reporting mechanism because approvals by TRC would not carry the planning‑board public‑notice process.

State authority caveat: Durfee reminded the committee that RSA 674:54 exempts agents of the state from local land‑use rules, a point aldermen referenced when discussing state‑placed group homes and their limited local oversight.

What's next: Durfee said staff will draft specific code language, district maps for design guidance and a TRC threshold proposal for later meetings; no votes were taken on May 19.

The meeting moved to routine administrative items and adjourned at 9:26 p.m.