Planning manager outlines parking relief, mobility‑management plan under Recode

Planning Manager Sam Durfee told the Nashua Board of Aldermen’s Planning & Economic Development Committee on July 21 that the Recode project’s parking chapter will keep conventional parking minimums and maximums but add new, measured ways for applicants to seek relief by demonstrating demand management.

"We really lean on the market to tell us what they need," Durfee said, framing the changes as adjustments to outdated parking metrics that in some cases require too much land for surface parking. He stressed that relief would be voluntary and "earned," not automatic: applicants seeking fewer required spaces must submit a mobility management plan that specifies who will administer measures, how they will operate, and how they will be reported and enforced.

Durfee described two primary pathways for reducing parking: administrative parking relief for small changes of use (handled at staff level when no site plan is required), and relief tied to a mobility management manual — a menu of options the planning board would maintain. "There are two ways of reducing parking...one of which is...demand management, with the menu of options," he said. Payment in lieu is the other pathway; staff are calibrating rates using a 2023 parking study and market testing.

The mobility management plan is applicant‑driven and required when relief is sought or in certain master‑plan developments. Durfee listed typical measures the plan might include: a transportation coordinator to administer programs; preferential carpool/vehicle‑share parking; long‑ and short‑term bicycle parking; shuttle service for hotels; commuter tax benefits; guaranteed‑ride‑home programs; and unbundling parking fees from apartment leases so tenants clearly see parking costs.

"Because that is an incentive, we're actually given a lot of latitude under state enabling legislation of how we administer that," Durfee said, adding that annual reporting would be mandatory and that failure of measures could trigger enforcement: "If the relief is not functioning in the way that it was originally proposed to function, it is technically a site plan violation, and we can enforce on that."

Committee members probed practical issues: how to craft appropriate measures for sites not served by transit, what happens if an applicant underestimates demand and later needs more parking (Durfee cited site‑plan amendments, off‑site/shared parking and time‑of‑use agreements), and whether the planning board or the full Board of Aldermen should control the mobility management manual. Several aldermen favored planning‑board stewardship but asked staff to keep options to refer items back to aldermen where appropriate.

Durfee used an Amherst Street redevelopment case study to illustrate tradeoffs: a 163‑unit project built to a 1:1 ratio would require roughly 53,000 square feet of parking (about double the building footprint on the illustrated lot). Using sustainable development bonuses and a mobility management plan, the scheme could increase to 178 units and reduce the parking ratio to 0.8 with 50 spaces in a first‑floor garage.

Durfee said staff will continue legal review, finalize the mobility management manual over the summer with targeted outreach (open houses and office hours), consult with economic development, the parking department and NRPC’s regional mobility manager, and expects to be close to a final code in September with adoption aimed for late fall and an effective date in 2027.

Committee members thanked Durfee and asked for additional sessions — including a detailed case study walkthrough and roadshow style outreach — before full adoption.