Board of Aldermen — 8/8/17 Page 13
Resolution R-17-114 declared duly adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS — ORDINANCES
O-17-036
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
AMENDING THE ACCESSORY DWELLING ORDINANCE
Given its second reading;
MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE TO AMEND O-17-036 IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REPLACING IT WITH
THE GOLDEN ROD COPY PROVIDED WITH THE AGENDA
ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Moriarty
| followed this. | was on the committee and it was hard to follow. In general, my perspective of this so people
buy houses. When they buy the house they move into a neighborhood based on what they see is in there
when they move in and you have code that restricts or guides how houses are supposed to be put together,
frontage, maximum size, etc., etc. My concern is just what bothers me inherently about this accessory dwelling
ordinance it already sort of lives in the code anyway for the most part. The fact that someone can buy a house
based on what they saw conforming and then some years later can get a special exception to sort of zoning in
order to do something. So somebody up in Concord was legislating in favoritism and creating this thing called
“accessory dwelling” ordinance or created a law which allowed Nashua to put together accessory dwelling
units which is on the books. So what is this thing doing? From what | can tell, it is slightly more restrictive
than what’s already on the books. It’s not a huge difference. It’s slightly more restrictive. Since I’m against the
whole concept of the accessory dwelling favoritism in the first place, I’m going to vote for this because it’s
slightly more restrictive than what’s on the books | think. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED
MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-17-036 AS AMENDED
ON THE QEUSTION
Alderman Dowd
| sort of have a problem with B. 5 where the owner of the property must occupy for at least five years. The
thing that concerns me if the owner of the property sells the accessory dwelling, you end up with two rentals
instead of an actual residence? That would concern me because now you're over time changing the zoning
and you end up with two houses on the same lot with two different people. I’m just concerned about that. My
feeling is that the owner of that property ought to have to reside on that property. What they do with the
accessory unit is subject to the new law.
President McCarthy
You can’t wind up with separate ownership. It’s still a single parcel that’s in single ownership.
Alderman Dowd
The person that owns the property can sell it but the person buying the property has to occupy.
