The Town Council spent some of its April 20 meeting reviewing proposed amendments to the Town’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance, a key regulatory framework governing large mixed-use projects such as Woodmont Commons. The discussion reflected ongoing concerns about how PUDs are implemented, the balance between residential and commercial development, and the long-term impact on infrastructure and municipal services.
The PUD ordinance was originally adopted to encourage coordinated, mixed-use development that would combine housing, commercial activity, civic space, and open space in a single master planned area. However, Woodmont Commons, the Town’s largest PUD, has drawn criticism for producing far more housing than commercial development in its early phases.
Some residents and officials have argued that the imbalance has strained schools, public safety, and road infrastructure, while delaying the commercial tax base originally envisioned.
Councilor Deb Paul reiterated her position that the ordinance needs clearer, enforceable standards to “restore the original intent” of the PUD framework.
She suggested a fixed minimum percentage of commercial or civic space in any new PUD proposal and tying residential density directly to infrastructure capacity.
“It prevents overloading of schools and public safety services and eliminates loopholes that previously allowed density increases without corresponding commercial development or mitigation,” Paul said. She also called for stronger open space protections, environmental impact requirements, and development agreements that are enforceable across all phases of a project.
“Other NH towns have shown us what successful PUDs look like with clear standards, enforceable commitments, and development that aligns with the master plan,” she added.
While some Councilors agreed that the ordinance needs improvement, there was disagreement over how strict the changes should be.
Councilor Ted Combes argued that a certain number of residential units are necessary to attract commercial investment, warning that overly rigid requirements could discourage development altogether.
Chair Ron Dunn suggested the Planning Board may prefer a “looser” approach, this characterization was disputed.
“I think the document that the Planning Board sent us is a compromise,” Dunn said.
Deputy Town Manager and Economic Development Director Kellie Caron explained that the Planning Board forwarded the draft to the Council as members wanted clearer direction.
“My understanding from the Planning Board was, given the timing of the comments and a want for more direction from the Town Council with respect to the PUD ordinance, they chose to move this to the Council for your discussion,” Caron said. She declined to comment on the legality of specific proposals without consulting Town Council.
Planning Board member Tony DeFrancesco emphasized that large private landowners can always develop their property under existing zoning, with or without a PUD. The PUD framework, he said, provides structure and predictability that “untethered” development would not.
“The Planning Board specifically sent this product to you for input, and for changes,” DeFrancesco said. “This is too big of a thing for just the Planning Board, so we wanted you all to look at it.”
He also stressed the importance of development agreements for every property owner within a PUD, calling them essential for ensuring consistency across phases.
DeFrancesco acknowledged Paul’s extensive research but said he had concerns. “Councilor Paul did a great job of homework. However, and I haven’t had a chance to look at it, there are several inaccuracies in there that I will respond to at a later date,” he said. “The only thing I will caution you on is to be careful what you wish for.”
He noted that some portions of Woodmont were “always going to be housing,” while other areas designated for commercial development.
Planning Board Chair Jake Butler agreed that the Council should take the lead. “This council is at a point now where you have a document that’s put together, and it’s up to you to decide what you want to change,” Butler said. “I don’t think it would be in your best interest to bring it back to Planning.”
Councilor Paul said that “the new PUD is much better than the old one and that if anything we should replace it with the new one while we work on it.”
The Council agreed not to return the draft ordinance to the Planning Board, opting instead to continue refining the language themselves. Despite remaining disagreements, members concurred that the ordinance requires updates to better reflect the Town’s goals for balanced, sustainable development.
A public hearing on the proposed PUD amendments is set for Monday, May 18, where residents will have the chance to comment before the Council considers final revisions.