The Planning Board held a special hearing on March 23 to finalize months of work on revisions to the town’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance, ultimately voting to forward the updated language to the Town Council along with public comments. The decision followed a lengthy discussion that reflected both the complexity of PUD regulations and the community’s desire for clearer expectations around large-scale development.
“We’ve been awhile at this,” Board member Art Rugg said, noting that the Board had already held three work sessions; one each in October, November, and February; to debate what changes were needed. The revisions, he said, were the product of sustained effort to bring clarity and structure to a process that has often been criticized for being too flexible for developers and too unpredictable for residents.
Deputy Town Manager Kellie Carson reminded the Board that PUDs already require their own master plans negotiated between the town and the property owner. “A planning board can adopt more flexible provisions by way of a zoning ordinance,” she said, explaining that the goal of the revisions was to better define that flexibility and ensure it serves the town’s long-term interests.
Under state law, PUDs allow developers to propose large, mixed-use projects, such as Woodmont Commons, that operate somewhat independently of traditional zoning rules. But the lack of clear distinctions between residential and nonresidential development has led to concerns that developers can front load residential construction while delaying or abandoning promised commercial components.
Board member Tony DeFrancesco pointed to examples in nearby communities where developers built out the residential portion of a PUD, then returned to the town claiming commercial space was no longer viable. “The intent is to make sure the commercial part is developed or substantially developed before the residential part,” he said. Residential growth, he noted, brings significant infrastructure costs, from school buses to sewer expansions, and the Board wants to ensure taxpayers are not left footing the bill.
“We as a town, myself included, don’t want to be paying for a developer’s infrastructure,” resident Leo Lee added during public comment.
Not everyone felt the changes were easy to understand. Resident Ray Breslin said he struggled to compare the new draft to the existing ordinance. “I have no idea what those changes are,” he said. “I’ve taken a look at this draft, and it’s a little hard to make a comparison. Has this draft changed anything from the original one? What has changed?”
Board members acknowledged that the revised ordinance is longer, but said much of the added language simply clarifies terms that were vague or undefined in the original version. “Some of them were one word things on the original, which turned into a sentence, but it’s the same thing,” DeFrancesco said.
The updated ordinance outlines broader PUD objectives, including housing diversity, mixed-use opportunities, infrastructure efficiency, environmental protection, and economic vitality. It also introduces structured public hearings for new PUDs, a master plan checklist, density standards, and expanded review criteria.
One issue that drew particular attention was the definition of “active and substantial” development, an important threshold that determines whether a PUD retains its special zoning status. Resident Dave Robbins asked for a clearer timeline. “Is that 25% of monetary cost? Is it 25% of buildings?” he asked. “If I polled everyone here, everyone would have a different take on what ‘active and substantial’ is.”
The Board agreed to explicitly reference the definition already found in the town’s site plan regulations. Under the proposed revisions, a PUD that does not make active and substantial progress within two years risks losing its PUD designation.
“What is the benefit to Londonderry of the PUD?” resident Martha Smith asked. Rugg responded that the original intent, dating back to a 1997 “village concepts” proposal, was to create walkable, mixed-use districts that function as town centers. DeFrancesco added that PUDs give the Planning Board greater control over large developments than traditional zoning would.
Breslin also asked whether PUD master plans are legally binding. Carson confirmed that they are, though they can be amended with town approval.
After reviewing the public’s concerns and making final adjustments, the Planning Board voted to send the revised ordinance to the Town Council, where it will undergo further review and additional public input.