There is still time to answer the original Lyme Housing Survey. You can read my previous post to see how I answered the questions.

But I wish the survey had included other questions. Here's my list. The first two questions come from the Lyme Community Development Committee’s survey from March 2019. We could compare 2025 responses to the ones received in 2019. (You can see those responses at https://richb-hanover.github.io/LCDC/) Other questions were adapted from a survey used by Sandwich, NH to make changes to their ordinance.

1. What do you like about Lyme as it is today?
2. What would you like to change about Lyme going forward?
3. Lyme’s ordinance defines many “dimensional controls” such as minimum lot size, maximum lot coverage, maximum footprint, road frontage, and others. In practice, these combine to make it impossible to build modestly-priced homes.

   If it helped improve housing options, would you agree with relaxing the requirements for the following?

   • Relax minimum lot size (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • Relax road frontage (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • Relax lot coverage (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • Relax maximum footprint (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
4. The Planning Board held a number of public forums about housing a year ago. All the speakers emphasized that “increased density” – building multiple homes/units on a single lot – was critical to making homes more affordable.

   If it helped improve housing options, would you agree with increasing the number of units permitted as new construction on a lot in the following districts? 

   • Lyme Common (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • Lyme Center (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • Lyme Commercial (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • Rural (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • East Lyme (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • Holts Ledge (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • Mountain and Forest (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
5. In Lyme, a five-acre parcel frequently only yields a one-acre “buildable parcel” because the conservation overlays (steep slopes, agricultural soils, wetlands, and flood-prone areas) take away from the usable area. Because the size of a house is related to the decreased area, no building footprint could be larger than of 871 square feet (about 29’ x 29’) on typical five-acre parcel.

   If it helped improve housing options, would you agree with relaxing the rules for these overlays in the ordinance:

   • Relax Wetland buffers (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • Relax Agricultural Soils (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
   • Relax Steep Slopes (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
6. If a proposal exceeds the dimensional controls or conservation overlays, it cannot be built. If it helped improve housing options, would you agree to giving a modest amount of relief with a special exception or conditional use permit?
   • Relief should be allowed (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree/Don't know)
7. Please feel free to explain any of your answers

[I would be interested to hear your thoughts – reach me at richb.lyme@gmail.com. Feel free to share this post via email or on Facebook, LinkedIn, or X-Twitter. Any opinions expressed here are solely my own, and not those of any public body, such as the Lyme Planning Board, Budget Committee, or Trustees of the Trust Funds where I volunteer.]