MANCHESTER, N.H. – It won’t be a temporary homeless shelter and it won’t be a rooming house, at least for now.
On Thursday night, the Manchester Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) proved to be a brick wall for developer Ben Gamache, as he withdrew his request for a variance to transform 77 Pearl St. from a set of medical and business offices into a quasi-residential building.
In a presentation by Gamache and attorney John Cronin, the building would be completely modified and transformed into an upscale congregate living facility akin to a small long-term hotel. In the proposal, the building would have 24 living units with shared bathrooms, kitchen space and living room space with an on-site building manager.
The building would also prohibit drinking and smoking, with Gamache also telling the board that he would be willing to prohibit tenancy by college students, stating that the ideal client for the facility would be a long-term business traveler looking for a less expensive option than a hotel for a few months without being locked into a lease at an apartment, with rooms costing approximately $750 a month.
Gamache indicated that he was moving forward with this proposal due to reduced need for office space in the downtown area and the positive impact occupancy of the building would have on buildings owned by himself and others nearby. He also cited the need for additional housing and referred to the type of housing at this facility as unique in the city.
While comments from owners and occupants of neighboring properties were generally positive, Ward 3 Alderman Pat Long criticized the application. Long, who represents the property’s neighborhood and the downtown area on the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, said that the variance would not fit into the character of the city’s Central Business District (CBD) and supported the Families in Transition/New Horizons’ attempt to transform the building into a temporary housing shelter until it was stopped by Gamache.
ZBA Vice Chair Jose Lovell shared the same sentiments as Long, stating that the application did not fit into the general definition of the CBD in the city’s zoning bylaws, which seeks office, retail or mixed-use purposes.
“We have a great CBD, and we should be selective with what we allow in there,” said Lovell.
Aldermanic ZBA Representative Jim Roy questioned whether long-term business travelers would be comfortable with tenancy of a few months in a facility that did not allow alcohol use, something that would not be an issue inside an apartment or a hotel, questioning whether the true intent was to create a congregate living facility.
In recent years, several elected officials in the city have become wary of some congregate living facilities focused on substance abuse recovery operating without proper oversight, leading to issues for nearby property owners.
ZBA Member Anne Ketterer also drew the ire of the applicants when she referred to the proposal as a “dormitory,” and she later felt that it would be more appropriate if each of the living units had their own bathrooms given the purpose of the facility.
Kettering and Roy also believed that the lack of office tenants at the facility was not a suitable hardship, with Kettering stating there are allowable uses for the building within the CBD other than a rooming house that would be allowable that she felt had not been explored.
Faced with the opposition from the board, Gamache opted withdraw his application for the time being.
The property has received three variances from the ZBA since 1965, with the most recent allowing a 15-student elementary school on the premises.
That information and other details can be found below.
[googleapps domain=”drive” dir=”file/d/1KXG6i_99Dm3_S4pvccnGpPuaHp7-XUyd/preview” query=”” width=”640″ height=”480″ /]
