MANCHESTER, N.H. – The Manchester Planning Board has some homework to do.
On Thursday night, members of the board followed up their decision in November to postpone making a recommendation to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen (BMA) on their stance about completely removing impact fees for developers, but agreed that a preliminary opinion should be provided to ensure they have a voice in the BMA’s committee process.
In November, the board decided to wait until the BMA provided additional information over the initial proposal referenced by Alderman Joseph Kelly Levasseur (At-Large). However, with additional information and no scheduled committee hearing on the proposal by Levasseur, Planning Board Chairwoman June Trisciani reviewed the discussion spurred by Levasseur in October and sought to spur discussion among members of the Planning Board and city staff.
Under Chapter 13 of the city’s Zoning Bylaws (see below), impact fees are levied upon developers seeking approval for projects that would result in a greater need for city services, such as additional family housing necessitating larger schools due to the increase of the city’s child population.
Traditionally, fees have been waived for non-profit organizations and in the past fees have been waived for areas that the city has sought to develop, such as the downtown area. Levasseur felt that waiving the fee for developers seeking to transform office space into residential units would increase the city’s housing stock, something Manchester Mayor Joyce Craig has stated as a priority in the city.
Only the BMA can amend Chapter 13, but currently the Planning Board does have the purview of waiving or modifying the fee under certain circumstances. First, the amount waived must be at least comparable to the value the Planning Board the city believes it will receive in return for waiving the fee. Anything offered by developers must also be related to the impact from the proposed development, such purchasing new traffic lights if more traffic is expected nearby a proposed development. Developers may also ask for an exception from fees if they agree to limitations that would negate the purpose of the fees, such as requesting a waiver for school district impact fees for developments allowing only residents over the age of 55.
Planning Board Vice Chair Bryce Kaw-uh reiterated his statement from November that he did not feel that it would be appropriate for the city’s schools and fire department to lose access to needed funding for capital improvements to help developers seeking to build market-rate housing. However, he did feel that it might be appropriate if developers were willing to incorporate affordable housing units into their applications or other things that would benefit the city as a whole.
The board was unable to come up with a preliminary consensus on what they should recommend to the BMA during their committee hearings on the topic. However, Trisciani advised her fellow board members to review the BMA meeting in October where Levasseur discussed the topic as well as Chapter 13 so the Planning Board could provide a preliminary opinion at their next meeting on Dec. 16 and impact the discussion once it begins at the BMA’s committee level.
“You want to a sit at the table and make the changes, take the seat and make the damn changes,” she said.
Earlier in the meeting, the board closed public hearings on conditional use permits for 250 Mammoth Rd., 70 Market St. and a pair of requests for 1824 Front St.
The board approved the permit for 250 Mammoth Rd., which reduced the minimum number of parking spaces at CVS to create a temporary COVID-19 testing kiosk. The board also approved the permit for 70 Market St., which waived the need for parking spaces at a nursing school changing its classification into a trade school, but nothing else.
The site plan and planned development application for 1824 Front St., which seeks to construct ten multi-family buildings with 60 townhouse units and a new private road with 166 parking spaces, is expected to receive a decision at the board’s Dec. 16 meeting after the board receives updated architectural information from the applicants.
[googleapps domain=”drive” dir=”file/d/1BH5jFLozOmNjB-qFaLOs6khbDsNSmRBB/preview” query=”” width=”640″ height=”480″ /]
