Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Approvals Affordability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission members and public press for affordability after approvals for Elm Street and Mammoth Road projects
Summary
Planning and zoning approvals for an Elm Street apartment project and a Mammoth Road townhouse development drew public concern about affordable units; commissioners and a resident questioned why recent market-rate projects contain little formally affordable housing despite voucher acceptance.
Members of the Manchester Housing Commission discussed recent planning and zoning approvals that cumulatively add dozens of new housing units and drew questions about affordability during the May 14 meeting.
Commission discussion referenced one Elm Street proposal described at the meeting as an apartment project and a separate Mammoth Road site approved for 30 townhouses. A commission member said the combined approvals amounted to 81 units in recent hearings: roughly 51 apartments and 30 townhouses. Members of the public asked why developers were not including small numbers of units at deeper affordability levels such as 50 percent of area median income (AMI).
Commission members and the public noted that some market-rate projects accept Section 8 vouchers and that voucher holders occupy a portion of units in existing developments. One speaker cited a local developer, saying that roughly 10 percent of units in some projects were occupied by voucher holders and that larger portfolios had about 45 voucher-subsidized units across 500 units. Commission discussion emphasized that serving households at 30 to 50 percent of AMI typically requires subsidy because the construction cost per unit translates into rents far above what those households can afford without either operating subsidy or capital subsidy.
Speakers reviewed the math on development costs: constructing multifamily housing can require multi-million-dollar budgets, and on-site affordability often reduces revenue by a material share of a project's receipts. Several commission members argued that subsidies or other incentives are usually necessary to create units affordable at deeper income bands.
Commission members also discussed planning-board concerns that had been raised about curb cuts and parking for specific projects during plan review. One member said a planning-board amendment on a curb cut was discussed but later projects appeared to be approved.
Ending: Commissioners said they will continue to track approvals and asked staff to report on whether proposed projects will have formal affordability restrictions or rely only on voucher acceptance.
