Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Manchester commission debates zoning incentives, impact-fee waivers and redevelopment to spur affordable housing
Summary
Members discussed recent and proposed housing projects, possible impact-fee waivers tied to deed-restricted units, an “innovation zone” to encourage demolition/rebuild of blighted properties, and concerns about tenant rehousing during redevelopment. Commissioners expect further work after a second zoning revision is drafted.
Members of the Manchester Housing Commission spent the meeting reviewing recent private projects and discussing policy options to encourage more affordable housing, including waiving impact fees for deed‑restricted units and creating an overlay “innovation zone” to incentivize teardown and redevelopment of blighted properties.
Commission Chair Joe Wigert and other members described three recent or proposed projects the commission has tracked: a mental‑health–related project on North Elm Street of roughly 40 units, a Brady Sullivan proposal to add about 50 units above a parking garage behind the plaza, and a third project in the 30‑unit range. Commissioners said those projects appear to be market‑rate rather than deed‑restricted affordable units.
The commission discussed structuring impact fees so that portions of a project made permanently affordable could be exempted from school and EDU impact fees. Commission members raised the idea of deed restrictions managed or supported by partners such as NeighborWorks to preserve affordability in mixed‑income buildings and suggested the city could explore an overlay or “innovation” zoning district to encourage redevelopment of properties that are vacant or functionally deteriorated.
Commissioners also pressed on tenant protections during demolition and redevelopment. One member asked whether tenants displaced by demolition would be rehoused or assisted during construction; commissioners noted that, beyond specific lead‑remediation rules, there is no broader state statute automatically requiring rehousing when a unit is condemned. The group discussed two practical pathways: privately financed redevelopment where an owner upgrades a holding and preserves tenancy, and sales to developers with capital to redevelop, which often entails tenant relocation.
Members reviewed process questions and timing. Staff said zoning changes are moving through a multi‑step review; the commission expects a second revision to be drafted and a statutory review period of about 60 days after that revision. If the second revision is issued in May, best‑case calendaring could push final action toward July, assuming no substantial aldermanic changes.
Commissioners identified several city parcels and RFPs of interest (including reference to Lincoln Avenue and the Pearl Street/Hard Net parking lots) and said some planned mixed‑use projects have stalled over parking and financing concerns. Members urged staff to collect application and wait‑list data for recent projects so the commission can quantify local demand and demonstrate need when proposing incentives.
