Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planner seeks conditional-use approval for four‑unit conversion; owner argues parking demand is lower than ordinance assumes
Summary
An owner seeking to make a four‑unit apartment building at 392 Central Street legal argued to the Manchester Planning Board Tuesday that his tenant mix and past experience mean fewer parking spaces are actually needed than the zoning ordinance requires.
Craig R. Saint Pierre asked the Manchester Planning Board Tuesday for a conditional‑use permit to allow a four‑unit apartment building at 392 Central Street to proceed with fewer parking spaces than required by the zoning ordinance.
Saint Pierre told the board he owns both 392 and the adjacent property and that the combined holdings and the building’s configuration result in 10 bedrooms and 10 parking spaces across the holdings. The building’s prior history included legal and one unpermitted unit; Saint Pierre said the requested action would legalize the configuration and that his tenant profile — including recent placements of formerly homeless veterans and tenants who do not own cars — means actual parking use is well below the ordinance assumptions.
Saint Pierre asked the board to weigh real‑world demand and the project’s role in producing workforce housing and housing that accepts housing‑choice vouchers. A tenant advocate, Jane Hague, spoke in support and said that parking minimums are being rethought in many towns and that the city’s zoning rewrite will address that issue. She and another public commenter said Saint Pierre’s buildings accept voucher holders and serve high‑need residents.
Staff had no written public comments and the board closed public comment at Tuesday’s meeting. The board posed questions about on‑street parking availability and accessibility; Saint Pierre said the downtown block has on‑street parking with limited sweeping restrictions and that his wider portfolio has spare spaces. He also said the apartment mix would not add vehicle trips beyond what surrounding supply can absorb.
What happens next: The board closed the public hearing; it will decide the conditional‑use permit application at a future meeting after staff prepares findings and conditions.
Why it matters: The request touches on a broader debate about parking minimums and housing policy. Owner‑operators said parking demand assumptions are outdated for many households and that reducing required spaces can support smaller, lower‑cost apartments; opponents sometimes point to spillover parking and access.
