Developers seeking to reduce Concord’s residential impact fees to zero for two proposed duplexes on Sewell's Falls Road and Palm Street were denied by the Planning Board on Aug. 20.

Ryan Taber of Eastern Development asked the board to reduce transportation and recreation impact fees to zero, saying fees make modest residential projects less feasible and arguing that commercial projects — such as new restaurants — impose far greater incremental loads on water, sewer and transportation but frequently are not assessed comparable fees.

“The house prices in Concord have surged,” Taber told the board, adding that the fees make it harder for smaller, affordably priced units to be built. He said his independent fee‑calculation report showed the taxes and fees burdened the project’s feasibility.

City planning staff explained the legal framework for impact fees: New Hampshire law authorizes municipalities to collect impact fees and Concord adopted its fee ordinance in 2001. Staff noted the city’s current ordinance assesses fees for transportation and recreation for new residential development and that commercial development currently is not assessed in the same way. The staff memo also summarized the administrative process available to applicants: an independent fee calculation can be submitted, and applicants may request a board hearing if the clerk and applicant cannot agree on a fee adjustment.

Members of the board and staff said the broader policy questions Taber raised — whether commercial development should bear a share of impact costs and whether the fee schedule needs updating — are appropriate for City Council review but cannot be resolved in an ad hoc waiver for an individual applicant. Councilor Brent Todd said the City Council had just formed an ad hoc committee to review impact fees and invited developer participation.

After public comment and discussion the board voted to deny the applicants’ request to set impact fees to zero. Board members noted the decision does not preclude the developer from using the existing administrative reduction procedures or presenting a revised independent fee calculation; it also preserves the council’s ability to consider broader changes to the fee ordinance.

The motion to deny the fee reduction passed with a majority. Planning staff recommended the council‑level ad hoc review as the appropriate forum to consider changes to how the city bills residential and commercial development for public infrastructure.