The Bedford Planning Board on July 14 rejected Draco Properties’ request to reduce the affordable‑housing requirement at the Riverside Landing redevelopment at 66 Hawthorne Drive from 25% to 10%, and separately denied the applicant’s request to waive or refund school and recreation impact fees as untimely.

Pat Panciaco, attorney for the applicant, told the board the project had been reconfigured from a former assisted‑living facility into an 85‑unit multifamily development and argued the town’s March zoning amendment reducing workforce requirements from 25% to 10% should apply. Panciaco presented a fiscal impact analysis prepared for the applicant that argued the converted property had historically produced significant tax revenue and that the anticipated student enrollment from the retrofit would be small. Panciaco also urged the board to reconsider previously withdrawn waiver requests and cited Chapter 275‑F (impact‑fee waiver process) and state law in support of reopening review.

Board members discussed two separate questions: (1) whether to approve an amendment to reduce the required number of workforce units to 10% to conform the project to the current zoning; and (2) whether the applicant could revisit and obtain refunds of impact fees the board had assessed in February 2024.

On the affordable‑units request, a motion by Matt Nichols to approve the amendment was seconded and debated. Some board members, including Logan Johnson and Chris Swinjarski, voiced concerns about reducing already‑approved workforce units, noting that existing workforce units are scarce in Bedford and that changing an already approved project could set an unfavorable precedent. The board considered a phased date of effectiveness to reduce displacement risk but ultimately did not adopt the amendment; the motion failed by roll call (vote recorded as 4 opposed, 3 in favor) and the original 25% requirement remained in the project approval.

On the impact‑fee recovery, planning staff and the town attorney noted RSA 677:15 requires appeals of an assessed impact fee to be filed within 30 days of the planning board’s decision assessing the fee. The applicant’s certificate of occupancy was issued in November 2024 and no appeal was filed within the statutory period, the board found. The planning board voted to deny the applicant’s 05/30/2025 request to challenge the impact fees as untimely; that motion was moved by Matt Nichols, seconded by Chris Swinjarski, and carried.

Pat Panciaco said the applicant could seek consultant review or additional time for the board to consider the submissions; the board noted it would not re‑open the statutory appeal window but could consider amendments through the standard site‑plan amendment process. The board’s decisions leave the prior site‑plan conditions, including the 25% workforce‑unit requirement and the assessed impact‑fee obligations, in place.