Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board reviews draft housing chapter, delays adoption pending further edits and ULI input
Summary
Lebanon planning staff and consultants presented a revised housing chapter and outreach results to the Planning Board; members praised the work but said they needed more time and asked staff to return with edits after the July Urban Land Institute visit. The board closed public comment and agreed to revisit the chapter on July 28.
Lebanon Planning Director Nate Reichert presented the draft housing chapter of the city master plan on June 22, outlining outreach that produced roughly 1,000 survey responses and describing an upcoming Urban Land Institute (ULI) Technical Assistance Panel visit in July intended to help translate the chapter’s recommendations into implementable actions.
The chapter, staff said, updates a document that was 12 years out of date and adds material on homelessness, market conditions and specific action items. “We were able to do a lot of public outreach… I think we got over 1,000 survey responses,” said Catherine Embry, the housing task force lead staff, who urged board members and stakeholders to read the draft ahead of the ULI visit.
Consultant Steve Wittman of Resilience Planning described the ULI engagement as a capstone that will bring regional expertise to implementation questions. “We are the experts from around the region; here’s what you’ve been working on, here’s what our recommendation’s going to be for you to implement the housing master plan,” he said.
Board members’ questions focused on what the city can do versus what market forces determine. One member asked whether repeatedly using the verbs “promote” and “encourage” in the chapter was sufficient to change outcomes; Wittman and Reichert answered that the city’s regulatory role is small relative to market dynamics but noted opportunities to create regulatory certainty, use incentives and pursue partnerships to lower costs and spur infill. “The government’s role … is to try to create a regulatory certainty that allows for developers to be able to know that if they invest … they’re going to get to yes,” Reichert said.
Members discussed concrete strategies included in the chapter: encouraging conversion of underused commercial properties to housing, pairing tax abatements with affordability, stacking federal and local funding, and experimenting with modular construction to reduce cost and increase throughput. A number of participants urged that municipal property—cited examples included foreclosed parcels and sites such as Barrow Street and Spencer Street—be explored as potential locations for workforce housing.
Several members proposed keeping momentum after the task force sunsets by creating a housing advisory board or extending the task force, so that champions can shepherd zoning amendments, outreach and implementation. Reichert said ULI’s July visit should help prioritize near-term action items the board could pass to the council and staff for the strategic plan.
While members praised the document’s clarity and community engagement, a number said they were not ready to adopt the chapter at the June meeting. The board closed the public hearing and asked staff to accept written feedback; members agreed to resume consideration at the Planning Board’s July 28 working session so the ULI work can inform next steps.
What happens next: staff asked board members to submit edits to the planning office for assembly and suggested potential amendments will be circulated in advance of the July discussion. The board did not take a final vote to adopt the chapter on June 22.
