Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hunter presents boundary line adjustment in Manchester Center; two waivers requested
Summary
An applicant presented BLA-2026-01 to the Manchester Development Review Board seeking a boundary line adjustment involving 4764 and 4746 Main Street that would require waivers for minimum lot frontage and maximum lot coverage; Act 250 letters say no permit is required and the applicant said parking easements will run with the land.
Craig Hunter, representing Mancom, Inc. and HB Realty Partners LP, presented an application filed as BLA-2026-01 to the Town of Manchester Development Review Board on Feb. 4, 2026. The proposal covers parcels identified by Tax Map: 32-52-58, 32-52-59 and 31-50-19.00 and would reconfigure boundaries between properties at 4764 and 4746 Main Street (Little Rooster). The application package requests two waivers: one for minimum lot frontage and one for maximum lot coverage.
Hunter told the board the properties have received letters from Act 250 indicating that no Act 250 permit is required for the proposed boundary adjustment. Chair Tim Waker asked whether the same party owns the three parcels; Hunter responded that the parcels are recorded to different LLCs but are owned by the same party. Waker also asked whether parking spaces currently allocated to 32 and 58 Depot Street would remain accessible if 4746 Main Street were sold. The applicant said existing permitting makes that access a condition that runs with the land. Public attendee Ryan Downey suggested the board include that requirement explicitly in any Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
The application was presented for board consideration but no waivers or final action were taken at the Feb. 4 meeting. The record shows the applicant explained that both parcels are pre-existing nonconforming and that the proposed adjustment will make one parcel slightly more conforming and the other slightly less, which is the rationale for seeking waivers. Downey added that, without the boundary line adjustment, three separate easements across three properties would be necessary to secure the same parking access.
Next steps were not decided during the meeting; the board did not vote on the waivers or on BLA-2026-01 at this session. The application remains before the Development Review Board for future consideration and any formal conditions (for example, a requirement that parking access run with the land) could be added to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law if the board approves the adjustment.
