The Planning Board votes to move forward Councilor Moreau’s proposed rezoning to the City Council.
By Petra Huda, Guest Columnist
Must-see TV! After attending the February 29, 2024, Planning Board meeting on the rezoning request for 39 properties to (G1) Gateway Neighborhood Business aimed at fostering housing opportunities, several resident observations emerged.
First, there’s a sense of frustration regarding the lack of data provided by the City Administration to both the Planning Board members and the public.
Despite repeated requests for comprehensive information, including at this meeting, there’s a perceived reluctance or suggested inconvenience from City staff in fulfilling these requests.
Furthermore, there were practical issues observed during the meeting itself. Attendees were provided with only a single agenda sheet and lacked essential documents and maps for reference.
Additionally, critical visual aids, such as slides displaying the properties under discussion, were absent at the start of the meeting, hindering public participation and understanding.
During the meeting, one Board member went as far as asking, “Am I a bad planning board member because I am not provided the information I need to do my job and request more data?” This indicates a genuine desire for thorough understanding and informed decision-making.
Nevertheless, after a protracted discussion, the Chair asked for a vote, which prompted one member to hurriedly state “I hope we will get the opportunity to refine and amend this list”, referring to the request by a public speaker to add another property to the list.
A motion was eventually made, but it was couched in such cryptic terms (concealed in a #1,2,3 format) that even the rest of the Board struggled to comprehend exactly what they were voting on. Several Board members sought clarification regarding the specifics of the motion before casting their votes.
Second, there’s notable concern regarding the effect of the Planning Board’s actions.
It appears that the process may be perceived as merely going through the motions, reminiscent of previous efforts such as the selection of the Sherburne School site for affordable housing.
You know, narrowing the available 195 municipal properties down from cemeteries, wetlands, parks, schools, and a median space or two, and anyone can see Sherburne is the best site!
This prompts the question: “What tangible outcomes are being achieved?”
Or is this the mysterious exercise the City does every time the Master Plan is getting close?
As stated by a Board member, these parcels were just changed after the 2017 master plan to G1, which did nothing but help developers put in more market rate housing. “Will history repeat itself?” one board member asked. In 7-8 years, we have only gotten more market rate housing from that rezoning!
Furthermore, as stated by one Board member: “Tonight’s motion encompassed a diverse array of properties, each with its own implications.” As exemplified by the statement from the PHA Director emphasizing the significance of size of the parcel noted, “we need at least 4-5 acres to make any venture financially feasible.”
Is the City Planning Board just going through the motions with a whole lot of useless rezoning?
The properties included in this motion vary widely in current use. You be the judge. How are 10 parcels under 1 acre and 16 parcels under 2 acres going to satisfy the need for additional housing? What about highway noise or neighborhood access only along Route 1 and the Spaulding Turnpike?
The 39 properties under consideration include:
- A billboard parcel off the traffic circle (.07 acres)
- Four car dealerships along the traffic circle and Spaulding Turnpike (ranging from 1.25 to 18.07 acres)
- Two church properties on Lafayette Rd. (ranging from 1 acre to 4.15 acres)
And…
- Nine current commercial properties, such as the Rite Aid Pharmacy (1.65 acres), Service Credit Union (33.43 acres), and Water Country (74.27 acres, a significant portion of which is wetlands, although specific wetland percentages were not disclosed)
- One existing condo complex – The Westerly, occupying 4.15 acres – Why?
And…
- Two current government offices: the US Army Reserve Center (6.32 acres) and NH Employment Security (2.27 acres)
- Five hotels, four located in and around the Rt1 Bypass (all under 4 acres) and one on Borthwick Ave (under 3 acres)
- Three utility properties, including both Eversource and Public Service, with a significant portion classified as wetlands.
Plus…
- Three medical and dental buildings, (ranging from .91 to 3.98 acres)
- One marine property on Spaulding Turnpike (5.9 acres, with no turnpike accessibility feasible)
Another takeaway from the public comment that tugs at your heart strings: Giving a false hope?
From my perspective, this process is giving a sense of false hope to the requests of various community members helping others find affordable housing, by reinforcing the hope that more developer incentives will make the difference.
Community members are apparently not aware that the City has had “workforce housing incentives” in place for around 7 to 8 years but does not ENFORCE the 20% and AMI (Area Median Income) income levels as defined by the NH RSA 674:58!
What does the history of these incentives show?
Since the time since these “incentives” have been available, only two developments agreed to fulfill the 20% workforce housing requirement… until they got all the Land Use Board approvals they needed… then came back a year or two later to the City manager and said now the 20% workforce housing levels are not financially feasible for them on these projects… but the project incentives were still utilized.
So, the developer got all of the benefits and the City got nothing.
Portsmouth is NOT enforcing the zoning ordinances including workforce housing under NH RSA 674:58 that are already on the books.
As the history of these incentives has shown, in the last 7 to8 years, creating more workforce housing incentives or just giving incentives to developers who build workforce housing and not enforcing the requirements, only benefits the developers financially.
It seems simple enough to correct this outcome. If a project receives approval based on providing a given workforce housing percentage in exchange for certain incentives, and you do not build what you agreed to during the Land Use Board review process, then you do not get the beneficial incentives. The incentives should be pulled back or negated!
So, it is correct as some Councilor’s have stated, “We cannot force the developers to build workforce housing”? BUT the City can pull back the “Incentives” (such as an additional floor or larger footprint) that were originally agreed upon to encourage developers to build the 20% workforce housing. That consequence is not happening! (i.e. West End Yards and Cinemagic)
Looks to this resident like this City Council is going through the motions, as the end goal is already defined!
