Conceptual Design for Tannery - Apartments Only

So after 3 community meetings that used a grant to look at rezoning the Village core and Village neighborhoods here is what the Penacook Vision Plan states residents of Penacook thought should be the focus for the redevelopment of the Tannery site:

“…The Tannery site should be permitted the highest density use in the village. Buildings of four (4) to six (6) stories in height should be permitted by conditional use to incentivize the provision of open space amenities. The site could support a mix of residential, office retail, and other commercial uses.”

And in a report from our city manager on city council priorities for 2014-2015, for the city council at our November 9th meeting:

“…On March 25, 2015, the City engaged the Norwood Group, a commercial real estate brokerage firm based in Bedford, NH, to market the property. Over the summer, the City commissioned design concepts for redevelopment of the property. Concepts call for two buildings featuring a total of 59,000 square feet, 54 apartments, and 108 on-site parking spaces set on 2.8+/- acres. The property was formally listed on the market this past summer with an asking price of $540,000. The balance of the site (1.67+/-acres) is tentatively being reserved for a future riverfront park…”

The design concept for the tannery site came from CMA Engineers at a cost of $9,387.02. It should also be noted that the conceptual drawings from CMA Engineers that I saw, show 2 three story apartment buildings for the Tannery site.

Back to the Vision Plan and Recommendations. In the introduction on page 4 this is what the report has to say:

“…Recognizing the need for a coherent, community-driven vision to guide growth in downtown Penacook, the City of Concord applied for a Community Planning Grant from the New Hampshire Housing and Finance Authority. The grant was awarded to the city in November of 2013, with the goal of engaging the community to establish a mixed-use village district for downtown Penacook…” (Bold type added by me.)

One of the goals in engaging the community in the rezoning of the Village was to look at potential uses for the Tannery site and to understand the value and importance of the Tannery site as a revenue generator and economic engine for the the Village.

With that in mind there was much discussion at our third meeting with the consultants in the basement of the Concord Library. The consultants had suggested zoning changes that would limit the height of future development at the Tannery site to 3 stories. While this may be appropriate for the Village Core, the concern was that this would not maximize the economic potential of the site and limit the future uses of the site. Additionally because of the layout of the Tannery site almost 2 stories would be below road grade as you drive past the site on Canal Street. A 5 story building on the Tannery site would have a similar height line to a 3 story building elsewhere in the Village. This additional height would allow for greater square footage and a higher taxable assessed value.

Concern was voiced that there should not be a residential only project on the Tannery site. The reasoning for this was at least twofold. One, that it would not be the highest value for the use of this site and two, it would bring more children into the Merrimack Valley School District. Bringing more children into the Merrimack Valley School District - without commercial development - will only add to the disproportionate amount of school taxes that are paid by those living in the Merrimack Valley School District as compared to those in the Concord School District. This discrepancy is directly related to the lack of commercial property values in the Village.

The city council and the public are told that we are only accepting a report or a ‘concept’. That we are not voting on a project. Yet all too often we are told when we are voting on a project, that we had an opportunity to state our concerns when the report or concept was first presented. And we are told that no one had voiced their concerns at that time.

Well I am. I am voicing my concerns. I did so at our city council meeting and I am doing so now. A residential only project is not what the Penacook Village community said they wanted. Were the consultants who wrote the residential only concept for the Tannery site aware of the Penacook Vision Plan? And if not, why not.

This plan will add to the school portion of the property taxes for those who are in the Merrimack Valley School District. This project is not a job creator. This project is not what the community said they wanted for the redevelopment of the Tannery site.

So why does a consultant’s report ignore the opinions of those who live and pay taxes in our city?

* While I am the city councilor for Ward 2 and that doesn’t encompass Penacook Village, a significant portion of those I represent in Ward 2 (including my wife and I) pay taxes to the Merrimack Valley School District.