THE 2003 VERSION OF THE MASTER PLAN SHOWS FEW CHANGES, DOES NOT MEET ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS EXPRESSED IN 2000, AND CAVEATS PROVIDED BY THE MASTER PLANNERS REMAIN.

CHANGES IN THE 2003 MASTER PLAN

At the December 16 BMA meeting, in response to a question from Alderman Lopez, Gordon Leedy indicated that after the development of the first three sites in the French Hall area, the city will not construct "development pads" and sell them in a stage wise fashion as noted in the original plan. Instead, if a developer appears at any time and wants to locate at a particular site, it will be arranged.

As shown in the map that appeared on the City's web site in 2003, the size and boundaries of TNC's Preserve have changed slightly from what appeared in the original plan. A single large development area, area B1, on the original "stage" map, has been incorporated into the Preserve. This area represented an incredible situation anyway, since it involved the construction of a road leading to a development "island" within the Preserve's boundaries.

During both of his 2003 presentations, Leedy commented several times that once areas at the "top of the hill" had been developed (presumably Areas D2 and E on the original map), severe traffic constraints would appear. Further development would not be possible without: (1) the current access road to the top of the hill being extended by the construction of a road leading through the property to Dunbarton Road; and (2) the DOT agreeing to the construction of a new interchange at Exit 7 from the I-93 highway.

He noted that the DOT''s present 10 year plan calls for the engineering consideration of this construction to occur in 2008. However the actual construction is not planned until 2012, and only a considerable contribution of funds by Manchester to the DOT would cause the construction to occur earlier.

The 2003 general development map also shows that a newly-considered location might be possible for a fire station. This would be on Hackett Hill Road, near French Hall, presumably at a site now occupied by a private residence. It is slated to be purchased for $300,000 according to the new master plan. The cost of the fire station itself would be well over 1 milllion dollars and this money would not be generated by the development project.

At the December 16, 2003 meeting of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, Jane Hills, Assistant Economic Development Director, was in error when she stated that "the concerns expressed by the public at the 2000 public meeting have been incorporated into the updated master plan presentation." Many of the concerns expresssed by the public at the 2000 public meeting related to development changes in the Hackett Hill non-Preserve property.The public understood that a Preserve would be created and that the Atlantic white cedar-giant rhododendron-black gum swamps on the property would be protected. They nevertheless favored "zero development" of the property.

The statements made by the public in 2000 indicate that they were fully aware of the immense deforestation that the development project would involve. One speaker noted that "natural beauty is going to be destroyed for what seems to me to be greedy purposes" and that "it is very selfish for the City to build there." another speaker noted that long ago, it was fortunate that land was set aside in New York City for Central Park, although short-term profit and a loss of tax revenue was incurred. Several people commented on the importance of keeping the property undeveloped so that it would be appropriate for educational purposes.

It was also noted by a speaker that the City's Master Plan (that amazingly has not been changed since 1993) noted that efforts should be made to acquire and preserve any remaining woodland in the City since woodlands contribute to the ecological well-being of the City. (This seems in direct conflict with the widespread deforestation of the Hackett Hill that development could cause.)

Concerns were also expressed by those living near the area that light manufacturing would constitute a part of the industrial park and that there would even be a commercial core as part of certain phases of the development - plans that seemed completely out of place with the unusual beauty of the natural setting.

Updates in the 2003 master plan indicate that the stage-wise development appearing in the previous master plan has been scrapped. This approach had involved the City's construction of "development pads" at the various locations where buildings were to appear. Instead, the City will sell "raw land" to any companies that plan to build, and the sales/construction could involve any of the locations proposed in the master plan. It is true that this approach prevents the construction of "development pads" that could remain unoccupied indefinitely. However, it could also result in a situation that was strongly criticized at the 2000 public meeting. At that time, Tom Irwin, an attorney with The Conservation Law Foundation said, "If the City decides to proceed with its development, and we hope that it won't....we urge that the development take place in a geographically phased approach...that starts at the north and prevents development from being fragmented and scattered throughout the property."

Comments made by Bob MacKenzie and Gordon Leedy at the presentations of the updated master plan, that "generally speaking the development would lie outside of the watersheds of the swamp basin" is definitely stretching the truth. Information is provided in the archives of this Web site about the location of a "sensitive development area" (D-3), that is part of Area E in the map located on the home page of this Web site. This area lies within the watershed of a swamp named the "porcupine swamp" by UNH interns who studied the property in 1998. The description of this area includes the worthiness of this particular swamp and the harm to it that the development would cause.

 

The creators of the updated Hackett Hill Master Plan (2003) appear to have considerable doubts as to the success of their project. It is sprinkled with caveats - instances where the planned development might run into difficulties that would severely hamper its success or even prevent it from getting off the ground. Although many of these warnings appeared in the earlier version of the master plan, it is appropriate to list them in this space, since apparently they are considered to be still valid.

Manchester is faced with competitive disadvantages:

a. It is 20-25 miles north of the MA-NH border. The "border communities" typically command the highest rental rates and enjoy the lowest vacancy rates. Any MA company wishing to relocate wishes to diminish, not add to the time spent commuting.

b. There are several sites with significantly better locations in both Nashua and Merrimack that will most likely get these companies'attention first based on employee retention concerns.

c. New England's high cost of living puts us at a distinct disadvantage when compared to states in the South.

d. Although NH ranks as the lowest tax burden state on a per capita basis in New England, its real estate transfer tax is now being challenged in court and there is continued talk of an income tax.

e. Speculative office development has yet to occur on a widespread basis in NH, with a few exceptions in the seacoast area.

f. With respect to companies relocating from other parts of the country, only a handful of tenants have settled in NH. Also, these companies are usually small to medium in size and therefore lack the critical mass to act as the catalyst for large building development.

The planned project has other weaknesses:

a. Very few corporations want to be the first in a new development. They are especially fearful of adversial protests from conservation groups (something that certainly will happen in the case of Hackett Hill) and the possibillity of proposed items such as highway access and retail amenities being delayed or not occurring at all could be devastating to early anchor tenants.

b. There are fears regarding development approval and construction delays based on the proximity to the nature preserve and abundant wetlands at the site.

c. The planned highway exit off I-293 is "several years away" (actually 2014 in the latest DOT plans.) The existing access is viewed as unattractive by most corporate real estate decision makers based on the circuitous approach, traffic capacity and aesthetics.

d. The changes in the site's topography and the amount and distribution of wetlands will have a significant negative impact on the project's pro forma, based on the costs to mitigate these items. These matters will be unavoidable and ongoing throughout the development cycle of the project.

e. The amount of buffer area that will be attributable to each developable lot is unusually high. In many instances, less than half of the lot will be developable, leaving significant excess buffer land. Yet the cost of ownership, through annual real estate taxes as well as the cost of maintainance of this buffer land, will be viewed negatively by most corporations.

f. The elevation and wetlands issues have forced the site design of the proposed building footprints to be on the small to medium site of what most large users consider to be efficient.

g. The existing structure completed by UNH will not fit well with the first class office park environment. It has an institutional look, which will need to be changed.

h. The Board of Mayor and Aldermen would like to see manufacturing uses as a part of the development of the park. Most corporate office users view co-tentanting with industrial or manufacturing uses as a negative.

 

 

RETURN TO CURRENT PLANS ETC.

 

HOME