On
August 6, 2001, a special public meeting of the Board of Mayor and
Aldermen was held to consider zoning ordinance changes in certain of
the lots owned by Hackett Hill Real Estate Development Co. LLC. The
zoning changes were related to a planned residential development of
these lots by The Waterford Group. (At an earlier presentation of the
development project to the Planning Board, board members had
criticized the size of the project and its effects on traffic,
schools and wetlands.)
Bob MacKenzie, City Planning Director, explained the proposed changes. The two lots involved were Lot 8 and Lot 17. On the finalized version of the division of the "Optima Health" land, Lot 8 is shown to be approximately 110 acres in size. It is one of the lots which had previously appeared likely to be sold for development. As seen on the map, Lot 8 has frontage on Hackett Hill Road, Countryside Boulevard and Millstone Avenue (a paper road which was never finished and will be discontinued.) As previously noted, Lot 17 (approximately 19 acres in size and colored yellow on the map) was one of the lots which the City had hoped to acquire to add to The Nature Conservancy's Preserve.
When recent zoning ordinance changes were made in Manchester, in the late fall of 2000, most of Lot 8 had been zoned as R-SM (residential/ suburban/multifamily) - a designation which allows multifamily townhouses and single family homes.) A small portion of Lot 8 and Lot 17 had been zoned as R-S (residential suburban.) This designation allows single family homes - approximately one house per acre. The August 6 proposal was to change the R-S zoning to R-SM.
Mr. MacKenzie
explained that the hospitals planned to sell both Lot 8 and Lot 17 to
the Waterford Group. Plans of the City to purchase Lot 17 for
conservation land seemed to have disappeared!
It was explained further that The Waterford Group considered the development of Lot 17 to be "an integral part of a larger project." The major part of their project would involve the development of apartment buildings (about 380 units) and single family homes (80) on Lot 8. If R-S zoning (1 acre per house) were retained for Lot 17, the developer would only be able to construct 16 houses on it. If the zoning were changed to R-SM (where single family houses can be built up to 5 units per acre) more houses could be built - the development plans called for about 40 homes on this lot.
As part of the hospital-developer arrangements, the hospitals would sell Lot 15 (about 142 acres) to the City to add to the Preserve, as previously planned. Also, the developer agreed to pay substantial impact fees for various city services.
An increase in the allowed height of apartment buildings located in R-SM zones was part of the proposal. The change involved raising the limit from two to three stories.
Following the presentation there were questions and
comments from others. Attorney Callahan, representing the hospitals,
explained the disaffiliation of "Optima Health", the resulting
subdivision of the property north of the Hackett Hill property, and
the reconfiguration of Lot 17. Attorney Lazos, representing the
developer, Peter D'Amato, noted that the aesthetic quality of the
development would be improved by three story, rather than two story
buildings. Alderman Hirschman expressed concerns about the impact of
the development on Northwest Elementary School, since over 500
families would be coming to the area and the school is already
overcrowded. Members of the public also testified. It was noted that
the public had been given no handouts of the layout of the plan, and
could not effectively address the issues that had been presented. It
was also brought out that the development would occur in a fragile
environment and would comprise a high impact area as far as fire,
police and traffic are concerned.
The August 6, 2001 public meeting of the BMA which concerned the Countryside Boulevard development was repeated on August 27, 2001. This meeting was held because an inaccurate notice had been published concerning the time of the August 6 meeting. It was fortunate that a second meeting occurred, because considerably more information was divulged and more opposition to the development plans was voiced.
Basically the same
information on the development was presented by Mr. MacKenzie, and
Attorney Callaghan re-explained the history of the project. He noted
that in June, there had been a meeting of representatives of the
City's planning staff and Economic Development Department, the EPA,
the DES, and The Nature Conservancy, as well as the owners of the
lots in question and the developer. At the June meeting, it had been
explained that the hospitals and developer felt that Lot 17 was
important to the development project, and that this lot was therefore
not available for purchase by the City.
It had also been explained at the June meeting that Lot 15 would be transferred (sold) to the City at the same time arrangements were completed for the Waterford Group's project, but "if lot 17 was not acquired and the development did not go forward, there would be concerns about the continued dealing with Lot 15" - the other lot the City wished to purchase for conservation purposes.
Herbert Stebbins, an attorney for the developer, spoke next and noted that the apartment units planned were low density (covering 18% of Lot 8 and approximately 40 houses on Lot 17) and that the apartments would be "upper end" and would involve few children, unlike apartments intended for lower-income and middle-income families. He also mentioned that following discussions with the Highway Department, Water Works and Fire Department, the developer had agreed to contribute $2 million to the City if the project materialized.
Stebbins also mentioned that if the rezoning-Waterford development plan was not approved and Lot 15 was not sold to the City for conservation purposes, that up to 90 homes could be built on Lot 17 and 15, whereas if the proposed development plans proceeded, the City would be able to purchase Lot 15 at a "very good value" for conservation.
There
were then comments from several aldermen. The overcrowding of
Northwest Elementary School was again brought up, and Attorney
Stebbins noted that a school impact study would be done, as well as a
traffic study, and both would be delivered to Mr. MacKenzie. Alderman
Hirschmann noted that he felt tying the City's interest in buying
conservation land to the rezoning was not right, with Attorney
Stebbins responding, "life is a series of negotiations" and "the
hospital needs a certain return on an investment it has made". He
mentioned the arrangements had been discussed with Bob MacKenzie and
Jay Taylor (Manchester's Economic Development Director.) He also
noted that another developer might build considerably more apartment
units than were presently planned for Lot 8.
Members of the public who testified were opposed to the rezoning and felt that preservation of the Atlantic white cedar swamps was of prime concern. They echoed the thought that the acquisition of Lot 15 in exchange for the rezoning and development of Lot 17 was "somewhat of a threat." and "dirty pool" and that the negotiations were not being carried out in good faith. Residents of a condominium complex near the planned development voiced major concerns about traffic increases. It was also noted that the developer was planning on using ponds and wetlands for runoff from the apartment building roofs, pavement and lawns and that road salt, oil and fertilizer would contaminate the wetlands.
At the end of the meeting, the issue was referred to the Bills on Second Readings Committee of the BMA.
The Waterford
Development plan was discussed at the Bills on Second Readings
Committee - comprised of Aldermen Wihby, Sysyn, Pinard, Cashin and
Thibault. Also present were Attorneys Stebbins and Callaghan; Steve
Cayman, Vice-Chairman of the company which owns the property in
question, and Peter D'Amato. The official petition, which had been
submitted by Attorney Lazos was as follows:
Ordinance:
"Amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Manchester by extending the R-SM (Residential Multi-family) zoning district to include Lot 17 and the remaining portion of Lot 8 on either side of Countryside Boulevard west of Hackett Hill Road, in an area currently zoned R-S (Single-family)."
Bob MacKenzie explained that planning staff supported the rezoning of Lot 17 from R-S to R-SM. He noted that "several of the environmental groups, including the DES and EPA had hoped to purchase Lot 17", but that this "probably was not going to happen."
Mr. MacKenzie felt that the owners and developer would be able to "mitigate the impacts on the wetlands." An exchange of comments between him and Attorney Stebbins and Mr. D'Amato indicated that this would be done by "using best management practices" and increasing the size of the buffer zone between buildings and wetlands. MacKenzie also stated that about 6 acres of the lot - located in a very environmentally-sensitive area - would remain in the R-S (lower density) category. Mr. Callaghan commented on the sensitive area, saying "We don't want to build a parking lot where everything just flows right into the wetlands."
Curiously, the Manchester Conservation Commission was never consulted about any of the possible wetlands impacts.
It was also noted
by Mr. MacKenzie that the developer had worked out a phasing plan so
that the School Department could match increases in students to
school capacity, and that an economic analysis indicated that there
would be more tax dollars generated from the development than
consumed by municipal expenses. He also reported that the developer's
traffic study indicated that traffic increases would not be an
immediate problem. Finally, he stated that the developer would pay
$2.3 million in impact fees for public facililties.
There was a vote on the proposal and the motion carried. The total time that the issue was under consideration was approximately twenty minutes. As the developer and his entourage left the room, the committee members called out "Good luck!" and "Make us proud of you!"
* The information presented here has been taken from official transcripts of these meetings and from personal notations.
PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT NORTH OF THE HACKETT HILL PROPERTY