A developer's worst nightmare - Part II

     For a landowner wishing to demolish and then to develop and improve property within the Exeter Historic District, the required reviews before the Heritage Commission, Historic District Commission and Planning Board are like running the gauntlet.  It is a time consuming and costly process, albeit necessary given New Hampshire laws and local regulations adopted and created by the Town of Exeter.  Here we'll use owner Al Lampert's current quest to build apartments and a commercial space for a restaurant within the Historic District at 1 Franklin Street.
     First Al and his architects must meet in open session with the Heritage Commission where they have the authority to review his plan for demolition of the existing structure.  It is here that these Commission members use their subjective judgment to provide him with "suggestions" on what they wish saved, if anything.  The Heritage Commission then sends their "recommendations"to the Historic District Commission.
     From this point on Al must satisfy both the Historic Distict Commission (HDC) and the Planning Board which each have different responsibilities, at least on paper.
     The HDC will now expand the review from just the demolition issue, but also the architectural design of what will replace it, the new building.  Al and his architects must decide how to respond to these suggestions because they need the Commission to grant approval of the project or it is dead as a doornail.  In addition to what to save, now the HDC starts on review of what will be replaced or added to  improve the site.  Buildings, landscaping, signage, color, architectural style, etc. 
     The HDC in open session will review the demolition permit and will then either approve, disapprove, request mitigation or changes.  They will also then review the proposed new structure for architectural compliance with "Guidelines" that could be viewed as subjective in nature.  Again, approval by the HDC is required, thus Al and his architects must seriously consider their suggestions and requirements.  In this particular case the HDC want him to consider saving a portion of the building's facade, if commercially feasible, and an "L" shaped wall within the building allegedly constructed of the first Portland cement blocks used for such a purpose.  Al suggested a shadow box to display historic relics as a means of compromising with the Commission.
     Running simultaneously with this activity is site plan approval by the Planning Board who can also provide architectural input since the development will also include a business.  It is during this simultaneous process that Al can receive conflicting input.  This can be a costly step as Al moves back and forth between the Boards and as reiteration after reiteration is rendered by the architect to receive final approval.  While there is a 45 day limit on the Planning Board commencing with acceptance of Al's application with the Board, this is not usually the case for approvals in Exeter.  If Al were to demand a decision within the statutory time frame, the probable result would be a rejection.  Most developers, to keep the process going waive the time limit.  We'll see what happens here in Al's case. 
     This should give the reader a pretty good idea of the time and cost to a land owner/developer to obtain the necessary approvals to proceed with his/her plan. No one is saying that there is not a need for a process to guide in the development of the Historic District.  It is the subjective nature and the individual views that make it costly and frustrating.  It is near impossible for a prospective developer to anticipate the impact of this process given its large subjective component. 

TIF has nine lives

     Voters overwhelmingly rejected Article 19 to allow the Town to establish Tax Incentive Financing (TIF) districts.  Whether they did so for lack of knowledge or because they did not favor such a move is unclear.  However, before any more time is spent by the Economic Development Commission (EDC) this should be determined.  Selectman Chartrand in the latest Board of Selectmen meeting stated that the EDC would be regrouping on a TIF proposal.  (In fact it seems they are planning to hire a consultant to put together a TIF plan.)  To avoid this being another example of the Town ignoring the will of the people and spending more money, open hearings should be held.
     Contrary to Chartrand's comment before elections that there had been plenty of open meetings on the subject, all were at 8 a.m. (when most people work), except for immediately before the election.  The EDC should schedule and advertise a set of meetings, in the evening on two or three weekdays, to present their plan going forward.  This would provide the transparency that Chartrand so vehemently says exists in Town affairs.  It would provide the opportunity for feedback to the EDC to determine if what they propose to pursue would likely meet a favorable outcome.  Not following this process reeks of past practices of repackaging in the hopes of finally selling their product.
     How many times have we seen downtown beautification projects repackaged into warrant articles only to be voted down?  Is TIF just another attempt at this?  We saw the Reynes Roof replacement repackaged from a $30 thousand warrant article only to be rejected and then slipped into the Town budget at $22 thousand to make it more difficult for voters to reject if they still desired to do so.  (We learned the Conservation Commission had the necessary money for the repair, but apparently did not feel the priority was high enough to spend that money, hence sought more money.)  Let's stop playing games and deal openly with the voters.

Exeter Open for Business? - Part I

     For those who have been watching, one sees the time consuming path Al Lampert must take to develop his properties on Franklin Street.  Forget the eyesore his "historic" garage at 1 Franklin Street now presents, it would seem that members of the Historic District Commission (HDC) would rather it continue standing than to have it demolished and an attractive building constructed in its place.  Yes, the HDC has the authority to make him adhere to their self-generated guidelines before they pass along their approval to the Planning Board who will ultimately issue the permit to begin demolition.  However, one cannot help but ask the question, "Is this process the most efficient it can be?"  And more to the point, "Are the Boards and Commissions even following the legally established process?"
     In the next few postings we will examine these questions.  Keeping in mind that each time Al must come before the Heritage and Historic District Commissions and the Planning Board with his architect(s) it costs him money and delays his project and his ultimate goal to begin getting a return on his investment.  Al is a local business owner trying to develop his own property.  Is what he is experiencing in any way sending signals to outside developers that it is too costly to do business here?  This will be a good question for the upcoming All Boards meeting and for the new, yet to be identified and hired Economic Development Director.

Planning Board Overstepping Authority

     Al Lampert came before the Planning Board last week with his architects to review their proposed townhouse/cottage development on Franklin Street, an R-2 zoned district.  By all accounts his plan is thoughtful, attractive and will do wonders to give the area a facelift.  Under the units parking will take some of the load off on street parking.  Proposed landscaping will provide an attractive touch.  Lighting will provide security without intruding on adjacent homeowners.  So, one would come to the conclusion that all systems are go for him to proceed.  But, wait.  Board members have some architectural "suggestions" or "just saying" comments.  Notwithstanding that those commenting are not architects, yet comment on roof lines and number of steps and "know what those seeking downtown homes want," Selectman Clement had to ask whether they should even be commenting on design features.
     Selectman Clement is correct.  The Planning Board has no authority over architectural design on residential buildings which these are.  Someone asked if the town has a design review board and the answer was given as a conditional "no."  Conditional because the Planning Board explained that since there is no design review board the task falls to them.  It does not as, again, they have no authority in this residential design matter.
     In the meantime, Mr. Lampert patiently works his way through the review process trying to address subjective opinions of Planning Board, Historic District Commission and Heritage Commission members.  Should he have to react to every suggestion, likely at additional costs to him, to show due diligence and satisfy the whims of board members?  Exeter may be open for business, but are they friendly to developers?

Stay tuned as we continue to report.

     The activity in the Town is now back to near normal as we settle in after elections.  In spite of what a recent anonymous (and there is more than one person using that tag) commenter said, this blog does not whine, nor is it a whoa [sic] is me site.  It is a site where Exeter residents can go to learn what is going on behind the scenes that may or may not hit the newspapers.  It is doubtful, as this anonymous commenter poses, that the low voter turnout was because upwards of 79% of voters are happy with the manner in which the town is being run and their tax dollars are being spent and their property tax continues to be the highest in the Seacoast area.  And, again contrary to this commenter,  there are folks leaving town because of the high property tax, including those who have had their property taken for being in arrears in their property tax payments.  All this without even mentioning the increases we will see in our water and sewer bills as millions of dollars are spent to gain compliance with the EPA.
     Future postings are going to be less frequent than in the past few weeks, but consistent with what is taking place in Town government.  Every effort will be made to keep readers up to date.  Again, if you find this blog interesting and useful, pass the word.  Comments are welcome, well thought out, factual opinions are more valued.  Rants are a waste of readers' time.
     Initially we will be focusing on the Planning Board and Historic District Commission activities as it is widely believed that these two bodies have taken positions and actions that are not in keeping with the "Exeter is open for business" mantra Town officials seem to think is true.  It is suspected you will come to the conclusion that this is a bit off the mark to say the least.

Tax Incentive Financing (TIF) Plan rejected

     TIF was rejected by voters by a large margin.  This should send a signal to the Economic Development Commission and, in particular Dan Chartrand, that either voters are not interested in pursuing a TIF, or not enough information was available to favor such a move.  It is imperative that the EDC do some thorough research into voter sentiments before pursuing the matter further.  In the past Chartrand, on more than one occasion, has pronounced that he "knows the intent of the voter."  Unless one talks with a large cross section of voters, one can never be certain one understands their intent.
     It is clear that the long term goal of the TIF subcommittee is to define a downtown district and plow development money into selected beautification projects within the downtown.  While they proclaim TIF as just one tool in their tool box to encourage development, there is scant little land available downtown to ultimately increase the tax base in any significant way.  However, there is plenty of undeveloped land along the Epping Road corridor where a TIF might make sense.
     It is utter nonsense to think that creating a downtown TIF will result in more visitors to Exeter to spend money in downtown shops.  Where is the data to support such a notion.  However, the development of property along Epping Road has been slow, particularly in the outlying region.  Perhaps focusing some attention there would bear fruit.  Encouraging light industry,  high value businesses like Cobham would make a significant, positive impact on our tax base.

Town-wide Facilities Plan

     If voters read this article, (which did pass), they would have noted it deals with facilities "...to include buildings use recommendations..."  This is clearly a worthwhile study that may well pay for itself if it is found that consolidation could take place rendering some buildings unnecessary.  The recreation center building certainly comes to mind.  This would save taxpayers the cost of annual maintenance and operating costs (heating and cooling), not to mention the potential for sale of such property thus placing it on the tax rolls.  However, there is a piece missing in this plan and that is land.
     It would seem the scope of this plan could be increased to inventory all town (make that taxpayer) owned land and its short and long term intended use.  This would provide additional transparency into the subject of all the land the Town has amassed over the years.  Had this been done prior to this year's elections, it would have disclosed the long term intended use of the land in question for the child daycare center at the pool, tennis courts and playing fields rec center property.
     There are those who feel the Town should not own any land save that needed for town administration, DPW, police and fire.  That may be an extreme view, but when property is purchased by the Town it is removed from the property tax rolls.  While those taxes may not be significant in and of themselves, they must be made up by the rest of us picking up a piece.  Therefore, it is incumbent on the Town to only hold what is absolutely needed and in the best interest of town residents.  Let's hope the Plan authorized by this article will look at all town owned land and facilities and their intended use.  We just might see a citizen's petition to release some for public sale.

Integrity should count for something.

     It is time for the father and son tag team of Lee and Matt Quandt to give it a rest.  Their continued distortion of the facts surrounding dam removal and the Water & Sewer Committee bring into question the ability of Matt to continue to serve the residents of Exeter in an honest and transparent manner.
    What could be the possible motivation of these two as Lee so ardently seeks another term as Selectman for his son?  Is it possible he has his own hidden agenda, or does he merely seek the center of attention in the same self serving way he did when causing chaos in the NH House as our representative?
    Whatever Lee's motivation, it is not in the best interest of Exeter during a time when serious spending decisions face taxpayers and when it will require doing one's homework prior to meetings to come prepared to discuss and vote on such matters.  It has been painfully apparent this past year how ill prepared Matt was at Board meetings.  Exeter taxpayers deserve better and they should not waste their vote on someone who does not have their best interests at heart.