332-unit housing complex at Seabrook greyhound track rejected again: Here’s next move
SEABROOK — The town's Zoning Board of Adjustment reaffirmed its previous decision Wednesday to deny the variances needed for The Brook gambling establishment to construct 332 rental housing units on abutting land it owns off Route 107.
The meeting was a rehearing of the one in July when ZBA members denied the variances. The rehearing was requested by The Brook operator Eureka Casinos, which wants to build the complex on 75 acres of land it owns at 319 Route 107. The application proposed three, four-story buildings with 304 rental apartments — 144 one-bedroom units, 160 two-bedroom units — as well as 28 two-bedroom townhouses, along with amenities.
Three variances are needed for the project because town ordinances do not allow such a development in the zones where the land is located. It’s located in both the industrial and rural zones, neither of which allow multiple buildings on one lot or multi-family housing of this nature. The buildings proposed would also exceed Seabrook’s maximum height allowances, namely more than 30 feet in the rural zone and 50 feet in the industrial zone.
Firearms case:Man who shot and killed Seabrook man in dispute over car now faces federal charge
The Brook attorney, John Cronin of Manchester-based law firm Cronin Bisson and Zalinsky, applied for the rehearing based on his belief the unanimous decision of the ZBA members to deny the variances related to their bias against allowing multi-unit, workforce housing. Members denied the accusation.
Why the proposal was rejected again
ZBA Chairman Jeff Brown told Cronin and Eureka Casinos Chief Executive Officer Andre Carrier that his votes were based on the information presented in the project’s application and verbally discussed at the July hearing. In addition, he said, Seabrook already has a history of allowing workforce housing in town at half a dozen apartment complexes, a number of mobile home parks and zoning that allows small house lots that reduces the cost of home ownership.
Member David Davidson told the applicants his denial was because he wasn’t sure what kind of housing complex he was voting on, calling the application information and Cronin’s and Carrier’s verbal presentations in July contradictory.
Seabrook nuclear plant false alarm:Here's why it took nearly an hour to notify public
The application promoted the project stressing the need for workforce housing or affordable housing in the state to meet the needs of New Hampshire’s labor force. However, in July Cronin told ZBA members the complex would not be workforce or low-income housing. Carrier promoted it as a “luxury development, because that’s what the market wants,” adding the rents would range from $2,200 to $3,500 a month. The prime market would be empty nesters and those in the Greater Boston labor pool, they said.
In addition, ZBA member Theresa Rowe-Thurlow told Cronin she voted against the variances because Seabrook already has hundreds of workforce housing units within its borders and that more would add stress to the town’s services.
Although at first the meeting was tense due to Cronin accusing board members of bias, as it continued a frank exchange of information began. Carrier said he hadn’t realized “the friction” the project would create, and that he promoted it as luxury housing because often workforce housing gets the mistaken reputation as being low-income housing and problematic.
He also said after listening to the many abutters who testified against the project, he understood that they were property owners and had their rights. Yet, he added, his company is also a property owner and also has its rights to develop the property, which it fully intends to do.
However, Carrier also indicated his company may be willing to negotiate the size and scope of the development, in light of the comments made by the abutters. If the project is too large, he said, if the buildings are too high, perhaps there’s room for compromise.
Brown reminded the abutters present that negotiations of that nature concerning the size and scope of the project, its effect on traffic, drainage, etc., are not within the authority of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The ZBA’s role, he said, is to waive existing zoning ordinances to allow a project to be built, or a property to be altered.
140-mile ultramarathon in Kenya:How a Hampton Falls airman won 'emotional' race
For example, Brown said, if a property owner wants to build a shed on his or her property within the setback, the ZBA has the authority to waive the setback requirement, if the exemption meets specific criteria.
There are only five criteria the ZBA can weigh when deciding if variances should be approved that alter existing regulations, Brown said. The five criteria are: if the variance would be contrary to the public intent; if granting the variance is within the spirit of the ordinance; if by granting it a substantial justice would be done; if granting the variance would be detrimental to the surrounding property owners; and if by not granting the variance substantial hardship would be caused to the applicant.
After the ZBA members voted Wednesday night and again denied the needed variances, Brown explained his five votes against the variances. He ended by saying granting the variances to allow this 332-unit housing complex would be detrimental to the value of the abutting property owners, however it would not be a substantial hardship for The Brook. The company can still develop a number of other types of businesses on the 75 acres of land that are allowed without variances.
Brown also advised Cronin and Carrier they might consider requesting an informal session with the town’s Planning Board to discuss the size of the housing complex they’re proposing, or any other development being considered for the land.
Should Carrier still want to pursue this complex as is, it can appeal the ZBA’s decision to Superior Court.