Housing board overturns Epping decision on workforce housing
Dec. 6—Epping's zoning board was wrong to deny a variance to the developer of a proposed 315-unit apartment project that included 64 workforce units, the state's Housing Appeals Board has ruled.
The decision means developer Tom Prieto can seek approval from the planning board for his estimated $50 million to $75 million project. He expects to go before that board Jan. 12.
"If all goes to plan with the approvals process, Tom is hopeful that the project will be move-in ready in 2024," Prieto's attorney, Amy Manzelli, said in an email Tuesday.
The Housing Appeals Board streamlines the resolution of disputes between developers and municipal boards about housing projects at a time when New Hampshire isn't building enough housing to keep up with demand.
Last April, the Zoning Board of Adjustment denied the variance. It came to the same conclusion during a rehearing in June.
The zoning board approved Prieto's 53-foot-tall buildings but limited them to two stories. The plans called for three and four stories.
"It's not economically viable at two stories," Prieto told the New Hampshire Sunday News last summer. "Certainly, I would never build it with 27-foot ceilings."
In its seven-page ruling Monday, the Housing Appeals Board said the zoning board's proceedings demonstrated "that granting the three-story variance is in the public interest." Town ordinance permits a maximum of two stories.
The public interest "is reinforced by the fact that the project contains sixty-four workforce housing units," said the three-member panel.
In its ruling, the appeals board said the record of proceedings "does not reasonably support the ZBA's finding that the three-story variance would be contrary to the public interest due to public health and safety concerns."
Both sides earlier agreed that if the appeals board reversed the ZBA's decision, then "the appropriate outcome" would be to grant the three-story variance, the decision said.
"Ultimately, the board's decision should encourage communities to recognize mixed-income WFH (workforce housing) projects as bona fide resources that fortify, not threaten, communities," Manzelli said.
Attorney John Ratigan, representing the town, didn't immediately respond to an email requesting comment.
In written responses to the Housing Appeals Board, Ratigan denied allegations that town officials were discriminating against workforce housing or being obstructive.
The town has the option to appeal the case to the state Supreme Court.
