I read the following statement at today’s Planning Board’s Public Hearing on the Senior Housing amendment.

I thank the Board for their two years of work on the article to permit increased density for Senior Housing. My biggest concern about the current proposal, as written, is that no Senior Housing will actually get built as a result of passing this article.

First: Senior Housing would only be allowed in the most expensive land in town. The increased density is not sufficient to encourage a developer to make the necessary investment in purchasing the land, getting approvals, and building the units. This area is also heavily built-up: new housing would likely come at the expense of existing homes. Solution: Permit Senior Housing in other parts of town.

Second: Limiting all residents to be 62 years or older unduly precludes many common living arrangements for seniors (for example, one spouse older than 62, the other younger, or an adult child moving in to help a parent). Solution: Adopt the federal HOPA (Housing for Older Persons Act) standard that requires at least one household member to be 55 years or older.

Third: This proposal contains language (a “poison pill”) that nullifies the Senior Housing article if the State of NH passes a law that requires the same increased density for non-seniors. I don’t understand why we should jettison Senior Housing if the state requires us to support increased density for people of all ages. Solution: Drop the poison pill.

This meeting is the last moment for public input before the language becomes final for the vote at Town Meeting. I encourage the Board to incorporate this feedback into the final wording of the article. Thank you.

Feel free to share this post on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, or email. Any opinions expressed here are solely my own, and not those of any public body, such as the Lyme Planning Board, Budget Committee, or Trustees of the Trust Funds where I volunteer. I would be interested to hear your thoughts – you can reach me at richb.lyme@gmail.com.

A few items from the news:

Workforce Housing Forum The NH Business & Industry Association will sponsor a forum on Workforce Housing this Thursday morning, 12 November at 10:00am. The focus will be on providing housing for workers, to help the economy grow, and to help employers recruit and retain talent. The registration is $25. I’m signed up to attend the video conference and will publish notes here next week. For more information: https://bianhassoc.wliinc23.com/events/2020-BIA-Forum-on-Workforce-Housing-405/details

Housing Forum: Needs, Trends & Opportunities Friday 10am brings another housing forum, this one sponsored by Space on Main in Bradford. Many local groups  plan to bring their voices. To register (no cost) and for more information, please visit: https://thespaceonmain.org/housing

Build Resiliency and Foster Civic Pride UNH Extension published an article about how, even with social distancing, towns can find ways for their residents to gather and build community. https://extension.unh.edu/blog/build-resiliency-foster-civic-pride

Feel free to share this post on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, or email. Any opinions expressed here are solely my own, and not those of any public body, such as the Lyme Planning Board, Budget Committee, or Trustees of the Trust Funds where I volunteer. I would be interested to hear your thoughts – you can reach me at richb.lyme@gmail.com.

New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority presents two sessions about land use, taxes, and good planning practices.

Today’s session (29 Oct 2020, 11am) will be looking in detail at three Upper Valley towns: Claremont, Hanover, and Lebanon. Register at https://www.nhhfa.org/event/from-the-outskirts-to-downtown-taxes-land-use-value-in-upper-valley-communities/ The session will be recorded, so you can go back to that page to view it in a day or two.

The previous session was held on 15 October 2020. The recording and presentation slides are now available at: https://www.nhhfa.org/taxes-land-use-value-analysis-by-joe-minicozzi-urban3/

I hope that you can find the time review one or both of these sessions – their presentations are always valuable.

Feel free to share this post on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, or email. Any opinions expressed here are solely my own, and not those of any public body, such as the Lyme Planning Board, Budget Committee, or Trustees of the Trust Funds where I volunteer. I would be interested to hear your thoughts – you can reach me at richb.lyme@gmail.com.

As I think about tomorrow’s meeting, I realize that it would be helpful for the Planning Board to hear stories from Lyme residents.

What might you want from “Senior Housing”? I wrote a post a while back that you can use as a starting point. See What are your plans? and bring them to the Planning Board’s Zoom call. (See the Zoom link below.)

If you cannot attend the Zoom conference (there are a lot of other events, see below), please consider sending a note with your thoughts to the Planning and Zoning administrator, zoning@lymenh.gov Thanks!

Rich Brown
RandomNeuronsFiring.com
795-2525

Other Events on Thursday: It is regrettable that so much is happening tomorrow evening.

• Lyme Library Covid-19 Update – 6pm: http://lymenhlibrary.org/register-now/
• Planning Board – Public Forum announcement – 7pm: https://www.lymenh.gov/planning-board/files/senior-housing-amendment-draft-2020
• Planning Board Zoom Link – 7pm: https://zoom.us/j/6808321113?pwd=YzNrN0txREZCaURNUHB4cVlQN01XQT09
• Presidential Debate – 9pm: Your favorite television/web channel

The Planning Board is working on a revised proposal for Senior Housing. They plan a public forum (by Zoom) on Thursday, 22 October at 7:00pm You can read the full announcement at: https://www.lymenh.gov/planning-board/files/senior-housing-amendment-draft-2020 The draft text is appended below.

1. Why must these units be limited to only one or two people 62 years or older? Why not permit “younger seniors”, say 55 year olds, a federally-recognized standard for “older persons”? Why is it important to prohibit a younger caretaker from living with a senior parent?
2. Why must Senior Housing be limited to the Lyme Common District? It’s the most expensive land in town (per acre), which drives up unit prices. Furthermore, the language seems to have a built-in contradiction, relaxing dimensional controls to permit as much as 15,000 square feet of development on a parcel while remaining “harmonious and consistent with the present character of the neighborhood.”
3. What is the justification for the “poison pill” provision? (This is the Board’s own term.) Although the current draft does not contain the language, the proposal would nullify this amendment if NH requires that towns extend the same density bonus for all housing as it gives to senior housing. How does that benefit Lyme?

I sent the following request to John Stadler and David Robbins, asking to incorporate these topics into the Senior Housing discussion when the Planning Board meets on Thursday, 10 September 2020 at 7:00pm. You can join by Zoom using this link: https://zoom.us/j/6808321113

John, David,

The Senior Housing amendment is on the agenda for the Planning Board meeting of 10 September 2020. Since I have not seen a list of the issues we might entertain, I submit the following to help frame Thursday’s meeting.

Would you please distribute this note in its entirety to the members of the Planning Board to review before the discussion.

I would also request that you distribute this note through the Town Notification email system so that the members of the public may be informed that the topic will be on the table. Thank you.

Rich Brown
Alternate, Planning Board

Points for discussion regarding Senior Housing amendment
Lyme Planning Board Meeting – 10 September 2020

1) I request the Board discuss allowing Senior Housing elsewhere in town.

I remember an argument for “walkability” last year, presumably to the services on the Lyme Common. However a significant portion of the permitted district – Orford Road, High Street, and Dorchester Road – is eminently un-walkable. Residents of Senior Housing built there would all have to drive to town.

I advocate that Senior Housing be permitted on any state highway or major town road. This would allow people to build farther from town, yet ensure safe and adequate vehicular access.

2) I request the Board discuss the age requirements for Senior Housing.

I remember a comment, “55 is too young for me” from discussions last year. Why it would be bad for Lyme to have senior housing occupied by 55 year olds? I would also like to understand why this proposal limits units to a maximum of two residents, prohibiting a live-in family member or health aide.

I advocate we adopt the rules of the federal Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA) that defines senior housing as “at least 80 percent of the occupied units must be occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older per unit…”  This would shorten the proposed amendment by incorporating those well-defined rules with a single sentence.

3) I request the Board discuss the restrictions on unit size for Senior Housing.

The proposed amendment limits units to no more than 1,200 square feet. This arbitrary constraint eliminates a lot of possible designs. For example, the well regarded and recently approved development on the Common could NOT have been built under this ordinance.

I advocate that the design of Senior Housing units be left to the creativity of local developers to create units that are attractive, marketable, and meet the other regulations of the ordinance.

I look forward to speaking to you on Thursday night.

Rich Brown
795-2525

Change.org is hosting a petition calling on Governor Chris Sununu of NH to allow for “virtual meetings” for the normal business of towns and municipalities. I would include Select Boards as well as those listed below. As I said on the petition page:

It will be months before we are “back to normal”. Most town boards or committees might be able to “skip a meeting” because of an emergency. But real residents have real needs, and cannot realistically wait for boards that have been shut down for a protracted period of time.

Specifically, the petition requests the Governor to:

• Allow and encourage for both state and local municipal boards to continue with standard timelines and regularly scheduled board hearings through a virtual meeting template, such as Zoom. This includes, but is not limited to, historic district commissions, conservation commissions, planning and zoning boards.
• Allow and encourage board members, city staff, design professionals and the public to participate through an open video forum and email regardless of city or town charter.
• Provide state guidelines on how the local municipalities should conduct meetings and insist that mandated timelines for board decisions be maintained.

If you agree, please go to the petition at: https://www.change.org/p/new-hampshire-governor-chris-sununu-enable-virtual-public-meetings-for-planning-and-zoning-boards-in-nh and pass the word to your friends. Thanks.

Feel free to share this post on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, or email. Any opinions expressed here are solely my own, and not those of any public body, such as the Lyme Planning Board, Budget Committee, or Trustees of the Trust Funds where I volunteer. I would be interested to hear your thoughts – you can reach me at richb.lyme@gmail.com.