Meeting report · Planning and Zoning Commission
Creating this report cost real money.
Help fund coverage →
Planning and Zoning Commission — March 9, 2026
The meeting featured significant debate over housing density, multiple split votes on key amendments, and a failed motion to close a public hearing.
Public impact
Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01
Zoning Amendments for Housing Density and Lot Standards
Broad impact affecting housing supply, neighborhood density, property development rights, and lot compliance requirements townwide. Affected: All residential property owners, particularly in RC, RB, B, and C zones, and prospective developers.
zoning change
Decisions logged
Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Close the public hearing for Zoning Regulation Amendment -2006.
Motion by Patrick Kennedy, second by Danielle Luna.
Passed unanimously
Close the public hearing for Zoning Regulation Amendment -2006.
Motion by Patrick Kennedy, second by Arianna Larson.
Passed unanimously
Motion to close the public hearing for Zoning Regulation Amendment -2004.
The motion (moved by Mr. Kennedy, seconded by Mr. Schaumbach) failed with 3 yeas and 6 nays.
Failed
Motion to continue the public hearing for Zoning Regulation Amendment -2004 to April 6th.
Unanimous approval to continue the hearing to the April 6th meeting.
Passed
Motion to close the public hearing for Zoning Regulation Amendment -2004 (Second attempt/procedural close).
Unanimous approval to close the public hearing.
Passed
Close public hearing for Item 5, 2326 (ADU and parking amendments).
Motion by Mr. Kennedy, second by Mr. Reichelt.
Unanimous (Aye)
Approve Zoning Regulation Amendment -2006 (Non-conforming use and structure regulations).
Motion by Mr. Kennedy, second by Ms. Larson. Effective date March 30, 2026.
Passed
Approve Zoning Regulation Amendment -2006 (Add definitions and update prohibited use list).
Motion by Mr. Kennedy, second by Ms. Larson. Includes correction of scrivener's error regarding gas manufacturers. Effective date March 30, 2026.
Passed (8-1)
Approve Zoning Regulation Amendment -2003 (Update ADU regulations).
Motion by Mr. Kennedy, second by Ms. Luna. Effective date March 30, 2026.
Unanimous (Aye)
Approve Zoning Regulation Amendment -2002, Option 6B (Amend residential zone standards).
Motion by Mr. Kennedy, second by Ms. Eich. Includes reservation to adjust development standards in Table 8.1.1 based on the outcome of pending items 3 and 4. Effective date March 30, 2026.
Passed (7-2)
Approval of Zoning Regulation Amendment -2002 for 6B.
The amendment includes an effective date of March 30 for all items acted upon during the meeting.
Passed 8-1
Topics discussed
Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
▶ 13:13 Zoning Regulation Amendment -2006: Non-conforming Use and Structure Update
A proposal to update regulations regarding non-conforming uses and structures to ensure compliance with state statutes and reduce the town's legal liability.
Speakers: Michael Stebe, Francisco Gomes, Danielle Luna, Patrick Kennedy
▶ 21:01 Zoning Regulation Amendment -2006: Prohibited Uses and Definitions
A proposal to add 'junkyard' to the townwide prohibited uses list and provide a clearer definition for 'gas manufacturer'.
Speakers: Michael Stebe, Francisco Gomes, Eric Prowse, Robert Schanbaum
▶ 35:01 Zoning Regulation Amendment -2005: Permitted Uses in Residential Zones
A comprehensive proposal to increase housing diversity and supply by allowing nurseries in AA zones, two-family and multifamily housing via special exception in specific zones, and restoring room renting as a permitted accessory use.
Speakers: Michael Stebe, Francisco Gomes, Danielle Luna, Eric Prowse, Robert Schanbaum, Mary Fish
▶ 81:07 Zoning Amendment -2004: Multifamily and Two-Family Conversions
Discussion regarding proposed amendments to allow special exceptions for multifamily and two-family conversions in RC and RB zones, addressing concerns over neighborhood character and regulatory redundancy.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 124:00 Zoning Amendment -2004: Residential Principle Use Regulations
Staff presentation on technical amendments to clean up residential use regulations, including mill conversion affordable housing requirements, height limits, and lot area standards.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 154:00 Zoning Amendment -2003: Residential Accessory Use Regulations
Presentation of proposed updates to accessory use regulations, specifically regarding outdoor commercial storage, ADU size ratios, and driveway curb cuts.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 158:53 Off-Street Parking Standard Amendments
Amendments to clarify vehicle ownership definitions (owned, leased, or registered to) and update commercial vehicle weight limits from 'one ton' to a gross vehicle weight of 12,500 pounds to align with DMV registrations.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 178:00 Residential Zone Lot Standard Amendments (Option 6A vs 6B)
Discussion regarding two options for amending residential lot standards. Option 6B seeks to reduce minimum lot areas and frontage requirements to bring many existing non-conforming properties into compliance.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 220:39 Review of Zoning Regulation Language
Commission members discussed the wording of a definition under the heading 'subdivision building density' to ensure clarity and correctness.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 239:50 Reduction of Non-Conformities
Discussion regarding the policy of reducing non-conforming residential lots in B and C zones to eliminate barriers for homeowners.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
Controversy & dissent
Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.
Potentially controversial issues
01
Multifamily and Two-Family Conversions in RC/RB Zones
Residents are concerned that increasing density through multifamily conversions will negatively impact neighborhood character, increase traffic, and elevate noise levels in already dense residential zones.
Board position: The board is moving toward increasing housing diversity and 'middle housing' to address state-wide shortages, using 'special exceptions' as a regulatory safeguard.
Internal dissent
The board was divided on the procedural closure of the hearing for Amendment -2004, with a 3-6 vote against closing it, indicating a lack of consensus on how to proceed with these specific density amendments.
high concern
02
Residential Zone Lot Standard Amendments (Option 6B)
This involves reducing minimum lot areas and frontage requirements, which could lead to increased density and changes to the physical layout of residential neighborhoods.
Board position: The board approved the option to reduce standards to bring non-conforming properties into compliance and reduce barriers to development.
Internal dissent
The amendment passed with a 7-2 vote, indicating significant internal disagreement regarding the reduction of lot standards.
medium concern
Split votes
Motion to close the public hearing for Zoning Regulation Amendment -2004
3-6 (Failed)
Approve Zoning Regulation Amendment -2002, Option 6B (Amend residential zone standards)
7-2
Approve Zoning Regulation Amendment -2006 (Add definitions and update prohibited use list)
8-1
Community vs. board tension
Ready to share? AI-written accountability posts about this meeting's controversies.
View posts →
Action items
Who owes what, by when.
Correct the punctuation/semicolons in the 'gas manufacturer' definition if the amendment is adopted to ensure clarity of meaning.
Assigned: Francisco Gomes
Refine the text of Amendment -2005 to clarify the phrasing 'in which located' to 'in which the building is located' (or similar) to improve readability.
Assigned: Francisco Gomes
Provide more detailed information including maps, statistical data on land percentage in RC/RB zones, and potential number of parcels/impacts.
Assigned: Town Staff · Due: April 6th
Adjust development standards on Table 8.1.1 regarding two-family dwelling footnotes if pending amendments 3 and 4 are not passed.
Assigned: Staff
Continue work on zoning regulation reviews in the April meeting and prepare a second batch of amendments for a future special meeting.
Assigned: Commission/Subcommittee · Due: April/May/June 2026
Notable statements
The issue here is that it's the use that's nonconforming not the building or structure... we have to remove that language because it's problematic [and makes the town vulnerable to a lawsuit]. — Francisco Gomes · Explaining why the amendment to non-conforming use regulations is necessary to align with state statute. ▶ 14:05
I also feel that we have to be fair to existing neighborhoods... [the RC section] already is impacted and to add on the additional ability to put in multi-family housing... I think that's asking a lot of RC. — Mary Fish · Public testimony expressing concerns about density, traffic, and noise in the RC residential zone. ▶ 61:09
It is problematic to have two separate properties with single service lines. — Shannon Miles · Concerns from the Water and Sewer Administrator regarding potential new multi-family or two-family developments having shared service lines. ▶ 76:00
I think we're squeezing RC... I just ask that you specifically look at the zoning maps... and think about, should this particular zoning thing... be in other areas of towns that have much more room? — Unidentified speaker · Expressing concern that concentrating multifamily development in RC/RB zones might negatively impact existing neighborhoods. ▶ 87:48
The state has experienced a very well-documented shortage of housing units... the shortage is particularly important in this middle housing, the missing middle housing. — Unidentified speaker · Providing broader context on why the housing amendments are being proposed in response to state-wide demand. ▶ 93:00
The state says we can't actually use that word, character, so it's probably better to remove it. — Unidentified speaker · Explaining the reasoning for removing the requirement that conversions must not 'impair the character of the neighborhood' from the regulations. ▶ 144:00
The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the regulations don't pose a barrier to housing that's otherwise appropriate. — Unidentified speaker · Explaining the intent behind the comprehensive amendments to residential standards. ▶ 178:12
I think when we start to limit things that are essential parts of life... we do a disservice to reality. I don't think junkyards should only be allowed in certain towns. — Unidentified speaker · Commenting on the decision to prohibit junkyards as a prohibited use rather than a special exception. ▶ 221:00
As long as the commission strongly feels that this is not going to result in people starting to maximize building on lots... and not introducing more density into RC. — Unidentified speaker · Public comment expressing conditional support for reducing lot size requirements in the RC zone. ▶ 313:00
I definitely agree with the policy of reducing non-conformities... it's a good idea to reduce and eliminate nonconformities wherever possible. — SPEAKER_07 (Mr. Kennedy) · Discussing the impact of outdated standards on Manchester residential lots in B and C zones. ▶ 239:50
A good chunk of the work that we're doing... is to get rid of a number of these pieces of language that create barriers to people building houses, renovating houses, maintaining houses, as well as... getting rid of the roadblocks for businesses. — SPEAKER_04 (Chair) · Explaining the goals of the current zoning regulations review and the subcommittee's mission. ▶ 242:03
Public comment
What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
2
Total speakers
1
Addressed
1
Partial
0
Not addressed
Shannon Miles
Addressed
The speaker, representing Manchester Water and Sewer, expressed concerns regarding whether new multi-family or two-family conversions would require separate public water and sewer connections for each unit. She wanted to ensure that individual properties wouldn't be left with single service lines serving multiple ownership units.
Key concern
Requirement for separate public water and sewer connections for multi-unit conversions to avoid single-service-line issues on separate properties.
Board responseProject manager Francisco Gomes explained that current multi-family construction typically uses one service line and noted that the town is working on a separate amendment to require individual lines for new constructions.
The staff provided a detailed technical explanation of how current systems work and informed the speaker that a separate amendment is already in progress to address her specific concern for new builds.
Mary Fish
Partial
The speaker expressed concerns about the impact of adding multi-family housing to the RC zone, which she noted already faces high density, noise, and traffic. She argued that the RC zone already provides diverse housing and voiced worries that increasing density through new lot standards could negatively affect neighborhood character and parking.
Key concern
The impact of increasing housing density and multi-family developments in the RC zone, specifically regarding traffic, noise, and neighborhood character.
Board responseCommissioners and staff engaged in a lengthy discussion regarding the necessity of middle housing, the 'special exception' mechanism that allows case-by-case review, and the specific geographic impact of the amendments.
The board addressed her concerns by explaining the regulatory safeguards (special exceptions) and the intent behind the housing policy, but they did not change the amendment based on her testimony; instead, they eventually voted to continue the hearing to gather more data.
Support coverage
Creating this report cost real money.
MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering Manchester.
Follow Manchester
One email when a new report is published from the Planning and Zoning Commission — or one weekly digest.
Report composed by
grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-05-30.