Meeting report · Planning and Zoning Commission
Creating this report cost real money.
Help fund coverage →
Planning and Zoning Commission — April 6, 2026
The meeting featured high-stakes public testimony regarding housing density and infrastructure, resulting in a split vote on a major zoning amendment.
Public impact
Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01
Zoning Amendments for Housing Density and Lot Standards
Significant changes to permitted uses, density capabilities, and multi-family conversion rules. Affected: All residents in Resident A, RB, and RC zones; property developers; and renters.
zoning change
Decisions logged
Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Close the public hearing for Comprehensive Amendment 3.
Motion by Mr. Kennedy, seconded by Mr. Schambom.
Unanimous
Suspend the rules and adjust the agenda.
Motion to move Old Business Item 1 to follow New Business Item 1.
Unanimous
Approval of Zoning Regulation Amendment -2005 (Part 1).
Approved all proposed updates to permitted uses in residential zones except for the multi-family residential provisions in RB and RC zones and the related standards in Section 6.29.3.
Unanimous
Approval of Zoning Regulation Amendment -2005, Part 2.
Allows multifamily residential in RB and RC zones by special exception and establishes regulations in Section 6.29.3.
7-1
Approval of Zoning Regulation Amendment -2004.
Updates residential principal use regulations, including lot size changes and deed restriction language for mill conversions.
Unanimous
Approval of Bidwell Commons Townhomes LLC Site Plan Modification (-2019).
Approved the modification to multiple water and sewer lateral connections, subject to staff comments from March 27, 2026, and April 2, 2026.
Unanimous
Inland Wetlands Determination of Significance (IWP -1997).
Found that the proposed parking lot reconstruction at 123 Lydell Street will not have a significant impact on wetlands and does not require a public hearing.
Unanimous
Approval of public hearing and business meeting minutes from March 9, 2026.
Motion by Mr. Kennedy, second by Mr. Prowse.
Unanimously approved
Approval of business meeting minutes from March 16, 2026.
Motion by Mr. Kennedy, second by Mr. Shambham. Mr. Reichelt abstained.
8 in favor, 1 abstention
Topics discussed
Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
▶ 03:07 Comprehensive Amendment 3: Update in Permitted Uses in Residential Zones
A public hearing regarding zoning regulation amendment -2005, which proposes adding landscaping nurseries to Resident A zones, allowing up to ten multi-family units in RB and RC zones via special exception, and allowing two-family conversions in Resident A zones. Staff presented maps and data showing that very few vacant lots in RB and RC zones currently meet the criteria for the proposed multi-family density increases.
Speakers: Michael Steeby, Renata, Zachary Reichelt, Eric Prowse, Mr. Kennedy, Bonnie Pataki, Harikupparaj, Mary Fish, Leslie Frye, Mr. Anderson
▶ 76:33 Zoning Regulation Amendment -2005
Discussion and voting on amendments to the zoning regulations, specifically regarding the separation of residential multifamily (RBRC) use tables and related section 6.29.3.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 81:00 Zoning Regulation Amendment -2004
A comprehensive amendment to update residential principal use regulations, including lot size requirements, cleaning up redundant language, and addressing affordable housing deed restrictions for historic mill conversions.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 96:00 Bidwell Commons Townhomes LLC Site Plan Modification
An application to modify the utility connection configuration (water and sewer laterals) for a previously approved PRD site plan at 30 Bidwell Street.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Speaker Kennedy
▶ 111:00 Salters Pond Pool Parking Lot Reconstruction
An Inland Wetlands Determination of Significance regarding the reconstruction of the parking lot at 123 Lydell Street, including new stormwater management systems.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 136:00 Pre-application Review: Porter Street Zone Change and Amendment
A conversational review regarding a proposed zone change to Rural Residential (RR) and an amendment to allow the processing and sale of firewood as an accessory use at 571 and 599 Porter Street. Discussion focused on classification of a firewood business and farm stand, whether current Agricultural (AA) zoning allows importing and processing firewood, and potential rezoning benefits.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 189:00 Approval of Meeting Minutes
The Commission reviewed and voted on the minutes from the March 9, 2026, and March 16, 2026, meetings.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 190:00 Receipt of New Applications
The Commission was informed of upcoming applications, including conversions to multi-family dwellings, a cold storage addition, and shared parking requests.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
Controversy & dissent
Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.
Potentially controversial issues
01
Comprehensive Amendment 3: Residential Density and Multi-family Uses
The proposal to allow multi-family units in RB and RC zones via special exception and allow two-family conversions in Resident A zones drew significant opposition from residents concerned about neighborhood character, infrastructure capacity (water/sewer), and the rise of absentee landlords.
Board position: The board supported the amendment, viewing it as a necessary step to address middle housing needs, while utilizing 'special exception' status as a regulatory safeguard.
Internal dissent
The board was split on the specific implementation of multi-family provisions in RB and RC zones, resulting in a 7-1 vote.
high concern
02
Affordable Housing Deed Restrictions
A proposed change to reduce the duration of affordable housing deed restrictions for historic mill conversions from longer terms down to 40 years was flagged as a potential loss of permanent affordability.
Board position: The board moved toward approval (unanimous on Amendment -2004), but members expressed internal concern regarding the loss of affordability safeguards.
medium concern
03
Porter Street Firewood Business Legalization
A pre-application review for a firewood business involving imported logs raised questions about whether it qualifies as 'agriculture' or if it constitutes an incompatible industrial/commercial use in a residential/rural zone.
Board position: The board took a cautious approach, seeking to understand if the request was a specific carve-out for one owner or a broader regulatory update.
medium concern
Split votes
Zoning Regulation Amendment -2005, Part 2: Allows multifamily residential in RB and RC zones by special exception and establishes regulations in Section 6.29.3.
7-1
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.
Vote on Part 2 of the amendment (Multi-family residential in RB and RC zones via special exception).
Assigned: Commission · Due: Immediately following Part 1 vote
Implement utility connection modifications for Bidwell Commons per approved site plan and staff comments.
Assigned: Tristan Wallace (Freeman Companies)
Review the feasibility of rezoning Porter Street parcels to RR and amending text to allow for firewood sales (including imported wood) without being overly restrictive.
Assigned: Commission/Staff
Consult with Zoning Enforcement Officer Jim Davis regarding the interpretation of 'farm stand' versus 'home occupation' and the legality of importing agricultural products in AA zones.
Assigned: Commission/Staff
Notable statements
The intent behind this particular amendment was really to address that core charge of Manchester POCD, which was to address to some extent the housing and, in particular, this middle housing component. — Eric Prowse · Explaining the rationale for the zoning changes. ▶ 16:00
This proposal is a dangerous precedent... it doesn't promote home ownership... and we need to look at the capacity of water and sewer infrastructure. — Bonnie Pataki · Public testimony opposing the amendment due to concerns about infrastructure and density. ▶ 22:54
Since it's gonna be a special exception, that this commission would make the right choice when the time comes and it will be looking at things like traffic and impact utilities and compatibility with the neighborhood... — Unidentified speaker · Discussing the safeguards of making multifamily residential a 'special exception' rather than a permitted use. ▶ 76:04
The maximum density is such that even if I double the size of the minimum lot... the maximum number of units... would be less than four units anyway. — Renata · Clarifying that the proposed density changes may not significantly increase unit counts on existing small lots due to math/density constraints. ▶ 62:20
I think I'm concerned about the change on the affordable housing component for the historic mill conversions going down to 40 years. So this would essentially be ending any affordable housing restriction we have now... — Unidentified speaker · Expressing concern regarding the alignment of deed restrictions with state statutory timelines. ▶ 90:56
We'd like to legitimize it now that it's been called to our attention that it's not agriculture and not permitted specifically on this parcel. — Attorney Dori Reiser · Explaining the motivation for the pre-application review regarding firewood sales following a cease and desist order. ▶ 139:00
We'll look at it with a bigger lens... we really need to make sure it works not just for our property, but potentially other RRs. — Unidentified speaker · Addressing concerns that the proposed regulatory amendments might be too specifically tailored to one property owner. ▶ 160:00
I'd like to continue to be a woman on the farm and veteran run. — S43 (Property Owner) · Discussing the nature of the family business during the zoning discussion. ▶ 177:44
The yellow lights don't just mean stop on the gas to get through the intersection before it turns red. Take your time, go through it because there are a lot of overlapping and slightly different definitions and regs. — Unidentified speaker · Advising the commission to be thorough in cross-referencing regulations during the amendment process. ▶ 188:00
Public comment
What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
6
Total speakers
2
Addressed
2
Partial
2
Not addressed
Bonnie Pataki
Partial
The speaker expressed opposition to the proposed amendments, arguing they set a dangerous precedent that doesn't promote home ownership. She raised concerns regarding the capacity of old water/sewer infrastructure and the potential for increased traffic congestion.
Key concern
Infrastructure capacity (water/sewer/traffic) and lack of support for home ownership.
Board responseA board member (a speaker) clarified that the changes are being proposed as 'special exceptions' rather than 'as of right' permits. Later, staff and board members discussed the necessity of special exception reviews to evaluate traffic and utility feasibility on a case-by-case basis.
The board addressed the technical misunderstanding regarding 'permitted' vs 'special exception' uses, but they did not provide a specific infrastructure capacity analysis during the meeting to satisfy the speaker's request.
Harikupparaj
Addressed
The speaker, a builder, encouraged the proposal, stating that increased building capacity will help lower rents and the cost of living. He noted that Manchester appears to have the capacity to handle the changes.
Key concern
Supporting the amendment to lower housing costs.
Board responseThe board acknowledged the comment by thanking him and moving to the next speaker.
The speaker's position was heard and integrated into the general discussion regarding the need for housing supply.
Mary Fish
Partial
The speaker acknowledged the effort to increase housing stock but expressed concern that the RC zones are already highly congested. She questioned why multifamily housing is being focused on these specific zones rather than being spread to other areas.
Key concern
Concentration of density in already congested RC zones.
Board responseThe board and staff engaged in a discussion regarding the build-out analysis, noting that the amount of eligible land in these zones is actually quite limited.
The board addressed the scale of the change by showing that the impact would be limited to very few parcels, though they did not provide a broader regional housing strategy.
Leslie Frye
Not addressed
The speaker opposed the proposal to convert single-family homes to multi-family dwellings, citing concerns about absentee landlords and declining neighborhood character. She noted a past history of rental units causing issues like drug activity in the area.
Key concern
Negative impact of increased rental/multi-family units on neighborhood quality and safety.
Board responseThe board did not provide a direct rebuttal to her specific anecdotal concerns, though they discussed the 'special exception' process as a way to control such developments.
The board did not specifically address her concerns regarding absentee landlords or neighborhood character changes.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
The speaker expressed concern that while Manchester has met regional housing metrics, this amendment 'opens a door' that could be exploited if markets change. He worried that developers could buy and combine lots in neighborhoods not designed for such density.
Key concern
Potential for future market volatility to lead to excessive density in unsuitable neighborhoods.
Board responseThe board and staff discussed the limited number of vacant lots and how the 'special exception' requirement acts as a safeguard against the very scenarios he feared.
The board addressed the concern by explaining the regulatory safeguards in place.
Rose
Partial
The applicant explained that she seeks a zone change and amendment to legalize her long-standing firewood business, which is currently under a cease and desist because it is not considered 'agriculture.' She noted the business is seasonal and involves importing logs.
Key concern
Legalizing an existing firewood processing and sales business.
Board responseThe board engaged in an extensive conversation regarding the definition of agriculture vs. farm stands, the impacts of the business on neighbors (noise/traffic), and the suitability of a zone change.
The board discussed the merits and potential pitfalls of her request but did not make a final decision, as this was a pre-application review.
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.