The proposal for a property on Central Street, brought forward by AG GM 7 Central LLC, involves transforming the building to accommodate three residential units and a new café, replacing the existing restaurant. The board heard a detailed presentation on the historical significance of the building and the proposed structural changes, which include the removal of a structurally unsound addition from the 1960s and the introduction of a smaller café space designed to attract pedestrian traffic. The renovation aims to preserve the building’s character while increasing its utility, with plans for outdoor seating to enhance the café experience.

Concerns raised during the meeting included parking availability and flood risks. The café design anticipates a pedestrian clientele, potentially reducing parking demands, but the board remains cautious about the adequacy of the proposed parking spaces, especially considering the historical flooding issues in the area. The parking arrangement includes three spaces under an existing deck and two “piggyback” spaces for café employees or residents, but concerns persist about the sufficiency of these provisions during flood events.

The conversation also touched on the necessity of a special permit for the renovation, as the development exceeds the units allowed under current zoning laws. The proposal reflects a broader strategy to revitalize downtown Manchester, aligning with outcomes from recent community planning processes. The board emphasized the importance of maintaining the building’s historical integrity while integrating modern conveniences, a sentiment echoed in the presented site plans and architectural drawings.

Discussion then shifted to broader zoning issues, particularly regarding the establishment of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The board examined the implications of recent state housing laws that impact local ADU regulations. The proposal considered allowing ADUs to be up to half the size of the primary dwelling or capped at 1,500 square feet, whichever is smaller, but raised concerns about the potential density increase in certain districts. The board debated the necessity of aligning local regulations with state laws, while ensuring that these units complement the existing single-family neighborhood character.

The dialogue on ADUs highlighted the need for clear, consistent regulations, particularly regarding parking requirements and the potential sale of ADUs as separate entities. There was a call for clarity in the bylaws to prevent confusion over ADU ownership and sale, as well as ensuring that parking provisions align with the proximity to public transit. The board noted the importance of maintaining the aesthetic and functional integrity of neighborhoods while accommodating these smaller housing units.

Further complexities arose from technical aspects, such as height restrictions and setback requirements for ADUs, emphasizing the need for a review of existing zoning bylaws. The board discussed the potential for requiring special permits for ADUs exceeding certain sizes. The conversation underscored the challenges of adapting local regulations to state mandates while addressing local concerns about density and character.

The board also addressed procedural topics, including the proposal to establish associate members within the Planning Board to ensure quorum and efficiency in processing applications. The initiative suggested appointing at least one associate member for a term, possibly extending to two years, to aid in special permits and site plan reviews. This proposal aimed to streamline operations and prevent delays in application processing, though concerns about appointment authority and potential conflicts were raised.