A primary topic of discussion was the creation of a new downtown zoning district, intended to support mixed-use developments combining residential and commercial elements. The proposal followed insights from the MBTA 3A process, which highlighted the need for zoning that encourages vibrant, multi-functional spaces. Current market conditions suggest a shift towards retail rather than purely commercial spaces, creating an opportunity for reimagining the district’s layout. The board discussed the need for adjustments to zoning boundaries, including removing or excluding certain properties like the Masons’ building and the First Parish Chapel, due to their lack of street frontage.

Residents voiced opinions on these changes, with some advocating for a forward-thinking approach that includes historically retail properties in the new district. John Harden, a community member, argued for the inclusion of buildings with potential for retail on the first floor and residential units above, promoting a lively downtown atmosphere. Another resident, Adam Zerger, expressed a desire to reconsider the exclusion of the self-storage building, citing its poor condition and potential for redevelopment.

The conversation also touched on the balance between preserving residential areas and fostering commercial growth. Concerns were raised that overly restrictive zoning could hinder the downtown’s vibrancy. The board recognized the need for zoning that reflects the evolving needs of the community and noted that Manchester’s shrinking population might influence local retail dynamics.

Specifics of the zoning regulations were discussed, with a focus on allowing residential units on the second floor or behind commercial spaces while requiring special permits for residential use on the first floor. Some board members questioned earlier communications that suggested eliminating residential uses entirely. The need for refined zoning language was acknowledged to ensure regulations align with current practices.

Parking requirements also featured prominently in the discussions, particularly the suggestion to reduce residential parking space requirements from one and a half spaces per unit to one. This proposal aimed to align with practices in other downtown areas near public transportation. While some supported this reduction to incentivize development, others highlighted that market demand might still require more parking.

The meeting also addressed the broader implications of zoning changes, with concerns that current definitions of housing types might not adequately reflect the community’s needs. There was a call for clearer definitions, especially regarding senior housing and the potential for multifamily housing as a less impactful alternative to traditional family housing. The board discussed crafting zoning articles that better define and regulate senior housing.

The Planning Board also highlighted the need for efficient communication and transparency. Some residents criticized the board for low transparency, noting the late posting of meeting packets and the lack of accessible zoning maps. This concern extended to the perception that board proposals might not align with community needs, particularly regarding senior housing and residential uses without special permits.