With an eye on keeping residential growth manageable, Haverhill city councilors may begin asking a lot more of developers before approving proposals for large projects.
“In light of citizen concern about the rapid growth of new residential units in Haverhill, the purpose of this meeting is to address potential changes to our zoning ordinances that may place limits on future residential growth,” said City Councilor John A. Michitson at the start of Tuesday night’s Planning and Development Committee meeting. He is the chair.
According to City Solicitor Lisa L. Mead, the Council already has great legal authority to have would-be developers assess and address potential negative impacts.
Zoning ordinances say councilors can reject a proposal for broadly defined reasons including, “community needs served by the proposal; traffic and pedestrian flow and safety, including parking and loading; adequacy of utilities and other public services; neighborhood character and social structures; impacts on the natural environment; and potential fiscal impact, including impact on city services, tax base and employment.”
Mead said, “You can require an applicant to show you how they meet that criteria, and that it’s positive for the city, in order to grant the special permit.” Before going before the Council, developers can be asked to study likely impacts, even paying for an independent consultant to verify the results.”
For example, she explained, if a water main feeding a proposed development needs to be replaced, councilors could include the upgrade as a condition of approval. Simulating negotiations, she said, “So, we can’t put water in those 100 units there, without replacing that, so what are you going to do about it?”
It would be quite helpful, she added, to have a consultant put together a baseline study of city services. Following her example, such a model would identify water mains that can’t handle additional dwellings. Councilors could then point specifically to what needs to be fixed. When a property owner seeks the final occupancy permit, the building inspector can double check improvements have been completed.
Economic Development and Planning Director William Pillsbury Jr. said, “It really is time for us to consider undertaking a formal, comprehensive fiscal impact analysis… You can predict some of these things—that single-family houses, generally, don’t pay for themselves, industrial parks do. There’s a metric that you can work off of. What I think would be really useful, would be to drill down into those things like parks and recreation, public works, police, fire, and have numbers attached to those on a unit basis.”
The topic of residential overdevelopment was initially raised by Council Vice President Timothy J. Jordan and Councilor Melissa J. Lewandowski at a May Council meeting, as WHAV reported. Jordan pointed out at Tuesday’s meeting the city usually loses money when new housing goes online. The extra costs to services—like police, fire and schools—often outweigh tax revenue.
Falling under the Council’s broad legal authority, Mead confirmed developers can shoulder those costs.
Lewandowski expressed concern about density bonuses in the waterfront zoning district, which allowed Procopio Companies to propose an 800-unit project at the former site of Haverhill Paperboard. Mayor Melinda E. Barrett said in May, “I think I told them to burn it. It was a little shocking.”
Mead informed Lewandowski the ordinance can be changed so the city will never be forced to grant such bonuses.
Reflecting on how the city used to operate, Jordan said, “We basically got, ‘there’s a housing crisis, please approve this project. It’s your moral obligation, imperative.’ And then, usually the other thing we got was, ‘We’re expecting to receive tax dollars of X.’”
The committee recommended councilors receive training on these powers. The motion requires approval from the full City Council.