MANCHESTER, NH – In 2024, a request for 79-E tax relief was granted for the historic Dunlap Building on Elm Street. That request was never finalized and a new request from a different applicant on Tuesday was denied as the Manchester Board of Mayor and Aldermen determined the changes that have occurred since that first request were greater than the similarity between the two requests.
In a 7-7 vote broken by Manchester Mayor Jay Ruais, the new owners of 959 Elm St., Project Elm LLC, were denied the request for community revitalization tax incentives, a type of tax relief for renovating downtown buildings better known as 79-E tax relief due to its chapter of New Hampshire’s state law.
Better known as the Dunlap Building, 959 Elm St. was constructed in 1879 and underwent extensive reconstruction in 1908 as well as significant renovations in 2002 and 2010. The building was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2004 and now hosts the restaurants Campo Enoteca and Taj India on its first floor. Its upper floors had been home to offices, but the tenants of those offices largely disappeared following the COVID-19 pandemic.
In the 2024 79-E application, a company known as North Street Properties LLC sought to purchase the building and convert the office space into 36 multi-family residential units contingent upon obtaining the 79-E tax relief for five years. While that request was approved, North Street Properties LLC eventually walked away from purchasing the property according to Manchester Economic Development Office Director Jodie Nazaka, not completing covenants that would have given the 79-E tax relief to future owners of the building.
The building was purchased by 959 Elm St. LLC in March 2025 and soon sought the same 79-E tax relief, but the environment around the request had changed since 2024.
In July 2025, the Board of Mayor and Aldermen signaled that it would pause future 79-E requests until a more standardized approach to these requests could be constructed. A tax increment financing or TIF district that included the Dunlap Building was approved in early March after a public hearing in February, and tax relief would draw away from funds going to the purpose of the TIF district: repaying a new parking garage and housing complex at what is now the Pearl Street parking lot. The request from 959 Elm St. LLC was reduced from 36 units to 27 units, and it also began rehabilitation late last year that would now be ineligible for 79-E relief.
Attorney Garth Corriveau, speaking on behalf of 959 Elm St. LLC, expressed frustration that the 79-E request from his client had been inexplicably postponed in January before the creation of the TIF District. Along with fellow attorney Suzanne Brunelle, he also told the board that the applicant would only be seeking 79-E tax relief for any future renovations, stating that the need rehabilitation at the building couldn’t wait for a new 79-E application hearing.
Corriveau also stated that the apartments being constructed at the Dunlap Building would be superior to those proposed by North Street Properties LLC.
“If you liked apartments without windows, you would have loved that place,” said Corriveau of the old proposal for the building.
Corriveau also confirmed a question from Alderman At-Large June Trisciani that third-party financing related to the building would not be contingent upon 79-E relief, a concern for 79-E requests following controversy over a property on Central Street.
However, several Aldermen held concerns in addition to the TIF district, the different number of units, the existing renovation and the 79-E pause.
Ward 4 Alderwoman Christine Fajardo had voted against the 2024 request due to a lack of affordable housing in the proposal and felt that 79-E relief for residential building proposals should include affordable housing due to the lack of affordable housing in the city.
Corriveau and Brunelle said that the financial reality of the project would not allow anything other than market-rate prices, given issues such as undisclosed lead and asbestos that were in need of abatement, as well as the reduction in proposed unis.
And although a fully-renovated building would provide the city with substantially more tax money in the long term, Ward 1 Alderman Bryce Kaw-uh expressed concern over the loss of property taxes from the building in the near term given what appears to be a difficult upcoming budget season. Kaw-uh also expressed concerns with Elm Street LLC’s pro forma, or document describing financing for the project, feeling that the projected rent costs were not comparable to nearby market-rate properties and project an over-optimistic vision that would help sell the project’s value to the board. Kaw-uh also said that while he supports most 79-E requests, he believes that each request must meet specific guidelines and that it shouldn’t be seen as an automatic tax break for any downtown building developer.
In the final roll call vote, supporters for Elm Street LLC’s request included Ward 5 Alderman Jason Bonilla, Ward 6 Alderman Crissy Kantor, Ward 7 Alderman Ross Terrio, Ward 8 Alderman Ed Sapienza, Ward 10 Alderman Bill Barry, Ward 12 Alderman Kelly Thomas and Alderman At-Large Dan O’Neil. Opposition came from Fajardo, Kaw-uh, Ward 2 Alderman Dan Goonan, Ward 3 Alderman Dana Dexter, Ward 9 Alderman Jim Burkush, Ward 11 Alderman Norm Vincent and Alderman At-Large June Trisciani.