MANCHESTER, NH – The Manchester Zoning Board of Adjustment approved four requested variances from a proposed multi-family dwelling across from Crystal Lake during their January 2025 meeting, although residents living near the property voiced concerns prior to the approval.
The pair of proposed 12-unit apartment buildings attached to the variance requests are located at 669 Corning Rd., adding to the existing four-building 45-unit development known as Lakeside Landing Apartments, which has an address of 661 Corning Rd.
Under the city’s existing zoning ordinance, multi-family buildings are not allowed without variances in the R1-A zoning district where the two proposed buildings are located, with a variance request sought for each of the new buildings. The other variance requests sought relief from the ordinance’s limitations of a 2.5 story building and a four-foot rear lot line buffer for sheds in that particular area, asking instead for three stories and a zero-foot buffer. Eventually, the request for the zero-foot buffer was withdrawn.
Each of the two buildings are expected to remain within the 35-foot height limit for the R1-A zoning district despite the request for an extra half-story.
The requests were brought to the board by attorney Walt Reddington, acting as agent on behalf of 661 Corning LLC, the company that owns the property.
Reddington told the board that the property is slightly more than five acres and has been used for multi-family housing for decades. He said the new development would be built in an unused portion of the complex, and would generate 150 vehicle trips per weekday and 110 per weekend, with an additional 10 trips during the morning peak hour and 12 during the evening peak hour.
Sean LeBlanc, a partial owner of 661 Corning LLC and owner of Mammoth Properties, said his group bought the property in July 2023 and has invested more than $700,000 in renovations. He said the complex was more than 30 percent vacant when purchased and in “a state of disrepair,” but he said management was able to renovate more than 90 percent of the units over two years without evictions.
LeBlanc also said the existing grassy area where the new buildings are planned has created maintenance issues and has become a storage area for items such as grills and sports equipment, which he said hurts the property’s appearance.
“I personally believe that adding these units will actually improve the overall look of the parcel,” he said.
In a presentation given to the board, it was indicated that the site plan, which will eventually require planning board review, would rework internal traffic circulation in the complex to reduce headlight impacts on homes and increase the amount of parking spaces.
Another factor eventually likely requiring planning board review would be a change in siding and trim across the complex that would make the complex look more residential.
The requests were met with skepticism from residents living near the complex, stating that they have seen issues with trash, dumping and property maintenance at the complex and requests to address these concerns have been largely unanswered. A representative of the Crystal Lake Preservation Association said the group is concerned about potential impacts to water quality and drainage given the site’s proximity to the lake.
Other concerns included a worsening of traffic with the two new buildings, a removal of green space used by local children and blocking sunlight for nearby mobile homes.
Zoning Board Member Craig St. Pierre stated that the comparable density of the existing multi-family complex which had been in place for decades, the request for an additional half-floor was reasonable given the proposed height of the buildings, and the architectural elements that would benefit the aesthetic qualities of the neighborhood.
In a motion to approve the remaining three variance applications following these findings of fact, he requested the condition that any new dumpsters on the property be shielded by fencing and that the initially requested shed not be placed on the property.
The motion was approved unanimously. There is a 30-day appeal period for anyone seeking a review of the variances, and there is an expectation of environmental review related to the watershed in addition to the required planning board approval for the new buildings expected in the future.