Recent comments in /f/newhampshire

invenio78 t1_j7miikt wrote

It will have an influence on the home values in the neighborhood so it is a concern for the residents of that area. It will also influence tax collection and the cost of services to the town which can be $10,000's per family if they have kids in the school system.

So it can have an effects on others.

3

DietCokeMachine t1_j7mhx9c wrote

You can read the planning board minutes about this project (starting at pg. 5) and listen to the audio (click Meeting Minutes tab) here:

https://publicrecords.dover.nh.gov/Tabs/Index/19271/public/1/deptnum/0/cab/Public_Meetings

Some interesting items:

  • 35 of the 44 units will be rent restricted to meet the HUD Fair Market rates for Dover, as published annually by New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority.

  • M. Speidel’s biggest concerns are traffic and parking. If there are potentially 66 residents there, there could be 66 vehicles, but only 59 parking spaces. He thinks there should be about 83 spaces when using formulas for residents and visitors. This may result in parking on Back River Rd which could be very dangerous due to slope. Mr. Randolph noted the lease will state that there is only one vehicle allowed on site per unit.

7

MethBearBestBear t1_j7mc8pj wrote

I grew up on 1/4 acre as well and i have driven by this project multiple times. It is probably going to come to more of 1/8 of an acre per lot in reality. I was responding to the person saying you will not hear your neighbors (you will) and can have a garden (not really).

This whole project screams money printer with a fake "we are helping out" facade or just a poorly thought out pie in the sky with more money than thought. The location is walkable outside of winter to downtown but condos would have been a much better use of the land of they didn't want apartment buildings. These are going to be cheaply built (2 years to go from forested uneven ground to 44 units) units that will make the property owner between 100-250k per year. Surprised the city approved of the project and probably only did so because it was "adding housing" but added it in a very inefficient way.

3