Workforce Housing FAQ's

A Much Needed Clarification of the Workforce Housing Warrant Articles
 

The common myth of the proposed workforce housing warrant articles and especially the new Workforce Housing Overlay District (Article 2) is that they will require all new subdivisions in town to set aside 50% of the newly created lots for workforce housing. This is not the case and is not the intent nor goal of the new overlay district. The intent of the proposed workforce housing warrant articles is not to decrease the rights of property owners and developers, but just the opposite. The goal is to increase opportunities for the development of workforce housing and eliminate any artificial barriers for those wishing to develop and build workforce housing (because they have chosen to do so). So, essentially the proposed warrant articles would increase the rights of property owners and developers, while continuing to protect the character of the town. Hopefully, the following will help to alleviate the concerns of property owners, developers, and residents alike.
 

What the proposed Workforce Housing Warrant Articles and new Overlay District DOES and DOES NOT require of property owners and developers…
 

1) First and Foremost, the Workforce Housing Overlay District DOES NOT require any new subdivisions or developments to provide for workforce housing. In other words, there is no requirement to include any percentage of workforce housing in a new subdivision or development. Private property owners and developers can continue to design and develop housing subdivisions the same way they do today. Again, the goal of these changes has never been to force people into creating workforce housing or requiring new developments to include workforce housing in these subdivisions if not desired.
 

2) The Workforce Housing Overlay District DOES NOT raise taxes, increase town administration, nor require the development of a “housing authority”. The committee and Planning Board were very much opposed to creating more government, town administration, or additional tax burdens on the community.
 

3) The Workforce Housing Overlay District DOES NOT interfere with the “free market” of New Boston nor does it affect the normal supply and demand relationship of the local housing market. The committee and Planning Board were very much opposed to regulation of the free market.
 

4) The Workforce Housing Overlay District DOES provide a set of land use regulations for property owners and developers who want to develop and create workforce housing (in order to meet the community’s workforce housing needs). It also encourages the development of workforce housing, which is a housing goal identified in the town’s Master Plan.
 

5) The Workforce Housing Overlay District DOES require those property owners, developers or organizations that want to develop workforce housing to ensure that 50% of the development be set aside for workforce housing. This requirement is to ensure that the goal of the subdivision and/or developer is to create workforce housing and reduces the chance that a developer will use the new overlay district for something other than the development of workforce housing, the purpose for which it was intended.
 

Further, one of the major goals of the committee, Planning Board, and the proposed workforce housing warrant articles is to protect the town from litigation. If a developer that wants to create workforce housing views the current land use regulations as having arbitrary barriers that make it difficult to develop workforce housing, the town could be held liable and at risk of litigation. An example of this might be if a developer feels that the town’s requirement for a special exception for accessory dwelling units (See Article 3) makes it more expensive to develop workforce housing, it could possibly be considered a land use regulation that is arbitrary and cause for litigation because it makes the creation of workforce housing more difficult.
 

It should be noted that per the recently enacted State of NH legislation, Workforce Housing Law (SB342, Chapter 299), the town was required to conduct an audit of all town zoning, ordinances, regulations, master plan, and current housing stock to ensure that there were no arbitrary barriers to the development of workforce housing. The legislation is intended to provide towns with flexibility and “local control” to determine their desired outcomes. It is not to create a system of statewide land use regulations or zoning processes. We are confident that the proposed amendments are a good balance between the legislative requirements, the town’s best interest, and the community’s workforce housing needs.

Thank you for considering these amendments when you vote in March.