'Bad deal for Seabrook': No dice for The Brook’s Casino-backed housing complex
SEABROOK — For the third time in 14 months, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied approving the variances needed to allow The Brook’s parent company to build a large multi-unit rental housing development on land behind its casino.
Proposed by the Nevada-based RMH NH, LLC, a company linked to The Brook operator Eureka Casinos, the Sept. 27 proposal before the ZBA was considerably smaller than its first, which called for 334 housing units.
The new proposal called for 233 rental units including 17 free-standing, or 34 two-bedroom, duplexes; 119 units in a four-story building (43 one-bedroom and 76 two-bedroom), and 81 senior housing units in a multi-story building for those 55 or older. The senior housing, officials said, was a concession to lessen the impact the complex could have on the local school student population.
The multi-building complex is intended for 75.6 acres of The Brook's land at 319 Route 107. At the southwest corner of the lot of the former greyhound racing track, the acreage spans two town zones: the rural zone (Zone 1), and the industrial zone (Zone 3), neither of which permits multi-unit housing complexes.
Previous story: The Brook Casino seeks zoning change to move forward with major housing development
Andre Carrier, president and chief operating officer of Eureka Casinos, told ZBA members the changes made to the plan were from informal meetings with Seabrook’s Planning Board and his desire to be “a good neighbor” to abutters. The new plan reduced the total units and building sizes and increased buffer zones between existing area homeowners.
This complex is not “affordable or section 8 housing," Carrier said. It would include 20 units designated as “workforce housing,” he said, but the remainder of the units would rent at “market rate.” Carrier said, like the rest of the nation, New Hampshire is short 23,500 housing units priced in a range that working individuals can afford.
At previous meetings, Carrier estimated market rate rents might range from $2,200 to $3,500 for the one- and two-bedroom units.
Carrier’s attorney, John Cronin, said that according to their real estate consultants, the complex would not negatively impact the property values of abutters. He added that project engineers and Seabrook department heads lead them to believe the town has sufficient water and sewer capacity to accommodate the complex.
Their consultants also estimated that the entire complex would likely result in nine additional students to local schools, Cronin said. Given Seabrook’s declining student enrollment, Cronin said, nine additional students are negligible.
As for the project’s financial benefits, Carrier said its annual property tax would bring in almost $669,000, plus another estimated $56,000 for annual vehicle registration.
Seabrook residents air concerns about housing project
Several residents rose to address the proposed complex.
The first was Henry Boyd, a long-time resident and president of Millennium Engineering. He is often found testifying before the planning and zoning boards on behalf of clients trying to bring developments to town. This time, however, Boyd opposed this project.
Boyd said time is needed to consider the full impact of a development of this size on the town. The town has little land in its industrial zone, and the project would take away a good deal for residential use, he said.
Seabrook Selectman Harold Eaton rose to challenge the school impact estimates, believing nine new students is too low.
If only 14 of the duplexes or other two-bedroom units contained families with two children, that would be 28 new students to Seabrook’s schools, he said. This year it cost $24,000 to educate one Seabrook student, he said. If 28 new students entered the school system, he said that would amount to $672,000 in new education costs, exceeding the estimated property tax benefit.
“They say nine (students),” Eaton said. “I say 28. This is a bad deal for Seabrook.”
Deborah Van Dyke, a Maple Ridge Road resident, said she was skeptical about Carrier’s definition of being a “good neighbor.” For her, it doesn’t include building a four-story building near an established home subdivision.
Further, she said, that if her current experience living with noise caused by The Brook Casino is any example, she doubts how neighborly the apartment complex will be. Every morning she’s awakened by noise at the casino, she said, although town regulations require businesses not start until 7 a.m.
“I’d like your personal phone number so I can call you at 5:30 a.m. when they start up before 7,” she told Carrier.
Others rose to complain about the noise and the added burden they believed the complex would place on the town’s police and fire departments, schools and traffic flow.
Maple Ridge Road resident Kathy Mackey expressed her concern that the 20 workforce housing units would go to Carrier’s employees at The Brook, not to Seabrook individuals and families.
'He took my world': Widow who lost husband in fatal crash speaks out after driver charged
Zoning Board sides with the public, rejects project
The variances required to build the complex include allowing multi-family complexes in the rural and industrial zones; permission to exceed the maximum height variance of 30 feet in the industrial zone for the apartment building; and allowing a structure 15 feet from the wetlands, instead of the required 25 feet.
The ZBA has strictly defined criteria when granting or denying variances. These include that the variance, if granted, is not contrary to the public interest, is in the spirit of the ordinance, and that the values of surrounding properties are not diminished. They also look if literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship and if substantial justice is done by granting them.
In every instance, the majority of the ZBA voted to deny the requested variances.
More: Meet the Hampton man behind Batman, Spiderman paper models at Pizza Academy in Exeter
The Brook to bring case to NH Housing Appeals Board
Cronin said following the ZBA’s first denial of the variances for the 334-unit development, he filed an appeal on Carrier’s behalf with the state’s Housing Appeals Board to overturn the decision. Cronin said because Seabrook doesn’t have an ordinance that allows for multi-unit housing of this nature, it’s in violation of the state’s need for workforce housing.
ZBA Chairman Jeff Brown said in an interview after the meeting that he was aware of the appeal. The town agreed to continuances because Carrier was preparing a new proposal.
Cronin told the board at the commencement of the meeting that if the ZBA approved the variances, Carrier agreed to withdraw his appeal, “and waive any damages.”
During their testimony, Boyd and others said they viewed Cronin’s comment “as a threat.”
According to Cronin, the Rockingham Planning Commission determined “Seabrook doesn’t supply its share of workforce housing.” He appeared confident that the Housing Appeal Board would find in Carrier’s favor because of Seabrook's lack of a multi-unit housing ordinance and the state’s housing needs.
The Rockingham Planning Commission’s determination was a surprise for Brown. For years, he said, the RPC acknowledged Seabrook had many multiple rental housing complexes, mobile home parks and small home lot requirements, all of which provided a substantial number of lower-cost housing opportunities, especially compared to other Seacoast communities.
“Seabrook doesn’t have its share of workforce housing when compared to who?” Brown said. “Rye, Hampton Falls, North Hampton?”
Brown said the reason Seabrook doesn’t have a multi-housing ordinance is because the town already has several large mobile home parks and many apartment complexes, such as the Governor Weare, Tudor Crest, Admirals Village, Park Place and the former Cimarron, now Rockingham Village, complexes.
This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Seabrook Brook Casino: plans for major housing project rejected again
