The meeting began just after 6:00. Present were Scott McCaskill, Mel Pfeifle and Matt Monahan (CNHRPC, via Zoom), plus an audience of about ten people.
First was a presentation (via Zoom) by Tiffany Tononi McNamara from Plan New Hampshire, regarding their charrette program, with regards to the Naughton property in particular. A charrette is essentially a two-day brainstorming session on a particular area that a town wants to develop or improve, or a particular aspect that a town wants to develop or improve. More can be found at their website at https://plannh.org/. Plan New Hampshire makes available the talents of professionals, for two days, at a minimal cost to the town (relative to what these services would cost if directly contracted). She gave some examples of charrettes that they had done in Wolfeboro and Littleton.
Tiffany then opened up a question-and-answer period. The first question: Does PlanNH stay in touch after the charrette, or do any follow-up? Tiffany responded that PlanNH usually is involved at the initial “visioning” stage, to help the community create the vision, but not so much beyond that; the professionals who are assembled are volunteering their time, and have other commitments. Another question: Given the challenges of developing this specific property [mostly environmental], would some of the work involve narrowing options to what is possible? Tiffany responded that the PlanNH committee reviews applications beforehand, and would review the target area regarding whether development is suitable. They may request additional information before making a decision. Matt mentioned that brownfields assessments have previously been done on the property and the results are available. Tiffany added that PlanNH does not go beyond a high-level view.
Tracey Quigley noted that a part of the land is currently being used by the Historical Society, but that the Society has no long-term lease, leaving them in an ambiguous situation regarding any development that they do. She wondered whether PlanNH had any experience in this area? Tiffany responded that any lease arrangement is for the town to work out, but that the use of part of the property by the Historical Society should not affect other uses of the property.
Another question was about the cost of the program. Tiffany laid out the costs: a charrette costs $6000, but often towns find grants or sponsorships to cover this cost; the town is responsible for feeding and lodging the volunteer professionals, which is usually handled with pot-luck dinners the like, again provided by local residents. She stressed the need to get the entire community involved in the discussions, so that the resulting plan has as much local input as possible. A community needs to apply well in advance of when they anticipate having the charrette.
Scott then gave an overview of one idea that was suggested for the property, that of continuing the green space created by the East Main Street garden and the Historical Society’s area across the street. Any more intensive development would probably occur on adjoining properties, not on the Naughton property itself. Also, while the charrette program is one option to consider, it may not be the right option; if we did use it, we would need to do a lot of background work beforehand. He noted that we are in no rush to start any development, and are only considering options at this point.
Kathleen Bigford asked Scott to explain some of his earlier remarks about housing. Scott responded that the Economic Development Committee is exploring ways to provide or develop housing geared toward both downsizing seniors and young singles or couples, and only minimal development initially. He noted that some employers have said they have had trouble hiring due to the lack of housing for young workers.
The Cilleys had several follow-up questions about housing:
Q: Why is it up to the town to provide housing? Scott responded that it is not up to the town to provide housing, but that if the Economic Development Committee can coordinate or facilitate the development of something the town needs, then that is something they should do.
Q: Why can’t the owners of the adjacent properties do this development on their property? Scott responded that that was a possibility.
Q: So, we wouldn’t need a meeting like this? Scott responded that such a meeting would be helpful only if the owners want input from the town. In that case, the Economic Development Committee can provide a forum for them to present their ideas.
Kristine Foss said that she had searched for two years to find a place to open a business in Bradford, with no luck. She noted that we have so many buildings that remain empty and in disrepair, and nothing is done about it. She feels that the development of the Naughton property would only be a band-aid on the greater problem. Scott explained that the Economic Development Committee has been discussing many things other than the Naughton property, and has been looking at what might be done with these properties.
The subject of the old Masonic Hall came up. Mel explained that several people have been interested in renting, but the economics did not work out for them. Dan Cilley said he thought the town had bought the building in order to tear it down. Mel replied that the warrant article left it up to the Select Board’s discretion; it is a good building in a good location, and could work as a rental for a start-up business.
Joe Torro objected to referring to the property as the “Naughton” property, noting that it was more remembered as belonging to the Marshalls. He recalled that Bradford used to be a lively and busy town with lots of shops, but that it was necessary to have strong businesses in the town like we used to have. It would be nice to see some core businesses that employed ten or so people. He noted the lack of utilities (water and sewer) along Main Street, and suggested that perhaps the dump property could be the site of a small business park. Mel noted that there are several large properties: the dump, Naughton property, Jones Road pit, and that we could extend the 79-E and ERZ zones. Joe said that we need businesses like small manufacturing or machine shops, not just stores on Main Street.
George Cilley brought up the condition of 122 East Main Street, and that perhaps it makes more sense to be used as a parking lot.
Kathleen asked whether the charrette would move forward. Scott said not unless it is apparent that it would be beneficial.
The meeting ended around 7:25.
Submitted by Scott McCaskill
Copyright © 2024 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes