Commercial complexes planned in Danville

General Forum for Danville Topics

Re: BOS Arbitrarily Cuts Library Budget By $20k for "ethics"

Postby SBinRockrimmon » Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:02 am

While it may be a good point, often times concessions must be made to entice developers to build here. Looking at the bigger picture of things the result will be 200+ residents (without children entering the school system) paying property taxes EVERY year, not just a one time fee. Concessions and waivers are commonplace for a project of this size. Danville reduces the fee and the developer builds a bigger neighbor friendly fence. We need to keep the big picture in focus, not just the 'what can you do for me now' attitude.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. - Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. - Thomas Jefferson

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. - Benjamin Franklin
SBinRockrimmon
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:34 pm

Re: BOS Arbitrarily Cuts Library Budget By $20k for "ethics"

Postby safety frog » Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:13 am

So the fee structure that the Town adopted was designed to allow the Planning Board to negotiate? What the did they get in the negotiation for the $16K? I was not there but it looks like they went from $17K to $1K pretty easy for a $100 million dollar project. I posted this information here as there was concern over $20K for library - $16K in lost fees - $20K library........
Dennis F
safety frog
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:40 am
Location: Danville

Re: BOS Arbitrarily Cuts Library Budget By $20k for "ethics"

Postby C L » Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:30 am

SBinRockrimmon wrote:While it may be a good point, often times concessions must be made to entice developers to build here. Looking at the bigger picture of things the result will be 200+ residents (without children entering the school system) paying property taxes EVERY year, not just a one time fee. Concessions and waivers are commonplace for a project of this size. Danville reduces the fee and the developer builds a bigger neighbor friendly fence. We need to keep the big picture in focus, not just the 'what can you do for me now' attitude.


I agree with you about the "big picture" and possible concessions.

But:

from the article posted on the thread:
Royal Crest, designed for residents age 55 and older, would feature 200 independent living units, 40 assisted-living units and a 54-bed health care facility.


I'm curious what the tax rate for a "independant living unit" is, or is the whole property taxed? Some numbers would be nice.

Also, this is a little misleading:
That changed yesterday when a group of developers unveiled proposals for a 256,000-square-foot retirement community and a 50,000-square-foot shopping plaza expected to cost $100 million and bring more than 250 construction jobs and 225 service jobs.

The second proposal calls for the development of Crown Plaza shopping complex at an 11-acre site on the opposite side of Huntington Hill Road. The plans call for restaurants, gas stations and other businesses, with nearly 500 jobs created in Danville - a town with a population of about 4,300 people.


Wouldn't half of those jobs be gone after construction is completed? And as construction contactors wouldn't their employer pay paroll tax in the town that they are based in (I don't know)? Where did they come up with the 225 service jobs? Those are the jobs we are looking to create (and keep).
C L
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:24 pm
Location: Mid-Danville

Re: BOS Arbitrarily Cuts Library Budget By $20k for "ethics"

Postby safety frog » Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:43 am

Danville or NH does not collect payroll tax so no benefit there. No sales tax as well so the real help is in property tax alone?
Dennis F
safety frog
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:40 am
Location: Danville

Re: BOS Arbitrarily Cuts Library Budget By $20k for "ethics"

Postby C L » Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:21 pm

safety frog wrote:Danville or NH does not collect payroll tax so no benefit there. No sales tax as well so the real help is in property tax alone?


Thanks. I should have known that.

So the number we are after is the value of the (finished) property.

Obviously the $100 million cost is not the actual value but using that number I think they would have a $2 million a year tax bill.
C L
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:24 pm
Location: Mid-Danville

Re: Commercial complexes planned in Danville

Postby curt » Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:43 pm

After reading comments in the 10/28/10 and 11/18/10 Planning Board minutes and comments here relative to fees for site plan review, I think it would be helpful to explain a couple of things.

As I have mentioned on several occasions, I am a member of the Danville Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA). For that reason I am avoiding comment on the substance of the proposals as there might be appeals that we will hear. I've made a point of skimming over all physical details as I read Planning Board (PB) minutes. I subscribe to a mailing list for people involved in local land use controls in NH, and many planning board issues are discussed, including regulations and the circumstances of waiving them, although I don't always read these in great detail.

Local land use controls consist of 3 main parts, each of which has to be voted in by the town:
-- zoning ordinance (ZO)
-- subdivision approval
-- site plan review of commercial and multi-family residential properties

The town can vote a ZO without subdivision approval or site plan review. It can vote subdivision approval without having a ZO or site plan review. But it cannot vote for site plan review without first having voted for subdivision approval. You could have site plan review without having a ZO.

If you have a ZO you must have a ZBA. If you have any of the three you must have a PB. Danville has all 3.

Site plan review is administered by the PB according to regulations that it has adopted as authorized by RSA 674:44.

RSA 674:44 V allows for regulations to cover costs associated with its review of an application:

V. The planning board may, as part of its site plan review regulations, require an applicant to pay all costs for notification of abutters and may provide for the assessment of reasonable fees to cover the board's administrative expenses and costs of special investigation and the review of documents and other matters which may be required by particular applications.


Those are the only allowed reasons to charge money, not to offset other town expenses, as has been suggested.

The PB may waive any of its regulations on a per-case basis:

RSA 674:44 III. The site plan review regulations which the planning board adopts shall:
- - - - - - - -
(e) Include provision for waiver of any portion of the regulations. The basis for any waiver granted by the planning board shall be recorded in the minutes of the board. The planning board may only grant a waiver if the board finds, by majority vote, that:
(1) Strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship to the applicant and waiver would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulations; or
(2) Specific circumstances relative to the site plan, or conditions of the land in such site plan, indicate that the waiver will properly carry out the spirit and intent of the regulations.


Now quoting from the Danville Site Plan Regulations

Section 41. Waivers and Substitutions.
A. The Board may grant a waiver of any design requirement or plat standard of this chapter in
accordance with the following:
1. The applicant shall provide a written request for waiver. The request shall indicate
the exact section for which the waiver is requested, the extent of the waiver, and the
justification.
2. In evaluating the request, the Board shall not grant the waiver unless it finds, based
upon evidence presented to it, that:
a. granting of the waiver shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
general welfare;
b. granting of the waiver shall not, in the opinion of the Board, be injurious to
other parties;
c. granting of the waiver shall not have the effect of nullifying the intent and
purpose of this chapter; and
d. strict compliance with the regulations would cause a hardship to the applicant
solely because of the unique physical characteristics of the site (financial
hardship shall not be considered); or
e. the Board determines that granting the waiver would result in substantial
public benefit.
3. A waiver request shall be considered only at or after a noticed public hearing by the
Board on the subject application, and at which the waiver request is presented or
discussed, so that abutters have an opportunity to be made aware of all waiver
requests.
4. The Board may condition any waiver granted so as to secure the objectives of this
chapter.
5. The request for waiver shall be granted only when a motion to grant the request, duly
seconded, is carried by a majority of the members present and voting. If the motion
is not carried, the request is denied and no further motion is required. If no action is
taken on the waiver request, it shall be deemed to be denied.


Here is the section of the regulations on fees, which underscores that they are intended to cover the town's costs:

Section 9. Fees. In accordance with NHRSA 676:4,I(g) and NHRSA 674:44,V, the applicant
shall pay the following fees to compensate the Town for its expenses in processing, noticing and
reviewing each application:
A. Review Fees:
1. Minor Review: $50.00
2. Full Review, one or more of the following shall apply:
a. $30.00 per new motel/hotel/transient and multi-family unit;
b. $0.06 per gross square foot of new commercial floor space;
c. $200 for other applications.
B. Public Notice (for Minor and Full Reviews only):
1. $15.00 per newspaper notice.
2. $6.00 per mailing per abutter (or other party notified).
C. Recording Fees (for Full Reviews only):
1. $30.00 per plat sheet to be recorded by the Town.
2. $15.00 per 8.5" by 11" page to be recorded by the Town.
D. Other costs incurred by the Town in reviewing the application, as specified in Section 42,
shall be assessed to the applicant.



The fee waiver for the CCRC was discussed and voted at the PB meeting of 10/28/2010

The fee waiver for the strip mall was discussed and voted at the PB meeting of 11/18/2010.

My take from the discussion was that the fees were vastly reduced because it was much more money than the town needed to process the applications. The votes were in alignment with the statutory authorization for the fees. If the PB had insisted on the fees it might have led to a trip to court. I read one comment from a PB member that could support the view expressed in SoD that the basis for the vote was to entice economic development. But I do not believe that this was the actual reason.

As you read this you might recall that I wrote above:

For that reason I am avoiding comment on the substance of the proposals as there might be appeals that we will hear.


But this has nothing to do with the substance of the proposals. Furthermore the ZBA has no jurisdiction over this matter.

This comment attributed to a PB member in the 10/28/10 minutes is incorrect:

The applicant could also seek an audience with the Zoning Board to see about reducing the fee.


The ZBA only has authority over matters pertaining to the ZO. The applicant would have to go to court if he felt that the fee being charged exceeded the statutory authority of the PB to cover the town's actual costs, and he could not get relief from the PB.

(added later)

A similar incorrect comment from the minutes of 8/26/10:

It was also pointed out that if the Planning Board denies a waiver, the applicant can speak with the ZBA about the issue
Last edited by curt on Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Re: Commercial complexes planned in Danville

Postby curt » Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:00 pm

timd wrote:
curt wrote:There is a statutory requirement to notify adjacent towns if something is expected to have regional impact. I took a quick spin through the RSAs yesterday but did not find it. It would be interesting to know if this fits the criteria in the law.


Curt...it's cleverly hidden next to the RSA's regulating regional planning commissons...RSA 36:54 through 36:58.
Atkinson has not received any notice and might have expected to just because of the increase in traffic on 111.


Thanks Tim. Note that Atkinson was to be notified according to PB minutes (below).

Review of Developments of Regional Impact
Section 36:54
36:54 Purpose. – The purpose of this subdivision is to:
I. Provide timely notice to potentially affected municipalities concerning proposed developments which are likely to have impacts beyond the boundaries of a single municipality.
II. Provide opportunities for the regional planning commission and the potentially affected municipalities to furnish timely input to the municipality having jurisdiction.
III. Encourage the municipality having jurisdiction to consider the interests of other potentially affected municipalities.

Source. 1991, 300:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1992.
Section 36:55
36:55 Definition. – In this subdivision "development of regional impact'' means any proposal before a local land use board which in the determination of such local land use board could reasonably be expected to impact on a neighboring municipality, because of factors such as, but not limited to, the following:
I. Relative size or number of dwelling units as compared with existing stock.
II. Proximity to the borders of a neighboring community.
III. Transportation networks.
IV. Anticipated emissions such as light, noise, smoke, odors, or particles.
V. Proximity to aquifers or surface waters which transcend municipal boundaries.
VI. Shared facilities such as schools and solid waste disposal facilities.

Source. 1991, 300:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1992.
Section 36:56
36:56 Review Required. –
I. A local land use board, as defined in RSA 672:7, upon receipt of an application for development, shall review it promptly and determine whether or not the development, if approved, reasonably could be construed as having the potential for regional impact. Doubt concerning regional impact shall be resolved in a determination that the development has a potential regional impact.
II. Each regional planning commission may, with public participation following the public posting of notice of the intent to develop guidelines, including notice published in a newspaper of general circulation in the planning region, develop guidelines to assist the local land use boards in its planning region in their determinations whether or not a development has a potential regional impact. The regional planning commission may update the guidelines as needed and provide them, as voted by the regional planning commissioners, to all municipalities in the planning region.

Source. 1991, 300:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1992. 2009, 194:1, eff. Sept. 11, 2009.
Section 36:57
36:57 Procedure. –
I. Upon determination that a proposed development has a potential regional impact, the local land use board having jurisdiction shall afford the regional planning commission and the affected municipalities the status of abutters as defined in RSA 672:3 for the limited purpose of providing notice and giving testimony.
II. Not more than 5 business days after reaching a decision regarding a development of regional impact, the local land use board having jurisdiction shall, by certified mail, furnish the regional planning commission and the affected municipalities with copies of the minutes of the meeting at which the decision was made. The local land use board shall, at the same time, submit an initial set of plans to the regional planning commission, the cost of which shall be borne by the applicant.
III. At least 14 days prior to public hearing, the local land use board shall notify, by certified mail, all affected municipalities and the regional planning commission of the date, time, and place of the hearing and their right to testify concerning the development.
IV. Notwithstanding the foregoing, when the building inspector determines that a use or structure proposed in a building permit application will have the potential for regional impact and no such determination has previously been made by another local land use board, he or she shall notify the local governing body. The building inspector shall also notify by certified mail the regional planning commission and the affected municipalities, who shall be provided 30 days to submit comment to the local governing body and the building inspector prior to the issuance of the building permit.

Source. 1991, 300:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1992. 2003, 220:1, eff. Aug. 30, 2003. 2005, 39:1, eff. July 16, 2005. 2008, 357:5, eff. July 11, 2008. 2009, 49:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2010.
Section 36:58
36:58 Applicability. – The provisions of this subdivision shall supersede any contrary or inconsistent provisions of local land use regulations enacted under RSA 155-E and RSA 674.

Source. 1991, 300:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1992.


The Planning Board minutes of 10/28/10 wrote: 6.

Regional Impact


Notice had been sent to neighboring communities that this proposal may have regional impact and this determination would be decided at this meeting.


Barry explained that there are certain criteria to indicate whether or not a proposal has regional impact. He referred to a document titled “Determination of Developments of Regional Impact.” There were several factors to indicate this has regional impact. Foremost may be the increased demand for mutual aid.


Russ H. moved and Chip seconded a motion that this application has significant regional impact. The motion passed unanimously.


Certified letters, with the minutes of this meeting, will be sent to the Rockingham Planning Commission (RPC) and the following communities: Sandown, Fremont, Kingston, Hampstead, Atkinson, Plaistow, and Newton.

Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Re: Commercial complexes planned in Danville

Postby safety frog » Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:05 pm

Thanks for the update from Curt as the drastic reduction in the fee by $16K seemed arbitrary or suspect at best.

So once draft plans on the two projects are in place for town approval, will the town be able to get a rough appraisal of the values so a rough tax bills could be estimated to see what, if any, reduction in the $0.0X per 1K will be seen on the residential tax bills? Have we any information to say that the residential units will stay commercial versus non-profit as many non-profits’ tax bills are drastically reduced or eliminated? IE once built the 200 unit home is turned over to the Brothers of Hawkewood Benevolent Society who are a 501C3?
Dennis F
safety frog
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:40 am
Location: Danville

Re: Commercial complexes planned in Danville

Postby argot » Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:34 pm

I am all for this project as long as it is handled tastefully. Let's get some new, tax-paying endeavors in Danville...Its not in the center of Danville, its offset on 111. Yes.
argot
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:08 am
Location: D'Ville

Re: Commercial complexes planned in Danville

Postby safety frog » Wed Jan 05, 2011 9:04 am

I agree, but no one yet has indicated what, if any, impact the two complexes will have on reducing the homeowner's tax rates. Will it reduce our rates $0.01 per $1,000 or $1.00 per $1,000 or will it increase our tax rates? Once that is known then we may be happy.
Dennis F
safety frog
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:40 am
Location: Danville

Re: Commercial complexes planned in Danville

Postby curt » Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:22 pm

I don't know the numbers but I can offer a formula.

E=money to be raised via real estate tax before any expenses from the new stuff
V=total valuation of town before new stuff is added

R1 is tax rate before new stuff
R1=E/V

H=the value of your house

T1=tax on your house before new stuff
T1=R1*H
T!=(E*H)/V

X=value of new stuff
F=expenses, if any due to new stuff to be paid for via real estate tax

R2 is tax rate as of new stuff
R2=(E+F)/(V+X)

T2=tax on your house as of new stuff
T2=R2*H
T2=((E+F)*H)/(V+X)

RDELTA is change in tax rate
RDELTA = R1-R2
If RDELTA is positive the rate declined

TDELTA=change in tax on your house
TDELTA=RDELTA*H
If TDELTA is positive your tax declined

If RDELTA is positive and the rate declined, then:
R1>R2
E/V > (E+F)/(V+X)
E*(V+X) > (E+F)*V
E*X > F*V
(E*X)/V > F
F < R1*X
The new expenses are less than the taxes on the new stuff at the original rate.
Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Re: Commercial complexes planned in Danville

Postby Thundergirl » Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:25 pm

My brain hurts. :)
"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." - Wimpy
Thundergirl
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:17 pm
Location: Trailside Drive

Re: Commercial complexes planned in Danville

Postby safety frog » Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:11 pm

Ok does anyone know what Complex A and Complex B is worth? And if complex B is a non-profit and has minimal tax due to town as non profit? I think we have a couple churches, a convent and X other non profits (DFA) in town so someone that deals with town taxes should be able to figure this out. From what I have learned the larger 55+ residential units in Exeter are non-profits. Many keep saying this is good for the tax rate but has anyone done the math?

Sorry I am not a tax accountant. We use Turbo Tax for the family. I hope we have not been sold trojan horses that increase our tax rates. I hope and pray I am wrong.
Dennis F
safety frog
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:40 am
Location: Danville

Re: Commercial complexes planned in Danville

Postby curt » Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:26 pm

"non profit" is not necessarily "charitable". "Charitable" is the one-word description of what is tax exempt.

The exemption is based on the actual use of the property more than who owns it.

For example, the Congo church in New Castle, where my parents live, has three buildings on its property: the church, the parsonage, and the town post office.

The church is tax exempt.

The parsonage was tax exempt when the old minister lived there. But the new minister lives in his own house out of town, and the church rents out the parsonage. They pay full taxes on it. The post office is leased to the US Postal Service. The church pays full taxes on it.

But I have to say there is reason for concern.

Here are the relevant statutes:

72:23 Real Estate and Personal Property Tax Exemption. – The following real estate and personal property shall, unless otherwise provided by statute, be exempt from taxation:
I. (a) Lands and the buildings and structures thereon and therein and the personal property owned by the state of New Hampshire or by a New Hampshire city, town, school district, or village district unless said real or personal property is used or occupied by other than the state or a city, town, school district, or village district under a lease or other agreement the terms of which provide for the payment of properly assessed real and personal property taxes by the party using or occupying said property. The exemption provided herein shall apply to any and all taxes against lands and the buildings and structures thereon and therein and the personal property owned by the state, cities, towns, school districts, and village districts, which have or may have accrued since March 31, 1975, and to any and all future taxes which, but for the exemption provided herein, would accrue against lands and buildings and structures thereon and therein and the personal property owned by the state, cities, towns, school districts, and village districts.
(b) All leases and other agreements, the terms of which provide for the use or occupation by others of real or personal property owned by the state or a city, town, school district, or village district, entered into after July 1, 1979, shall provide for the payment of properly assessed real and personal property taxes by the party using or occupying said property no later than the due date. This subparagraph shall not apply to leases of state-owned railroad properties which are subject to railroad taxes under the provisions of RSA 82 or which provide revenue to the state, a portion of which is distributed to cities and towns pursuant to RSA 228:69, I(a). All such leases and agreements shall include a provision that "failure of the lessee to pay the duly assessed personal and real estate taxes when due shall be cause to terminate said lease or agreement by the lessor.'' All such leases and agreements entered into on or after January 1, 1994, shall clearly state the lessee's obligations regarding the payment of both current and potential real and personal property taxes, and shall also state whether the lessee has an obligation to pay real and personal property taxes on structures or improvements added by the lessee.
(c) If the lessee using or occupying the property fails to pay the duly assessed personal and real estate taxes on the due date, the tax collector of the taxing district involved shall notify the lessor that the same remains unpaid. Upon receipt of said notification from the tax collector, the lessor shall terminate said lease or agreement and pay over to the tax collector from amounts received from said lease such sums as are necessary to satisfy the tax due.
(d) The exemptions provided in subparagraph (a) shall apply to the lands and the buildings and structures thereon and therein and personal property owned by the university system of New Hampshire. The requirements of subparagraph (b) shall apply to all leases and other agreements entered into or renewed on or after April 1, 2006, the terms of which provide for the use or occupation by others of real or personal property owned by the university system of New Hampshire. The remedies set forth in subparagraph (c) shall be available to enforce the payment of real and personal property taxes assessed against the lessees of property owned by the university system of New Hampshire pursuant to this subparagraph.
II. Lands and buildings and personal property owned and used by any county for governmental purposes, including hospitals, court houses, registry buildings, and county correctional facilities except that county farms and their lands, buildings and taxable personal property shall be taxed.
III. Houses of public worship, parish houses, church parsonages occupied by their pastors, convents, monasteries, buildings and the lands appertaining to them owned, used and occupied directly for religious training or for other religious purposes by any regularly recognized and constituted denomination, creed or sect, organized, incorporated or legally doing business in this state and the personal property used by them for the purposes for which they are established.
IV. The buildings and structures of schools, seminaries of learning, colleges, academies and universities organized, incorporated or legally doing business in this state and owned, used and occupied by them directly for the purposes for which they are established, including but not limited to the dormitories, dining rooms, kitchens, auditoriums, classrooms, infirmaries, administrative and utility rooms and buildings connected therewith, athletic fields and facilities and gymnasiums, boat houses and wharves belonging to them and used in connection therewith, and the land thereto appertaining but not including lands and buildings not used and occupied directly for the purposes for which they are organized or incorporated, and the personal property used by them directly for the purposes for which they are established, provided none of the income or profits are divided among the members or stockholders or used or appropriated for any other purpose than the purpose for which they are organized or established; provided further that if the value of the dormitories, dining rooms and kitchens shall exceed $150,000, the value thereof in excess of said sum shall be taxable. A town at an annual town meeting or the governing body of a city may vote to increase the amount of the exemption upon dormitories, dining rooms and kitchens.
V. The buildings, lands and personal property of charitable organizations and societies organized, incorporated, or legally doing business in this state, owned, used and occupied by them directly for the purposes for which they are established, provided that none of the income or profits thereof is used for any other purpose than the purpose for which they are established.
V-a. The real estate and personal property owned by any organization described in paragraphs I, II, III, IV or V of this section and occupied and used by another organization described in said paragraphs, but only to the extent that such real estate and personal property would be exempt from taxation under said paragraphs if such property were owned by the organization occupying and using the property, as long as any rental fee and repairs, charged by the owner, are not in clear excess of fair rental value.
VI. Every charitable organization or society, except those religious and educational organizations and societies whose real estate is exempt under the provisions of paragraphs III and IV, shall annually before June 1 file with the municipality in which the property is located upon a form prescribed and provided by the board of tax and land appeals a statement of its financial condition for the preceding fiscal year and such other information as may be necessary to establish its status and eligibility for tax exemption.
VII. For the purposes of this section, the term "charitable'' shall have the meaning set forth in RSA 72:23-l.

72:23-k Charitable, Nonprofit Housing Projects. –
I. The real estate and personal property of charitable, nonprofit community housing and community health care facilities for elderly and disabled persons, if none of the income or profits is used for any purpose other than community housing or community health care, shall be exempt from taxation. This exemption shall apply to housing and health care facilities situated within New Hampshire which are sponsored or owned by nonprofit, charitable corporations or organizations, located within or outside of the state, and to projects organized, operated, or assisted under state law or pursuant to rules and regulations of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, or any successor agency. For the purposes of this section an elderly person is one who is 62 years or more of age. The age of the head of the family determines the eligibility of the family unit in the project. For the purposes of this section, the term "charitable'' shall have the meaning set forth in RSA 72:23-l.
II. On or before November 1 of each year the owner of the housing project shall enter into an agreement with the municipality in which the property is situated to pay the municipality, on December 1 of each year, a sum in lieu of taxes to defray the costs of municipal, non-utility, services. Failing mutual agreement, the sum paid on December 1 of each year shall be an amount not to exceed the lower of 10 percent of the shelter rent received by the owner from all sources during the preceding calendar year, not including security deposits received from residents of the housing project, for shelter and care of residents within the project, or a sum equivalent to that derived from application of the current municipal, non-school, portion of the local tax rate against the net local assessed value of the project. For cause shown and at any time, keeping in mind the nature and purpose of the project, the municipality or the board of tax and land appeals may refund or abate all or a portion of the payment in lieu of taxes in any year. The owner shall on or before June 1 of each year file with the municipality in which the property is located, upon a form prescribed and provided by the board of tax and land appeals, a statement of its financial condition for the preceding fiscal year and such other information as the board of tax and land appeals requires.

72:23-l Definition of "Charitable''. – The term "charitable'' as used to describe a corporation, society or other organization within the scope of this chapter, including RSA 72:23 and 72:23-k, shall mean a corporation, society or organization established and administered for the purpose of performing, and obligated, by its charter or otherwise, to perform some service of public good or welfare advancing the spiritual, physical, intellectual, social or economic well-being of the general public or a substantial and indefinite segment of the general public that includes residents of the state of New Hampshire, with no pecuniary profit or benefit to its officers or members, or any restrictions which confine its benefits or services to such officers or members, or those of any related organization. The fact that an organization's activities are not conducted for profit shall not in itself be sufficient to render the organization "charitable'' for purposes of this chapter, nor shall the organization's treatment under the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. This section is not intended to abrogate the meaning of "charitable'' under the common law of New Hampshire.

72:23-m Applicability of Exemptions. – The exemptions afforded by RSA 72:23 or 72:23-a through 72:23-k, as well as exemptions granted by other provisions of law, shall be construed to confer exemption only upon property which meets requirements of the statute under which the exemption is claimed. The burden of demonstrating the applicability of any exemption shall be upon the claimant.
Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Re: Commercial complexes planned in Danville

Postby safety frog » Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:43 am

Will this ruling reagarding planning board allowing the developer to fill wetlands affect our planning boards, approval of the development along Route 111?

http://www.eagletribune.com/newhampshir ... -residents
Dennis F
safety frog
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:40 am
Location: Danville

PreviousNext

Return to Danville General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron