CHASE'S HILL, NEW HAMPSHIRE
A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
Daniel
B.S.
Civil
by
E.
Elder
Engineering, Tufts University
(1983)
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN STUDIES AND
PLANNING
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
September
QDaniel
E.
1987
Elder
1987
The author hereby grants to M.I.T. permission to reproduce
and distribute copies of this thesis document.
Signature of
Author
Daniel E. Elder, Dept. of
Urban Studies and Planning
July 31,
Certified
by
1987
___.__________1_
Michael Wheeler, Visiting
Professor
Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted by
----
pt--b-----------------
----
----
M-
Michael Wheeler, Chairman
Interdepartmental Degree Program in
Real Estate Development
""'ACHUJSE TTS INSTITUTE.
OF TECI.HNOLOGY
JUL 2 9 1987
1
LIBRA RIES
CHASE'S HILL,
NEW HAMPSHIRE
A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
by
Daniel E.
Elder
Submitted
to
the
Department of Urban Studies and
Planning
on July 31,
1987 in partial fulfillment for
the
Degree of Masters of Science in Real Estate Development.
ABSTRACT
This
thesis
studies
a large tract of land
in
the
Lakes
Region
of
New
Hampshire.
The paper examines
how
rapid
growth
in
the
area has
impacted
the
existing
regional
infastructure and housing costs.
By
looking at the history and changing demographics of
the
region,
the
paper analyzes the best use for this parcel of
land.
At
the same time,
a close look is taken at how the
approvals
process acts as a constraint on the production of
affordable housing units.
Finally,
a
residential development scenario is created and
tested
against standard requirements and hurdle
rates
for
this type of project.
The emphases here is the exploration
of
alternatives
that would allow for the building of
some
affordable housing units.
Thesis Supervisor:
Michael
Wheeler
Visiting Professor
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT..........
.
.1
TITLE PAGE........
.
.2
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
.
.3
LIST OF EXHIBITS..
.
.5
SECTION ONE:
Introduction..
..
.6
The Region....
. .
.6
The Site......
. .
.7
SECTION TWO:
History....................... 13
Demographics.................. 15
Regional Wealth............... 16
SECTION THREE:
Social
Issues................. 19
Affordable Housing............ 20
Meredith Affordable Housing... 26
Residential
Markets........... 27
SECTION FOUR:
Site Opportunities.............31
Site Analysis..................31
3
SECTION FIVEs
Unit types.................... 43
Design........................44
Construction..................45
SECTION SIX:
Investment Decision............53
Investment Structure.......... 54
SECTION SEVEN:
Conclusions...................57
SECTION EIGHT:
Construction Costs
Zoning Excerpts
Financial
Proformas
END NOTES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
4
LIST OF EXHIBITS
FIGURES
Regional Location Map.............. 10
Site Location Map..................
11
Site Zoning Map....................
12
Regional Growth Charts............. 17
Photographs of
Site................ 18
Photographs of Site............... 30
Site
Alternatives .................. 41
Natural
Site Features.............. 42
Market Comparison.................. 49
Existing Site Grading.............. 50
Site Sewage Disposal................51
Site Environmental.................52
Photographs of Site.................56
5
SECTION
I.
INTRODUCTION
paper
This
examines
the development opportunities for
a large tract of land in the Lakes Region of New
Hampshire.
In the process of studying the needs of the Lakes Region and
appropriate
types of regional
development,
was uncovered that seems to transcend all
and rural,
wealthy and working class:
a
larger
issue
regions both urban
the issue is that of
affordable housing.
Even
people
in
an area that thrives off
wealthy,
some
are being left behind by the ever growing gap in the
cost of housing and a workers earning
real
the
estate
affordable
developers
housing,
the
potential.
Although
are often blamed for the
root causes run as
lack
deep
as
of
the
history of this country.
Using the study site as a realistic focal point,
paper
all
looks
forms
obstacles
roadblocks
the
at the factors that
of housing.
in the path of the market rate
attention
middle
classes
obtaining
impede the development
Those constraints that
to the builder of
and focus of
will
affordable
the
this
federal
of
are
merely
developer
become
housing.
Without
government,
likewise increasingly fall
short
the
of
the great american dream of home ownership.
THE REGION
The
Boston on
Town of Meredith is less than two hours drive from
Route 93.
Centrally located in the Lakes Region
6
of
New Hampshire,
Meredith has plentiful opportunities for
summer and winter recreation alike.
The town,
the western shore of Winnipesaukee,
is conveniently located
within 1/2 hour of adjoining lakes,
quality sking,
situated
on
and the
edge of the Green Mountains resort area.
The
high
expanding
area
price
ski
for
mountain
homes
and
market may reinforce the Lake
as a promising target for continued
the
ever
Winnipesaukee
development.
As
more people look for vacation homes that provide four season
recreational
choice.
could
opportunities,
Easily
then
be
accessible
used
could
expanded,
areas
short
level prices.
retail
trips
home
to
As
the
the
market
of development have opened that
recently were considered undesirable.
currently
a vacation
only land that was shorefront property
resort
new
for
natural
lakes in the summer.
recently,
command
from Boston,
as a base
mountains in winter or
Until
the Lakes Region is a
has
even
Non-water sites
are
relying on easy access to Boston and proximity to
shops as selling points.
The question in the region
is clearly one of how long can the non-water market continue
to
expand.
The Chase's Hill site is an example of such
a
non-water front property.
THE SITE
The
study
Meredith,
wooded
N.H.
site
The
consists of
first
parcel
hillside facing due north.
two parcels
is 60 acres
of
The second is
of adjacent land at the top of the hillside.
7
of
land
in
thickly
120 acres
Primarily, the
second
north
parcel is open field and apple orchard facing to the
and
mountain
land
east.
Both
pieces of
views and interesting
land
natural
is situated off of Route 104,
upper
Lakes Region.
provide
excellent
landscaping.
The
the main road into
The site is serviced by an
the
unimproved
town road with no town water or sewer.
This
site
is not unlike many non-water front
Meredith and the Lakes Region.
hillside
land
required
large
region
large
recently
acre
was
used
acreage.
tracts
of
Historically,
for
agricultural
lots
much of
land were left
that
site in question was originally purchased
that
in
have
been passed over as development targets.
ago for $1,800 per acre.
the
purposes
As the farming declined
in
the
until
The
four
60
years
Now similar sites are being valued
at $10,000 per buildable lot.
The
60 acre parcel is currently zoned at one unit
per
acre, while the larger parcel is one unit per ten acres. For
the
lower parcel
this would be a five fold increase in
land value within a four year period.
years,
the
During the same four
this district has been rezoned four times indicating
town's
currently
even
the
attempt to control growth in
zoned,
region.
As
planned unit developments are allowed and
encouraged by the town.
calls
for
while
the upper parcel
60
the
The proforma for
units of cluster housing on the
is rezoned to allow for
clusters or as single family dwellings.
8
the
site
lower
site
12 units
in
The
or
existing zoning would not allow for any commercial
industrial uses.
pose
significant
development.
short
of
Regardless of zoning,
physical
Alternative
nursing
homes,
constraints
forms
would
to
the site would
nonresidential
of residential
be
allowed
housing,
including
retirement communities or congregate care facilities.
the
exception
differentiate
tenancy.
more
from
The
of short term rentals,
between
highest
various
types
the
of
town
does
not
ownership
or
and best use of this site will
the strength of
its natural attributes
and
location rather than from in-place land use regulations.
9
With
stem
its
rc str .Gratnf
7..e1.
i
Ply
edNo
a PMe
oer
A-
d
Itonborough
*
,,W
**Effnga-
/>mn
N. he.
-0
H,4
M
r
T arsonsfield
Groonshland
Hot
:4n.
"
Orange cl-d
11
C
*I*
Newf6e
ca~~c aafeborign09
m N. Wakefield
ham
ocsnn6
ges afton
M r
rs'Lake
Forbe&
Can- E. Grafton22nS
ne
Limeri
Maik
*Cni
Alxnra
Ro
Granite
QV
iaM
n
GMelvn
d
'
Meien
Vag
Harbor
Can.
E. Wollfe,
A
P
*
lachi
na
I04
GraftonQ
0
s
I1
-
N.
ed
Wiit
Sai
IDest 53I
S. Wolfebor 1 a
Sa
R s
Co.WL
S.aAIxad
an
anuy
H1
e.
HE
_
S.Danbury
22mo
Goris
R R
ai
WalegRollins
bury
I
M! A
07
--
nor
I
N.
.
I
Cas
orhN
S
~~IB'Ioit
broke
We
con.
P.
Nott
Dunbrton
S. Deeried
47
-1-
-
I, 202
A"n.
K
-
HA
Befr
Lyne
Nrhvillage
37
137~tc
0
L29
A4*,,
Vernon
Am
*
He
N
.
rst .
A
en
A
woo-x
anon
Sharon
Ipswih
Rd E. Rindge
ryall
E
I
ndr
"N
tkin.
Newti
je.ij
*'erhs
102
Greemville
,
A
a
Wrr
-1-13
*in
hk
r
rrdod
Pin
WIon
a0u
5U e
Hampstea
Alic.
WI~d
WIN
satsoN
m
5
-
4
i
-
128 ts
-1
L
d5e, L
-tl
i3
Hin
13
*i
ra
-171
Temple
. .
ra
K
Sat I0
Mont
boogh
ll
Pe
*
Grl01
Pe
31
24re
Cad
Auur
Chstr%
Boston
am
l
Newfiret
E.911
136ile
A2
.
Impnd
-a
-Greenfield
- yndeborous
A
SLe10
\10216
Francestown
236igon
A
Ray-Nwnrkt
&
own
4
6 *0
0e
da
In
6
8
..---
dNew
IWest
-iPltOrn boough
*n
}Deerfield4
9Weare
Gramr
wc
E. -hodOrrington
"i-
-ri
5,
N. Bar
c
Nl'
"
,.,,
Zr
137
r,
P.
r
O,
9
114
k
D banon
e o
c.
V,
31
Han
sf
BoCn./
ar
Branc
Clinto
Villag
Benngo *i
anta
??
Roc
sf'I"Sra
7or
N
F-
.
*-
/
H liborogh
Windsor
RA FFG
-an
hest
E.
NCR
202Fas
\
E. Lebanon
n
7
5
285
_W.i
Hopkinton
towe,vd
i
S
scawen
7
nnik
_
F
rn
. Sutt r
i
4 I-
Effyashirit-0"
23
*I
17Loudon
Bradfor
con.
A
SilBr
'adfore
-Hinlfsbofoug
I
I
r 103
ni
Midleon
bano
n
arner
S
filr
N CrsP
9ronwor
Cen ne
-
nonron
,
C
obs
Sutton
S. Newbury
-
manton
-
'h
Upper vi
6
Hghs
297
**" W-o
"
Ato
1
-A
ao
-
Webster
N
*
Fat
N
SAo
New.ae
K
o
te
4
Blodgt
E.hI
Andover
Dse
S-
A
2
3
1 wA2
-,rLAltor
nddover
kNns
Xi
_L
13
* Andove
i
3
Gaz
-
Brokfie
-
Ito
---
1
1,28
geet
1190.B
ater
1
hb
-
Akshbutiham -
sidwiVille
6
Town
Dunstble
poppere
1
T r.
oe-
n FR
6
W.
oEe
. r
2A tc r.
*huet E. Princeton
I" M ad
N. Rutland
6
an;
Essex
oo
a
Middreto
2
328fn
.ood1xnc a
'
St
.
te's. S
6
golt~n
I
27
ky
128
-.
M a ar
11
lena6
R
n
ReaingMA.8
'Carfist
W. n62
- '
gPm
miltr +
12i-8hl
~Bedford
2
bury
N.
Billeric
Wn
-
h
Litncaster
Princeton
62
S
Wesimn
68
*
40
*"a
* 2
IpSWI*C
u w
Grtn
Ashburnham
-Amewnr
3B
orwem-1
31
-I
1
Nahant Biay
Re,
6
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
+1
scale: 1" = 10 miles
source: A.A.A.
2
10
BOSTON-&^
4%vy ,Hl
m"~'
Altertoin
pct
LOCAL LOCATION MAP
scale: 1:2400
source: U.S.G.S.
FC
40
41
40
40
FR
%# 4
4f
60 acres
00 V0)
WOO-
120 acres
4f
4f
Af
4fI
4f
------
- -
m-
-
-
J
/
I
FR
CHASE'S HILL
F R - forestry/rural
FC forestry/conservation
-CHARRETTE
PRO-FORM 92OPF
PRINTED ON 920H CHARPRINT
VELLUM
EXISTING SITE ZONING
SECTION II.
HISTORY
The
Town
Originally
land
was
of
thought
not
hostilities.
resolved
farmland.
eight
half
town
Winnipesaukee alone.
and
in
to be a fertile agricultural
of
the region
due
1768.
area
to
the
frontier
had
been
been
cleared
for
dozen major lakes and difficult terrain
forced the creation of several
1800's
incorporated
the late 1700's native conflicts had
much
The
was
occupied for twenty years
By
and
Meredith
centers
town centers.
had
sprung
By the
up
early
around
Lake
During this period only local residents
the rich could get to the lakes.
Large
mansions
and
hotels grew at the waters edge catering to a summer trade.
It
was not until the 1850's that the future
of Meredith was radically altered.
direction
At that time the Boston,
Concord,
and Montreal railroad opened a station at Meredith
Village.
The lakes became accessible to blue collar workers
through
out New England.
working class,
small
In response to the influx of the
guest cottages appeared to serve those
families fleeing the city for one week each summer.
Another
major
of
town
impact
came in 1855 when the southern third
was incorporated into the town of
shift
almost
was
4000
Laconia.
The
land
significant in that the population dropped
from
people to below 2000.
Those
that
primarily mill workers located around the new mill
of
Laconia.
the
During
the
next 30 years the
13
left
were
community
population
of
Meredith decreased while the population of Laconia
Meredith
never
rebuilt
the
mill
undoubtedly changed the natural
its greatest natural
Rail
access
character
base
that
doubled.
would
have
beauty of Lake Winnipesaukee
resource.
was not the only cause of the
change
of Meredith but it did start a subtle shift
in
away
from
farming and towards the creation of recreational uses.
Only
with
the advent of the car in the
Meredith's
II,
future become sealed.
Meredith
vacation
Region
had
established
activities.
was
Although
early
1900's
did
By the end of World
War
itself
as
a
center
for
Even as late as the 1970's the
Lakes
predominately a blue collar recreational
area.
great
homes were still
common on
the
shores
of
Winnipesaukee, equally common were two season homes and lake
front
cottages.
Now
in
changing.
the
The
upper-class
1980's
regional
the Lakes Region
is
trend is a move back
once
again
towards
vacationer who first came to the area.
A
the
ten
year resident of Laconia said "The character of the Lake has
changed
Ethe real
estate boom] has priced Winnipesaukee out
of the reach of the blue collar family and most white collar
families.
When
I
first
moved here a
plumber could buy a place on the lake.
doctor
couldn't afford
it."
good
Lakes
Region
Today a Lakes Region
(*) The same
regional
factors
that have spurred the growth in 'high tech' New England have
also
changed
the
face of resort areas hundreds
away.
14
of
miles
DEMOGRAPHICS
The
marketing
catch words for the 1980's have
'the gray and the green.'
children
have
left
houses
with
boomer
generation
The so called empty nesters whose
the house are trading
more amenities.
has
become
up
to
At the same time
reached
an
age
where
achieving the greatest earning potential.
smaller
the
baby
they
are
They are looking
to sell first homes and move up to better locations and more
amenities.
to
move
Both of these groups are prepared if not anxious
away
ownership
these
from
the problems
of
single
and into condominium living.
family
The key to both of
groups is disposable income and accrued
rolling
during
over
the
homes
that
have
home
appreciated
equity.
By
substantially
past decade these groups are able
to
move
to
properties of tremendously increased value.
With
the advent of new concepts in condominium living,
including. attached townhouses, two to four family clusters,
and single family condominiums,
available that rival
there are many options
now
the advantages of the traditional home.
Two forces are clearly evident in New Hampshire's Lakes
Region
for
housing industry.
The first
is the continued demand
luxury and upscale vacation homes.
The second and less
obvious factor is the effect that this affluence has had
the
region.
achieved
For
success
the first time local
by
serving
competing for upper end units.
the
large
parcels of
the
residents
tourist
who
industry
on
have
are
These factors, combined with
available privately owned
15
land
have
fueled the rampant growth of new housing.
REGIONAL WEALTH
This wide spread regional
been
growth in the economy has not
as noticeable in Meredith as in the rest of the
Region.
Lakes
Wage rates in Meredith are considerably lower than
in the rest of Belknap County and the State of New Hampshire
as
a
whole.
through
the
Although
wage rate data is
only
available
1980 it shows that Meredith has lagged well
region in wage growth.
behind
During the period from
-
1972
1978 wages in Belknap County and the State increased 49% and
50%
respectively.
grew
at
a rate of
For this same period in Meredith
only 35%
(1).
Given that the
wages
rate
of
inflation rose 56% over the same period, Meredith actually
suffered a wage decrease of 22%.
Surprisingly,
service
surge
oriented economy that has helped push the
in
Meredith.
employed
number
State
wide
37% of
in manufacturing industries.
all
In
building
workers
Meredith
are
this
falls to only 16% with the rest in non-manufacturing
jobs.
Most of these jobs can be found in the
sector
With
this wage deflation can be traced to the
trade/service
where 40% of Meredith's work force is employed
trade
paying,
and service jobs being consistently the
the average wage in Meredith falls
state level.
16
(2).
lowest
well below
the
LAKES REGION
HOUSING UNITS AUTHORIZED BY PERMIT
2500
-
2000
-
D1500.
0
in 1000:2
m
2
500
-
Eu
TRENDS IN THE LAKES REGION
source: Doing Business in
The Lakes Region
7
9
K
...9
1982
-
;b -,
1983
17
q
K
1984
1985
18
SECTION III.
SOCIAL ISSUES
There
are
three
social
issues of
major
concern
to
residents of the Lakes Region.
The first of these issues is
the
Meredith,
use
of
sporadic zoning.
Lakes Region communities,
onslaught
prepared
has
like most of
is fully aware of
of development.
Unfortunately,
the
the
continuing
the town is
not
to deal effectively with the problem and therefore
used
repeated zoning changes to
effect the only control
control
growth.
In
available to the town is rezoning in
the face of continued development. The Lakes Region Planning
Council
has attempted to direct the 28 towns in the
towards
the
Yet,
after
adoption of reasonable land
fifteen
years
of working in
Council credits only two communities,
with
adopting
effective
use
land
region
regulations.
the
region
the
Laconia, and Franklin
use
controls.
Several
communities still have no zoning or building regulations.
The
effects
second
of
concern is the question of the
continued
development on
sensitive chain of lakes in the
the
region.
long
term
environmentally
Currently,
there
are so many watercraft on Lake Winnipesaukee that a two year
ban
on
imposed.
additional
Meredith
boating
has
permits
identified
and
just
boat
three
slips
was
potential
aquifer areas within the towns' borders.
However, they have
not
in environmentally
adapted any controls for development
sensitive areas.
19
Lastly,
is
there
the
devastating
effect
that
development has had on the affordability of housing.
residents
have
property
rates
often
because
alone.
continue
been forced to dispose
of their inability to pay
of
Local
lakeside
the
high
Future expansion of the vacation market will
to displace local
residents and
could
ultimately
destroy
the fragile resort economy that the region
As
support personnel are forced to move away from
the
amenities
less
that
incentive
constant
tax
offers.
brought them to the lakes region
there
to
out
supply
of
remain in
the
managerial
area.
With
labor the
fragile
the
is
this
service
industry could become unable to provide the level of support
that the tourist trade demands.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The
affordable
headlines
housing
for years.
breaks,
successful
units.
issue has
In the past,
was government subsidies.
tried including:
tax
housing
direct subsidies,
and free land.
and
been
making
the key to
affordable
Many programs have been
low interest financing,
Many of these
programs
produced significant numbers of
Unfortunately,
news
were
affordable
the long term need for this type of
housing has not been met as many policies were short sighted
creating one time opportunities that did not ultimately keep
affordable
have
New
1980
units in the housing stock.
The programs
been eliminated are those which generated over
Hampshire's
and
1987.
total of
low income rental
units
75%
that
of
between
As the federal government has moved out of
20
the
subsidy
business local governments have been
left
to
fill the gap.
In general, housing programs work best when implemented
by
people
at
the
local
level
who
have
interests of the community at heart.
including
become
inclusionary
popular.
practical
nothing
zoning and
However,
long
term
Modern housing reforms
linkage
these
programs
programs
for smaller communities.
are
have
rarely
As the Lakes Region is
more
than
a cluster of small
to
look
at the fundamental
important
the
communities
issues
of
it
is
creating
affordable housing.
Ultimately,
production
of
difficult
where
is
there
are
many factors that
affordable housing.
The most
regulatory
sufficient
decisions are made,
quantity
and
effort
to create housing,
level,
housing.
not be produced
if communities seek
as a means of controlling growth.
the
notable
to provide
supply
process,
the
an underlying desire at the community
Both market rate and affordable housing will
in
effect
to
constrict
The grass
roots
starts with the local regulatory
underling zoning codes,
and
the
developers
ability to work within the system.
Although administrative procedures are only one of
many
factors
that effect the price of housing,
control
the competitiveness within the market and therefore
the
market
competitive
consumers
pressure
price.
to produce a
"Ultimately,
quality
the
they
product
state's
share the cost of excessive delays and
21
ultimately
at
a
housing
standards
which often raise housing costs with no perceptible increase
in
the
are:
quality."
zoning codes
process,
(3)
Included in the procedural
(land use),
and the approval
building codes, the permitting
procedure.
have a great impact on the cost,
the
category
Each of the steps can
and more
importantly,
on
therefore,
on
time required to complete a project and
the ultimate cost. By creating a more efficient process both
the time and the risk involved in a project can be minimized
leading to
A
gives
a reduction in the final cost of the product.
close
an
look at a community's approval process
indication of a town's willingness to
developers.
procedures
often
work
with
Many communities have a multi-stepped approval
that requires multiple submissions to
different
boards with expensive fees attached to each step.
This type
of
process
only
does little to encourage good
succeeds
in discouraging development in
affordable housing in particular.
community
to
development,
create
a
general
it
and
It is not difficult for a
streamlined
procedure
where
one
application and one fee start the approval process.
The
most important element of any approval
informal meetings with planning officials.
applicant
plan,
to
component
review
the
the
town
and
the
developer
objectives of each party.
is a clearly defined path through
boards
environmental,
including
zoning,
and utilities.
is
By allowing the
discuss alternatives before creating a
both
incorporate
process
are
final
able
Another
to
major
the
necessary
special
permits,
The number of steps is less
22
important than the ability to have simultaneous reviews.
setting time requirements on planning boards and
approval
which
as
from
the
Finally, there needs to be a mechanism by
process.
the entire process is overseen by one governing
body
for
each
efficiency
insure fairness and
to
means
a
scheduling
removed
be
can
months
meetings,
consecutive
By
applicant.
zoning
existing
addition to the approval process,
In
building codes have a major
impact on the type and cost
of the housing that is produced.
Building codes tend to be
and
terms
in
outdated
of
localities
that
have also not adopted state
allowed.
Many
regional
building
outsiders
to build efficiently in
adopting
materials
of
the types
are
or
difficult
for
communities.
By
a standardized building code communities can
only
it
making
standards
some
improve the quality and efficiency of the housing produced.
There is also the impact of existing zoning regulations
on
production
the
complexity
affordable
existing codes with
of
exception
special
of
process impossible.
A thorough
overlay
a
makes
requirements
Often
the
districts
and
housing.
look at
smooth
approval
land use regulations
and the availability of developable land in a community will
often
reveal
number
of
different residential
need for special
areas,
increase
By reducing
the
zones and eliminating
the
inequalities in the system.
exceptions for multi-family housing in some
new development opportunities are created that
will
the quality and quantity for affordable and market
23
rate housing.
The
approvals
effecting
the
process is clearly not the only
cost
of
housing.
The
hard
costs
development
including
construction
costs all play an important roll in the
project cost.
including
can
In addition,
interest carries,
also
make
AffoPdAble
directly
the
h@WsiBA9
prices,
can
development
costs.
Land
costs
production
site
bonding,
difference
and
final
development
overhead,
between
of
costs,
the soft costs of
and profit
market
rate
and
Although @a@h of these aF@a§ i§
related to market forces,
communities
costs
land
factor
have
an
remain
m@F@
there are places
impact that
will
as a significant
of affordable housing.
where
reduce
barrier
total
to
the
During the 1970's
land
were second only to financing costs in their rate
increase
(4).
of
It is rare that this increase would be due to
a shortage of land as opposed to a lack of developable land.
Often the creation of infastructure including. roads, water,
and
most importantly sewerage have lagged behind the actual
development of land.
remaining
parcels
infastructure.
especially
increase
frustrated
that
are
production
in
these
serviced
of
low
areas
by
existing
cost
both
housing
by
in land values and by local development
Increasingly,
been
"The
This puts an enormous pressure on the
a
is
rapid
controls.
low to moderate income housing production has
directed to sites which can achieve low per unit
costs, which are often distant from centers of demand
24
land
."
(5)
Communities
must
prepare
for
the
future
by
planning
extensive improvements and extensions to existing systems.
Density, a second major factor influencing land prices,
is
also a zoning issue.
below
what
land
rises
the market will
affordable
or
By
requiring
a
allowing
form
of
housing can be the product of
than a town might desire.
densities
cost
accept the price per
dramatically.
developments
reduced
When allowable densities are kept
unit
for
planned
density
unit
bonuses,
slightly
greater
Other factors such as
lot areas and set backs can also greatly effect
the
land without effecting the aesthetic quality of
of
a
development.
The
also
actual costs of construction,
play
an important roll
can run 50% codes
can
be
traced to
construction
costs
do not allow prefabricated or modular
components.
Requirements
and
high
Basic
widths,
parking
archaic
in
progressive
that restrict the use
site
space size,
terms of modern
planning regulations
and utility needs
standards.
Again,
where
building
of
multi-
already
attached housing structures add to the
costs.
it
The effect of the building
communities
family
building,
in the price of housing as
60% of the total.
often
site and
for
road
are
often
by
using
building and zoning standards housing units can
be completed at a lower cost without sacrificing quality and
safety.
25
MEREDITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Like
many
communities,
affordable housing problem.
Region Planning Council
there
was
housing
that
for
a
serious
over half the respondents felt
an inadequate supply of elderly
and
that
affordable
At the same time 70% felt
supply of mobile home lots was
(6)
faces
In a recent survey by the Lakes
units in the community.
the
much."
Meredith
"adequate
or
too
It is common for communities to perceive the need
affordable
housing
while being resistant
to
finding
specific solutions.
The affordable housing gap in Meredith effects not only
low income families.
"If
the rise in both housing costs and
income and wage levels is examined in terms of
dollars
constant 1970
by applying an inflation factor of 0.468,
then the
average rental housing costs have increased 42% from 1970 to
1980
and
the
single family
homes
average
market
price
increased 29%, while median family income declined 24%."
This
dramatic
impossible
housing of
"The
but
reduction in disposable income has
for the average Lakes Region family to
made
it
purchase
any kind.
pressing need is for new moderate priced housing,
most builders are content to tap the vacation and
affluent
(7)
primary
home
markets."
(8)
Given
that
more
the
affordable housing crisis is no secret, one might wonder why
local
Yet,
political
the
committed
forces
Planning
to
have not moved to
Board
creative
and Town
land use
26
and
fill
the
gap,
do
not
seem
Council
zoning
reform.
The
use
land
of
process
historical precedent. Commercial
manufacturing
regulations
only
of
districts were created when
Restrictive use
jobs began to leave the area.
were
one
is
Meredith
regulation in
promulgated when the
lakes
became
threatened with over development.
Even in the most general
terms,
the existing allowable
uses regulations in Meredith are intended to limit all
land
development, not encourage good development. Typical
views
property...
promote
It
board..."
That's why we haven't had a planning
quality development of all
The
types.
key
used
to
controls was basing development densities on physical
these
characteristics
for
It has a terrible connotation...
In neighboring towns land use controls have been
(9)
acre
"I
somebody's going to tell me what I can do with my own
means
to
who says
of one long time Lakes Region resident,
hate the term zoning.
are the
of
predetermined
the site and not on
The final step is creating use
densities.
and
commercial,
residential,
industrial
per
districts
uses
that
encourage each type, but buffers one from another.
RESIDENTIAL MARKET
are
There
currently
three major land
use
has been limited more by demand than regulation.
one
occurred.
of
two areas where this type
The
of
Route 104
development
second type is commercial/retail uses
have proliferated throughout the community.
downtown
in
The first is light industrial manufacturing which
Meredith.
is
types
has
that
Except for the
area most of the retail development has been strip
27
shopping
centers
and
one
retailer
establishments.
The
predominate land use in Meredith is residential.
Residential
uses can be broken down into five types of
housing.
Seasonal
component
with less than
home
parks
round
the
1000 units still in
are a small but important
residents.
mobile
low end of
residencies make up the smallest housing
use.
component
Mobile
for
year
Although actively regulated by the
town
home market continues to expand and define
the
the housing market.
Single family homes are by far the largest component of
the
market.
With most seasonal
homes fully weatherized it
is difficult to separate the seasonal
the
year
round
residents.
component from that of
Geographically,
year
round
residents occupy non-water front property that tends to have
better access to employment centers in Meredith and Laconia.
The newest
segment of the market is condominiums.
This form
of ownership has existed in the lakes region for many
but
until
recently most new construction was still
family homes.
years
single
Condominium projects now make up the bulk of
all building permits. Although, not because of the number of
projects,
but because of the large number of units in
each
project.
The
final
form
of
retirement communities,
elderly people.
exceeds
the
whether
these
In fact,
birth
housing is
congregate
care
and
Meredith has a large population of
the death rate in Meredith
rate in a given year.
people are long time
28
often
It
is
unclear
residents
or
persons
retiring to the region.
With
a rental
of
each of the forms of residential housing there is
component as well
the rental
housing is,
lodges, and motels.
less
than
as an ownership component.
however,
Most
in the form of
camps,
This large influx of tourists who spend
two weeks in the region,
require little or
no
town services while expending large quantities of cash.
Lakes Region housing market is exploding,
The
fact
that
in a recent Laconia development
townhomes
sold
in
the
building
housing
permits
four months.
(10)
Record
are being issued across the
prices skyrocket.
house
has gone from $58,739
year.
(11)
Locally,
witness
28
of
30
numbers
of
state
while
the average cost of a
in 1985 to over
$120,000
this
At the same time over 18,000 housing units were
built statewide in both 1985 and 1986. During the 1970's the
number of new units was only 10,500 per year.
over
1500 new units were built in Belknap County last
versus just 600 units in
1981.
year
(13)
the Lakes Region even the $100,000 house is hard to
In
#1
Table
find.
shows recent condominium resales and
asking prices for new condominium projects.
unit
(12) Locally,
priced
$200,000
at $130,000 and an average
the
With the lowest
price
well
above
it is easy to see how housing costs are out-pacing
local
incomes.
risen
above
The
average price for
new
projects
whole
new
condominium projects do not even claim water views much
less
$125
per
square
foot.
water access.
29
On
the
has
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
30
SECTION IV.
SITE OPPORTUNITIES
The
study
site is some what limited in the
uses that are appropriate,
regulations,
but
also
geographic features.
not only due to
because
types
current zoning
of the site
location
and
Although the site is located off route
104,
the
major access road for the upper Lakes Region,
does
not
have
slopes
of
direct access to route 104
and
the
it
steep
make both industrial and commercial uses unfeasible.
As the current residential
zoning indicates the site is best
suited for some form of housing.
Even
as a residential area the steep terrain
potential
uses.
For
example,
dictates
the densities required
of
mobile home parks are not feasible on steeply sloping sites.
The
three
remaining
condominiums,
housing,
and
with
options
elder
ownership
are
care
single
housing.
family
These
and rental options,
homes,
types
of
will be
the
focus of this study.
SITE ANALYSIS
Before
each
of
the possible uses can be
studied
detail
the study site must be reviewed in terms of
right'
development
would
encourage
Meredith
difference
and site
or discourage development.
has four residential
forestry/rural,
major
opportunities
zoning
forestry/conservation,
between
areas is the
31
types:
'as
features
The
in
Town
of
that
of
residential,
and shoreline.
minimum
lot
The
area
required for each dwelling unit.
study
site
allows
falls
The lower 60 acres of the
within a forestry/rural
for a density of one unit per
district
acre.
which
The upper
120
acres of the site is forestry/conservation where the maximum
density is restricted to one unit per ten acres.
Due
to
the
physical
aspects
factor.
Town
fields
make
difficult.
and
major
of
of municipal
the site are
development
Soil
of
the
water
often
requirements for well
extensive
design
lack
and
the
sewer
controlling
capacity and
region's
impossible.
outcroppings
The disposal
make
leaching
steep
types also play a major role.
bedrock
terrain
Poor soils
leaching
field
of septic effluent
concern in the lakes region.
the
The region's
is
a
aquifers
are closely linked with lakes and ponds making contamination
of both groundwater and surface water a serious problem.
second
concern
is the potential contamination of
A
existing
drinking water supplies from poorly designed septic systems.
Soil types effect both the value and ease of developing
a parcel of land.
well
Given
The best type of soils are those that are
drained including sands,
sufficient
depth
to
gravels,
bedrock
and glacial tills.
these
excellent treatment of wastewater effluent.
are
soils
provide
Some soils that
less permeable due to high clay and silt
contents
are
still
usable but are far less effective or desirable.
The
final
grouping
all
suitable
includes those soils that are
for septic treatment.
with shallow bedrock,
not
These soils include
at
those
very high clay and silt contents, and
32
areas where groundwater is near the surface.
The
Chase's
Hill
area has little or
no
limitations
based on soil type for on-site sewage disposal.
Only at the
high
point
of
the property where there
is
a
amount of surface bedrock is there a disposal
careful
planning
for the location of
systems
and
use of
the
these areas much of
Another
is
problem.
subsurface
lift stations to get
potential
intervals from 0% to 20%.
0%
-
from
-
10% present little
or
15% present some design
significant
slope
and
The relative
with
The first two groupings from
usable for development.
create
the
into four categories
no design concern
these areas ideal for development.
10%
still
As
become more severe.
5%
making
to
type problem
problems with storm water run-off
steepness of slopes can be broken
and 5% -
disposal
effluent
factor that can compound the soil
subsurface sewage disposal
5%
With
the site could be developed.
the extent of steep slopes on the site.
increases
pronounced
Slopes
ranging
difficulties
but are
Slopes that are
engineering
problems and
above
are
15%
usually
unsuitable for development.
Municipalities
areas
must be careful
where steep slopes occur.
in
their
regulation
of
Long term maintenance
of
roads and potential erosion problems make the development of
steep
areas
disposal
potential
undesirable.
system
failure
There
is
in areas of
also
steep
the
slopes.
risks to surface water and groundwater
from untreated sewage are substantial.
33
risk
of
The
resources
must be remembered
It
that
slope
slopes
can
placed
on
is
it
that
average
is often a site's
important because areas with
the
greatest
areas
be left undeveloped while treatment
where
The study site has areas
flatter slopes.
are
existing slopes exceed 25% making those areas impossible for
However,
development.
5% -
from
ranging
15%
other
Several
factors can have a major impact on
for a site's development.
Not
environmentally sensitive areas.
are
the
Wetland areas where the
of groundwater is at or above the level
average level
of the
are
only
areas protected by state regulation they play a major
these
role
the site
of
with the upper portion
could be used for development.
of the site
potential
slopes
majority of the site has
With careful engineering almost all
being relatively flat.
land
a
existing
preservation of
the
in
lakes
ponds.
and
Floodplain areas may also be unsuited for development due to
during
flooding
possible
do
regulations
storm
periods.
Although
not prohibit building in these areas
there
are extensive guidelines on maintaining flood storage volume
and preventing flood erosion.
Although
Chase's
Hill,
floodplain
there is a small wetland area at the base
this
areas.
site
It
is not effected
by
wetland
should be noted that wetland
of
or
areas
must be protected during and after construction and that the
approval
process for altering and crossing these areas
can
be time consuming and expensive.
Site
limitations
on Chase's Hill do not
34
present
any
major
constraints
community.
The
to
the
development
of
a
residential
'as of right' density of one unit per acre
is easily obtainable on the lower 60 acre parcel.
design
these
concern
units to areas where it
The upper
can
is the need for pumps to move
120 acre parcel,
can be
The only
sewage
adequately
from
disposed.
zoned for one unit per
10 acres,
easily be developed at that density but presents little
opportunity for any inclusion of
low income units due to the
low allowable density.
Given
parcels
would
the
combining and rezoning of
seem
to
stand point.
is
rapid decrease in density between
not
the entire
make the most sense from
Unfortunately,
always
the
two
180 acre
an
site
environmental
what is environmentally sound
acceptable to the local
zoning
always requires more work than proceeding with
board
and
'as of right'
densities.
As
shown
on Table #2 a small
increase in the
density of both parcels allows for several
the project.
housing
priced
at $85,000 each.
developer
is
25%
a
is
from one
lower percentage of
This, in essence,
increase
production
of
in
overall
a
unit
Although the return to the
the
investment,
dollar value is sufficient to encourage this type
cooperation.
a
The second
in the density of the lower parcel
per acre to .75 units per acre.
actual
major benefits to
The first is the production of nine affordable
units,
reduction
overall
the
of
is inclusionary zoning where
density
10% affordable units.
is
It
given
is
for
the
particularly
the
on
here because of the low original density
effective
upper parcel.
affordable
service
higher density projects with
opportunities
Other
has
town
units but ultimately the
produce
tangible
most
The
direct
are
the town
for
to the developer other than monetary incentives
benefit
of
streamlining
the
that
assurance
a
into
units
affordable
inclusion of a
percentage
preset
of
assure
will
project
proposed
is
The
process.
approvals
the
to
tax
little additional
that come in various forms.
subsidies
every
In
Bonus densities will
the town is the source of the benefit.
revenues.
to
for inclusionary zoning with a density bonus,
except
the
town
the production of affordable housing.
encourage
case,
the
to
available
are
options
other
Many
approval is worth a significant amount to any developer.
hopes
Ultimately,
town
small
sophistication
have
or
desire
the
Often
issue.
resentment
At
unit.
the
same
from the development community.
that
most
horizon
municipalities look at a
where
it
is better
to
an
creating
time
but produce
guidelines require not only work,
inclusionary
planning
level.
administrative
to effectively deal with the
housing
affordable
obvious
boards
affordable
a fear of the type of person who might occupy
is
there
planning
of
the production
units often die at the local
housing
Few
for
It
is
fairly
short
fairly
stay
with
the
historical process than set new precedents.
The
Town
of Meredith has been working on yet
36
another
amendment
to
the
zoning
ordinance.
This
amendment to the original ordinance in 16
one
in each year since 1975.
zoning
change
Forestry
and
density
on
Hill
enormous.
increase the minimum lot
The
the
13th
including
the proposed
size
in
Districts from one acre per unit
all
to
and all other rural
land owners
would
be
'as of right' density would change from
60
The only real
left for the land owner would be the subdivision
parcel
into large single family homes or super
condominiums.
inclusion
a
The impact of this change
to Just 12 units on the 60 acre site.
option
the
Rural
years,
Unfortunately,
of five acres per unit.
Chase's
units
will
is
In
no
case
would
the
luxury
opportunity
of affordable units make sense under the
of
for
revised
zoning.
The
proposed
opposition.
revision has been received
with
little
During two recent zoning board meeting the only
dissenters were land owners who faced a down zoning of their
land.
the
For the most part, the revision has little impact on
average
impacts
resident,
than
concerns
the
over
misunderstanding
affordable
who is more concerned with
average price
traffic
and
of
type
housing
the
of
a
new
pollution
of
home.
coupled
person
traffic
caught
gap make it difficult to
Local
with
a
in
the
overcome
the
clear paradox in the new zoning.
As
shown
in
Table #2
zoning would be limited.
high
per
unit
the options under
the
revised
With only 12 units on the site the
acquisition
price
37
makes
a
condominium
development
unfeasible.
The Lakes Region market will
accept a condominium priced to produce a sufficient
If
both
parcels
were to be subdivided into
not
return.
large
single
family homes they could be sold for the $350,000 required to
provide
would
a return.
In fact,
create a substantial
these top of the market homes
return
if the demand
for
these
homes were to remain steady.
It
is clear that the Town of Meredith is not
to deal with the issue of affordable housing.
choosing
to
regardless
reactive
zoning
of
that
is
will
on the
need
far more common
is necessary to
to
control
This type
than
produce
growth
the
change
housing
the group
affordable
consensus
has never been established.
housing.
more than several
Even
socially
concerned
need
required
The group
ultimately support local housing initiatives
of
proactive
community and business leaders alike see the
affordable
create
only
Instead it is
the impact on housing costs.
zoning
Although
for
focus
prepared
to
who
must
be
individuals.
in the Lakes Region the affordable housing
issue
is fundamentally more important than Just a social cause. As
Doug Riddle, vice president of the Indian Head National Bank
points
"We
out
income
housing
construction
seem to be in
is
costs
a paradox -
available
are
to
very
attract
skyrocketing
workers,
because
attractiveness of the secondary home market."
need
for
affordable
housing
may be
the
creating an affordable housing initiative.
38
little
The
key
of
low
and
the
economic
factor
in
Only through the
work
of a broad based group of people can a policy for
creation
of
affordable
implemented.
business
Without
people,
housing
be
developed
the support of local
and special
the
and
then
professionals,
interest groups
it is all
but
impossible to obtain the momentum required to succeed.
The
three
are
most
important
{actors it
understanding the issue,
creating
the people,
consensus
and the real
goals of
each party.
The
problem
faced
affordable housing.
hotly
even
in this case is
clearly
that
of
This,
however, is not an issue that is
debated any longer.
Within the Lakes Region it might
be
hard
affordable
involved
to
housing
and
find someone who
crisis does
their actual
not
would
argue
exist.
that
an
The
parties
interests in affordable
housing
are more difficult to ascertain.
For the Superintendent of
Schools a shortage of affordable housing and construction of
second
homes means dropping enrollments and
reduced
state
business the issue represents a
staff
funding.
For
shortage
on one hand but a more affluent clientele
local
on
the
other hand. For the town planner affordable housing may mean
more traffic and a reduced tax base at the same time.
Only
through
extensive
networking
and
coalition
building will each of the parties and their goals emerge. If
these groups can then meet in a constructive forum ideas can
be
presented
creation
In
and
of formal
Meredith,
the
discussed
while
working
objectives and a plan of
over
riding concern
39
is
towards
the
implementation.
that
of
over
The town currently
building in currently undeveloped areas.
owns or controls over 3% of the its land area. A large tract
of this land is adjacent to Chase's Hill,
a focal
At
point for discussions concerning affordable housing.
the same time,
environmentally
minimal
sections of town could be designated
safe for additional housing densities
impact on traffic and
Regardless
Chase's
this could act as
Hill
of
the
as
with
lake pollution.
ultimate use
and
development
the issue of affordable housing
in
of
Meredith
reverse
the
current trend towards large lots and low densities will
help
will
remain.
Only
a
grass roots effort to
to alleviate the ensuing crisis.
40
19t
ooolooolzs
18
o0oluls
ul
000,00zlis
lit
000,09blis
%"
00019ttlis
HAW
H
06
U
zi
09
s
t
t
z
1
NClidC
N811138 % SUNO IViOi
$
julopuall fiuluoz Japun liqlNollf
sls3jvd qloq uo snoq Allovi albuls g
13AII NORA
uo;ldo Aujsnoq sjqvpjojjv
06 idnal Nolido
sload qloq uo s1lun enjuisopum
slund qloq uo slltm onjuloopun
ZL
lond jmqjjs uo sllun sllun onjuloopun
ZI
MUM
NORA
IOU Noildo
t3NO Nolido
jund jaml uo s1lun vn;ulvopuo3 09
---------------------------------83AUVKHRIV AiISN30 10 NOSIWdMO3
HN 'HiIQ383W
111H 9,39VH3
4f
41f
41
4f
/ 7A
-7'
7
0~
4f
#'
4f
4f
0. z/
I*
4f
4f
mm mm mm =moo*
CHASE'S HILL
APPROVED BY
U-..
Lr'H
orchard
views
CHARRETTE PRO-FORM 920PF
PRINTED ON 920H CHARPRINT VELLUM
NATURAL FEATURES
I
SECTION V.
UNIT TYPES
The
rental
Lakes
Region has a severe shortage of
housing.
Most
of the available rental
long
term
units
are
primarily short term rentals in the form of motels and guest
cottages.
The
shortage of long term rental
housing
stems
from problems at both the state and local level.
In
Meredith there is
little incentive to build
housing to serve the needs of
of
local
First,
much
the demand for this type of residence does in fact
come
from
a
long
term
transient population.
rental
There also tends to be
units in surrounding communities
form of two to four unit dwellings.
houses
On
a regional
on
both
and
the
Many of the large older
owner
units.
several
years.
The
increasing
of condominium ownership has pushed the emphasis
development
lucrative
some
level the production of rental units has
the decline for
popularity
of
in
have been subdivided providing a unit for the
and one to three long term rental
been
residents.
rental
away
condominium
Federal
subsidy
development.
from
apartments
business.
towards
During this same
and State governments have been
benefits that once encouraged
Over
and
the
rental
changes in the Federal
reduced
the investors incentive to become involved
housing projects.
43
tax
housing
low
funding
market rate rental
period
reducing
above the cut backs in
tax code have
more
income
significantly
in
even
The
The
Chase's Hill site is not a simple site to develop.
constraints of steep slopes,
site
lack
of
municipal
services, and low allowable densities make the production of
rental
housing
increases
in
financially impossible.
Even the
density allow only for the
small
number of
from
the sale of
that
all
proposed
production
of
a
for-sale units that are subsidized by income
market rate units.
developers
It is more than likely
will face an economic
gap
in
their
ability to build rental housing until the government creates
an advantageous situation under which to develop.
DESIGN
The
make
natural site features of the Chase's Hill property
the selection of unit design relatively
steep
and
inclines
construction
inefficient.
space
and
of
simple.
on-site utility constraints
a large number of single family
At the same time,
natural
forested
land,
points
the
dwellings
open
the
towards
This type of building
now dominates the condominium market because of
the reduced cost of
construction,
make
the need to maintain
construction of clustered townhouses.
ease of
The
the relative
production,
and
the ability to develop higher densities on less land thereby
providing more recreation and open space.
The
actual
determined
is,
each
have
layout
of the units would
ultimately
be
by market research of the target population.
It
however, possible to roughly define the requirements of
of the potential user groups.
been
placed
in
one
of
44
two
The year
round
users
groups.
The
first
category
includes
relatively
large
conveniences.
older
who
are
looking
single floor units with a high
This
spare bedroom,
couples
level
user group is looking for at least
direct garage access,
and several
distinct
comfortable living spaces such as screened porches
sun
rooms usually in the range of
The
second
married
1800
with
no children.
This
and
square feet.
group of year round users are young singles
couples
of
one
and
1200 -
for
group
is
or
less
concerned with the size of the unit but still wants the best
in personal
-
and common amenities.
Unit sizes range from 900
1200 square feet with two bedrooms.
units is high-tech kitchens and baths,
The focus
of these
and direct access to
outdoor living spaces.
Other
second
than
home
community.
as
the
buyer
The
affluent year round
would
needs
be attracted
user,
to
only
this
the
type
of second home buyers are
the
of
same
those for permanent residents but they also desire more
bedrooms
if
not
additional
square
footage.
Equally
important
to
the second home buyer is the on-site
amenity
package including both outdoor and clubhouse activities.
CONSTRUCTION
From
play
a
Region.
the developer's point of view construction issues
major
Not
transportation
qualified
role in fast growing areas
the
Lakes
only is there a premium for materials due
to
distance but there tends to be a shortage of
contractors
construction.
like
Because
which
over
drives
up
the
50% of the total
45
cost
of
development
cost falls into this
no
control,
area where the developer has little or
construction costs become a major
issue in the
development process.
In
the
Northeast
constraint
to
the
the
environment
construction
Weather conditions often drive up
delays.
At
the
significantly
same
reduced
time
of
also
affordable
the cost of
the
so that small
acts
as
a
housing.
housing due to
building
season
contractors
is
are
less
able to produce a larger number of units at a smaller profit
margin.
The
climate
when
requirements and a general
the
combined
with
strict
zoning
shortage of labor has not allowed
larger builders in the country to effectively penetrate
the New England market.
large
Given the proper incentives
these
contractors might be able to produce large numbers of
housing
units at a cost that is well below what is
thought
to be possible.
Several factors within the construction industry can be
controlled
to
help reduce both the risk and high
building in New England.
premanufacturing
like
roof
prebuilt,
and
of
trusses
almost all
of
structure,
delays.
time
the
of
The most important of these is the
components.
and floor
Although some
sections,
are
routinely
joists,
now
housing parts can be assembled off-site
then joined together at the building.
amount
cost
required
to
contractor
is
produce
By reducing the
a
'water
tight'
less susceptible to
weather
The use of preassembled components can also produce
a higher quality product at a reduced cost.
46
The manufacturing of housing parts is no different than
other
production
environment,
better
The
products
quality
of
can
By working in a
be assembled
Today,
production
and
the
use of
known
like structures
computerized
with
field.
for
that
its
were
scheduling
and
techniques can create an almost infinite variety
modules that can be assembled in the
ability
faster
housing industry was once
creativity and the box
produced.
controlled
control than parts assembled in the
manufactured
lack
of
industries.
to
field.
With
produce one of a kind designs efficiently,
the
even
the best of homes can be premanufactured.
Other
cost
of
factors that can have an important impact on the
construction
include using
purchasing
raw
specifying
construction
available,
The
materials
nonunion
directly
techniques
contractors,
wholesalers,
from
that
and coordinating subcontractors to
are
locally
avoid delays.
construction portion of any project is al ways the
most
difficult to quantify and qualify in advance.
Each project
is
and
unique
in terms of subsurface
conditions
weather
patterns.
Because of these unknowns advance planning can be
a critical
factor.
soils
borings,
Preconstruction services like surveying,
and scheduling must be a priority to
avoid
the pitfalls of construction.
For
the
purposes
of the site
costs were bases on estimates from R.
numbers
of
analysis
S.
construction
Means.
These base
were adjusted upwards for the increased
difficulty
the Chase's Hill site.
The final
47
construction cost per
net
square foot of $80 is well above the national
for
this
estimated
space
is
type of development as shown on
Table
averages
#3.
The
sell off price of $125 per square foot of livable
based on the average of the four
projects as shown in Table #1.
new
condominium
Other assumptions are based
on what would normally be expected for this size complex.
48
CHASE'S HILL
MEREDITH, NH
t3nan
1112121
3
38E33sang
E
33333 33a33n3g33
383333333333588u3333533333333
COMPARISON OF RECENT CONDOMINIUM SALES
Meredith
2 bd,
bth, on water
$329,000
Laconia
2 bd,
bth, off water
$130,000
Bilford
3 bd,
bth, on water
$269,000
Meredith
2 bd,
bth, off water
$189,900
Laconia
2 bd,
bth, water view
$239,900
Gilford
2 bd,
bth, water view
$225,000
COMPARISON OF RECENT CONDMINIUM PROJECTS
Laconia
Nildwood Village
3 bd, 2 bth, no view
$180,000 - $204,000
1720 sf - 190 sf
105 S/sf - 106 S/sf
Laconia
Woodgate Coeeons
3 bd, 2 bth, with view
$160,000 - $180,000
1290 if - 1370 if
124 $/sf - 131 S/sf
Bilford
Country Village
3 bd, 3 bth, no view
$160,000 - $194,000
1800 sf - 2000 sf
86 $/sf - 97 S/sf
Meredith
Grouse Point
3 bd, 3 bth, water view
$310,000 - $350,000
2000 sf - 2200 sf
155 5/sf - 159 $/sf
49
4f
4f
.0
mo-
o-o-mo
m
CHASE'S HILL
EXISTING GRADES
CHARRETTE PRO-FORM 920PF
PRINTED ON 920H CHARPRINT VELLUM
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
V
~6
~6
/
-I-'
4
I
4f
4f
4f
4f
-
SCALE:
DRAWN BY
SEWAGE DISPOSAL LIMITATIONS
severe
PRINTED ON 920H CHARPRINT
APPROVED BY
DATE:
some
PRO-FORM 920PF
fw"
CHASE'S HILL
none
CHARRETTE
M-si
m -
If
4f
4f
DRAWING NUMBER
VELLUM
/
/
/
/
-s-I-I41f
I
4i
4i
41
9'
-s-s
'4
'4
'4
9'
I
I
'4
4
/*
41
4f
4k
40
4k
41
CHASE'S HILL
wetlands
20/o+ slope
CHARRETTE PRO-FORM 920PF
PRINTED ON 920H CHARPRINT VELLUM
)1
SECTION VI.
INVESTMENT DECISION
more a question of the market risk than that of a
case
in
market,
the
of
cost
housing
is far less than the price that the market
production
bear.
fast growing
any
financial
and as would tend to be the
the proformas show,
As
risk.
really
decision to invest or not invest is
final
The
situation creates a comfortable buffer
This
will
in
the
of rising interest rates or excessive cost overruns in
face
no margin can create a buffer against
yet,
construction,
the potential market risk in the same fast growing area.
a
As
regional
market grows,
new
overpriced or poorly located
very few cases can one sell
units in a soft market.
and
it can become quickly overbuilt.
builders enter the market,
In
rise,
prices
For this reason,
the market study
becomes important not only at the point of planning but also
as
a project progresses.
carefully
trends
The competition must be followed
predict possible over building
to
and
changing
market demand that could be incorporated into
in
a
product as it comes on line.
In
approvals
Meredith
and
the
entire Lakes
process that has been
also is a boon to marketing.
is
often
a
For
example,
the
same
a roadblock to development
The effect of
profound extension of the
housing demand.
Region
tight regulation
natural
cycle
for
people often credit Boston's
continued strong demand for office space as a product of the
53
rigorous approvals process in the city.
several
years
becomes
relatively
to
approve
If a project takes
and several
easy to predict
more
the
to
build
competition
it
long
before project completion.
INVESTMENT STRUCTURE
The two parcels of land in this study are independently
owned
by
two
currently
Although
be
The larger
on the market with an asking price
parcel
of
The
to
a joint venture in the development
house
on
the upper parcel
was
is
$450,000.
the land is for sale the current owners would
opposed
land.
different families.
not
of
just
the
recently
winterized and is currently being rented on a month to month
basis.
The
amount
lower portion of
as the upper parcel.
only
land was valued at the
Even though the land
area
half of the upper parcel the higher allowable
easily
makes
up the difference.
same
is
density
The owners of the
lower
parcel occupy the existing house on a year round basis. They
are
also
interested in a joint venture opportunity
if
it
will increase the overall value of the land.
Due
to the relatively low acquisition cost of the land
a joint venture with the land owners would not be acceptable
with
a
large developer.
It would be easier and
possibly
more cost effective to bring in a financial partner than
deal
with the land owners through the development
By contrast, in the case of
financial
resources
would be ideal.
to
process.
a smaller developer with limited
a joint venture with both land
owners
It should be remembered that a multi-party
54
joint
venture
agreement can be difficult to construct
more difficult to work under than outright purchase.
55
and
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
56
SECTION VII.
CONCLUSIONS
in
Except
the only effective
and create affordable housing,
together
subsidies.
long term solution would appear to be government
In
groups
several
Boston
affordable
national
moderate
are
and most of the labor and some building materials
land
donated
being
this
Although
construction,
each
appear
may
unit
two family
a
be
to
new
for
sum
small
the required labor and materials,
collect
$70,000.
cost
will
communities would scarcely be able
small
a
Even though the
MA.
for sale units in Dorchester,
income
16
to build
housing group,
Inc.,
Habitat
joined
have
band
can
groups
where many
areas
urban
to
raise
much less
the $35,000, required for each unit.
Ultimately, the responsibility to adequately house both
and lower income groups will fall on the government.
middle
The
case study only goes to
Hill
Chase's
required on the local
effort
will
housing
communities.
be
well
of
means
for
small
most
This is not to say that the production of
a few units will not
level
market
level to produce below
beyond the
the
that
show
improve the current problem,
production
affordability gap
will
not
curb
the
ever
but
just
that
growing
in the housing industry.
It should come as no surprise that a small community is
unwilling
Most
market
to make the effort to create affordable
communities
have trouble dealing with the
housing.
growth
of
rate housing where there can be a benefit to the tax
57
base.
In
municipal
the case of below market housing the
services
is often greater than for
strain
market
on
rate
housing while providing less tax revenue.
As
Hill
a
market rate development the numbers for
would suggest that this project was
the financial
such
Chase's
exceptional.
On
risk side this is true, but the market risk is
that additional
high cost,
non-lakefront condominiums
in Meredith could require a long absorption period with very
high carrying costs.
the
That market risk,
low number of allowable units,
in conjunction with
would point towards two
development scenarios.
The
approved
first
single
features
large
home
lot
building sites.
improvements
risk.
family
and
exceptional
reduced
would be the subdivision of the
and
the
thereby
lots.
The
requirements
land
into
existing
site
would
produce
At the same time the cost
approval
period
are
significantly
minimizing both the financial
The second option would be a
of
and
market
'wait and see' attitude
where the land would be held pending future land use changes
in
Meredith.
housing
In
will
the long run,
force
excellent
demand.
posture
to
take
chance
Given
for
the town to develop some
incentive program.
prepared
the need
affordable
form
of
an
Those land owners or developers who are
advantage of new
of
success due to
regulations
the
stand
untapped
the ownership of the two parcels,
market
the best
at this time would be to monitor the activities
Meredith while looking future disposition opportunities.
58
an
in
APPENDIX
BUILDING COSTS
ZONING EXCERPTS
FINANCIAL PROFORMAS
59
AVERAGE CONSTRUCTION COST
NOOD FRAMING - WOD SIDING
I BTH, NO UTILITIES OR SITE WORK
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2,400
1 1/2 STORY
46.9
44.7
42.6
41.2
39.5
36.0
2 STORY
48.2
46.0
44.5
42.7
40.9
39.8
2 1/2 STORY
51.5
50.3
45.3
43.5
42.3
40.2
44.5
42.6
41.2
AVERASE CONSTRUCTION
49.8
3 STORY
CUSTOM CONSTRUCTION
1 1/2 STORY
66.4
62.8
59.5
57.3
54.6
49.5
2 STORY
68.2
64.5
61.9
59.2
56.5
52.4
1 1/2 STORY
83.5
79.9
74.9
72.0
68.8
62.4
2 STORY
85.3
80.8
77.5
74.1
70.8
65.6
4.8
4.2
3.6
LUXURY CONSTRUCTION
MODIFICATIONS
5.4
UNFINISHED BASEMENT
6.0
ADDITIONAL BATHROOM
$3,000
ONE CAR GARAGE
$5,000 attached
TWO CAR GARAGE
$9,000 attached
TOWNHOUSES
90.0% on all costs
BUILD INN.H.
95.0% on all costs
60
3.0
Z0 NI NG
ZONING
0 R D IN A N C E
C)~ 0 1 N A t~c r
Meredith, New Hampshire
Adopted August 27, 1971
AMENDED
MARCH 11, 1986
Amnended March
*
*
"U
"
"U
"U
"U
"U
*
*
"
PRICE:
March
March
March
iarch
March
March
March
March
Ma rch
Ma rch
March
7, 1972
4. 1975
2, 1976
8, 1977
14, 1978
13, 1979
11, 1980
10, 1981
9, 1982
8,s1983
13, 1984
12, 1985
$10.00
"IIhen men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of
their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender
is void."
From the Constitution of New Hampshire (Art.) 3d.
(Society, Its Orqanization and Purposes.)
61
CLUS1EP DEV[L C
147
May be Allowed in the following Districts as a Special Exception provided at
least 50 of the property is left as Green or Open Area and the District
setbact requirerients are adhered to on the outer perincter of the subdivision.
ristrict
Minirir.
5
5
20
25
Residential
Forestry & Rural
Forestry & Conservation
Shareline
Acreage
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
The Planning Board may allow a reduction of the density requirement of 10'. to
encourage proper design and development.
62
D-1. FORESTY AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT (added 8 Mar 83)
General Purpose
The Forestry and Conservation District provides an area for low-density
residential development and customary rural land uses such as forestry, agriculture, conservation, and other non-intensive uses. This district is characterized by forests, rugged terrain (steep slopes,ledges, etc.), natural scenic beaut
important wildlife areas, large tracts in single ownership, and poor road conditions. The area is also far from town facilities and services, making it both
difficult ad expensive for the town to provide them. Premature development of
land in this area should therefore be discouraged. A minimum lot size of 10 acre
is required in this District.
A. forestry and Conservation District, Permitted uses and Special Exception
(Ay use lot listed here is prohibited)
Penmitted Uses
Special Exceptions
1. Any use permitted in regard to
1. Public uses and builTdngs
forestry and/or conservation
2. Temporary sawmill
2. Agriculture, including sale of
3. Essential service buildings
produce raised on premises
4. Clubhouses
3. Single-family detached dwelling
5. Churches
(500 sq.ft. minimum on ground)
6. Single family detached dwelling
(11 Mar 86)
less than 500 sq.ft. on ground)
4. Home occupations
11 Mar 86)
5. Essential services
6. Accessory uses
7. Roadside stands
8. Bed & Breakfast house
B. Forestry and Conservation, Conditions and Restrictions
Sharefront Lot: On-site water, on-site septic system (Class 3 utilities
Minimum Standards
Total area per single family unit
10 acres
Width
150 feet
Mininum area per family (net density) 10 acres
Front setback
20 ft. (from shoreline)
Side setback
20 ft.
Rear setback
65 ft. (from centerline of
traveled way)
Maximum height
3 stories or 45 ft. whicheve:
is less
All Other Development: On-site water, onsite-septic system (Class 3)**
Minimum Standards
Total area per single family unit
Width
*
**
10 acres (also net density)
150 ft.
Front setback
40 ft.
Side setback
30 ft.
Rear setback
75 ft.
Maximum height
3 stories or 45 ft. whichevi
is less
The minimrn distance between the leach field and water bodies and/or wetlands
shall be one hundred twenty-five (125') feet.
Refer to Article V Section D, Soils and Slopes Table.
63
D-2. FORESTIY MD RURAL DISTRICT
General Purpose
The area is limited to agriculture, forestry, rural residential and certair
other non-itensive land uses. The purpose of this District is to prevent
pemature development of land, to retain certain areas for non-intensive uses, t
prevent developmnt where it would be a burden on the Town, and to retain areas
for open space. A sliding density scale is provided should utilities be provided in the distant future, but the vast majority of development is anticipated
to take place on five acres or more.
A. Forestry and Rural District, Permitted Uses and Special Exceptions
(Any use not listed here is prohibited)
Special Exceptions
Pemitted Uses
1. Two family dwelling
1. Any use permitted in regard to
2. Public uses and buildings
forestry
3. Removal of fill, gravel, stone or loa
2. Agricultvre, including sale of
4. Private schools
product raised on prenises
5. Veterinary offices and facilities
3. Greenhouses
5. Drive-in theaters
4. Single-family detached dwelling
7. Temporary sawmill
(500 sq.ft. mini. on ground)
8. Mobile home parks
(11 Mar 36)
9. Marinas
5. Clubhouses
0. Essential services buildings
6. Churches
1 1. Country general store (5000 sq.ft.'
7. Outdoor recreational facilities
or under)
8. Camping and travel trailer parks
1 2. Single family detached dwelling (less
9. Stables and riding academies
than 500 sq.ft. on ground)(11 lar 8
10. Home occupations
11. Essential services
12. Accessory uses
13. Roadside stands
14. Lodging kouses and rental cottages
15. Organized recreational camp for
children, profit or non-profit
16. Cluster Development (sin le famil )
Mar 32
(min.25 acres of land)
17. Mobile home subdivision (2 Mar 76)
NOTE:
Mobile hone placed on pemanent foundation removed by amendment 13 Mar 19
64
S.
forestry and Rural, Conditions end Restrictions
Cluster Development: On-site water, on-site septic system (Class 3 utilities
MINIIJM OF 25 ACRES 10 B[ INCLUDED IN DEVELOPHENT (9 tar 1982)
Minimum Standards
Total area per single family unit:
Mininun area per family (net density):
taximum height:
10,000 sq.ft.
40,000 sq.ft. incl. roads and
all else (0 Mar 83)
3 stories or 45 ft. whichever
Shorefront Lot: On-site water, on-site septic system (Class 3 utilities)*
Minimum Standards
Total area per single family unit:
30,000 sq.ft.
Width:
150 ft.
Minimum area per family (net density):
30,000 sq.ft.
Front setback:
20 ft. (from shoreline)
Side setback:
20 ft.
Rear setback:
65 ft.(from centerline of
traveled way)(1978)
Maximum height:
3 stories or 45 ft. which
is less
All Other Development: On-site water, on-site septic system (Class 3):*
Minimum Standards
Total area per single family unit:
40,000 sq.ft.
Hidth:
150 ft.
Minimum area per family (net density):
40,000 sq.ft.
Front setback:
40 ft.
Side setback:
30 ft.
Rear setback:
75 ft.
iaximum height:
3 stories or 45 ft. which.
is less
* The minimum distance between the leach field and water bodies shall be
one hundred and twenty-five (125') feet.
** Refer to Article V Section D, Soils and Slopes Table
65
SDARD Or ADJUSTNInt
(Cont'd)
Inthis te ard the Board Iay inpose the following safeguards in additior
to the app icable requirements of this Ordinance including but not
limited to the following:
(1) Front, side or rear setbacks greater than the minimum
requirements of the Ordinance.
(2) Screening of parking areas or other parts of the premises from
adjoining premises or from the street by walls, fences, planting
or other devices.
(3) Kodification of the exterior features or appearance of the
building or structure.
(4) Limitation of size, number of occupants, method or time of
operation or extent of facilities.
(5) Regulation of number, design, and location of drives or other
traffic features.
(6) Off-street parking or loading spaces beyond the minimum
requirements of this Ordinance.
(7)
Control of the number, location and size of light and signs.
d. Operations in connection with such a use shall not be more
objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise,.fiunes,
odor, or vibration, than would be the operation of any peritted
uses in this District which are not subject to Special Exception
procedures.
2. Variance
The Board of Adjustment may authorize upon appeal in specific cases
such variance from the terms of the Ordinance as will not be contrary to the
public interest, where owing to special conditions affecting the land in
question, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance will result
in unnecessary hardship that would deprive the owner of the reasonable use of
his land or building. In granting such variance, the Board of Adjustnent shall
prescribe any condition it deems necessary or desirable. If the variance is not
utilized within a one-year period it shall expire. To grant such a variance, it
must
be denstrated that:
a. There are special conditions inherent in the land in question
which are not shared in common with other parcels of land in
the district, and
b. The specific variance to be granted by the Board is the minima,variance that will grant relief to the owner and is necessary
for the reasonable use of the land or building, and
c. The granting of the variance will be in accordance with the
spirit and intent of the Ordinance, and will not adversely
affect other property in the District.
66
BOARD or DJUSTMENT (cont'd)
3.
Apneals to the BoArd (4 Mar 75)
Appeals to the Board of Adjustment may be taken by any person
agqrieved or by any officer. department, board or bureau of the
municipality affected by any decision of the administrative officer.
Such appeals shall be taken within a reasonable time, as provided
by the rules of the Board of Adjustment by filing with the officer from
whom the appeal is taken and with the Board of Adjustment a notice of
appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The officer fron whom the appeal
Is taken shall forthwith transmit to the Botard all the papers constituting.
the record upon which the action appealed was taken from. RSA 31-69.
67
*i(1***********4
*****46fAGE ORE*Iiffi*f*i
*PAGE
18-Jul-87
PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.Address or Name:
Chase's Hill
2. City or Town:
Meredith, N.H.
3.Type of Property:
condominium
4.Size of Property:
A. Number of Units:
B.Number of Floors:
C. Total NET Square Footage
D. Total 6ROSS Square Footage
E. Construction Cost per NET S.F
UNIT SIZE - SQ. FT.
800
950
1150
1150
1350
ONEII********h*****PA&E OHEe**********************u****
12
2.5
16200
19200 inc. garages
$85
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
One Bedrooms:
Two Bedrooms:
Three Bedrooms:
Duplex - Twos
Duplex - Threes
TOTALS
5. Construction Type:
wood
6.Date of Construction:
1988
7. Date of Purchase:
1987
8. HARD COSTS
A. Asking Price
B.Purchase Offer
C. Capital Improvements
SUBTOTAL: HARD COSTS
PERCENT
TOTAL SF
0
0
0
0
12
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
100.001
0
0
0
0
16,200
12
100.001
16,200
Per Unit
$37,500
$37,500
$114,750
$450,000
$450,000
$1,377,000
$152,250
$1,827,000
ASSUMPTIONS
9. SOFT COSTS
A. Developer Fee
9. Working Capital Reserve
C. Construction Interest
0. Loan Commitment Fee
E. Marketing
F. Brokerage
6. Land Carrying Cost
H. Legal
1. Accounting
J. Acquisitions Teas Fee
K. Interest during sell-off
0.09
0.09
12 MONTHS
12 MONTHS
SUBTOTAL: SOFT COSTS
10. TOTAL PROJECT COST:
$30,000
$12,000
$61,965
$31,714
$60,750
$60,750
$40,500
$6,000
$6,000
$12,000
$109,620
$431,299
Per Unit
$188,192
68
$2,258,299
SET
$1K/UNIT
1 1/2 PRCNT
2.5 PERCENT
2.5 PERCENT
SET
SET
SET
61 of TDC
* **
* *****PAGE DE** ********PAGE
E**F**A****AS**PASE
E*
******* ** ******tf
*******************AGE TWO********t**PAGE TWOM**********PAGE TW0ff***
FINANCE ASSUMPTIODNS
$2,087,929
1.Total Financing Required
(Total Project Cost less interest during
sell-off and brokerage fees]
2. Total Equity Required:
3. Total Mortgage Financing:
A.First Mortgage:
B.Second Mortgage
$0
0.00?
$2,087,929
Asount
Teri
Interest
Paysent
Amount
Term
Interest
Payment
$2,087,929
30
9.00%int only
$15,659
$187,914
$0
0
0.001 int. only
$0
$0
$187,914
Total Cost of Financing:
SOURCES AND USES OF CASH
Uses of Cash
Purchase Price
Capital Improvesents
SUBTOTAL
Fees:
Working Capital,
TOTAL USES
$450,000
21.55?
$1,377,000
65.951
$1,827,000
87.501
$248,929
11.921
$12,000
0.571
$2,087,929
100.001
$2,087,929
100.001
Sources of Cash
Mortgage
s0
Equity Required
$2,087,929
TOTAL SOURCES
69
0.001
100.001
*****
****IIII*I***********PAE TWOM**i***i*******PABE TWOii**
*PA*E THREEIf
*
** **141f*******f*****
* **PAGE
u***PAGE TWO.,M* uf************f*
THREE*If*********PAGE
f*f****** 44
1HREE*4.f.*f***
CASH FLOW ASSUMPTIONS
$150 PER SQUARE FOOT
1. Purchase Price Assumption
Total
Per Unit
$120,000
$172,500
$202,500
0 One Bedrooms:
0 Two Bedrooms:
12 Three Bedrooms:
$0
$0
$2,430,000
$2,430,000
Gross Income
2.CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
$450,000
Land
$1,377,000
Cap Imp.
Soft Cost
$260,929
$2,430,000
Sales
$60,750
Brokers Fee
$109,620
Interest
PERCENTAGE BASIS
3 Month
September
Quarters--)
1
Land
Cap Imp.
Soft Cost
Sales
Brokers Fee
Interest
1001
301
251
December
March
September
June
March
December
June
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
301
251
301
251
10!
51
501
501
441
51
131
131
221
51
131
131
171
51
131
131
111
51
131
131
61
DOLLAR BASIS
September
3 Month
Quarters -->
1
Land
Cap lip.
Soft Cost
Sales
Brokers Fee
Interest
December
March
2
June
3
December
September
4
($450,000)
($413,100) ($413,100) ($413,100) ($137,700)
($65,232) ($65,232) ($65,232) ($13,046)
$0
$0 $1,215,000
$0
$0
($30,375)
$0
$0
($48,233)
$0
$0
$0
70
5
$0
($13,046)
$303,750
($7,594)
($24,116)
March
6
$0
($13,046)
$303,750
($7,594)
($18,307)
June
7
$0
($13,046)
$303,750
($7,594)
($12,058)
B
$0
($13,046)
$303,750
($7,594)
($6,906)
NET FLOM
QUARTERLY
($928,332) ($478,332) ($478,332)
MET CASH FLOW--->
IRR--->
NPV---)
$985,646
$258,993
$264,803
$271,052
$276,204
$171,701
2.51
(381,910)
imit*i*fiHiH*HHHi*iHiPAGE THREE**utun1114*#1PAGE THREEHHf411*HfI****PA6E THREEHfI..*H*H*fffffu
ifH*f
mHitimHiH iiHHiHiHPAGE FOUR*fIIImannIti*.IPASE FOUR*HHHifHHHI*II#PAGE FOURftifi.HHHHHHHHHififiHiHH
3. SUMARY STATISTICS
PERCENT
PER SF
PER UNIT
TOTAL
---------------------------------------------------201
$23
$37,500
$450,000
Land Purchase Price:
611
$72
$114,750
$1,377,000
Capital Improvements:
191
$22
$35,942
$431,299
Soft Costs
Total Developsent Cost: $2,258,299
$188,192
$118
1001
$2,430,000
Sales Revenue:
$2,258,299
Cost:
Developsent
Total
$202,500
$188,192
$127
$118
1001
931
$171,701
$14,308
PROFIT
$171,701
MET CASH FLOW - >
PROFIT/TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST ---- >
$9
71
81
HHifHfHfiH*141111*HHiPAGE FOURumifianHHifiiIPAGE FOURM*Iu4mu'IIf*PAGE FOURmffHHHH*fHHH*HHHHfH*ff4
71
t*i
*i*i****i****
*
PAGE OKE*
PA6E ONE****I**i*i****
1.Address or Name:
Chase's Hill
2. City or Town:
Meredith, N.H.
3. Type of Property:
condosinius
4. Size of Property:
A. Number of Units:
B. Nusber of Floors:
C. Total NET Square Footage
D. Total GROSS Square Footage
E. Construction Cost per NET S.F
800
950
1800
1150
1350
i
***-uftii*
fi***
18-Jul-87
PROJECT OVERVIEW
UNIT SIZE - SQ. FT.
*****m******PASEOE.*i**
24
2.5
43200
49200 inc. garages
$85
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
One Bedrooms:
Two Bedrooss:
S.F. - Three Bedrooss:
Duplex - Twos
Duplex - Threes
TOTALS
5. Construction Type:
wood
6. Date of Construction:
1988
7. Date of Purchase:
1987
8. HARD COSTS
A. Asking Price
B. Purchase Offer
C. Capital lprovements
SUBTOTAL: HARD COSTS
PERCENT
TOTAL SF
0
0
24
0
0
0.001
0.001
100.001
0.001
0.001
0
0
43,200
0
0
24
100.001
43,200
Per Unit
$18,750
$18,750
$153,000
$450,000
$450,000
$3,672,000
$171,750
$4,122,000
ASSUMPTIONS
9.SOFT COSTS
A. Developer Fee
B. Working Capital Reserve
C. Construction Interest
D.Loan Cositment Fee
E.Marketing
F. Brokerage
G. Land Carrying Cost
H. Legal
1.Accounting
J. Acquisitions Teas Fee
K. Interest during sell-off
0.09
12 MONTHS
0.09
12 MONTHS
*f********
SET
$IK/UNIT
1 1/2 PRCNT
2.5 PERCENT
2.5 PERCENT
SET
SET
SET
6? of TDC
$1,072,140
SUBTOTAL: SOFT COSTS
10. TOTAL PROJECT COST:
$60,000
$24,000
$165,240
$55,080.
$216,000
$216,000
$40,500
$12,000
$12,000
$24,000
$247,320
Per Unit
$216,423
** ***I***PAGE ONE*****f****i**PAGE ONE
$5,194,140
**** *f**iiPAGE 0NE***
72
*********************
ifPAGE TW0if***********f****fPAGE TW0******tt*******f f*PAGE TW~tttt************************
*tif ff***************
FINANCE ASSUMPTIONS
$4,730,820
1. Total Financing Required
[Total Project Cost less interest during
sell-off and brokerage fees)
2. Total Equity Required:
3.Total Mortgage Financing:
A. First Mortgage:
B. Second Mortgage
$0
0.001
$4,730,820
Amount
Term
Interest
Payment
Amount
Term
Interest
Payment
$4,730,820
30
9.00int only
$35,481
$425,774
$0
0
0.001 int. only
$0
$0
$425,774
Total Cost of Financing:
SOURCES AND USES OF CASH
Uses of Cash
- - -- - - - - - $450,000
9.51%
$3,672,000
77.621
$4,122,000
87.131
$584,820
12.361
$24,000
0.511
Purchase Price
Capital Isprovesents
SUBTOTAL
Fees:
Working Capital
TOTAL USES
$4,730,820
100.001
---------------------
Scarces of Cash
Mortgage
$4,730,820
$0
Equity Required
TOTAL SOURCES
$4,730,820
73
100.001
0.00%
100.001
HHHHHHHHHHHHPA1E TWOHHHHHHHHPASE TW#HHHHHHHHPAGE TWO*##nnfununt*f11HHHH~f
HHHt
PAGE
HHHIIICIIIIiH
HH*II
THREE~i4I4*11*1HIIPABE THREE*fiftIIH*HHHIPABE THREEHiH*u*t**mffufif*m
CASH FLOW ASSUMPTIONS
$200 PER SQUARE FOOT
1.Purchase Price Assumption
Total
Per Unit
$160,000
$230,000
$360,000
0 Dne Bedrooms:
0 Two Bedrooms:
24 Three Bedrooms:
$0
$0
$8,640,000
$8,640,000
Bross Income
2. CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
$450,000
Land
$3,672,000
Cap lip.
$608,820
Soft Cost
$8,640,000
Sales
$216,000
Brokers Fee
$247,320
Interest
PERCENTABE BASIS
September
3 Month
1
Quarters-->
1001
301
251
Land
Cap Imp.
Soft Cost
Sales
Brokers Fee
Interest
September
June
March
December
June
March
December
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
301
25X
30%
251
101
51
501
501
441
51
131
131
221
51
131
131
171
51
131
131
11%
51
131
131
61
DOLLAR BASIS
September
3 Month
1
Quarters--)
2
3
4
5
June
March
December
September
June
March
December
6
7
8
($450,000)
Land
$0
$o
$0
$0
($367,200)
($1,101,600)($1,101,600)($1,101,600)
lap.
Cap
($30,441)
($30,441)
($30,441)
($30,441)
($30,441)
($152,205)
($152,205)
($152,205)
Soft Cost
$0 $4,320,000 $1,080,000 $1,080,000 $1,080,000 $1,080,000
$0
$0
Sales
($27,000)
($27,000)
($27,000)
($27,000)
$0 ($108,000)
$0
$0
Brokers Fee
($15,581)
($27,205)
($41,302)
($54,410)
($108,821)
$0
$0
$0
Interest
NET FLOW
QUARTERLY
($1,703,805) ($1,253,805) ($1,253,805) $3,705,538
NET CASH FLOW---)
IRR--->
$3,445,860
20.01
74
$968,149
$981,257
$995,354 $1,006,978
1,253,327
i**III*
tim mHiffHiHH
*******
**U11*4*i*
HiPAGE THREEIfI*4if
PAGE THREE"II*I*4**H
***PAGE FOUR*i
if**********PAGE FOUR.
PABE THREEmifHifHu
*i
H**ff.i*lif**i
*
MM* *PAGE FOURI*i*iffi*i* ff***if f* ti
I*i*f**
3.SUMKARY STATISTICS
TOTAL
PER UNIT
PERCENT
PER SF
$9
$75
$22
91
711
211
Land Purchase Price:
Capital Iprovements:
Soft Costs
$450,000
$3,672,000
$1,072,140
$18,750
$153,000
$44,673
Total Developtent Cost:
$5,194,140
$216,423
$106
1001
Sales Revenue:
Total Development Cost:
$8,640,000
$5,194,140
$360,000
$216,423
$176
$106
1001
601
PROFIT
$3,445,860
$143,578
NET CASH FLOW ------ > $3,445,860
PROFIT/TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST ---- )
HiHHfHHiHHiHi*II
$70
401
661
PABE FUR*Hf*fIHff***PABE FOURt*i*ififfHPAME FOURf14H
75
Hhi
fHi*HifffHfiff
i*i*f**i*i***ii**
*AGE ONE****fi*i*i***PAGE
30-Jun-87
PROJECT OYERVIEW
Address or Nase:
Chase's Hill
2. City or Town:
Meredith, N.H.
3. Type of Property:
condominius
4.Size of Property:
A. Nusber of Units:
B. Nusber of Floors:
C. Total NET Square Footage
D. Total GROSS Square Footage
E. Construction Cost per NET S.F
UNIT SIZE - SQ. FT.
800
950
1150
1150
1350
ONE******i****PAGE ONEIme*.*********i**********
60
2.5
75000
90000 inc. garages
$75
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
One Bedrooms:
Two Bedrooms:
Three Bedrooss:
Duplex - Twos
Duplex - Threes
TOTALS
5. Construction Type:
Date of Construction:
7. Date of Purchase:
PERCENT
TOTAL SF
0
0
0
30
30
0.001
0.001
0.001
50.001
50.001
0
0
0
34,500
40,500
60
100.001
75,000
wood
1988
1987
8. HARD COSTS
A. Asking Price
B. Purchase Offer
C. Capital lprovesents
SUBTOTAL: HARD COSTS
Per Unit
$7,500
$7,500
$93,750
$450,000
$450,000
$5,625,000
$101,250
$6,075,000
ASSUMPTIONS
9. SOFT COSTS
A. Developer Fee
B. Working Capital Reserve
C. Construction Interest
D. Loan Comitent Fee
E. Marketing
F. Brokerage
S. Land Carrying Cost
H. Legal
I.Accounting
J. Acquisitions Teas Fee
K. Interest during sell-off
0.09
0.09
12 MONTHS
12 MONTHS
SUBTOTAL: SOFT COSTS
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
$150,000
$60,000
$253,125
$106,006
$262,500
$262,500
$40,500
$30,000
$30,000
$60,000
$364,500
$1,619,131
Per Unit
$128,236
$7,694,131
76
SET
$IK/UNIT
1 1/2 PRCNT
2.5 PERCENT
2.5 PERCENT
SET
SET
SET
61 of TDC
HHHHHHHHHHHHPAGE
H*ff*f,**H
ONEHH**ff
t*fifPAGE ONEnanI**HH+HHM #PAGE
0NEHff**HHH*4*§*4**4
f*1*if*HiPABE TWO*HIutun*HMPAGE TWOIfifif4#* PAGE Tv0fHififffiHif
FINANCE ASSUMPTIONS
1. Total Financing Required
(Total Project Cost less interest during
sell-off and brokerage fees)
2.Total Equity Required:
3.Total Mortgage Financing:
A. First Mortgage:
B. Second Mortgage
$7,067,131
0.00%
$0
$7,067,131
Asount
Term
Interest
Paysent
Asount
Ters
Interest
Payment
$7,067,131
30
9.001int only
$53,003
$636,042
$0
0
0.001 int. only
so
Total Cost of Financing:
$0
$636,042
SOURCES AND USES OF CASH
Uses of Cash
------------
1
Purchase Price
Capital Improvements
SUBTOTAL
Fees:
Working Capital
TOTAL USES
$450,000
6.371
$5,625,000
79.591
$6,075,000
85.961
$932,131
13.191
$60,000
0.851
$7,067,131
100.001
$7,067,131
100.001
Sources of Cash
Mortgage
rnuity Required
$0
$7,067,131
TOTAL SOURCES
77
0.001
100.001
H
**fif .aii*HH
iiI******I
f*********A E TWO**i***
.i*****PAGETWOI*****i*i****PABE TWO******i******i********
**#***#**************PA6E THREE**********PAE THREEf*e*******PABE rHREE*****tfff*I******
CASH FLOW ASSUMPTIONS
$140 PER SQUARE FOOT
1.Purchase Price Assumption
Total
Per Unit
$112,000
$161,000
$189,000
0 One Bedrooms:
30 Two Bedrooms:
30 Three Bedrooms:
$0
$4,830,000
$5,670,000
$10,500,000
Sross Income
2.CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
Land
$450,000
$5,625,000
Cap Imp.
ft Cost
$992,131
$10,500,000
les
$262,500
Brokers Fee
$364,500
Interest
PERCENTAGE BASIS
3 Month
September
Quarters-->
1
Land
Cap Imp.
Soft Cost
Sales
Brokers Fee
Interest
1001
301
251
December
March
June
September
December
March
June
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
301
251
301
251
10?
51
50%
501
441
51
131
131
221
51
131
131
171
51
13?
131
111
51
131
13?
6?
DOLLAR BASIS
3 Month
Septesber
Quarters -->
1
December
March
2
($450,000)
($1,687,500)($1,687,500)($1,687,500)
($248,033) ($248,033) ($248,033)
e>les
$0
$0
$0
okers Fee
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Interest
$0
Land
Cap lip.
Soft Cost
December
Septesber
June
3
4
5
March
6
June
7
8
$0
$0
$0
$0
($49,607) ($49,607)
($49,607) ($49,607) ($49,607)
$5,250,000 $1,312,500 $1,312,500 $1,312,500 $1,312,500
($32,813)
($32,813)
($32,813)
($32,813)
($131,250)
($22,964)
($160,380)
($80,190)
($60,872)
($40,095)
($562,500)
78
NET FLOW
QUARTERLY
($2,385,533) ($1,935,533)($1,935,533) $4,346,263 $1,149,891 $1,169,209 $1,189,986 $1,207,117
.T CASH FLOW--->
IRR--->
NPV--->
Iftff
$2,805,869
11.9%
323,226
*f*HHfHHHHMPAGETHREE**IIIII
**PAGE
PAGE THREE
THREEf*ii* ti
iIHiHHHHH
fiHHHHH*IiIIIIII*HHHPA6E FOUR*HfffHfHHHPA6E FOUR*HHHHiI*Hf*HfPAE FOURzziiiu*Htu
Him H*
#fiiintununuut#
3. SUMMARY STATISTICS
TOTAL
Land Purchase Price:
Capital Iprovements:
Soft Costs
PER UNIT
PER SF
$450,000
$5,625,000
$1,619,131
$7,500
$93,750
$26,986
$5
$63
$18
Total Development Cost: $7,694,131
$128,236
$85
Sales Revenue:
$10,500,000
Total Development Cost: $7,694,131
$175,000
$128,236
PROFIT
$2,805,869
T CASH FLOW ------ >
$2,805,869
PROFIT/TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST --->
1ffHfIfHffff
**ffffffHffiPAGE
$117
$85
$31
$46,764
PERCENT
61
73X
211
100
100%
73%
271
361
FOURHfffHfffifHffHiPA6E FOUR*HHiffHHHHI*IHPAGE FOURIf*fHHHH
79
HHHfH*f
fhu
*if*.*********i*I***PAGE ONEuMi*i*******PAGE
ONE*#***********PAGE ONEi****************i********
30-Jun-87
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Chase's Hill
Address or Name:
2.City or Town:
Meredith, N.H.
3. Type of Property:
condominium
4.Size of Property:
A. Number of Units:
B. Number of Floors:
C. Total MET Square Footage
D. Total GROSS Square Footage
E. Construction Cost per NET S.F
UNIT SIZE - SQ. FT.
72
2.5
90000
108000 inc. garages
$80
DESCRIPTION
800
950
1150
1150
1350
QUANTITY
One Bedrooms:
Two Bedrooms:
Three Bedrooms:
Duplex - Twos
Duplex - Threes
TOTALS
PERCENT
TOTAL SF
0
0
0
36
36
0.001
0.001
0.001
50.001
50.001
0
0
0
41,400
48,600
72
100.001
90,000
wood
5. Construction Type:
Date of Construction:
1988
1987
i.Date of Purchase:
8. HARD COSTS
A. Asking Price
B. Purchase Offer
C. Capital Isprovements
SUBTOTAL: HARD COSTS
Per Unit
$12,500
$12,500
$100,000
$900,000
$900,000
$7,200,000
$112,500
$8,100,000
ASSUMPTIONS
9.SOFT COSTS
A. Developer Fee
B. Worting Capital Reserve
C. Construction Interest
D.Loan Cositsent Fee
E. Marketing
F. Brokerage
G.Land Carrying Cost
H.Legal
I. Accounting
J. Acquisitions Teas Fee
K. Interest during sell-off
0.09
0.09
12 MONTHS
12 MONTHS
SUBTOTAL: SOFT COSTS
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
if* if*i** iii****i*
$180,000
$72,000
$324,000
$140,687
$337,500
$337,500
$81,000
$36,000
$36,000
$72,000
$486,000
SET
$IK/UNIT
1 1/2 PRCNT
2.5 PERCENT
2.5 PERCENT
SET
SET
SET
61 of TDC
$2,102,687
Per Unit
$141,704
PAGE ONEem**f**if*** PAGE ONEi***ii***iif
80
$10,202,687
PAGE ONE**
******************
#f i
tf titif f*f #utff PAGE TWOMh
ai mIM
tPAGE
TWO*4I#a1f *4*ut*HPAGE TWOMMM*IMefnituniuun
FINANCE ASSUMPTIONS
$9,379,187
1.Total Financing Required
(Total Project Cost less interest during
sell-off and brokerage fees]
2. Total Equity Required:
3.Total Mortgage Financing:
A. First Mortgage:
B. Second Mortgage
0.001
$0
$9,379,187
Amount
Term
Interest
Payment
Amount
Term
Interest
Payment
$9,379,187
30
9.001int only
$70,344
$844,127
$0
0
0.001 int. only
$0
$0
$844,127
Total Cost of Financing:
SOURCES AND USES OF CASH
ts of Cash
------------
1
$900,000
9.601
$7,200,000
76.77Z
$8,100,000
86.361
$1,207,187
12.87Z
$72,000
0.771
$9,379,187
100.001
$9,379,187
100.001
Purchase Price
Capital Improvements
SUBTOTAL
Fees:
Working Capital
TOTAL USES
Sources of Cash
Mortgage
Equity Required
$0
0.001
TOTAL SOURCES
$9,379,187
100.001
81
****I****
*********#WPAGETWO*** ***
f**i*i*iff*i
f***PAGE TW0Of#§u**
".'*""*
***
*iPABE THREE
PAE THREE
i**
PABE Tmi******
**********PAE TRREEII***
**.*************
*************
CASH FLOW ASSUMPTIONS
$150 PER SQUARE FOOT
1.Purchase Price Assumption
Total
Per Unit
$120,000
$172,500
$202,500
0 One Bedrooms:
36 Two Bedrooms:
36 Three Bedrooms:
$0
$6,210,000
$7,290,000
$13,500,000
6ross Income
2.CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
$900,000
Land
$7,200,000
Cap Imp.
$1,279,187
Soft Cost
$13,500,000
Sales
$337,500
Brokers Fee
Interest
$486,000
PERCENTAGE BASIS
3 Month
September
Quarters-->
1
1001
301
251
Land
Cap lp.
Soft Cost
Sales
Brokers Fee
Interest
December
March
June
September
December
March
June
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
301
251
301
251
10?
51
501
501
44?
51
131
13?
221
51
131
131
17%
5?
13?
131
111
51
131
131
61
DOLLAR BASIS
3 Month
September
Quarters--)
1
December
March
2
June
3
September
4
December
5
March
6
June
7
8
Land
($900,000)
Cap lp.
($2,160,000) ($2,160,000)($2,160,000) ($720,000)
$0
$0
$0
$0
Soft Cost
($319,797) ($319,797) ($319,797) ($63,959) ($63,959) ($63,959) ($63,959) ($63,959)
Sales
$0
$0
$0 $6,750,000 $1,687,500 $1,687,500 $1,687,500 $1,687,500
Brokers Fee
$0
$0
$0 ($168,750) ($42,188) ($42,188) ($42,188) ($42,188)
Interest
$0
$0
$0 ($213,840) ($106,920) ($81,162) ($53,460)
($30,618)
YF.T
FLOW
ARTERLY
($3,379,797)($2,479,797)($2,479,797) $5,583,451
NET CASH FLOW--->
IRR---)
$3,297,313
10.51
82
$1,474,433 $1,500,191
$1,527,893 $1,550,735
mPV---)
108,139
*PAGE THREE**************PAE THREEf******#********
*ii**i*i************PAGE THREEif*f***If**
"**********************PAGEFOURI*ffff**iiPAGE
,****
FOUR***************PAGE FOUR***i*********t.*********
3.SUMMARY STATISTICS
TOTAL
PER UNIT
PER SF
PERCENT
91
711
21%
$900,000
$7,200,000
$2,102,687
$12,500
$100,000
$29,204
$8
$67
$19
Total Development Cost: $10,202,687
$141,704
$94
1001
Sales Revenue:
$13,500,000
Total Development Cost: $10,202,687
$187,500
$141,704
$125
$94
100%
76Z
$3,297,313
$45,796
$31
24%
Land Purchase Price:
Capital Iprovements:
Soft Costs
PROFIT
NET CASH FLOW - > $3,297,313
>
PROFIT/TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST ----
321
*t******* **********f
ffi~fPAGE F00R**************PAGE FOUR*f************PAGE
83
F00R***************************
*****i**
i
fiii *
*PAGE
ONE*****f#********PAGE ONE**i**ti**I***
Nase:
Meredith, N.H.
3. Type of Property:
condominius
4. Size of Property:
A. Number of Units:
B. Nuber of Floors:
C. Total NET Square Footage
D. Total GROSS Square Footage
E. Construction Cost per NET S.F
f**4* *
90
2.5
108900
131400 inc. garages
$80
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
One Bedrooms:
Two Bedrooss/affordable:
Three Bedrooms:
Duplex - Twos
Duplex - Threes
800
950
1150
1150
1350
4**4 * f#f
Chase's Hill
2.City or Town:
UNIT SIZE - SQ. FT.
OM(E**
30-Jun-87
PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.Address or
PAGE
TOTALS
5. Construction Type:
Date of Construction:
7. Date of Purchase:
PERCENT
TOTAL SF
0
9
9
36
36
0.001
10.001
10.001
40.001
40.001
0
8,550
10,350
41,400
48,600
90
100.001
108,900
wood
1981
1987
8.HARD COSTS
A. Asking Price
B. Purchase Offer
C. Capital Iprovements
SUBTOTAL: HARD COSTS
Per Unit
$10,000
$10,000
$96,800
$900,000
$900,000
$8,712,000
$106,800
$9,612,000
ASSUMPTIONS
9.SOFT COSTS
A. Developer Fee
B. Working Capital Reserve
C. Construction Interest
D. Loan Comitsent Fee
E. Marketing
F. Brokerage
G. Land Carrying Cost
H. Legal
I.Accounting
J.Acquisitions Teas Fee
K. Interest during sell-off
0.09
12 MONTHS
0.09
12 MONTHS
****i***fi
i**ii*if*PAGE ONE
SET
$IK/UNIT
1 1/2 PRCNT
2.5 PERCENT
2.5 PERCENT
SET
SET
SET
61 of TDC
$2,516,599
SUBTOTAL: SOFT COSTS
10. TOTAL PROJECT COST:
$225,000
$90,000
$392,040
$167,239
$402,300
$402,300
$81,000
$45,000
$45,000
$90,000
$576,720
Per Unit
$134,762
***ff****** 84
$12,128,599
************PAGE ONE****************************
Al*fIt**if*f**ft**************PAGE TW0f **
********PAGE TWO#*************If#*PAGE TW0********************ffffI I***
#*
FINANCE ASSUMPTIONS
1.Total Financing Required
(Total Project Cost less interest during
sell-off and brokerage fees]
2. Total Equity Required:
3. Total Mortgage Financing:
A. First Mortgage:
B. Second Mortgage
$11,149,579
0.00%
$0
$11,149,579
Amount
Term
Interest
Payment
Amount
Term
Interest
Payment
$11,149,579
30
9.00int only
$83,622
$1,003,462
$0
0
0.001 int. only
$0
$0
$1,003,462
Total Cost of Financing:
SOURCES AND USES OF CASH
Uses of Cash
Purchase Price
Capital lmprovesents
SUBTOTAL
Fees:
Working Capital
TOTAL USES
$900,000
8.071
A8,712, 000
78.141
$9,612,000
86.211
$1,447,579
12.981
$90,000
0.81!
$11,149,579
100.001
$11,149,579
100.00!
Sources of Cash
Mortgage
Equity Required
$0
$11,149,579
TOTAL SOURCES
85
0.001
100.001
*4fftf
h***
****4***
PABE TWO***I*#**ff I****PAGE
if*i**i***i**iPAE
TWO******f*t***PAGE TWOM*****#****If***i***i
THREEf*f*******PAGE THREEI************PAGE THREE*****11***1**4
CASH FLOM ASSUMPTIONS
1.Purchase Price Assumption
$150 PER SQUARE FOOT
$90 PSF AFFORDABLE
0 One Bedrooms:
9 Two Bedroos/Affordable:
36 Two Bedrooms:
45 Three Bedrooms:
Per Unit
$120,000
$85,500
$172,500
$202,500
Total
$0
$769,500
$6,210,000
$9,112,500
Gross Income
90
$16,092,000
2. CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
Land
$900,000
Cap lp.
$8,712,000
Soft Cost
$1,537,579
Sales
$16,092,000
Qrokers Fee
$402,300
iterest
$576,720
PERCENTAGE BASIS
3 Month
September
Quarters-->
1
Land
Cap Imp.
Soft Cost
Sales
Brokers Fee
Interest
1001
301
251
December
March
June
September
December
March
June
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
301
251
301
251
101
51
50?
501
441
51
131
131
22?
51
13?
13!
171
51
131
13?
111
51
131
131
6?
DOLLAR BASIS
3 Month
September
Quarters--)
Land
Cap lp.
Soft Cost
March
2
June
September
December
March
June
3
4
($2,613,600)($2,613,600)($2,613,600)
($384,395) ($384,395) ($384,395)
($871,200)
$0
$0
$0
$0
($76,879)
($76,879)
($76,879)
($76,879)
($76,879)
5
6
7
8
($900,000)
Sales
Brokers Fee
Interest
NET FLOW
QUARTERLY
December
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $8,046,000 $2,011,500 $2,011,500 $2,011,500 $2,011,500
$0 ($201,150)
($50,288)
($50,288)
($50,288)
($50,288)
$0 ($253,757) ($126,878)
($96,312)
($63,439)
($36,333)
($3,897,995)($2,997,995)($2,997,995) $6,643,014 $1,757,455 $1,788,021 $1,820,894 $1,848,000
NET CASH FLOW--->
$3,963,401
86
IRR---)
NPV--- )
10.7%
176,618
ti*f*******ff***** 4*4****PAGE THREE**************PAGE THREE**************PABE THREE************************
**i i*i**i***
i*iPAGE
*#I
FOUR**i***
i*iPASE FOUR***********fi*PAGE FOUR*************i************
3.SUMMARY STATISTICS
TOTAL
Land Purchase Price:
Capital leprovements:
Soft Costs
PER UNIT
PER SF
PERCENT
$900,000
$8,712,000
$2,516,599
$10,000
$96,800
$27,962
$7
$66
$19
71
72%
211
Total Development Cost: $12,128,599
$134,762
$92
1001
Sales Revenue:
$178,800
$134,762
$122
$92
1001
751
$16,092,000
Total Development Cost: $12,128,599
%k.% .* N V.
PROFIT
$3,963,401
NET CASH FLOW ------
$3,963,401
PROFIT/TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST ---- >
I*I**************PABE
I
$44,038
%** %
k%44k44*444%4%4%4%4k%,V
$30
25%
331
FDUR*m*imi iPAGE FOUR***i*******i*PA6E FOURfm**i***i*m**im*mmm
87
END NOTES
1. Lakes Region Planning Commission. Meredith Master
Plan, (Meredith, NH, n.p., 1981), pg. 5-7
2.
Ib.id.,
3.
Applied Economic Research. New Hampshire Hous ing
Analysis: Summaryeport, (Laconia, NH, n.p., 1987),
pg. 2
4. Ib-id,
Table V-7
pg. 6
5.
Lakes Region Planning Commission. Meredith Master
Plan, pg. 3-11
6.
Ibid, pg.
7.
Thibeault, Russell W. "An Economic Forecast:
What's Ahead for the Lakes Region?" Doinq Business
in the Lakes Region, 1987, pg. 3
8.
Ibid,
1987, pg.9
9.
Ibid,
pg.
4-9_
25
10. Farrell, John A. "Money Transforms Winnipesaukee."
The Boston Globe,July 12, 1987, pg. 1, cont. 36.
11.
Applied Economic Research, Inc. New Hampshire
Housing Analysis: Summary Report, pg. 1.
12. Doinq Business in the Lakes Region,
88
1987, pg.3.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Meyer, William T.
"Industrial
Building Systems",
Saver Standards for Architectural Design.
Hill, 1982.
Time
New York:
MaGraw-
Massachusetts
Housing
Partnership.
Homeowners-hip
Opp
tutyPgra.
Gui deli ne
for
Communities
and
Developers.
Boston: Massachusetts Housing Authority, 1986.
Sanders, Welford and Mosena, David.
Changing Development
Standards for Affordable Housing.
Washington:
American
Planning Association, 1984.
Center for Community Development and Preservation,
Affordab_eHousing:
Public and Private Partnershi ps for
Constructing Middle and Moderate Income Housing.
New York:
n.p., 1982.
Robinson, Jeremy, ed.
Architects.
New York:
Affordable Houses Peigned by
MaGraw-Hill, 1979.
Schwartz,
Seymore
and Johnson,
Robert.
Local Government
Initiatives for Affordable Housing:
An Evaluation of
Inclusionary Housinq Programs in California. Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 1981.
Lakes
Region Planning Commission.
Meredith
Master
Meredith, New Hampshire. Meredith, NH: n.p., 1982.
R. S. Means.
Building Construction Cost Data 1986.
Kingston, MA:
R.S. Means, 1985.
"10 Consumer Markets To Target."
December 1986, pg.
Jordan, Joe J.
Americans."
Professional
Plan:
Builder,
104.
"The Challenge: Designing Buildings for Older
December 1983/January 1984, pg. 18.
ag.ing,
Cetron, Marvin. "Where America will Excel in the Year 2000."
U.S. News and World Report, December 16, 1985.
"Measuring Impact of the 'Baby Bust' on U.S. Future."
News and World Report, December 16, 1985, pg. 66
"Who's Taking Care of Our Parents."
"Life After 65."
95.
Architectural
89
Newsweek,
May 6,
U.S.
1985.
Record, February, 1985, pg.
Chrysler, K. M. "10 Great Places to Spent Your Retirement."
U.S.Newsand..WordRepor t,
July 15, 1985, pg. 58.
Farrell, John. "Money Tansforms Winnipesaukee."
Globe, July 12, 1987.
The Boston
Applied Economic Research Inc, NewH.ampshire Housing
Laconia, NH, n.p., 1987.
1AlysisSrumnary Reot,
Wheeler, Michael. A Handbook: Building Concensus for
Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Real
AffordableeHOSi-n,
Estate Development, 1987.
90