On the front page of Thursday’s Monitor, David Brooks wrote: “On Tuesday night the city council unanimously approved an amendment to the zoning ordinance, altering the type of development that can occur on about 22 acres south of Manchester Street” (the site of the former drive-in movie theater). Let me assure you the vote was not unanimous. I voted against the zoning change.
I first proposed an amendment to the ordinance to remove a provision that would allow only residential in the Gateway Performance District. When my amendment failed, I then voted against the proposed zoning ordinance.
This is how our zoning ordinances define the Gateway Performance District: “The Gateway Performance (GWP) District is established to provide for well-designed, large-scale commercial development along arterial streets at entrances to the city. Permitted uses will be predominantly commercial and may include both individual and mixed-use developments of retail, restaurant, service and office uses.”
This is the section of the proposed zoning ordinance that I am concerned about: “1) Mixed Use Component Required. For lots less than 20,000 square feet, residential uses are permitted in the Gateway Performance (GWP) and Opportunity Corridor Performance (OCP) Districts in accordance with Section 28-2-4, Allowable Principle and Accessory Uses in Zoning Districts. For lots greater than 20,000 square feet, residential uses are permitted only where a minimum of 25% of the gross floor area consists of nonresidential uses that are located within 50 feet of a public or private street. The planning board may waive the requirement for nonresidential use through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the requirements of Article 28-9-4(b).”
If the GWP District as defined is designed to be predominantly commercial, the proposed ordinance is making a marked change in how we view going forward with development in GWP District. This not only affects the drive-in parcel, but all areas in the city that are designated as a GWP District.
The city council voted to approve a GWP District that doesn’t require commercial development on parcels smaller than 20,000 square feet and will allow residential-only development, with a conditional-use permit, on lots larger than 20,000 square feet. Even when a developer decides to move forward with a mixed-use development, they are required to have only 25% of the project non-residential on a parcel larger than 20,000 square feet. A far cry from the definition in the city’s zoning ordinances that states the GWP District should be predominantly commercial.
At a time when Concord is desperate for commercial development, why would the city council approve a provision for a zoning district – that is designed to be predominantly commercial – that provides an out for any commercial use in the GWP District?
I understand the need for and the demand for residential housing. I am a strong proponent of mixed-use developments. What I don’t understand is how a zoning district that, by definition, considers predominantly commercial development its most appropriate use can now be a residential-only development.
In Penacook, we know the consequences that a lack of commercial development creates: Some of the highest school taxes in the state. So again, can someone explain to me why the city wants to codify zoning ordinances that encourage limiting commercial development in a zoning district that is defined as most appropriate for predominantly commercial development?
(Allan Herschlag is city councilor for Ward 2.)