Towns, cities should review Zoning rules
The following editorial was published in the Valley News in Lebanon, N.H., on Dec. 11:
No doubt there are a number of reasons why the supply of affordable housing in the Upper Valley lags so far behind demand, including the limitations of infrastructure and concerns about too-rapid growth. But surely a prime factor impeding the development of more housing is zoning regulations that no longer reflect the needs and desires of the region’s residents.
A possible case in point is a height limitation that recently led the Lebanon Zoning Board of Adjustment to deny, by a 3-1 vote, a variance for a 250-unit apartment complex proposed for a 75-acre parcel along Mount Support Road. As staff writer Tim Camerato reported last week, the Massachusetts-based developer of the property, Saxon Partners, wanted to construct two five-story buildings of 59 feet in height, 14 feet higher than the zoning ordinance allows along the road. We do not quibble with the decision of the board, which is duty-bound to apply the ordinance as written. In order to obtain the variance, the developers would have had to demonstrate that the project faced an unnecessary hardship unique to the particular parcel of land.
That Saxon Partners is now reworking the plan to comply with the height requirement is evidence that no such unique hardship exists. On the other hand, the developer’s argument in favor of building taller buildings was a strong one. The parcel is only about a mile south of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center campus, which already contains buildings taller than the proposed apartment complex. Moreover, Saxon Partners pointed out that the taller buildings would have a more compact footprint, thus having less impact on wetlands, wildlife corridors and natural resources, an important consideration in that area of the city. And vertical construction is cheaper, potentially allowing for more apartments to be included in a project. Increased density is a key to alleviating the housing shortage.
Of course, municipalities cannot indulge in spot zoning, permitting selected parcels to be treated differently from surrounding ones. What they can do is review their ordinances not only with an eye to removing unnecessary impediments to housing development, but also to see what they can do to encourage it. The city of Claremont appears to be on this track at present. Its Planning Board last week reviewed a new report from the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission that included several recommendations designed to make the city’s planning regulations “housing-friendly,” in the words of the regional planning agency’s executive director, Steve Schneider. One recommendation was to consider revamping parking requirements for new development and the renovation of existing buildings downtown, letting the market dictate how many spaces were required. As correspondent Patrick O’Grady reported, this was met with skepticism by some Planning Board members, and perhaps it does go too far. But many town- and city-center parking requirements need to be rethought. As more and more young people and retirees desire to live where they can walk or take public transportation — to work, to shop-ping, to restaurants and entertainment venues — it makes sense that demand for parking spots may ease. More walking and less driving is a desirable outcome on many fronts.
Another interesting proposal is to promote housing that falls in between single-family homes and multi-unit complexes, such as duplexes and accessory dwelling units. The report recommends this as a way to increase density while spreading wider the expense of maintaining costly infrastructure such as municipal sewer and water. We urge other communities in the Upper Valley, if they haven’t already done so, to embark on a similar review of their ordinances to see what still makes sense and what is outdated, what serves the public interest and what stands in its way. The lack of affordable housing acts as a direct brake on the area’s economy, being a formidable obstacle to recruiting and retaining talented workers for big employers, such as Dartmouth College and the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health system, as well as for smaller ones. But it also is a drain on families and individuals, young and old alike, who already live here and who pay so much for housing that other elements of the good life are often beyond their financial reach. The Upper Valley is resourceful in many ways and an effective effort to promote the development of more housing is well with its powers.