On May 11, Council:
- Updated the city’s various fees. I admittedly got ahead of myself here, as I initially found it less than ideal that the resident rate increased outpaced the nonresident rate for the rental of some community spaces in this year’s update.
- Attempted to make some zoning changes (details below).
- Considered parking regulation adjustments here in Ward 4. In the end, we decided to return these to the parking committee for further discussion. I will be meeting with some residents of this area early in June. The next parking committee meeting is scheduled for June 22 at 5pm in Council Chambers.
Recording | Meeting Packet & Minutes
Zoning changes and what I attempted to amend: New Hampshire’s unique statewide allowance of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs – you might know these as an in-law suite or garage or attic apartment) can create challenges for Concord. Our current ordinance can actually be more difficult for a second “full” unit to be built than an ADU (that is to say, it can be more difficult to create a duplex than an onsite apartment that you rent out to a family member or caretaker). We dealt with this rather frequently when I was on the zoning board. The zoning amendment as presented to us on Council, which faced little resistance from the planning board, was intended to clean some of this language up and to allow smoother implementation of “gentle density” or “missing middle” housing (example 1, example 2). Councilors and Ward 7 residents stated that they are not opposed to more housing, but called for “design standards” or something similar. I would prefer a form-based code that is somewhat intended for this purpose, but in the interim, design standards add more complications than relief to the zoning we have now. The proposed change was meant to cut the association with lot frontage and other dimensional standards.
As presented, section 28-5-2 was slated to have the following text deleted: “In any district where permitted, a duplex or two-family dwelling shall be placed on a lot that shall be of a minimum size and have a minimum frontage that is at least one and one-half (1½) times the minimum lot size and one and one-half (1½) times the minimum frontage as specified in Section 28-4-1(h), Table of Dimensional Regulations, of this ordinance, for that district.” In the moment, I suggested not deleting this, but adding an opening sentence or statement to this section that continued allowing it in the RD (Residential Downtown) or RN (Neighborhood Residential) districts until we can figure out what to about implementing flexible or average zoning at a later date (see graphic below from ConcordNEXT).
Regardless, the fact that the community still came out generally in support of housing was the light at the end of the tunnel for me and as I stated at the meeting, I encourage everyone to save these thoughts for the upcoming master plan engagement.
