By Blox Content Management

Copyright keenesentinel

Amid a cacophony of recent calls to spur more housing in the state, region and city, Keene has been pretty responsive. The city has looked at reducing restrictions on parking and setbacks to encourage accessory dwellings, and even proposed a major change to zoning that would reduce minimum lot sizes.

Now, Keene is presented with a proposed zoning rewrite by petition from a local developer that arguably could spur residential development. The City Council’s Planning, Licenses and Development Committee debated the measure last week, and the full council is slated to take it up Thursday evening.

The proposal would, among other things, increase the number of units allowable in the medium density district without undergoing a special city review from three to six. Some residents of the city’s East Side area, which coincides with that district, have objected, saying the proposal targets their neighborhood and would lessen the quality of life there.

The committee mainly explored two issues. First, should the council even be able to make changes to a submitted proposal, or simply vote it up or down. Second, would that particular provision be of benefit overall or too costly to the residents in that district.

The first matter is likely already addressed under the city’s charter and state law. But it seems that to say any proposal made to change the zoning regulations can’t be modified at all is counter-productive. Anything submitted must be reviewed by city staff at a minimum. Why waste time reviewing and discussing a proposal if, say, it clearly violates state law or city ordinances? Suppose a simple change in tense or punctuation would salvage a proposal that makes sense otherwise, but can’t be approved as written?

On the second issue, the question is whether the mechanism for easing housing development — a positive result — is unfair or otherwise detrimental to the city overall or the area in which the change would occur.

Residents of the East Side say the proposal targets their neighborhood. But the medium density zone exists in several areas around the extended downtown area. It includes a wide swath in the area north of downtown, between Court and Washington streets, and several other smaller areas that aren’t on the East Side. So it seems the proposal isn’t “targeting” the neighborhood.

The other major objection raised — that the change would cause more parking issues in the district — seems to ring true. City staff have acknowledged as much. Regulations call for one parking space per residential unit, but many households have more than one occupant who drives, and more than one vehicle, making on-street parking an issue.

If the proposal goes through, the city’s senior planner, Marie Brunner, has noted developers would still have to meet other existing hurdles, such as setbacks and building heights.

Developer Jared Goodell pitched his proposal saying he envisions existing large, older homes being broken up into more units than is now allowed. On the surface, that seems reasonable. In an area that’s not far from Keene State College, such an expansion might be met with enthusiasm from students seeking cheaper housing.

Assuming the council can indeed make changes to the proposal, perhaps adding some additional conditions — say, concerning parking or increased demand on city services to assure existing residents their quality of life wouldn’t be worsened, or built-in assurances that any such development would, in fact, aid in directly making housing in the city more affordable — could make sense.

And if the council can’t, by law, change anything in the proposal, it could always say no and advise that such assurances would make any future petitions more likely to pass muster.