To the editor:
There’s misleading finger pointing relating to Peterborough’s May 14 vote.
I support petition Article 15 to repeal Traditional Neighborhood Overlay Zone II (TNOZ II) and amend TNOZ I, but I’m not anti young people, anti multi-family housing, or a NIMBY – among many labels put on petitioners that distract from what the vote is about.
The original goals leading to TNOZ II were to provide housing for “the missing middle,” walkable, near existing village nodes, affordable for young people, supporting a healthy mix of housing and incomes.
Goals all can agree on.
TNOZ II was to apply to areas beyond an existing West Peterborough overlay zone and WPOZ I centered on downtown.
How best to define that new overlay area?
Lots accessible to existing or extended town water/sewer was the choice made. Seemingly logical but town water/sewer lines stretch long, linear distances from the town center, inviting linear sprawl.
The “Traditional Neighborhood” name on TNOZ I and II is misleading because the zones allow housing unit densities greater than any Peterborough neighborhood as well as street and side setbacks and lot sizes smaller than town neighborhoods – and smaller than residential zones in Concord, Keene, Nashua and other New Hampshire cities.
Allowing existing and future town water/sewer lines to define TNOZ II was a very broad, one-size-fits-all stroke.
Zoning Amendment 15 corrects these issues by repealing TNOZ II and amending TNOZ 1 to increase setbacks and lot sizes truly in keeping with traditional downtown neighborhoods: close but not too close.
The town Master Plan Housing Chapter will be revised in the year ahead. Let that process play out following a repeal – and future revision – of TNOZ II.
A Yes vote on zoning petition Article 15, May 14 at the Community Center polls, puts us on a path forward, on common ground working for housing for the “missing middle.”
Francie Von Mertens
Peterborough