To the editor:

The Peterborough Planning Board recently approved sixteen detached condominium units on the former Woodman’s site. This is another example of why the majority of citizens object to the Traditional Neighborhood zoning.

As a property owner who resides in TNOZ1, I would like to respond to the planning board member’s comments: “The demand for new housing is here” and “If a project meets zoning regulations … we must approve.”

The local demand is for single family “workforce housing” and affordable rental units based on the median income of people who live and work here. It is not for dense, detached cookie cutter condos to be sold for $400,000 to wealthy out-of-state retirees.

The demand is also for affordable rental units. So demolishing a multifamily building with rental units and replacing it with five expensive condominiums with porches and garages is not what is needed.

The first TNOZ1 project, built in 2016, was Vine Street, which is adjacent to the elementary school. Of the nine existing Vine Street homes assessed at approximately $150K, six residences have sold since the Vine Street condominiums came in. The Vine Street “Cottages” are each assessed at $335K plus (building only). They are too tiny and expensive to attract a family even though the location is ideal for a young family.

Why are long term residents leaving? The dense cookie-cutter design condos in their backyard do not fit in with their neighborhood, and they cannot afford the increase in property taxes at the next reassessment due to the condos.

The opposition is not NIMBYism against all development. It is against gentrification of our neighborhoods. It is against zoning that is not “for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, or the general welfare of the community” (RSA 674:16). It is unconstitutional.

The Planning Board needs to listen to the public’s concerns as to why the zoning regulations need to change. Also whether complex housing projects should be treated as a conditional use permit since the process bypasses and belittles constitutionally protected community concerns.

Sharon Monahan

Peterborough