Gay: Keep Salem as a Town

By Betty Gay

In Salem’s March 8 election, Article #6 – Adopt Business Innovation Overlay District, could change the quality of Salem from a town to a city. Large zoning changes proposed by the Economic Development Advisory Committee, or “EDAC,” offer Salem voters the choice of opening the door to becoming more densely populated, a city.

For me, Salem offers a better quality of life as a town.

A map of the proposed district is in townofsalemnh.org/sites/salemnh/files/u121/bio_district_map_0.pdf. It stretches approximately from the Policies, to south of Hedgehog Park, west of the Ice Center and Northwestern Boulevard, and north near Brookdale.

According to Salem’s current zoning laws (in townofsalemnh.org/sites/salemnh/files/file/file/zoning_chart.pdf), the maximum height allowed for the highest zoning category is 45 feet, or 3 stories. But in D (14), Article 6 would “Limit building height to 75 feet…” Worse, Section E says, “The Planning Board may grant waivers to modify the requirements and standards in Section D of this District,” with no approval by the voters allowed.

Note: Since fire codes require expensive modifications for supplying firefighting water to buildings over 75 feet, developers could likely ask for a multiple story variance to justify the cost.

But the most negative effect of this proposed Overlay District is in D(4) which encourages “integrated uses such as retail, residential and commercial that are co-located within a single building,” defying Salem’s historic zoning laws separating garden apartments and residential from business/commercial. Further, D(7) says, “Avoid freestanding and/or standalone retail and residential uses…”

This is the definition of a city. Financially advantageous for developers, it’s no advantage for residents of the proposed apartments and condos, nor for abutting homes and apartments. The quality of home life is harmed by the high traffic necessary for successful business. Walkways and grassy spots do not negate cars and dumpsters, and noise and crowding.

Since “No building, parking lot or other improvements shall be located within 100 feet of residentially or rurally zoned land…” unless they are “separated by a public way,” a mere street, a resident could find himself with a 75 foot or higher business/commercial building blocking his view and his breeze.

When I read about the similar ballot article proposed by Windham’s Economic Development Committee for a “downtown,” I was struck by the similar details, down to specific percentages of types of businesses and housing. Residential and commercial use combined with some “green space” reads just like what the Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) advocates. HUD has historically imposed urban designs suitable for crowded downtowns, like in Boston, onto far less crowded areas, essentially creating sites for their huge housing projects. If HUD is involved at all, their rules trump all elected zoning law, which they can expand across state lines if they deem an area within a distant metropolitan area. They have imposed hefty fines in the millions when they disapproved of building plans.

I personally do not mind any combination of commerce in business/commercial/retail zones, with height restrictions. But I oppose setting the precedent of combining residential with commerce. Once development is granted these more profitable zoning rules, other developers will surely follow. The issue at stake here is whether we prefer to keep our dwellings separate and protected from commercial interests and vote against Article 6, or whether we feel like becoming urban.

Betty Gay lives in Salem.