It is unfortunate that the issue of the proposed text amendment before the New London Planning and Zoning Commission that could affect the Edgerton School site has become about people and not zoning. As almost all of the speakers who spoke against this amendment before the commission acknowledged that they had not read the proposed amendment, it is a good assumption that those speaking publicly against it have not as well.

A majority of the proposed changes come directly from within the current regulations, meaning that the city already utilizes these concepts. Allow me to address the three aspects of this application that have been the subject of most concern.

1) Mixed-use development; is not a novel concept, it is a trend in planning nationwide. I have presented four experts who have substantiated how this would benefit the C-2 zone. Mixed-use is allowed in every non-residential zone except the C-2 and LI-O, including the general commercial C-1 district to which the C-2 zone is adjacent and comparable. Integrating residents with commercial proves to benefit both for a number of reasons, such as employment opportunities; economically for businesses; environmentally as it promotes walking, biking and public transit; and aesthetically, as it provides for a better streetscape.

This mixed-use approach is consistent with the goals of the City’s Land Use Map and as such, the Plan of Conservation and Development . Locally, the Groton has updated their planning guidelines to integrate more residential along their Route 1 corridor.

2) The biggest misconception is that the proposed amendment will create a crowded residential development. The proposed text amendment requires a minimum of 1,500 square feet /dwelling unit of land space, which is consistent within the regulations. It is less concentrated than recent changes to the regulations that have decreased the density to 500 square feet /dwelling unit in some areas. By contrast, the proposed Parcel J development, enthusiastically accepted throughout this city, is more concentrated with a density of approximately 1,200 square feet/dwelling unit.

Additionally, the current regulation allows for building coverage on a lot of up to 40 percent. The proposed change lessens that to 35 prcent, meaning that there will be more open space for any development than what is required now. Further, the proposal prevents the units from being located all in one building. Accordingly, this proposed amendment will provide for a more open, neighborhood appearance.

3) Parking for a residential development would require the same amount of spaces as currently required. If a development contains subsidized rental units, the proposal is to require one parking space per unit. The regulations allow the commission to utilize actual data to determine the number of parking spaces required for a use. They have been provided actual data of current subsidized rental units that show peak parking at less than 1 space per unit. Additionally, a number of articles and expert testimony that substantiates this data has been presented.

As the proposal only affects the C-2 zone, that means a number of commercial businesses such as restaurants, car dealers, retail outlets etc. have a right to locate their business there, and could be open 24 hours. McDonalds, across from Edgerton, services 150 cars per hour at peak. In two hours, that would produce more traffic than a residential development in a day. Almost every type of commercial development that is allowed in the C-2 zone would produce greater traffic than any residential development. Having residential versus commercial will produce less traffic and parking issues by far.

While not subject of the matter currently before the commission, if the Edgerton school was developed into residential, it would produce approximately $200,000 per year in taxes, which is far greater than almost all commercial uses. It would be run by a private management company, which would be required to put funds into reserve for future repairs, which would keep the properties upgraded.

There are so many residential complexes in this city, from owner-occupied, high-end units, to market rate, to affordable-rental units that have greater density than what is being proposed. No one seems to care about them. It is sad that the debate has turned into a people issue.

I know the commission will do its job and focus on the zoning aspect. It is time for the public to as well.

Mathew H. Greene is the New London attorney representing the Affordable Housing and Services Collaborative and Peabody Properties, the companies who own and are seeking to construct a 124-unit affordable-housing complex on the former Edgerton School property at 120 Cedar Grove Ave.