I was disappointed in the article by David Allen about the Nov. 13 Peterborough Planning Board meeting. Definitions of workforce housing have been established law for years.

What the board was discussing is much more interesting. This was a discussion about proposed changes to Peterborough’s workforce housing ordinance, in the hopes it would incentivize developers. As a professional land-use planner, and a small developer, I’m not in favor of inclusionary zoning, but I can see the utility of incentives. Incidentally, mandatory inclusionary zoning ordinances are not permitted in New Hampshire.

By statute, workforce housing is housing available for rent at no more than one-third of income for a household or family (two different things) making no more than 60% of area median income. AMI in Peterborough for a household is $98,000. A workforce housing rental unit considered affordable is 30% of a $62,640 income, or $1,566 per month, including utilities.

While I don’t support all the standards proposed for the ordinance, allowing an increase of units, provided that an equal number of units are available at workforce prices, is a step in the right direction. Due to the cost of construction, it is unlikely that rental units will be produced by this ordinance change, except for adaptive reuse of existing buildings, but some for-sale units may be produced.

As to the quote from Planning Board member Stephanie Hurley, offered without context, to the best of my memory she was discussing the requirement for a 30-foot vegetated buffer around workforce multifamily buildings. She is in favor of it. As a planner, I consider requiring buffers between two forms of residential use to be bad practice, and I hope the Planning Board will remove that requirement.

Ivy Vann

Peterborough