Commentary: Zoning good for Gloucester
My View | Paul Lundberg Feb 7, 2025
On April 24, the voters of Gloucester will have the opportunity to endorse the Multi-family Overlay District zoning ordinance (MFOD) passed unanimously by the City Council last fall.
The ordinance is good for Gloucester and its current property owners because, among other things, it gives additional property rights to homeowners, while preserving neighborhood character, and enhancing housing opportunities around public transportation. For these reasons and more, it deserves a “Yes” vote.Much of Gloucester’s civic discussion about this ordinance centers around whether it “fits” the community and whether residents have had sufficient input in its drafting.
One way for voters to evaluate the question of “fit” is to take a look at the seaport’s current planning guide — the Comprehensive Community Development Plan of 2001 — commonly refer to as “Plan 2000.”Plan 2000 makes an important point about why the city must be mindful of its housing stock and the zoning ordinance that governs it: “There is a real danger that, unless the supply of housing that working families can afford is increased, people who were raised and who work here will no longer be able to afford to live here. The people being squeezed out are workers in the schools, city services, fishermen and artists, who have all traditionally been a part of our community fabric.”
It is remarkable that this same danger still faces the city today. Plan 2000 suggests that “the antidote to this trend is expansion of opportunities for many market segments simultaneously, gradually reducing pressure and opening options for everyone.”These are the opportunities that the multi-family zoning ordinance, before the voters on April 24, provide in real time for everyone today.
First, it provides important additional property rights for existing owners of homes in the Downtown Station Area, and the West Gloucester Station Area.
Under the ordinance, these homeowners can expand to 3-family housing by right on existing 1- and 2-family houses. Of course, existing building standards must be maintained which will ensure the safety of the housing and its consistency with other properties in the neighborhood.
A different density is provided for in the Maplewood Avenue Area and the School House Road Area — areas which already have a more densely allowed usage. Again, any development in those areas must be consistent with existing city building standards to ensure safety and preserve neighborhood character.
Two things are also important to understand: 1) what the ordinance does not do, and 2) how much public input occurred over the past year as the ordinance was being crafted.
The ordinance DOES NOT permit the development of the area occupied by the Railroad Avenue Shaw’s market. As a matter of fact, Shaw’s is not even covered by the ordinance and is not included in the multi-family housing districts.
Nor does the ordinance permit the use of any open space — including the Emerald Forest and Burnham’s Field — for additional housing development.
Also, the Planning Board and City Council processes DID provide an impressive array of opportunities for city residents to weigh in on the drafting of the ordinance.
Over a period of months during the drafting of the language, multiple public meetings and hearings were held — both in person and hybrid — where anyone could comment. Many residents did have something to say as reflected in the conservative and modest approach taken in the writing of the ordinance now before voters.
As with all city ordinances — both the General Code and Zoning — the crafting of language is a balancing act of the interests of the community and the requirements of state laws that apply to all municipalities.
The Planning Board and City Council have done a good job in that balancing and deserve credit and thanks for a difficult and challenging task.
Returning to the above quoted statement from Plan 2000, with this Multi-Family Overlay District addition to the Gloucester Zoning Ordinance, Gloucester now has the opportunity to expand the rights of homeowners to achieve housing options for the “workers in the schools, city services, fishermen and artists”, as well as for our children and grandchildren, and seniors who are looking to downsize. We need all of those individuals to remain “a part of our community fabric.”Voting “Yes” on April 24 will help accomplish that goal.
Paul Lundberg is a Gloucester resident, former chair of the Planning Board and former president of the Gloucester City Council. He has said he plans to run for mayor this fall.