Cathy Iino

I would support some one-acre zoning if, and only if, it is paired with strict measures to protect Killingworth's resources and its open spaces.

Simply converting some of our two-acre, soil-based zoning to one-acre zoning is not likely to lead to more affordable houses, in any case. Enormous houses that have to be expensively heated and cooled will not be within reach of the people we are concerned about even if they are built on less than two acres. And if we simply make more lots available by reducing the minimum lot size, the town will face enormously increased expenses for education and other services.

If, however, we permit some cluster housing accompanied by adequate set-asides of open space and energy efficiency requirements, we could gain some less expensive housing without sacrificing our environment. Perhaps we should consider even smaller lot sizes, if that would result in better energy efficiency and less environmental impact. This kind of development might be especially appropriate for 55-and-older housing.

The Killingworth Housing Partnership recently submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission some creative suggestions for ways our zoning regulations could be altered to foster a more balanced stock of housing. The partnership recommends ways to make it somewhat easier to build accessory apartments and two-family dwellings, for example. Included in these recommendations are limitations on the total number of bedrooms, the minimum size of lots, and the encouragement of joint wells and septic systems. This is the kind of careful thinking we need in planning our future.

For the moment, when the stock of houses on the market is extremely high and prices are likely to fall rather than rise, we should proceed with utmost caution. We should certainly try to control the pace as well as the dimensions of new development. As I have said before, once we lose our open spaces, we can’t get them back, and our town will be the poorer in every way.