Winchester City Council spent significant time Oct. 14 debating proposed zoning changes and a related rezoning that would convert parts of the Cider Hill area to a Neighborhood Design District (NDD) and set rules for preexisting industrial (M‑1) uses.

Why it matters: The proposed text amendment (TA‑25‑5) and rezoning (RZ25‑02) are intended to implement the comprehensive plan’s NDD vision for the Cider Hill area, which city staff and proponents say will encourage mixed residential, commercial and civic uses in underutilized areas. Opponents and several council members warned that overly broad allowances for by‑right expansion of industrial users could reduce certainty for nearby residents and future investors.

What was proposed: Staff and presenters described three options that were included in the advertised ordinance text for how to treat existing M‑1 uses when the rezoning takes effect:
• City‑staff option (initial staff proposal): expressly grandfather existing lawful M‑1 uses and allow a by‑right expansion of up to 10% of existing built footprint, with 10–20% allowed through a conditional use permit (CUP).
• Planning Commission option: expressly grandfather existing lawful M‑1 uses and allow up to 25% expansion by right, with anything above 25% requiring a CUP.
• Planning & Economic Development (PED) committee option: expressly grandfather existing lawful M‑1 uses and allow expansion by right without a percentage cap. PED forwarded that option to council with its recommendation but council discussion clarified the PED option was intended to apply only to existing lawful uses, not to authorize any use newly allowed in M‑1.

Stakeholders and public comment: Dozens of meeting remarks and public comments referenced the NDD items. Peter Yates, representing Winchester Cold Storage, told council the company supported the PED committee language that would allow lots on which an industrial use lawfully existed as of Oct. 28, 2025 “to be used for any use permitted by right within the M‑1 Limited Industrial District,” and urged flexibility for existing operators. National Fruit Product Company (White House Foods) CEO David Gumb also urged the council to avoid surprise restrictions on long‑standing businesses and called the PED direction a “compromise” he could accept.

Council concerns and tradeoffs: Several council members said they strongly support the NDD planning approach but were split over the expansion language. Concerns included:
• Neighbor certainty: Councilor Technisio and others argued unlimited by‑right expansion would leave neighbors uncertain about what could be built next to homes and parks.
• Business certainty: Several council members and PED members argued that legacy property owners and operators had been put “on hold” by the rezoning process and sought a predictable, business‑friendly outcome that would allow investment and day‑to‑day modifications without frequent CUP processes.
• Scale and fiscal impacts: Councilors asked staff for data on how much physical expansion the largest industrial parcel could accommodate and the potential infrastructure (stormwater) and service impacts of significant expansion.

Council action and next steps: Council received a first reading of the text amendment (TA‑25‑5) and the rezoning (RZ25‑02) and took public comment. A motion was made to approve first reading with amended language limiting expansion to existing lawful uses and specifying a 10% by‑right expansion with 10–25% allowed via CUP; that motion was seconded and then led to extended discussion. Council did not finalize a binding option on Oct. 14; instead council members asked staff to return with additional materials (a mapped visualization showing the practical effect of percentage options and parcel‑specific expansion capacity) and to clarify language so the advertised options match council intent. A public hearing is scheduled on the ordinance and the rezoning will return for final action at a later meeting.

Context: The Cider Hill NDD conversation followed months of committee meetings, and city staff said the NDD ordinance will be applied to several areas as part of a multi‑district rollout. City staff and the city attorney emphasized that the advertised text included all three options so council could choose at second reading; staff said clarifying edits to make clear the PED recommendation referred to existing lawful uses would not require re‑advertising the item.

Quotable: “The express grandfathering was creative, but... it recognizes that M‑1 uses in place before the rezoning are grandfathered in,” Mike Ruddy, a city presenter, said. “The initial proposal was 10% by right; the planning commission recommended 25% by right; PED forwarded any expansion by right — all three options are on the table.”

Why it remains unresolved: Council members requested parcel‑level expansion capacity data and stormwater and infrastructure impact information before selecting a final expansion rule. The matter will return at a subsequent meeting for a public hearing and a final vote.