ZBA denies request to allow multifamily housing on industrially zoned North 40 site; board cites master-plan and industrial-land preservation

The Concord Zoning Board of Adjustment on Wednesday denied a use variance that would have allowed multifamily residential development on a 40-acre parcel (the “North 40”) currently zoned industrial.

Applicant representatives — led by attorney John Cronin and developer Kevin Lacasse — asked the board for variances to approve a mixed multifamily project with a substantial affordable-housing component (the team proposed roughly half of units as affordable in early concepts). They argued the parcel’s wetlands, irregular topology and constrained buildable footprint make largescale industrial development infeasible and that housing — with a high percentage of affordable units delivered by Catch Neighborhood Housing — would produce more tax revenue and meet urgent housing needs.

Developers said they had pursued rezoning and public-private partnership options with city leaders but were rebuffed and therefore sought relief through a variance. Their submissions included engineering analysis, market studies and letters from housing and development experts.

City staff and Deputy City Manager for Community Development Matt Walsh urged caution. Walsh noted the city’s long-range master plan designates the site for industrial uses and said Concord has a small remaining acreage of undeveloped industrial land (city figures cited in the hearing placed undeveloped industrial land at roughly 221 acres). He and others argued the city should preserve industrial land to support long-term economic development and job growth rather than reclassify it piecemeal.

Public testimony was sharply divided. Supporters emphasized the urgent local housing shortage and the developer’s promise of a large affordable-housing share managed by Catch Neighborhood Housing. Opponents — including residents and other speakers — emphasized preserving industrial capacity, the property’s proximity to rail and power infrastructure, and potential future industrial uses (including logistics and energy infrastructure) that would be constrained by new housing.

Board deliberations centered on the standard for a use variance (whether the zoning makes reasonable development infeasible and whether granting a variance is in the public interest). Several members said the master plan’s industrial designation and the city’s limited industrial land supply counseled against allowing residential here by variance; other board members said the parcel’s physical constraints and the city’s pressing housing shortage supported the applicant.

After a pair of motions and roll-call voting, the board denied the applicant’s request.

What the decision means: The denial preserves the current industrial zoning. The developer may pursue other routes (for example, a formal rezoning application submitted to the planning board and city council) or present refined evidence; the applicant also retains the option to negotiate further with the cooperative landowner or the city.