Proposed zoning change would let Concord businesses share parking using hour-by-hour demand analysis

Article 36, a proposed amendment to Concord’s zoning rules, would let private businesses demonstrate shared parking needs using an "hour-by-hour" analysis instead of fixed, one-size parking ratios, a member of the Concord Planning Board said.

Andrew Borman, a member of the Concord Planning Board, said the change is intended to allow businesses whose peak hours do not overlap to share parking rather than build excess spaces. "Joint parking is where two businesses that operate in different hours can share the parking lot," Borman said, adding that the proposal applies to private developments, not municipal lots.

The change follows a consultant review hired by the town to evaluate parking rules. The consultant found Concord’s baseline parking ratios are generally consistent with regional norms but identified joint-parking rules as especially restrictive and lacking an analytical tool to justify shared counts, Borman said. Under the current bylaw, he said, developers could in practice 'count 50%' in some cases without clear evidence that that level of shared parking was adequate.

The key technical change in Article 36 is the requirement that proposals include an hour-by-hour demand analysis showing how many parking spaces each use is likely to need during every hour of the week. "An hour-by-hour analysis will tell you... it does need that many spots, but only for three hours on Saturday," Borman said, describing how the approach would let planners mesh different uses' peak demand instead of relying on fixed per-use formulas.

Proponents say the approach could reduce unnecessary impervious surface, lowering stormwater and lighting impacts and limiting parking "drift" toward sensitive areas such as riverbanks. Borman used the redevelopment around the former Paparazzi site—now home to Chipotle, Starbucks and a Walgreens—as an example, saying much of the lot behind the building remains underused even when front spaces appear full. "You have dozens of unoccupied spots all the time," he said.

The planning board emphasized Article 36 would not eliminate safeguards. If a shared-parking arrangement causes overflow or safety problems, the building inspector can propose revocation through a noticed public hearing, and the current proposal strengthens the written agreement requirements so changes in operators or uses are documented and enforceable.

If voters approve Article 36 at town meeting, residents may not notice immediate visual differences, Borman said. Instead, the town expects developers to "right-size" parking in future projects, avoiding large, rarely used decks or extra pavement placed close to wetlands or rivers.

The planning board’s presentation and the town’s briefing materials describe Article 36 as a refinement of an existing tool rather than a new waiver; supporters say it provides a more evidence-based means to allow shared parking while preserving enforcement routes. The town placed the article on the town-meeting warrant; voters can review the planning board’s report and the public-hearing video on the Minute Man Media Network before the meeting.

The planning board member who discussed the proposal is stepping down after five years of service; the board encouraged residents to attend the town meeting to hear public questions and debate on Article 36.