The University has been voicing concerns over a recent zoning petition by the Cambridge Residents for Growth Management (CRGM) that proposes to change building height and density codes across Cambridge. The proposal could impose substantial restrictions on University property holdings.

The Harvard Square Business Association and the Chamber of Commerce are also opposing the petition, saying that the plan is too complex and its impact has not been thoroughly studied. The Harvard Square Defense Fund supports the proposal.

"[The petition] is not directed at University development but it has a sweeping impact," said Associate Vice-President for Planning and Real Estate Kathy A. Spiegelman.

One of Harvard's greatest concerns is the complexity of the petition which makes it very difficult to analyze all of the possible impacts of the proposed changes, Spiegelman said.

In a letter to the Cambridge City Council, which held a June 24 hearing on the issue, Spiegelman and Director of Community Relations Mary Power said they believe "the petition is an overwhelming and complex document."

"It is difficult, even after careful review of the petition, to understand completely its actual consequences intended and unintended," Spiegelman and Power said in the letter.

Although she said she cannot determine the full impact of the proposal, Spiegelman said that it would render a number of University structures including Adams House, Kirkland House and Memorial Church "nonconforming." This designation would mean that any substantial renovations to the buildings would require a special permit from the city, something Spiegelman termed a "substantial administrative zoning process."

Furthermore, if one of the non-conforming buildings were destroyed by fire or another disaster, it could not be rebuilt according to the original design because it would not conform to zoning regulations.

Hugh A. Russell '64, a proponent of the petition and a member of the city Planning Board, said that this analysis of the proposal's effects is inaccurate.

While he concedes that it is "a fine legal point," Russell said that as the document is written, all buildings constructed before the petition's implementation would be effectively grandfathered in and, therefore, not subject to a special permit process for renovations.

Les Barber, director of land use and zoning for the city, questioned the legality of the plan. Though the petitioners have attempted to apply the new regulations only to construction after the adoption of the proposal, "it's not clear whether you can actually do that under state statute," he said.

Additionally, Barber said that the grandfathering only applies to certain portions of the petition. All buildings would, for example, still be subject to the item reducing the ratio of floor area to land area on a lot, Barber said. The change in floor area ratio alone would place some University buildings in violation.

But Russell said that while he understands the University's concerns, he feels the petition has addressed those reservations and that some of the objections raised are invalid.

"It's true that [under the new guidelines] you could not rebuild Kirkland House exactly the same as it is today," he said. But "the notion that Kirkland house is going to burn to the ground and be rebuilt exactly the same is fanciful."

Pledging a commitment to working with those who have raised concerns, petitioner Doane Perry said the group is working to address concerns raised at the June 24 meeting.

"There were some things that were pointed out that we hadn't looked at," he said.