Zoning & Planning Committee - October 14, 2025 Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: October 14, 2025 Governing Body: Zoning & Planning Committee Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting Attendees: Councilor R. Lisle Baker (Chair), Councilor John Oliver, Councilor Victoria L. Danberg, Councilor Susan Albright, Councilor Rena Getz, Councilor David A. Kalis, Councilor Pamela Wright, Councilor Randy Block, Councilor Joshua Krintzman (joined late). Planning Department Staff: Mr. Heath (Director), Mr. LaMelle, Ms. Kyra, Ms. Shaylin Davis Iannocco (Housing Program Manager). Law Department Staff: Mr. Lee. Clerk: Ms. Holden. Planning Board Members: Mr. Kevin McCormick (Chair), Mr. Jim O'Connell, Mr. Ed Daly, Ms. Amy Dean (Vice Chair, online), Mr. Lee Breckenridge (online), Mr. Peter Dorringer (online).
Executive Summary
The Zoning & Planning Committee addressed several key items, including the appointment of Christopher Steele to the Economic Development Commission, a public hearing and subsequent vote on a proposed amendment to Chapter 30 Zoning regarding a maximum residential facade build-out ratio, and a discussion on potential amendments to remove or reduce parking minimums for commercial uses. The committee also reviewed proposed amendments to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and reappointments to various city commissions and boards. Christopher Steele's appointment was approved, and the residential facade build-out ratio amendment was recommended for approval to the full council. The parking minimums discussion led to a decision to hold a public hearing on November 10th, with the item split into two distinct parts for clarity. Discussion on the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance amendments was held for a future meeting due to outstanding concerns.
I. Appointment of Christopher Steele to the Economic Development Commission
- Her Honor the Mayor's Appointment: Christopher Steele of 254 Elliott Street, Newton Upper Falls, was appointed as a member of the Economic Development Commission for a term expiring October 6, 2028.
- Candidate's Background and Interest: Mr. Steele, a 30-year veteran in corporate location decisions, previously served on and chaired the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and the Planning and Development Board. He expressed a desire to apply his expertise to local economic development, particularly concerning post-COVID economic transformation, local retail, employment, and the intersection of economic activity, transportation, and land use.
- Councilor Questions and Discussion:
- Councilor Danberg welcomed Mr. Steele, acknowledging his extensive prior service.
- Councilor Getz inquired about Mr. Steele's vision for economic development, to which he highlighted the need to understand the impact of current economic trends on local economies and the viability of the community.
- Councilor Albright asked about the EDC's role in integrating arts and culture with economic development, noting the arts community's argument for its economic benefits. Mr. Steele acknowledged ongoing conversations with organizations like Spark Newton and emphasized the role of arts in creating vibrant downtowns beyond mere transactions.
- Councilor Kalis welcomed Mr. Steele back, acknowledging his input and candor.
- Motion and Vote: Councilor Getz moved to approve the appointment of Christopher Steele to the EDC.
- Vote: All in favor: Aye (unanimous). Opposed: 0. Abstentions: 0.
- Outcome: The appointment was approved and will be forwarded to the full City Council for confirmation.
II. Public Hearing: Request for Addition to the Maximum Residential Facade Build-Out Ratio to Chapter 30 Zoning (Item 2825)
- Purpose: To add a maximum residential facade build-out ratio to Chapter 30 Zoning to ensure new development is contextual to the surrounding neighborhood.
- Presentation by Planning Department (Mr. LaMelle):
- The proposal aims to ensure quality residential design, particularly in relation to streetscape and neighborhood aesthetics, addressing a trend of building large homes that maximize front-facing mass.
- The new tool, developed with consultants Utile and Landwise, is a compromise to balance development allowance with reduced visual impact.
- Key Provisions:
- Creates a regulation around the residential facade build-out ratio, defining it as the proportion of the front building facade to the width of the lot.
- Portions of the building set back more than 20 feet are exempt to encourage massing differentiation (increased from an initial 10 feet).
- Maximum ratio: 60% of the lot width.
- Lots less than 50 feet wide are exempt.
- Portions of the building that are 1.5 stories or less are exempt to incentivize breaking up mass and accommodate historic building forms.
- Special Permit Allowance: Allows for waivers via special permit for designs exceeding the 60% ratio, providing flexibility.
- Existing Homes: A de minimis relief allows existing homes exceeding the 60% ratio to expand by up to 10% by right, or to build mass in the back or as 1.5-story additions without counting towards the ratio.
- Public Comment:
- Jay Walter (83 Pembroke Street, Building Professionals Zoning Working Group): Expressed concerns that the proposal adds complexity and cost without significantly impacting teardowns or preserving housing stock. Acknowledged the thorough crafting by the Planning Department and the inclusion of exemptions, stating the group is "not opposed."
- Close of Public Hearing:
- Motion: Councilor Albright moved to close the public hearing.
- Vote: All in favor: Aye (unanimous). Opposed: 0. Abstentions: 0.
- Outcome: Public hearing closed.
- Committee Discussion:
- Councilor Kalis: Inquired about the complexity of the new regulation and its potential impact on egregious offenders. Mr. LaMelle acknowledged added complexity but believed it would impact the most egregious designs, promising future updates.
- Councilor Getz: Supported the proposal but expressed discomfort with the special permit provision, desiring an upper threshold to prevent recreating previously allowed large builds. Mr. LaMelle suggested a maximum allowance could be added but noted the special permit process allows for case-by-case evaluation of unique site conditions.
- Councilor Albright: Suggested adding criteria to the special permit process to ensure new additions are appropriate for the neighborhood. Mr. Lee clarified that existing special permit criteria already address whether a use and structure are appropriate to the site. Councilor Albright also suggested a "look back" provision to assess the ordinance's effectiveness.
- Councilor Danberg: Questioned the exemption for a 1.5-story garage addition on a two-story house, confirming it would be exempt. Agreed the goal was design quality, not stopping teardowns. Raised concerns about unintended repercussions and the impact on deep-set, narrow lots.
- Councilor Wright: Supported the proposal, noting it would help with the positioning of houses on lots, preventing new builds from taking up the entire width, which is a concern in her ward.
- Councilor Oliver: Expressed willingness to move the item forward as presented.
- Motion and Vote: The committee moved to approve the zoning proposal dated October 14th from the Planning Department.
- Vote: All in favor: Aye (unanimous). Opposed: 0. Abstentions: 0.
- Outcome: The proposed amendment to Chapter 30 Zoning regarding the maximum residential facade build-out ratio was recommended for approval to the full City Council.
- Companion Items (Held):
- Item 8524: Discussion of amendments to preserve existing homes.
- Item 4124: Amend the setbacks in MR zones to encourage preservation of existing buildings.
- Motion: Councilor Baker moved to hold these two items.
- Vote: All in favor: Aye (unanimous). Opposed: 0. Abstentions: 0.
- Outcome: Items held.
III. Discussion: Request for Discussion and Possible Amendments to Remove or Reduce Parking Minimums for Commercial Uses in Commercial Centers (Item 181.24)
- Purpose: To improve opportunities for new and existing businesses by addressing parking requirements.
- Presentation by Planning Department (Mr. LaMelle):
- Parking requirements are routinely waived via special permit, indicating a need for reform.
- Newton is part of a national trend of municipalities removing or reducing parking requirements (over 3,500 across the US).
- Specific Proposal:
- Decouple parking requirements within Newton's Business 1 (B1) and Business 2 (B2) zones for all commercial uses. These zones largely align with village centers and transit.
- Align parking requirements across specific commercial uses (personal service, restaurants, retail, service establishments) in remaining commercial zones to prevent waivers when uses change.
- Clarification: The second part of the proposal would substitute an area requirement similar to existing ones, removing employee counts.
- Committee Discussion:
- Councilor Baker: Suggested splitting the item into two parts for public hearing: one for B1/B2 zones and another for the commercial use table, to provide clarity on locations and impacts.
- Councilor Oliver: Sought clarification on the benefit of splitting the item.
- Councilor Danberg: Supported splitting the item and eliminating parking requirements in B1/B2 zones, citing the routine granting of waivers and the burden on small businesses.
- Councilor Kalis: Concerned about public confusion if the item is split for public hearing. Mr. Lee clarified that a single public hearing could address both parts, with separate votes.
- Councilor Wright: Expressed concerns about blanket lifting of parking requirements, particularly in areas without public parking (e.g., California Street), fearing spillover into residential neighborhoods. Cited issues at Trader Joe's as an example.
- Councilor Oliver: Raised concerns about automotive uses (e.g., auto body shops) in village centers, advocating against waiving parking requirements for them and questioning their appropriateness in VCOD areas. Mr. LaMelle clarified that such uses are generally non-conforming in VCOD and B1 zones, and only allowed by special permit in B2.
- Councilor Albright: Supported reducing parking minimums to streamline business entry and reduce costs. Suggested the city could proactively manage parking through time limits, pricing, permits, and wayfinding tools.
- Councilor Danberg: Suggested coupling parking changes with neighborhood parking plans (like Auburndale and Newton Highlands) to prevent overuse of residential street parking.
- Councilor Baker: Emphasized that the goal is to eliminate an "empty exercise" of waivers, not to suddenly create new parking demands where none existed. Stressed the need for clear communication to the public about the actual impact.
- Motion and Vote (to separate item): Councilor Baker moved to separate Item 181.24 into two distinct parts for discussion and public hearing.
- Vote: All in favor: Aye (unanimous). Opposed: 0. Abstentions: 0.
- Outcome: Item 181.24 will be split into two parts for future discussion and public hearing.
- Motion and Vote (to set public hearing): A motion was made to set the public hearing for Item 181.24 (both parts) for November 10th.
- Vote: All in favor: Aye (unanimous). Opposed: 0. Abstentions: 0.
- Outcome: Public hearing set for November 10th.
IV. Discussion: Requesting Reevaluation and Possible Amendments to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (Item 4424)
- Purpose: Five-year review of the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, initiated in August 2019 with analysis by RKG Associates.
- Presentation by Housing Program Manager (Ms. Shaylin Davis Iannocco):
- Summarized recommended changes, which have been reviewed and approved by the Housing Partnership and the Planning and Development Board.
- Key Proposed Changes (Yellow-highlighted in spreadsheet):
- Eliminating the requirement for contractual resident services for Extremely Low Income (ELI) units: RKG analysis suggests this requirement makes ELI units unaffordable for developers. The proposal is to rely on HHS for services.
- Removing the public funding limitation language (Article 5.11.9) in its entirety: The Housing Partnership and Law Department recommend removing this to avoid controlling funding sources through zoning.
- Removing the medical services component and updating the formula for in-lieu payments for senior housing developments with services: The current formula results in very large cash payments. The proposal is to simplify the calculation and reduce the cash payment amount.
- Committee Discussion on Specific Proposed Changes:
- Change of affordability requirements for rental and ownership projects (1A & 1B): Generally agreed upon, with no significant dissent.
- Raise the buy-right allowance of payment in lieu of taxes from 7-9 units to 7-19 units (1C):
- Councilor Oliver: Strongly opposed, arguing it would lead to a "segregated city" by allowing many projects under 20 units to opt for cash in lieu, rather than integrating affordable units.
- Mr. Lee: Explained that while the mix of affordability percentages differs between rental and ownership due to economic realities, the bottom-line totals for affordable units are intentionally kept similar for legal consistency.
- Councilor Kalis: Asked Councilor Wright to elaborate on her opposition.
- Councilor Wright: Reiterated opposition, stating many ownership projects are under 20 units, and increasing the threshold defeats the purpose of integration. Questioned the cost-efficiency of managing affordable units and the effectiveness of the current cash-in-lieu amount as an incentive.
- Mr. Heath: Explained that for 7-19 units, the cash in lieu could leverage more affordable housing units, potentially at deeper affordability, by attracting state funds. Noted that Newton's cash in lieu is already higher than neighboring communities.
- Councilor Block: Raised a concern about the "magic number" breakpoint (currently 7 units), suggesting it incentivizes developers to build 6-unit projects to avoid the requirement.
- Councilor Albright: Supported the cash-in-lieu option, noting the Housing Trust's limited funds and the potential to leverage state/federal funds for more units.
- Councilor Danberg: Supported the cash-in-lieu option, citing Josephine McNeil's point that integrating low-income families into very high-end developments might not always be beneficial for the families.
- Councilor Kalis: Asked if a premium could be charged for cash in lieu to incentivize building on-site units. Mr. Lee expressed concerns about the legality and practicality of such a variable calculation.
- Straw Vote (on 7-19 unit threshold): Two members favored maintaining the lower number (Councilor Wright, Councilor Oliver), two favored the higher number (Councilor Danberg, Councilor Albright), and two abstained (Councilor Getz, Councilor Kalis).
- Eliminating the requirement for contractual resident services for ELI units:
- Councilor Danberg: Supported elimination, noting the current requirement prevents the creation of these units.
- Councilor Albright: Expressed concern about relying on HHS for services, questioning their capacity. Requested further discussion.
- Mr. Heath: Clarified that the provision is rarely used due to its cost, and its removal might encourage more deep affordability units.
- Councilor Wright: Supported elimination to encourage more low-income units.
- Removing the public funding limitation language (Article 5.11.9): No dissent from the committee.
- Removing the medical services component and updating the formula for in-lieu payments for senior housing development with services:
- Ms. Iannocco: Explained the current formula results in very large cash payments, making projects difficult. The proposed change simplifies the calculation and reduces the cash payment.
- Mr. Heath: Noted Newton is an outlier with this provision, and the current mechanism is complicated and often impractical.
- Councilor Albright: Expressed general agreement but had reservations about the specific formula.
- Motion and Vote (to hold item): A motion was made to hold Item 4424 for further discussion, focusing on the three yellow-highlighted points of contention.
- Vote: All in favor: Aye (unanimous). Opposed: 0. Abstentions: 0.
- Outcome: Item 4424 held for future discussion.
V. Requesting Amendments to the Zoning to Create a New Adult Daycare Use (Item 293.25)
- Purpose: To formally re-establish "adult daycare" as a distinct use in the zoning ordinance, as it effectively fell out of the code due to past recodification and amendments.
- Presentation by Planning Department (Mr. LaMelle):
- Adult daycare was previously categorized as "personal service" before the 2015 zoning recodification.
- Post-2015, it was reclassified as a "school use," requiring a special permit.
- Recent changes simplified "school use" to focus on traditional education, creating a new "personal instruction" use.
- The proposal is to formally recognize "adult daycare" as a permitted use in Business, Mixed Use, and Manufacturing Zones (where it largely exists now) and by special permit in residential zones, aligning with its historical treatment.
- The language will call upon state rules and regulations for definition and include parking requirements.
- Committee Discussion:
- Councilor Danberg: Asked if adult daycare would be permitted in school areas (e.g., Andover Newton Theological School). Mr. LaMelle confirmed it would require a special permit in residential zones, including institutional uses.
- Motion and Vote (to set public hearing): A motion was made to set the public hearing for Item 293.25 for November 10th.
- Vote: All in favor: Aye (unanimous). Opposed: 0. Abstentions: 0.
- Outcome: Public hearing set for November 10th.
VI. Reappointments to City Commissions and Boards
- Items:
- 298.25: Reappointment of Lee Gilligan to the Conservation Commission, term expiring November 1, 2028.
- 296.25: Reappointment of Charles Eisenberg to the Zoning Board of Appeals, term expiring November 2026.
- 294.25: Reappointment of Scott Aquilina to the Chestnut Hill Historic District Commission, term expiring July 1, 2028.
- 325: Reappointment of Rick Wetmore to the Chestnut Hill Historic District Commission, term expiring August 1, 2028.
- 292.25: Reappointment of Susanna Lanik to the Chestnut Hill Historic District Commission, term expiring July 15, 2028.
- 291.25: Reappointment of Robert Imperato to the Chestnut Hill Historic District Commission, term expiring November 15, 2028.
- 297.25: Reappointment of Devin Crosley to the Zoning Board of Appeals, term expiring November 18, 2026.
- Motion and Vote: A motion was made to approve all listed reappointments as a unit.
- Vote: All in favor: Aye (unanimous). Opposed: 0. Abstentions: 0.
- Outcome: All reappointments were approved.
VII. Adjournment
- Motion: Councilor Oliver moved to adjourn the meeting.
- Vote: All in favor: Aye (unanimous). Opposed: 0. Abstentions: 0.
- Outcome: The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM.