Zoning & Planning Committee - October 14, 2025

.

.

.

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is a... Let me restart that. Good evening. This is a... Thank you. Thank you. Oliver, by the Councilor from Ward 6, Councilor Danberg, by the Councilor from Ward 2, Councilor Albright, also joining us virtually are members of the committee I thought I saw. Kalis and Councilor Wright. Councilor Krintzman will join us later. and we are also joined by members of the planning board who are here for the first item that we're going to discuss. But when we get to the first item, I would ask the chair to introduce his colleagues at that point.

We're also joined by members of the planning department staff, including our director, Mr. Heath, Mr. LaMelle, and Ms. Kyra. also joined online by our able member of the law department, Mr. Lee. And so I think that gets us started. And also, of course, Ms. Holden, our very able clerk. The first item for discussion is the appointment of Christopher Steele to the Economic Development Commission. and this item is Her Honor the Mayor appointing Christopher Steele of 254 Elliott Street, Newton Upper Falls as a member of the Economic Development Commission for a term of office set to expire October 6, 2028. And This is a new appointment, and Mr. Steele is here. Yes, I thought I saw him. Would you like to come to the podium?

And I think our custom, as I think you're aware, is that We invite members of the council to ask you questions, but would you like to say a word about your background and interest before we get to that point?

Baker, thank you very much, and it's a pleasure to be back.

Make sure the mic is on. Is that?

Press it, and it is showing green. Are you not able to hear me? I'll bring it closer.

Let's bring it a little closer. All right, very good.

Any better? Baker, and esteemed counselors and members of the planning board, it is a pleasure to be back in front of you here. I do want to emphasize back as I am very happy to have the opportunity to once again hopefully serve in the Economic Development Commission. By way of introduction, for those that do not know me or who are online and just seeing me for the first time, I am a 30 plus year veteran of working with companies as they make location decisions around the world. I started my career in a small planning firm in Hackensack, New Jersey, then spent the next 11 years with Ernst & Young and their corporate real estate advisory services practice before deciding, in fact, that I wanted to take the lessons that I had learned there and really

help the public sector in terms of municipalities, regions, and other areas to better understand how corporate locations were being made and to turn that to their advantage to help to create local economies that were actually truly in service of the communities. Within my time here in Newton, I have served on the Economic Development Commission previously. I had the distinct honor of chairing that body twice and also being the vice chair. I'm very proud of the work that we were able to do at that time. I also served on the Planning and Development Board and was very happy with that as well. Some life changes happened in the around 2022. I had a family member that required attention as well as having changed jobs to my current position where I'm now Heading a group of 20 talented analysts who are the North American office of a global firm of about 800 people.

Wanting to be able to ensure that they had my full attention until we actually understood what we were doing together, I decided to step away, but I'm very, very happy to have the chance to once again volunteer service.

Wonderful. Thank you very much. I'd offer an opportunity for members of the committee who would like to ask questions. Let me just also recognize Councilor Getz has joined us. Let me go with Councilor Danberg first and then Councilor Getz and then Councilor Albright.

Thank you very much. Mr. Steele, it's great to see you back. I have worked with and known and worked with Chris Steele for many years. I think since the beginning of my time 11 terms ago as an alderman and a city councilor. I've had the pleasure of doing many projects in one way or another with Mr. Steele and I thank you for your willingness to again come back and spend the time effort and energy that You do in being on the EDC and all the other EDC members. Thank you very much, too, if anybody is listening.

and I will not offer to approve because my esteemed colleague from Ward 5 is sitting next to me and I will give her the opportunity to do that. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Councilor Getz.

I am welcoming your reappointment, well, your appointment, and you may even consider it like a reappointment, but, you know, I just wanted to sort of, like, in a A few succinct sentences. Give us a sense of where you think we need to go in terms of economic development. And that may be a big question, you know, but I also feel as if maybe if you could just give us a few sound bites or, you know, a little bit of information, that would be great.

Getz, it's a fantastic question. It's a very, very timely one. A lot of the conversation that I had seen online really was spurring me to Let me put it this way. The conversation that I was seeing online in this body, at the same time that I was actually seeing similar conversations in many communities that I am working with across North America, really spurred me to say not only do I have a professional opportunity to do this, but I have a personal obligation to be able to do this at home. So issues in terms of what does the current economic transformation post COVID more online? What does this mean for local retailers? What does this mean for Employment and other types of commercial activity within a close-in suburb to a major metropolitan area. What do the intersections of economic activity and transportation and land use mean in terms of the economic viability? of our community. What do these things mean?

I have observations that and quite frankly, expertise and analysis that we have done professionally that I think is potentially usable here within Newton. And I would like to be able to have the opportunity to bring that home.

Are you done or you have a follow-up? Okay, but first let's hear from Councilor Albright.

So I too would like to welcome you back into the city vote fold. I was thinking of asking something similar to Councilor Getz, but What I'm thinking about now is the arts community is making the case that arts and culture are very important to the economic Development in Newton, and that they say that having the arts brings people to Newton, it brings people from Newton to an arts event where they might go out to dinner first, they might shop first. or after. So what do you think the EDC could do to help move that whole movement along to mesh together the arts and culture movement with the economic development?

There is actually an ongoing conversation already with Spark Newton, formerly Newton Community Pride, as well as any of the downtown areas, other arts organizations within the city. I have to point out that you're actually putting me in a slight conflict of interest as a performing musician also in terms of actually asking this question. One of the things that had been of constant conversation within the EDC during my last tenure there, and that is also very common within the communities that I work in, is that for downtowns to work, There has to be a reason, not just for people to come there to shop, but to be there. To be there for more than just kind of showing up, doing a transaction and leaving. The arts actually provide that kind of an anchor. So it's part of an overall solution. In terms of what the EDC can do, I have to admit, just in terms of looking at the agenda for tonight, I know that in fact the membership has changed drastically from the last time I was there.

and I'd like to understand a little bit more about the work that they are currently doing before starting to make a lot of suggestions as to what we ought to do.

OK, thank you for that answer. But I'll just plant the seed in your head that we need some help in thinking through how do we unite the village centers and the arts and community and make it all work for Newton. So thank you.

I agree. Thank you.

Mr. Steele, let me just mention that the comment is made raises a question of whether the EDC would appropriately expand the range of its ideas with a musical accompaniment, but You can decide that. I'm reminded in the fact that you're returning to a role that you've held before. And many years ago, at one point, former Mayor David Cohen said to me, After I'd gotten reelected, he said, this is Councilor Baker. He used to be a former alderman. And so you used to be a former member very shortly of the ECDDC, but I'll yield to, excuse me, we have Councilor Kalis. I didn't recognize that. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Baker. Mr. Steele, so good to see you back. And I welcome your input, your thoughts, your candor, and your musicianship. So I just welcome you back. Thanks. Thanks for serving again.

Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you. Any member of the committee, any other councillor wish to be recognized? If not, I'll return to Councillor Gett.

So I would like to move that we appoint as a member of the EDC Chris Steele.

Thank you very much. All those in favor will say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed? Abstentions? Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your willingness to serve. You know the process. Barring force majeure, you will be confirmed by the full council in the next meeting. Thank you for being willing to serve. Okay, I want to recognize that Councilor Wright has now joined us in person. We're delighted to have her in the chamber. I would now just ask the members of the planning board to be introduced and so we can have them participate in the next item, which is going to be a public hearing. Mr. Heath, you want to and the chair, Mr. McCormick, you want to introduce your colleagues?

Thank you, Chair. I'm Kevin McCormick, chair of the board here in the In chambers are Jim O'Connell and Ed Daly. And online is Vice Chair Amy Dean, Lee Breckenridge, and Peter Dorringer. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. And thank you all for being here and being, again, willing to serve in this important role. So the item now we're going to entertain a public hearing jointly with the Planning Development Board. It's item 2825. it's a request for addition to the maximum residential facade build out ratio to chapter 30 zoning and specifically zoning and planning committee requesting addition of a maximum residential facade build out ratio to chapter 30 zoning to aid a new development being contextual to the surrounding neighborhood and as our custom we'll have a presentation from the planning department first and then open it up for public comment. So who's gonna present it? Mr. LaMelle? Okay. We're joined by Zachary Lemel of the Planning Department. And do you want to carry on from here?

I would love to. Thank you. And I will try and move through this because I think Everyone in the room and online has seen this before, but I just want to make sure the details are out there and clear in advance of opening the public hearing. So this is what we'll talk about the proposal itself, how we got here and the specific recommendations for the facade ratio. Really what this is about is helping to ensure a quality residential design, particularly one that works better with the streetscape, with the neighborhood than some of the things we've been seeing over the last bunch of years. and the facade ratio within the zoning ordinance is a new tool. There was discussion about modifying and tweaking existing tools, but

After some analysis over the past year plus, using internal analysis, using our consultants, Utile, who are architects and urban designers and planners, and Landwise, Economic Development Consultants. The idea for a new tool made the most sense given this trend in house design, home design that an example you can see here from Newton Highlands. to build as much and out in the front of the house as possible and that In order to mitigate this, increasing the setbacks alone didn't make the most sense. It wouldn't be responsive to the varying conditions that Newton has. And

Given the will of the committee and the council overall that we could calibrate this correctly and ensure development allowance to kind of remain the same, but the appearance, the feel, the impact of that development would be reduced. and as I said we got here over the last year plus looking at a variety of data and information. and the proposal that is before all of you tonight is really a compromise proposal where we took the kind of competing views within the committee and made this What we think is as sound as possible. So there was concerns that we heard about too many exemptions. Those were updated and modified. We heard also too few exemptions. And so we tried to take that into consideration as well. And then finally, we wanted to make sure that existing homes weren't

uh penalized uh if they wanted to expand or change um if we wanted to say hey we really want to um push for preservation that an existing home can have a bit more allowance through the de minimis rules that are on the books already. So again, there was a lot of analysis. We looked at teardowns and demolitions over the last five, six years. We recognize that new residential development is a major source of revenue for the city, making up the vast majority of the budget. There's been a significant amount of other regulatory changes over the years that are impacting development and we're kind of continuing to see the impacts of that and wanting to make sure that We are really taking full advantage of looking at the development that we're seeing after all these rules have been changed.

And I think this item is carried with a few other docket items around teardowns. And I know we've spoken about this before, that While Teardowns is something that is... very emotional I think and very visceral that through the analysis we've seen a kind of steady trend there isn't you know we're not seeing an increase we're seeing kind of a flat rate within that and that If you were to say to truly prevent these teardowns, we believe that through our analysis, a kind of moratorium on development would be needed. and that instead regulating a quality product, whether it's preservation and renovation of existing home or new construction, that we could better achieve that through different tools.

and I'll also just put in a plug here and I know we'll talk about this in a couple weeks kind of an asterisk to this is that the city is currently seeing partial demo projects coming in and preservation of existing homes through the MRT zoning districts, which I just will put in a plug that I think we're seeing a lot more push for preservation of existing homes with this new zoning. that allows for more development as well. Kind of the flip side of the coin here. And again, I know we'll talk about that in a couple weeks. Okay, so the actual zoning recommendation here and the details. So this will be new zoning language that goes into section one of the ordinance. And what it basically does is it creates a regulation around the residential facade build out ratio, which is the proportion of The front building facade to the width of the lot. It defines what that is. It defines what counts.

What I want to highlight here is that portions of the building that are set back more than 20 feet are exempt again to create that massing differentiation. Originally, this was 10 feet, but we expanded that again to really make sure that there was a true differentiation in mass. Here's an example of a building that would fit that definition, where the front portion not highlighted in the magenta would count, and then the portion behind that has the garage is set back far enough that it would not count. The amount, the maximum amount of this ratio would be 60%. So 60% of the A lot with there. And what this does is, and this is responsive to the different conditions that exist throughout the city.

and what it gets at is that where most zoning districts, residential zoning districts require 15 foot total of side setbacks, This rule, depending on the lot width, right, 80 feet, 90 feet, 100 feet, what have you, the building can get wider and wider as the lot gets wider and wider. But again, you end up with this situation where the actual side setbacks are about double what's required, right? So a 15 foot side setback is the minimum. In these situations, you're ending up with 30, 40 feet of actual total side setback because of this rule. Again, we want to make sure and recognize that there isn't a singular form throughout Newton. Excuse me. So lots that are less than 50 feet wide are exempt from this build-out ratio. They can essentially are dictated by the setbacks. And then finally,

portions of the building that are one and a half stories or less are also exempt. And I think what you can do is you can see that in these pictures here, where if you're going to have a really narrow lot, which exists throughout the city, excuse me, it really is the setbacks that are dictating and then if you want to add wings for lack of a better term to your building either from a new building within your design or add additions to those are exempt as well and these are really responsive to historic Building forms that exist throughout the city as well. And then it's an acknowledgement that The buildings, the new construction buildings that are two and a half stories that are modifying the grade that are going to the seven and a half foot side setback. Those are the ones that I think you're hearing the most about.

Those are the homes that are driving the most complaints, but these smaller structures that exist that might go out to the setback, either as a garage or a wing or a sunroom or something like that. are much less impactful and we want to incentivize that. And again, there's another way to break up the mass. Finally, or not finally, but two more things. There's a special permit allowance acknowledging that Builders, property owners, et cetera, can come to the city council and ask for a waiver, for a special permit. These are homes that were built over the last couple of years, these homes would not be allowed to be built by Wright if this rule were in place, but they could come to the council for a special permit. And then finally, this allowance of a buy right pathway for existing homes that might exceed that 60% facade ratio. Those do exist as well.

There is The typical special permit pathway to increase or expand if they wanted to do an addition. There is de minimis relief that allows for a certain increase by right. and that is being set here at 10%. So again, if an existing home is at 65% and they want to bump out a little bit, they can do so by right. Obviously, if there is allowance either on the site or through FAR, they have square footage to build. They could build that mass in the back or somewhere else or 20 feet back where it wouldn't count. They could build it as a one and a half story addition wing. So there's numerous options just out there for existing homes to renovate. I just want to make that clear as well. This is just one, I think, additional option to incentivize that. And with that, I will turn it back over to the chair. And thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. LaMelle. And thank you to the department. As members of the committee know and members of the public who are watching may not that this proposal has gone through a great deal of discussion in the zoning and planning committee and we also had the advantage of our consultant Utile assisting us in this process. So at this point, I'd like to open the public hearing. for anyone wishing to be heard on the item. Our standard practice is to allow up to three minutes for anyone who wishes to be heard. And then I'm going to, at the close of the public hearing, item back into committee for discussion. Does anyone here wish to be heard? Jay Walter, I believe I see you on the screen. and Ms. Holden, you'll have to help me make sure that I don't miss somebody who has their hand raised that I don't see. So Mr. Walter, you're up.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You can hear me? Yes. Yes. OK. My name is Jay Walter, 83 Pembroke Street. I'm a representative of the Building Professionals Zoning Working Group, seven professionals who are builders, architects, and interested community people working on the zoning to help guide the zoning and make it easier to use and more effective. We have looked at this proposal since its inception and its evolution through your committee. Stepping back, we believe that it's another addition to the zoning that will make it more complicated, more expensive for the homeowners and more difficult to to enforce for the city without achieving any real goals.

We do not believe that this will affect the number of teardowns in the city, nor do we believe that it will help protect and preserve our existing housing stock. That being said, we are grateful to the planning department for their thorough crafting of the proposal. And we are also grateful to the committee for reconsidering the exceptions and including the exceptions to the rules that will make the regulation fair and more even-handed, especially the de minimis regulation. So in summary, we are not enthusiastic about the ordinance, but we think it's crafted properly so that it can be executed. The best I can say is that we're not opposed. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Walter. Anyone else wish to be heard? Seeing none in the chamber and seeing none online, I'll declare the public hearing closed. I'll have to accept a motion to close the public hearing. Albright. Councilor Albright moves to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstention? The ayes have it. Mr. McCormick?

I'd like to entertain a motion to close public hearing.

So moved.

Second. All in favor of closing public hearing, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. And thank the department again for the rather extraordinary effort that went into trying to craft this proposal. Now I'd like to bring it back into committee or just indicate to the committee my open intention is see if we can vote this out. tonight to get it to the council. This is towards the end of our term and I would like to make sure that we complete our business on this item if we can within that time frame. But I'd like to hear from members of the committee. Councilor Getz, did you? Yes.

Acknowledging Councilor Kalis, he didn't want his hand up first, but I do want to speak as well.

Okay, let me go to Councilor Kalis. Thank you, because again, I'm used to the chamber and not the gadget, but I'm learning.

Thank you, Councilor Getz and Councilor Baker. Yeah, it blends in here, so I'm sorry about that, my hand. So, Mr. LaMell, I wanted to ask regarding Mr. Walters' comment about the complexity, I assume that you have thought about the complexity and the committee wanting various things have made it kind of that complex. Do you agree with Mr. Walter that we're not really going to be making much of a difference at all in that it could be making everything too complex?

That's a question, I guess, Mr. Lammel. Do you want to answer that?

I'm happy to answer it. So I think when you're adding a new regulation on top of existing regulations, I think almost by definition you're adding some complexity. I do think that it is manageable and I do think in terms of the outcome I think the most egregious offenders in terms of new development will be impacted by this in a way that the massing, I believe, The appearance of the massing will be reduced or broken down. but I'm also humble and will make sure to come back with recommendations and updates if that is not the case as we see going forward. Okay, thank you for your answer.

Thank you. Councilor Getz.

I'm supportive of this, and I think that it will have an effect. But the only piece that I sort of was uncomfortable with was in the special permit piece of it. I had wanted to see an upper threshold. you know so that then they weren't building recreating what they could could otherwise previously had done by right and I and I sort of even you know was considering the difference between old and new lot standards and I kind of wanted to see that if in fact they wanted to come in that the upper threshold would be new lot standards so that they wouldn't be doing what we're seeing now. is there a possibility of doing that you know in terms of setting your criteria um you know if in fact you do come in for the special permit exemption, you're not in the two examples you gave. The one of them looks like it was permissible for the SR2.

with the 15.5 and the 16 as new lot standards. And then the other one is shy of the SR1 standards for new lots. But I just sort of felt like I would like to see that inserted.

I guess that's a question to the planning department.

I had mentioned it previously, and I sort of felt like I just didn't want there to be an opportunity for someone to come in and recreate the new what we're seeing today through the special permit. Pathway.

Mr. LaMelle, would you like to comment on that?

So I think in terms of adding to the special permit allowance, I think adding a maximum would be something that would be relatively simple and I think straightforward. I do think The process of coming in for a special permit the the The variety of conditions that exist might not warrant that or necessitate that. There might be a situation where you as a council find that a 90% facade ratio is appropriate because they're doing they're only doing two stories and they're modifying the facade you know It's not 20 feet back, but it's 10 or 15. And the site slopes down or slopes. There's a whole host of...

variables and the fact that they're coming in for the special permit that gives all of you the opportunity to kind of ask those questions. So I think I would shy away. I would recommend to stay away from criteria. Potentially even a maximum, but I think setting a maximum allowance would be the easiest, the least complex thing to do within that. So they can only come and ask for up to what have you.

So, Councilor Albright.

So this is on a new topic. So do you want to continue to talk about that?

Well, what I heard is that it's possible to add an upset, but I hear the department is not eager to do that at this point, thinking that special permit process may provide enough safeguards from an abuse. That's what I'm hearing. But I think I had you first and then, Councilor,

So on that topic, would it be possible to add a criteria such as restating the purpose, which was to make the new addition appropriate for the neighborhood and give that kind of guidance to the land use committee? Could you do something like that without setting a maximum but giving them guidance?

I think the existing special permit criteria speaks to the use as appropriate to the site, if I recall.

Yeah, but the use, I mean, it's a house, and there are other houses, so that's appropriate to the site, but I think the The purpose of the land use committee, I mean, sorry, the purpose of our committee is to keep the new house in concert with the other houses in the neighborhood. And if there's any way to add language like that, that might help. I don't know. That's not what I was. wanting to raise my hand about, but I just thought I would raise that as an issue.

That's a reasonable point. So, Mr. LaMelle, reflect on that, if you would. I want to hear from other people, but now, Councilor Albright, do you want to Address something else, and then I'll go to others.

So there's some question as to whether this will be a useful addition or not.

I'm sorry, I just couldn't hear that clearly, would you?

There's some question by Mr. Walter and others as to whether what we're doing is useful or not. So I'm wondering if we need to add a look back provision for one, two, or three years to make sure that you report back to the Zoning and Planning Committee on were there teardowns, were they the same number or percentage of teardowns, were they larger or smaller or Just a look back provision to make sure we get some results on how well we did with this provision.

Okay.

Can I add one more thing?

Certainly.

So I had asked Mr. Lamella a question because I wasn't clear myself. There were three pictures on one slide that showed What kind of additions would be appropriate? And one of them was a two and a half story house with a one story addition. And I just wanted to make sure that everybody understood that that is within the guidelines. of this ordinance that we would be passing.

Mr. Lemel.

So correct. So the exemption would be to any building that has portions of it that are one and a half stories or less. So you could build or have an existing two and a half story building and add those one and a half story additions and those portions would be exempt. You don't have to have just a one and a half story building Thank you.

That was the answer that Mr. Limmel gave me and I just wanted to make sure that was on the record. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Councilor Wright, I had you.

Was Councilor Danberg ahead of me?

I'm sorry. I beg your pardon. You're correct. I don't mean to slight you, Councillor Danberg.

Thank you. Thank you. A question or two and a comment. If we could go back to the 1650-1652 Center Street slide, I think it was like slide number three. Yes, I just have a question on this building and what might or might not be exempt. The building is a two and a half story, I take it, or two full story. The garage on the right, which is the one that is most easily seen, is that considered a one and a half story or is that considered a two story? Is that exempt or is that not exempt?

That's considered a two-story. Two-story.

Okay. So this would not be allowed. Okay. I agree that this would not have any effect on or any Any real effect on teardowns. But I don't think that the goal of the proposal was necessarily to stop teardowns. It says that the goal is to ensure quality residential building design, renovation, or new construction that responds to the streetscape and neighborhood. So we're trying to ensure that the building that is being constructed or renovated is in keeping with the neighborhood. And older homes generally

don't go to the maximum to the type of build out that we're seeing here in the 1650-52. What about deep... set homes, homes that let's say there's a deep lot, a deep narrow lot. If it's way back on the lot, Does that make any difference? Since we're trying to regulate the streetscape, what about a house that's very deep set?

So the way that we wrote these rules, it would still need to meet those requirements. But it's from the front. There is that exemption that you're talking about. does exist in the garage ordinance. Just as a side note.

Okay, so if there were a house that were deep set and it had a one and a half story garage addition that would, it would be exempt regardless whether it's up close to the street or far away. That doesn't, there's no distinction.

Correct. So it's the frontmost portion of the house is what starts the measurement. So then you get the exemptions being... I agree with the premise that

For example, this 1650-52 Center Street house is not something that we would like to see replicated. What I want to make sure of is that we don't have any Any repercussions that we haven't thought of that would in fact throw a and Monkey Wrench into a good plan that we would like to see. So I think I need to know more about this with more discussion. Thank you.

Thank you. Now let me go to Councilor Wright. Sorry.

Thank you, Chair Baker. So actually, I had a phone call today with a constituent in my neighborhood. And most of the houses in my neighborhood are over 100 years old. A few of them are 70. and we don't have any teardowns. We have small lots. Most people renovate and even developers come in. take the house and push it back to create more space, something like we'd like to see, except this new one, which will be our first tear down the neighborhood. The house is 110 years old. and what they're replacing it with is at the maximum FAR and within four inches of the side setback. So our neighborhood with houses 70 to 200 years old were not built to the setbacks. Their FAR is, I think, 3,200 square feet.

That doesn't sound like much, but livable space is 50% more, 4,600. which is generally pretty big for the neighborhood. And this would help in the sizing, not so much the sizing, but the positioning of the house. so the setbacks would have been a little bit bigger they still could have built this huge house but it'd be pushed into the backyard a little bit more but from the streetscape they're not taking up the whole lot So I'm supportive of this. And if there's a house on a small lot right now, that's taking up most of the width I would expect which is what's happening in our neighborhood is that people just will do adaptive reuse and expand the house you know push it back instead of you know tearing it down.

It's unfortunate the sellers of this house thought they were selling it to a family and didn't realize it was a developer so they're very upset and the neighbors around them are very upset too. They were hoping that a family would be moving in. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else on the committee? Any other counselors attending? Let me just then indicate my view. While I understand the value of having and upset. I'm eager to get something done and to get a chance for the council to act on this as soon as we can. But I want to be guided by the committee's sentiment. If you want to have a special permit upset, we can hold the item and have the The planning department come back and we can deal with it at the next meeting. The look back I think we can do automatically just by asking for a review. I don't think we need an ordinance change to do that. But I think that the department has worked very hard to satisfy multiple goals and it's obviously a delicate balance but I think it accomplishes an opportunity to deal with the most difficult situations and recognizing we won't catch all of them. But I want to just see the sense of the committee.

Councilor Oliver, do you want to weigh in on the item before we?

Well, specifically to moving this forward, I think I've long and saying I'm not the biggest fan of this, but I do understand some of the benefits here. I think that the questions I've had have been asked and answered. I'm happy to move this forward the way it is.

Okay. Councilor Getz, you're the one who had asked about a specific

Yeah, I, you know, I understand what you were saying, Mr. LaMelle, you know, just in terms of like saying that we, it's already in the special permit threshold. But, you know, I'm not going to stop this process, you know, but I sort of because it's in that arena, you know, but I'm still thinking that it would be nice if it were there.

So in response to your concern and in response to Councilor Albright's thought, I wondered whether it would be within the scope of the item to have a small amendment for the special permit criteria In the special permit criteria, generally, it says for this purpose, for the special permit for a waiver of the facade ratio, there would be a finding that the use and the structure was appropriate to the site because I think that's what I heard from Councilor Albright is concerned is this fit into the context And I think that would also perhaps respond to the concern of Councilor Danberg. So I'm wondering whether that would be an amendment or not without, yes, Councilor, excuse me, Ms. Cara.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the first criteria for special permits, the general criteria that apply to most all special permits, is that the specific site is an appropriate location for such use and structure.

Oh, are you all ready? I'm sorry. Thank you. I was operating from memory. So I think we've got that safeguard already. So I'm prepared to move this in committee if members of the committee are comfortable at this point. Any further discussion? If not, I would take the item as recommended by the planning department and move it in committee for approval. All those in favor will say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Okay, Mr. McCormick.

Thank you, Chair. Unless the Board has any questions or comments, I know we discussed this at a number of meetings. I would like to move this forward, so I'd like to entertain a motion to approve this. So moved.

Second. Can I just qualify that, that we're referring to a proposal dated October 14th from the planning department? So we're clear here?

I couldn't hear you clearly, I apologize.

I'm suggesting for clarification that the planning board be clear that we're recommending to the city council the zoning proposal dated October 14th. from the planning department. Same thing that's on the document.

OK, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? One opposed.

Abstain.

One abstention.

Okay, are you done? All right, thank you. And also we have two companion items that we've routinely brought along with this item that, I'm sorry, now I have, Chenda, which are 85, 24, discussion of amendments to preserve existing homes, and 41, 24, amend the setbacks in MR zones to encourage preservation of existing buildings. I move hold on those two items. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstention? OK, those two items are held. Those were not part of a public hearing. They were just part of our discussion. Just want to make sure that our docket is clear. Thank you all, colleagues. Thank the department. Thank the planning department.

members of the planning board you have done your duty and you're welcome to stick around but you're not uh um thank you for the offer you can share all right thank you very much um now we have uh A discussion on the inclusionary zoning. We've had a public hearing on the inclusionary zoning. This one is 181, oh yes, excuse me, I skipped too far down. I beg your pardon. This is 181.24. This is a request for discussion and possible amendments to remove or reduce parking minimums for commercial uses in commercial centers. and depending on how the conversation goes we may ask for a public hearing for November 10th. So I have the planning department again prepared to present this item. Who's going to do this? Mr. LaMelle? and I thank you.

Ms. Holden tells me that Councilor Block has joined us online. Thank you for joining us.

All right. So this item was previously discussed at the last ZAP meeting at the end of September. There was some information requested from the committee, which we hope We provided in the packet and are providing again here in this brief presentation. Again, here's what we're going to cover. and as we as we know that the committee the council has made many changes and is continually looking to improve opportunities and pathways for new businesses to open here in Newton and for existing businesses to expand. One of those is parking requirements and this is something that routinely comes to the city council for a waiver by special permit and it is routinely granted.

This support that we heard from the committee about decoupling the parking requirements from those business or commercial uses. was made clear at the previous ZAP meeting. It was also made clear that was a meeting where members of the business and economic communities were invited, who also voiced that support, members of the Chamber of Commerce and the EDC. Just given that this was part of the packet, I put the recording of the previous meeting here. And Newton is not acting alone here. This is a map from the Parking Reform Network. It's a zoom-in of the Northeast. But over 3,500 municipalities across the United States have been either removing, which are shown here in these red dots, or reducing Shown in these orange dots, their parking requirements within their zoning and this could be for across the board.

This could be for commercial uses only. This could be for residential uses. It runs the gamut. You can go and click on each one and Zoom in. But this is something that is happening locally, regionally, and nationally. What is before you tonight is a very specific proposal to look at again business and commercial uses and the parking requirements for them and with a particular focus in and around our village centers with a few exceptions, which we provided those maps. Here. So this is our zoning map of the city. When you take away everything but the business zones, what you see left is essentially Newton's Village centers or historic village centers and kind of patterns of development.

You can see that these areas are connected to public transit either through the Green Line commuter rail or bus. The majority of these, again, align with the village centers. They do so geographically and they do so as part of the village center zoning, the VCOD that was passed. and the remaining parcels that kind of fall outside of that and you can see kind of here in some of these examples which we'll get into right now a lot of those have residential uses on them already they're There could be city or state owned or and or they could already have special permits subject to them. So just as an example, as an example, we're going to go I provided kind of more zoomed in maps. for all these areas. So what you can see here, Auburndale and West Newton. You can see the areas circled.

Cursor, and these blue rings are kind of these are the areas that we're talking about, right? These are the areas that are outside of the village center zoning that are still zoned business one, business two. This is Newtonville, Nonantum, and Newton Corner. I think all of you will know and remember that a lot of these parcels we've been looking at around Nonantum as part of another docket item, the residential use in business zones. Lower Falls, and Wobbin. And you can see just calling out here the Riverside Station portion of the property that's fully owned by the MBTA, you know, that is not, you know, up for development, up for consideration, just as to highlight kind of what's on some of these other parcels.

You have Upper Falls, Elliott, and Newton Highlands here. You have four corners in Newton Center. and you have Chestnut Hill and you can see here some of the major developments. The Chestnut Hill Mall, the Avalon at Chestnut Hill, Atrium and the Imperial condominium towers. and finally just a small block in Oak Hill Park. So the specific zoning recommendation again is to decouple these parking requirements within Newton's business one and two zones for all commercial uses. And then in addition to that, looking to align parking requirements across specific commercial uses in the remaining commercial zones. So what that would look like in terms of text, is that there'd be an exemption added to the beginning of the parking use table.

Again, just restating what I just said, no parking requirements for those commercial uses in the business one and two zones. and then this aligning parking requirement would essentially look at the kind of main uses that we see kind of changing over time in existing buildings, right? Personal service, restaurants, retail, service establishments. In particular, the issue is when One of these personal service, retailer service closes and a restaurant is looking to go in where the current requirement is significantly higher. and so that usually triggers the waiver that is coming that then ends up in front of all of you as a special permit to waive those requirements and so by

kind of going down the board and saying these all have the same requirements, you would prevent some of the holdup that you're seeing in some of these other zones. So it's not all commercial uses, it's a very kind of targeted look at a few. And that is the proposal, hoping that if the committee is willing to set a public hearing in the near future. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. LaMelle. Before we get into the discussion, I just want to ask a clarifying question. The second item substitutes basically an area requirement that's similar to the area requirements that are there but takes out the employee counts. which are, as we've talked about, difficult to do and cause some difficulty to people. But the actual location of those uses is not yet clear. You've made clear where the business uses are. Can you give us any index of where these others are?

Sure. So those uses, I believe, are allowed fully by right in the remaining business zones and the mixed use zones. and then I think some of those are allowed in manufacturing but not all. I'd have to double check for you.

So what I'm going to recommend just as a matter of clarification, because I think both items should go to public hearing, but that we split the item into parens one and parens two so that we can have a conversation around The second item with some more clarity at the time when you have the hearing about the location of those particular parcels so that people will understand the impact of what we're doing on those parcels as well as the ones that are B1 and B2. But so before we take it to public hearing, I'm going to recommend that to the committee. And I think that's within our scope unless Mr. Lee tells us otherwise. or the Planning Department. So that we have two items. So because they're really different in shape and form and I think important to distinguish the two. So how do members of the committee feel about taking this to public hearing? We heard testimony from the chamber and others.

We've also heard concerns from individuals about the impact on the neighbors and the neighborhoods. and maybe Mr. LaMell can just speak to that question a minute as well before we go there. But do you want to talk about that? Because you had mentioned that before, the spillover effect of changing this rule, because we're trying to, We're trying to avoid people going through the parking minimum waiver exercise, which is really producing nothing but a process that people have to go through and then come to the committee and the committee grants it and we're all spending time unnecessarily. Can you comment on that?

I can say a couple things. I think as many of you all have mentioned, not all geographies, all village centers are equal. We know that. I think the ability to manage parking, particularly the public parking available, is something that's of interest to us and something that we've looked at, something that we're looking at. It's something that we took a very close look at as part of the Newton Center Pilot Plaza. And I think a couple of things is There are things that are evolving, people's habits and patterns.

and I do think that it's important to make sure that again the public the publicly available The public side of things is there, but as a resource, I think it typically is. and then forcing or requiring that resource to be provided by and so on. We have seen work, right? I don't think people who've come in and asked for waivers from you over the many, many years that you're hearing regular complaints from those businesses that receive them or about those businesses that receive them.

So I think that's one data point. But obviously, the ever-changing need is something that we're interested in and are always happy to look at.

OK, thank you. So let me just get a sense of the committee. I'd like to move to divide the item into two pieces, one relating to business one and business two, and the other relating to the table for commercial uses. So we would have to have appropriate language, and I would ask that the department work with the law department so that we can advertise this appropriately if we take them both to public hearing. But let me get the sense of the committee. Are you all comfortable with that, Councillor Oliver? Yes.

Yeah. Excuse me. Thank you, Chair. I'm not sure I understand The benefit of treating the, you know, parens one, parens two. If you could help me out with that. Sure.

It's just that one is a business, business one and business two. We have the maps for those. The others we have a table for, but not location. And I'd like to have a conversation around those separately. I think we may pass them both, and we should hear them both. but I think it'll be easier to understand if we have them separated. So that's why I would like to see them up or as one and friends too.

So in other words, it's the thumbs up, thumbs down on BU1 and BU2, and then separately, we could... We could vote that or we could say we need more time, but I wouldn't want to hold up BU1 and BU2 simply.

and then they have to amend the item on the floor or do something like that. I think we'd rather do that kind of separation of committee now for purposes of discussion and then see where we go. We may end up voting them both at the same time.

Fair enough.

Okay. Thank you. Councillor Danberg.

I would be okay with separating them. My immediate concern is to eliminate the parking, hopefully eliminate the parking from B1 and B2. Because as Mr. LaMelle has, I think, clearly stated, historically We don't require it when special permits requesting parking waivers come forward. We routinely grant them. And I think it's been shown that it's impossible for a lot of buildings to provide the parking that we have on our books as being required. We have already granted to 93 Union Street a blanket waiver for that entire building

on Union Street because we can see obviously that there's no way that any of those businesses can provide parking or the building. and it just slows down every tenancy that comes forward. They have to come to the city for a special permit if for no other reason than to get a parking waiver. It just slows down the process and costs the These small businesses, time and money. So yes, I'm okay with if the question is, are we okay with splitting it? I would be okay with splitting it and I would like to move this forward.

Okay, I would note that the item as originally framed was requesting discussion of possible amendments to Newton's zoning ordinance to remove or reduce the parking minimums for first floor commercial uses. I think the scope of the conversation is broader than that at this point.

Yes, I would agree that the scope is broader.

As part of the amendment, I would think we would just say reduce parking minimums for commercial uses and commercial Centers, and parens 1 would relate to B1 and B2, and parens 2 would relate to the parking table. Is that agreeable? So members of committee, I don't think we need to vote to do that. Yeah, Councilor Kalis, I'm sorry, you have your hand up.

Yeah, thank you. So I definitely want to move to public hearing. The one clarification I want on the breakout that you're talking about is we're not... putting the onus on the speaker to determine if they are What zone they're talking about, correct? Or we're not setting up two different, two separate public hearings, are we?

No, this would be, well, we'd have two items on the same night for public hearing. The B1 and B2 is the one we have the maps for. We don't have the maps for the other. I would like to have the committee be informed and the public about what the impact of changing the table is in the sense of the locations of those. but I think it's important that we move it forward in both cases.

Right. I guess my issue is, are you asking the public to know What the specific B1 and B2 areas are before they speak?

I'd rather just have... The planning department's memo that they presented tonight, or not the memo, but their presentation tonight, and the memo that would accompany this, would it clarify those? The public would be aware of that, I assume. They could read that document. In other words, I'm not sure I follow the question.

Well, it gets down to the fact that I don't want to confuse the public. If this is going to confuse the public, I'd rather they just speak on the general topic of reducing parking minimums.

Well, my view is it's a clarified for the public because you'll have two different issues to decide. One is a general requirement in all B1 and B2. The other is changing table for commercial uses. They're not the same thing. So I think it's important. While they have similar objectives, they're different items. Let me hear from Mr. Lee who's got his hand up. Part of the difficulty I have is that the hand raising function often blends into the background. And so my apologies if I don't see it. This Holden sometimes is better at it than I am. Mr. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I just want to state what I'm hearing as a potential option for what the Zoning Planning Committee might be wanting to accomplish. So there's no problem with splitting up the item into a parens one or parens two and having a single notice for it and a single public hearing. But then it could be voted out separately, like a piece of one and a piece of two. I hope that answers your question, Councilor Kalis.

That's helpful. Yeah.

OK, thank you. So members of the committee, do we need a vote? All those in favor of separating the item into two parts, as I've indicated, please say aye. Aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Abstention? Okay, we've done that. Now I'd entertain a motion to set the public hearing on this item for November 10th. So moved. Okay, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstention? The ayes have it. Okay. I want to thank the department. And when you prepare, I think you've done a lot of the homework on B1 and B2. it's the second item I think you're going to need to present some visuals that will help clarify okay all right um now Councilor Oliver or Councilor Wright sorry

Are we going to discuss this a little bit tonight?

Well, yes, we can further if you'd like.

Yes, I do.

Yeah, we've set a public hearing, but we can take it up. I haven't closed the item yet. All right.

So the first half is lifting the parking requirements on BC1 and BC2, BU1 and BU2. I just lifting it for everything like that to me there's I think it's just too open. And like I mentioned before, if something's coming in that's going to require a lot of parking, I'd rather the city be proactive than reactive but first you know some of these and I took a look at the maps and what were on those lots now and things like that and ones that are in the village center that has public parking, I'm not as concerned about versus other parts of the city that does not have public parking. So like California Street, one whole side of California Street

is all BU1 or BU2, but there's no public parking there. So what happens if a yoga studio comes in and they got a really great, unbelievable and people come from an hour away to come to the studio. And you got 20 people there. There's overlap. So there's 40. So 40 additional cars, just one little studio. and there's no public parking there so they're going to be going into the neighborhoods quite a bit. I just think We need to look at those, I think, more case by case. Like one of them was in Oak Hill Park and their condos. So I think there's a very slim possibility that it's going to go to commercial because someone's going to have to buy out the 50 condos It'll be a lot more difficult. But there's other places that there is a concern. Just even in Ward 3, like Trader Joe's, we're constantly getting complaints

you know they don't have enough parking as it is right now and if something else going in right now is a robotics studio going in and we're getting lots and lots of complaints on the streets around their parents waiting for the kids and things like that because there's no public parking except for some street parking, but not enough for the area. So just lifting it, blanket lifting it, I think, I'm not, I have some issues with. If it's only a few, you know, cars, you know, three parking spots, five parking spots, whatever, you know, lower numbers, I have no problem. Okay, we'll allow that. But I'd rather see the city being proactive when things go in and to handle the parking concerns instead of always being reactive. And it does take some time to deal with it.

Thank you. I have a few comments myself, but I thank you for raising those. Councilor Oliver.

Great, thank you again, Chair. I have brought this up a few times and had a conversation with Mr. You just moved the mic closer.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I've had a conversation with both Ms. Kyra and Mr. LaMell about this, and it still keeps coming back to me. One of the things that I am Very interested in when it comes to the use tables and the uses, in particular when it comes to automotive uses, auto body shops, that sort of thing. We have several of those in the center of Nonantum. I would be loath to even consider them not having the off street parking requirement. And I do understand that none of those uses could be modified or changed without a special permit or coming before the City Council for a special permit.

I feel strongly enough about it that I really want to have a conversation around the fact that I don't think we want auto body shops in the VCODs or in our village centers. regardless if it's by right or special permit, simply because of what we're trying to create with our village centers. But anyway, I just wanted to get that out there. I want to make sure we have that conversation as a part of this or these items.

Okay, I wanna just add my own concern along with the lines of Councilor Wright, that there are some, areas that look to me like they're not served by parking and again, close to residential areas. And one of the questions for the department and Mr. Lee, is if we hear the public hearing and we decide that there are particular B1, B2 areas that may not be appropriate to include at this point, have we the discretion to make those changes as part of our response to the public or the information we get? Mr. Lee still with us? Yeah, there you are.

Mr. Chair, that won't be an issue.

Okay. Councillor Getz and then Councillor Danberg. Sorry.

Thank you, Chair. I, you know, I actually really appreciate the maps. because they actually help us sort of visualize the actual village center and the distinctions between all of the village centers. So thank you for that. and I you know just even in terms of looking at the slide that's West Newton as well as Newton Center the amount of those areas that are specifically zoned either the VC2 or the VC3 because I sort of see this as an issue of parking demand and what capacity parking capacity is there you know in terms of just with Portland parking. OK. So I don't want to open this up too much, but I start thinking about that in terms of the differences with Newton Center.

the amount of public parking that's available there versus West Newton. And so it starts segueing into a bigger conversation. And I think that that's important. And so I was sort of thinking about like, and then there's another issue. So that's the VCOD and how much, you know, literally square footage and capacity is there. correlating to the parking demand and how that correlates with the existing capacity that's there. And then the next piece is looking at some of these, you know, how you have them distinguished, like for Newtonville, Nonantum and Newton Corner. I'm seeing the way that the zones are laid out and their proximity to residential neighborhoods. So that's yet another piece that's sort of like where are those people going to park?

if not provided on site, they're going to go into the residential neighborhood. So it's another equation. And then lastly, Some of the people, some of the BU1s and the BU2s have already changed and picked up the VCOD. for the parking, correct? They opted in. So this will now be removed if, in fact, this moves forward, that they wouldn't adopt the VCOD for that specific lot because now they're exempted so that then they're not incentivized to pick up. That's another piece that we need to think about as well.

Councillor Danberg.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank Councilor Oliver for bringing up the point about the auto body shops because I know that There are a couple of them or more in nonantum. And Newton Center has at least one, maybe more. and I have a question for either Mr. LaMelle or Ms. Kyra. It seems to me, and maybe, Councilor, maybe You yourself, Mr. Chair, and Councilor Albright, who were both here when this might have been discussed. I seem to remember a discussion in the past years ago about

not renewing auto body shops licenses once they leave. Did we ever do anything about that or not?

Can anyone answer that question?

So we're not involved in the licenses. I know that goes through the clerk's office and the land use committee, but in planning, we don't get involved with auto body licenses. It can say that the use itself is not allowed in the village center, in the VCOD, or in the business one district, which is the core of most village centers. and it's I believe only allowed by special permit in the business too already. So most of those are non-conforming uses that are existing and so if they left a new one couldn't necessarily come in and if they wanted to change anything on those sites they would need a special permit to further extend the non-conforming use.

Okay, so what I was questioning whether was in place is in fact in place. They're now non-conforming and if they were to fold up and leave, another similar use could not go into that property unless they were to to go to special permit and they would not necessarily be, since they're not allowed now in village centers, they would not necessarily be granted permits to be there.

you a special permit is not actually an option in the village center for an auto mode of use so and in the business one it's only in the business two that they have the option for a special permit. Otherwise, it's just not permitted.

Okay. Thank you. That answers my question. Thank you.

Okay. Councilor Albright.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to put in a good word for reducing parking minimums since it's all been going the other way. As Councilor Danberg was talking about earlier, Taking away parking minimums gives people a chance, business is a chance to get into their business without going through a special permit asking for waivers quicker. And I think that's good for business. And it doesn't also take the city off the hook. if we want to put time limits, pricing time limits, if we want to ask residents or employees to have permits, If we want to create wayfinding tools in our city, we can do all of that and probably should do all of that to help people find parking. So I think this is definitely the right way to go and I hope that We'll see what people say at the public hearing.

Thank you. Anyone else? Councilor Danberg.

Thank you. Yes, one other thing that I neglected to bring up and no one else has so far is the idea that in order to prevent overuse of parking, public parking in neighborhoods, which Councilor Oliver was talking about, and is a problem in some areas. Certainly it is in Newton Center, even on my own street. We should probably couple any changes with looking into or reviving the idea of neighborhood parking plans like the one in Auburndale and like the one

in, I believe, Newton Highlands because it has certainly helped to spread the traffic around, to spread the parking around so that any one street is not overwhelmed by being in close proximity to A Village Center, and therefore too many cars are parking on those streets. Thank you.

Okay, and if Councilor Krintzman were here, he called me, I think he is that on the record is favoring doing away with parking requirements in commercial areas. And so while he is not able to appear and to vote, I just think that he would appreciate having his views acknowledged. Let me just make a couple of points for clarification, which I hope the department will take under consideration. I hear essentially agreement among members of the committee that they're not eager to have people go through an empty exercise of asking for a waiver to reestablish a business. where there's been a business before and no parking. In other words, it isn't a case that someone's taking parking away. It's a case where there's been no parking and we go through an exercise of asking the council to waive the requirement and we always do that. So I think it's important to try and clarify those situations as much as possible because I don't want to give the public the impression

that all of a sudden businesses are now going to be parking where they've not been parking before. It's really a way of preserving whatever is the existing condition without asking people to go through an administrative and public process that's time consuming and expensive to no real benefit. I think is important distinction to make when you make the presentation so people in those neighborhoods will understand what is the effect because otherwise they will look upon it as we're taking away a protection that they already have, which in fact they don't. So I want to make that clear. On the other hand, there may be situations as Councilor Oliver and others and Councilor Wright have pointed out, where there may be an important residential impact that we need to clarify and be protective of. And it may be that there are particular areas that we don't pass immediately, but there are other areas we should.

and then finally I've heard again a clarification of what is in the BCOD district versus what is not in the district so that we can really understand where those areas are and it's a color coding job I don't envy you but at least I hope you can try and make that clear. Any other comments in terms of getting prepared for that hearing? If not, I would entertain a motion to hold this item and we've already split it. Councilor Getz. So moved. Okay. All those in favor will say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstention? The ayes have it. So that concludes our discussion on whether anyone 24. It has now been split into two parts and removed the limitation on first floor. I just want to thank the department. This has been a long exercise for you all and we are grateful to you for Having spent the time, but all we've done is add more time to your burden, but I know you will rise to the occasion.

Okay, next item. Is 4424 requesting reevaluation and possible amendments to the inclusionary zoning ordinance? This item is heard. We've already heard this item. So now this item is before us for action. Who's going to present this? Please identify yourself for the public. We'll go for it. Yes.

My name is Shaylin Davis Iannocco. I'm the housing program manager for the city of Newton.

Wonderful. Thank you.

So to kind of re-summarize where we are, we are required every five years to review the inclusionary zoning ordinance. We started this review last August. 2019 and contracted RKG Associates to do some of this analysis for us. And over the last year, we've met with the partnership Thanks. We've met with the partnership, we've met with ZAP, and we've met with the Planning and Development Board to discuss some of the changes that we have recommended to the ordinance. I hope you've received the redlined ordinance at this point as well as the memo from last month's meeting.

And I thought what might be most helpful is to share the kind of spreadsheet, the summary of opinions that kind of summarizes all of the changes that we're recommending at this time. So if you give me one second. Okay, looks like everybody can see now. And I thought what might be maybe most helpful is to start with some of the items that ZAP hasn't had a chance Thank you. Thank you. Contractual resident services for extremely low income units under the extremely low income alternative compliance option.

Removing the public funding limitation language in its entirety from Article 511.9. and then removing the medical services component and updating the formula used to calculate the in lieu payments for senior housing developments with services in Newton. And then just to clarify as well, the partnership was able to kind of review and approve all of these changes in September. And I think the Planning and Development Board just approved all of the changes that we recommended last week on Monday. So I will, I'll stop there and maybe we could start with the elimination required or eliminating the requirement for contractual resident services for ELI units.

So let's take these items individually because I think it's important that the committee make judgment on them independently.

Mr. Mayor, could I just ask, the the what's on the board there doesn't you can't really tell what the headings are or where number one is or can you raise it or change the how it appears on the screen

Is that a little better?

No, it's not quite right there. That's better. Okay.

The yellow piece at the bottom is cut off. Can you move the image up? There we go. A little higher. without doing damage. There you are. I think that doesn't eliminate anything. All right.

As much as I'd like to see the participants, if you got rid of the participants list, I think we could see more of the spreadsheet. Yeah.

No disrespect to the participant, Liz. Councilor Oliver, can you make a suggestion?

Yeah, sorry. On the far right of your screen there, see the arrow on the gray bar? That's currently pointed down. Yeah, that guy right just above that. You click on that. It gives us a bunch more room. No, click. Yep. There you go. That helps a lot, I think.

Thank you.

Of course.

This is wonderful to hear the digital expertise in this committee. But I do want to take these up. We have the various changes, the change of affordability requirements for rental projects I don't think there's any controversy about that. That's, in a sense, green boss aboard. Unless members of the committee have a concern about it, I will assume that there's an assent to that change. 1B, which is the change of affordability requirements and ownership projects. Again, unless a member of the committee has a concern about that, I will assume that we're okay with that. Then the third item now, we've just lost the item. Raise the buy-write allowance of payment in lieu of taxes from 7.9 units to 7.8.

19, is that 18 or 19? I just can't read the 19. Now, this is a I can't quite read

I'm happy to read it if that would be helpful. There was discussion at the last SAP meeting when the straw votes were taken in June. and there was a lot of discussion around leaving the ownership requirement as a buy rate cash payment option for seven to nine units and then increasing the rental buy right cash payment option to 19 units. Staff looked into this and then we talked to the law department as well and we would prefer to keep it consistent just to have a streamlined process. and I think law prefers to keep it consistent for legal purposes as well.

So as I hear it, the recommendation of both law and planning is to make one requirement regardless of whether it's ownership or rental, correct?

That's correct, yes.

Any dissent from that now in the committee? Councilor Wright. I don't know. Can you make the law writing margin?

Mr. Chair, none of this was in the packet and there was no memo in the packet. So I feel totally unprepared for this conversation.

Correct. Oh, sorry.

Go ahead.

I was just going to say this should have been sent out with the memo for the public hearing in September.

Well, we may have to take us through it slowly and then hold on to it for another night so that our colleagues can really absorb what's being proposed. But at least let's be clear on what the resolution is so far. Okay, Councilor Oliver and then Councilor Wright.

So I'm strongly against in increasing the number of units up to 19 for a payment in LUA because many, many, many of our projects are under 20 units. And now we are going into a segregated city. And the whole idea is to include these units in the market rate buildings. So I'm totally against it.

and I appreciate that. Councilor Oliver, you have a question or comment?

I do. Can we go back to the... I'm sorry. I think it's table two that's over on the, yeah, this guy here. And then above it is table one is all rental. So I guess what I don't understand, won't be the first time, won't be the last, why the legal department Because we have differences right now between rental and ownership. But if we make a change, we want them the same. And I want to, can we unpack that maybe, Mr. Lee?

Mr. Chair, can I speak to that?

Yes, please.

So currently there's some variation between ownership and rental in terms of the affordability percentage in the mix. However, the bottom line totals, my understanding is that they're the same. I mean, that total percentage for rental versus ownership and in other communities is set up in a similar way. And I think that's very intentional. And that has to go back to not treating the rental and ownership differently. The problem with the inclusionary zoning ordinance itself is that the rationale for the affordability mix and the levels that the city requires is based on the economics of the project. and that's why we've had this the consultant do this deep dive into the economics what's feasible what's not and ownership versus rental there's some inherent differences in the economics and that's why in the mix itself there's going to be some variation however In order to make sure that we're not treating the same use differently, we do strongly recommend from a legal perspective making the bottom line totals for rental versus ownership the same.

it isn't sorry just as a follow-up isn't a big part of this conversation just can you just speak to the mic a little sorry I feel like I'm going to be swallowing it if I get any closer Isn't a big part of this conversation also the financials on the developer's end of things? And as much as I agree and appreciate with what we're hearing from the legal department, I'm not quite sure that that is or should carry the day in terms of that decision because I also recall a conversation with RKG where they were making the point that there are different significant differences in the financials

over time between rentals, obviously, and units that are built for sale. So I'm not quite sure. That point isn't lost on me. But again, I'm not quite convinced. that's how we should be making our decision here and I really do want to go back to what RKAG I recall they had some of those tables that kind of delineated the difference, right? They had the green areas and then the red and the no-go zone and so on and so forth, or these types of projects won't succeed. I want to say at least one of those had to do with the difference between rental and ownership, if I recall. But I want to go back and take a look at that because what I just heard here tonight was significantly different than my understanding of

I have Councilor Kalis. I also recognize, I believe, Councilor Block has joined us, and I've neglected to mention his participation earlier. Councilor Kalis.

Mr. Chair, I really just have a question for Councilor Wright. I want to understand more about why she's so against going up to 19 units in terms of pay in lieu of to try to understand that more. And if there's a number that she would go up to, what would that be?

I'd like I like to keep it where it is now. And Many of our ownership projects are under 35 units, and I think quite a few of them are under 20 units. So we would, again, One of the ideas of having affordable units in market rate projects is to integrate the building, the neighborhood, things like that. to remove that and just make it all just market rate units and not have any Any of the other units in there. It's defeating the purpose.

and you know okay we'll get money in lieu of and unfortunately you know the city is expensive and where are the cheaper The properties to build other ones are on the fringe of the city and not right in the village centers. So I'd like to see We keep it and not go up to 19. Now, one of the issues they said is it costs the developers, especially smaller projects, to to re-up each renter. My question is, how are they doing it now? I'm wondering if all these affordable units are doing this every year.

but there are, I have been talking to other people in the business, there are other ways to do it more cost efficiently and that's something we need to look into instead of relying on the owner to do all the paperwork.

That's great. I just want to thank you. I think that really helps actually me understand it. Chair, if I can, I wanted to ask RKG what their impression is of that because to me that is you know that it does segregate a bit.

So your question is response to Councilor Wright's point? That's what you're asking? Yeah. All right. Mr. Heath?

Yeah, so this is an interesting issue. There's both the finance side and the product side. And I think the... the partnership looked at this issue extensively and came down on the side of for the amount 7 to 19 I think You would get at most two units of affordable housing. But is it three? I think it's three at 20. but the ability to then take those dollars and leverage them by using them to Get other state funds would produce much more in the way of affordable housing, perhaps even at much deeper affordability.

So they thought for that small segment at 7 to 19, which is also consistent with Some of our surrounding neighbors, Brookline, I think is 7 to 20, maybe, as well. They've made the same decision that those dollars And again, it's the option of the developer to either provide the unit or provide the cash. So the option is out there. But the ability to provide a revenue source for the housing trust was very attractive in the ability to leverage more units.

Okay, on that point, I just want to recognize we've got joined by Councilor Block, who's raised his hand. I'd like to stay on this issue if I can and see where we are. Councilor Block, is your hand raised for that purpose?

Well, I have, I'm sorry, can you hear me now? Yes. Well, tell me if this is in order, and I apologize if my question is... is not appropriate given the conversation and maybe it's been covered in other meetings which I haven't been able to attend. But I've noticed in land use applications that there are unusually large number of six unit proposals. And I'm wondering if there has been a discussion of lowering The number of units that this ordinance would apply to not changing the magic number seven as the Um...

Thank you for watching.

If it's relevant, then... We're glad to answer it. We've spent a fair amount of time on that related issue, but if you don't mind, I'd like to stick with this question for the time being, and then I'll come back to that. So this is on the question that Councilor Wright has raised about the threshold. I want to recognize Councilor, well, everybody is over here. I can't go wrong. I just go somewhere in the room and I'll hit bingo. Let me go to Councilor Albright, who's now wearing Councilor Block's name tag.

Councilor Block, I'm borrowing your desk. I hope that's OK with you. I can't see from mine. I think that now that I hear Mr. Heath reiterate what RKG was saying and what the housing partnership was saying. It does make sense that the affordable housing trust has very little funds to give away to anybody. There's this the amount of money that we get from the community preservation funds and that's about it. And one question I have in this regard is how much money per unit are people being asked to pay? Because I don't know where we ended up on that topic. But is it? 650. So I'm hearing now that units are costing a million dollars a unit. I don't know if that's true or not.

but the ability to match state and federal funds with the housing partnership, with the housing trust money is something that would go a long way. A little bit of money could go a long way in matching funds. And to lose two units in a smaller development, but possibly to gain many more units by giving money through the trust, there's definitely a benefit there.

Okay, let me go to Councilor Getz, then I'll go to Councilor Danberg, and I'll come back to Councilor Palos.

Okay, so I did appreciate the partnerships memo and they went into the specificity of why it was important to think about this in terms of the shift. but I was concerned mostly that it was a matching and it was the state and federal subsidy funds and so I was concerned about you know whether or not those are drying up you know in fact if you know so if someone if you could speak to that that I'd appreciate that the question is is what happens if the matching funds just

Yeah, so I was just at a conference last week, actually, on this topic. And while some of the sources are drying up at the state level, the primary program excuse me the low-income housing tax credit got a huge increase it's 16 billion dollars which the housing professionals in Massachusetts thought was terrific because We tend to put the deals together better in this part of the country than other parts of the country. So there is a huge amount of money out there.

Yes, thank you.

Yes, I'd like to reiterate my support too for the matching funds or for the funds going to groups that can leverage them as opposed to just getting one or two units. If we can get more units by having those funds matched and perhaps being in more appropriate locations or places that are closer to village centers and transportation hubs, that might also be a benefit. The other point that I would like to make is that

I was all in favor of inclusion in in the location where these other units were being built prior to hearing from Josephine McNeil, who made a point that I had never thought about. And that is that if these units are on the very high end, let's say, and whether they're rental or I mean I think it it this holds true much more for rental units than for condominiums, but where there is a Mercedes in every garage and people either don't have children or their children may not attend public schools.

and if there is a family that goes into a unit like that, very often the children A, don't have anybody to play with, and B, the family doesn't necessarily feel comfortable in that environment and would feel more comfortable in a place that had more children and better adhered to the needs of the family. So I just wanted to make that point that came from Josephine McNeil.

Okay, I think what I'd like to do is just to see where we are in committee on this. I've heard several members of the committee express views one way or another, and if we can't come to consensus, we'll just have to see on the items where we are. because I'd like to move it forward. But anyone else? I think Councilor Kalis, you had your hand up again, or is that just for leftover? It's not left over.

I'll be quick. I think, Councillor Danberg, you make a good point. That could actually be the case on this project at Dudley. But the question I have, Mr. Heath, is there a way I think that you told Councilor Albright that the payment in lieu is around $650,000. Is there a way to charge a premium there so it incentivizes them to build the the affordable unit on site.

I'm sorry, I missed part of your question.

So the question is, With the premium that you told Councilor Albright, I think that was going to be about, or not the premium, but the payment in lieu of was going to be about $650,000. is there is it legal or is there a way to charge a premium on that payment in lieu of and say it's $850,000 if you're going to pay but it's only $650,000 if you're actually keeping the unit with the other units. You understand?

Yeah, I think Attorney Lee might be able to speak to that.

Councilor Kalis, I don't understand. Can you repeat what it is? I'm not understanding how there could be two different payment in lieu.

It wouldn't be too different. It would give the developer the option. So say, for example, it costs $650,000 to build that affordable unit. and they decide, well, you know what? I don't want to build the affordable unit for 650. I want to pay in lieu of. Well, instead of it being a $650,000 payment, we're going to charge them 900,000, for example. And that's a premium on the 650. So that would force them to think about actually saying, well, maybe it makes more sense for me to actually just build the affordable unit for 650 versus paying 900,000 in.

is a simpler way of saying that, saying that the payment to lose should be $900,000 instead of $650,000.

No, because the proper amount, I mean, the amount, whatever the payment in lieu of should be what it's probably going to be to build that unit. Is that correct?

The payment in lieu amount in Director Heath can tell me if I'm wrong. It's a static amount based on per unit.

Right. So based on per unit. So let's say it costs $650,000 to build that extra unit. Okay. That affordable unit. But when they go to the payment in lieu of, they're realizing that they actually have to pay a premium of $250,000 to payment in lieu of versus building.

So are you saying that you want the payment or the question is, could we require them to do payment in blue option that is not based on a static amount, but is based on whatever the construction costs are for the unit plus $250,000, for example?

Yes.

I would have to take that back and think about it. It gives me concerns off the bat in terms of calculating what that actual amount is. Also, I'm concerned of requiring them to pay more than it would cause them to actually construct the unit because that's, I think, the understanding of the basis of the payment in lieu that we've arrived to now. So that would take a significant amount more just kind of thought, study, evaluation to see whether or not it's legally permissible and then practically how it would be applied.

Right. Okay. It's just a question because I was thinking here about the issue. It's that We'd much prefer the affordable unit. And how do we incent them to build the affordable unit versus the money? So in certain cases.

If I could jump in momentarily. I just want to mention as well, the $650,000 TDC is quite a bit higher than our neighbors. The cash in lieu that we charge for the city of Newton is calculated, the way it's calculated results in a much higher figure than say Brookline. So just noting that as well.

I think, Councillor Kalis, that the number itself is an incentive. You can raise the number higher, but trying to make a calculation of what the actual of comparison building costs, as I hear it from Mr. Lee, is going to be a tricky drafting problem, not just an analysis problem and maybe even a legal one. And the other point that I've heard from members of the committee is that Not everybody agrees that it's better to have the extra unit for the smaller project on site as opposed to the cash that it would represent, which might leverage more units off in a different location. We've still got competing objectives here to sort out. Yep. Is that fair? Okay, Councilor Wright?

Thank you, Chair. So there's no incentive. If we put this up to 19 units for cash and LUA, there's no incentive to actually build there because Our consultant came up with 650,000 is the right number, but the arsenal is going to be 700,000 plus for each unit, not all affordable. and this weekend I read probably the same article that in Cambridge it's costing $1 million per unit, affordable unit. So if a developer can get away with just paying 650, of course they're going to do that instead of adding the units. So I think, and how many times when we said between seven and nine units, How many times did someone actually put in a unit versus paying in lieu of?

I would expect that usually that was the result. and very seldom did we actually get the unit there. So increasing it is giving more money, yes, to the affordable housing fund, but right now there, there's more ways that you can leverage that money at the affordable housing fund something like what they did with Webster Woods that you could actually have more pot of money to work with than than what you have here. And again, I feel strongly to keep it in lieu of down at the lower numbers so that we do get the affordable units in these locations. and you know I think the tariffs just went in this weekend or this week for cabinets and things like that so the cost of building is even going to be higher. Thank you.

So I'd like to try and conclude the discussion on this just to see where we are. I'd like to get somewhere tonight if we can. And if we can't, then we can hold the item for further discussion.

Could I add just one more thing? That table, that table two is incorrect. The math is incorrect there. That 100 plus you, it should be affordable, should be 10%. Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

and part of the difficulty we're going to have is when we get to explaining this to the council the department is really going to have to do a major job of helping us out. But let's see if we can get clarity on where the committee is. and we've been joined by Councilor Krintzman, I think I indicated, but I want to make sure that he's recognized. Krintzman, we voted to increase all parking requirements in commercial areas by a factor of two earlier. Sorry you weren't here. But anyway, never mind. My poor attempt to try and channel... Okay, so the question among the committee is do we want to continue to have a low threshold and or do we want to go up to the higher threshold with allowing payment in lieu of? So let me get just a sense of a straw vote in committee because we can't, I don't want to take formal votes on this, but just see where we are. All those in favor of what I will

Cramer, as Councilor Wright's view that to maintain the lower number rather than go to the higher number. Just hold up your hand. Okay. 2. All those in favor of allowing the in lieu as going up to the higher number, please raise your hand. Hmm? You're going to abstain. All right. There are two of us and two abstentions. Well, we have two, two and two. Councilor Krintzman, I didn't see your hand, or Councilor Kalis.

Yeah, it's because I need to think about this more.

All right. I have a feeling we're going to end up holding this item, but I think if we can let's frame the issue as trying to get some supplemental analysis, if you would, I think is going to be helpful here. sort of a mini memo if you would on this specific question because I would rather come to a conclusion in the committee that we can report out rather than have it divided. decision, because all that just means is we end up with the council or the whole conversation that many of our colleagues will look at us and say, what did you do to us? So, all right, let's see about the other issues and see where we are. You want to go on to the next one, please?

Yes, of course. And we're sticking with the yellow? Or do you want to?

No, I just want to, and we just stipulate that where there's a zone of agreement all across the board, I want to focus on the areas the committee had reservations, which are the yellow areas. So if we're agreeable on that, I think as a process matter, I would rather carry on that and try and isolate those matters where we still need to discuss them. that agreeability committee. Anybody want to go through the other green ones? Okay, so the next one is about eliminating the requirement for contractual residential services. You want to comment about that?

Yes, so this was recommended to the city by RKG associates. They performed the math and did the analysis on this section of the ordinance and learned that this providing the ELI units and the affordable units and removing the middle income tier is actually more affordable to a developer in the city. What makes this choice unreasonable for a developer is The requirement to contract with a supportive services agency to provide on-site resident services for the particularly the extremely low income units. We in the city staff and then in talks with the partnership and the planning and development board thought that

These ELI units will ultimately need services, of course, but we're not producing any 30% of AMI units, really. under these inclusionary zoning ordinance at the moment. So we thought it might be a better idea to get some of these 30% units and rely on our colleagues down in HHS to provide the supports that they likely are already providing to many of the 30% of AMI residents in Newton.

Okay, so discussion on this, Councilor Danberg and then Councilor Albright, Channeling, Councilor Block.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the proof of the pudding is in what's happening on the ground. And if in fact we are not getting any of these units because it's just too expensive for developers to do then I think we need to look at What changes we need to make in order to get some of these units to actually get them. So I would go along with the recommendation by RKG to eliminate.

Okay, Councilor Albright.

So I think that to depend on our friends at HHS to provide services is not a good idea. I don't think they have enough staff to provide services to the people living in residential Again, I'm not prepared because I didn't read everything I needed to read, but somebody's got to provide services for these people that are in low-income elderly housing that need services. And it's not HHS. We know that they don't have enough staff to do that. So we need a solution. We don't have it yet.

You want to comment on, I think the concern, the reason this provision existed was to try and make sure that there were services provided by somebody. But again, for small units, this is the small projects, this is a A real challenge in producing people, not building the units. And that's what I'm hearing. But let me just be clear.

Yeah, just on that point. This provision of the ordinance is highly unlikely to be used. And if you keep the provision of services, it'll never be used. I think it's one of those things that sounds good, but it's highly unlikely, we haven't seen it, that these kinds of units will be created other than by a nonprofit that already provides services. So it's an interesting debate, and I can certainly see the side of it where You want the services to be provided, but it's an exercise more than a reality at this point. I think there might be adequate rationale for just taking out this provision entirely.

There is the possibility that it could be used, and if it was, it would be a small number of units, and we would have to figure out a way to provide services, I think. But again, I think the reality is it's unlikely to be used.

could I comment on that because this provision was put in in the last minute the last time we did this and without much discussion and without much thought it was one person's ideas of how to How to get it done. So I think we're almost in the same place now than we were then. Does this mean that Does this mean that there would be no inclusionary requirement at all for provision with housing for elderly services in need of Alderley people in need of housing and services.

I think we're on a different topic here. This just has to do with the provision for providing extremely low income units, which I think is 30% units in a project. You could provide less units but deeper affordability. That's what this provision covers. And again, no one's taking advantage of that. and we think it's because the provision of services makes it totally unaffordable for a developer to proceed along this path. In the future, could some developer decide instead of providing, I don't know the math here, Shaylynn, you know better than I do, eight units at average of 65%, they provide three units at 30%. Possibly, I think it's doubtful that that would occur at all.

Are they providing services to people at a higher income level?

No. No, we don't. We don't provide services in the IZ ordinance for the AMI at 65%, which is the average.

OK, well, I think maybe taking it out altogether is the right thing to do, because I don't think it's really been thought through properly.

What I'm hearing from Mr. Heath is that it's designed to take care of the very highly subsidized units and people aren't building those in part because they of this requirement. And the irony is that you might end up with more highly subsidized units if you didn't have it, if I'm hearing. I don't know if that's really going to be true or not. What do you think? Shaheed? Maybe not, but... I'm sorry, can you just... No, I'm just trying to... What I'm hearing is that this requirement is in effect a disincentive for somebody to go do a deep affordability unit. because they know that they then have to pick up this kind of requirement. If they didn't have this, they might actually come in with a deep affordable unit, although that's hypothetical.

It's hypothetical. Most developers don't have the sophistication either to be able to handle these kinds of units. They're much more comfortable with 65% AMI than the 30% units. The only time you generally see 30% units are in tax credit projects that are heavily subsidized. by nonprofits that provide services.

So So as a committee, if you can go back to the chart for a minute. We have to decide whether we want to keep this provision or not. Let me just see. The recommendation of the other constituencies involved the Partnership Planning and Development Board agree that we should eliminate this. Let's just see where we are in committee. Wright.

Sorry. Yeah, I agree to eliminate it. If this is what's blocking people from building the very low income I think we should eliminate it. And if it becomes an issue later on down the line, we can change it. but I think we're not getting those units for the most part and this way we may get more of those units.

Okay, Councilor Albright.

So the only thing I would add is that I had a brief conversation with Anne Houston about this, and she had some other thoughts in mind for this section. And then we were supposed to talk, and then she ended up unable to talk because she had some other things that she had to do. So I would hope that you just give us the opportunity to talk about this one more time at the next meeting.

I think as a provisional matter, I don't hear a dissent from the committee from the general policy of eliminating, but you'd like an opportunity to clarify, right? So let's go on to the next one, which is remove the public funding limitation. You want to talk about that?

Of course. So we had come to the committee with RKG's recommendation to just remove the second provision of the public funding limitation in June. I don't think the committee had time to really discuss that. However, after speaking with the law department and after a summer of discussions with the housing partnership, We decided to propose eliminating the public funding limitation language, the entire Article 5.11.9 in its entirety. The housing partnership was really concerned, generally speaking, about putting more hardship on development. in the city. And Andrew, I think, rightly pointed out that we should not be controlling with our zoning what kind of funding The projects may come in with.

We can, of course, choose not to provide our local funding unless you're going above and beyond what is required of you in the IZ ordinance, but we can't control the other funds you may have in your project. And Andrew, I'll pause there in case I didn't explain that correctly and you want to jump in.

Okay. Comments from the committee on this one? Again, we have recommendations from the planning board and the partnership to remove this. I'm going to assume that unless someone objects that this is the sense of the committee and we can go on to the next item.

Okay.

7. Removing the medical component and update the formula used to calculate in-loop payments for senior housing development with services. This is somewhat related to the other one, but do you want to explain this?

Yes, so this is the elder housing with services provision of the inclusionary zoning ordinance. The current calculation requires a medical services cost calculation of I believe it's three hours per day, seven days per week, 52 weeks per year over a 10-year period. You then multiply that by the total number of beds owed and then you multiply that whole figure by the $650,000 TDC. Now, this often results in quite large cash payments. We saw the, I think, the 34 Craft Street, the Mark Development Project that had come forward before they sold the property. I believe they had about a $12 million cash payment that they owed. Now under elder housing with services, you can choose the cash payment by right or you can choose to provide the beds on site.

So we're recommending first removing the medical services calculation from that in its entirety and instead multiplying the $650,000 TDC By the amount of beds you owe and then multiplying that by 50% to reduce the cash payment. to a smaller number. So as an example, I kind of wrote this down in my notebook as we were preparing If you had a 150 bed project at the $650,000 TDC, if you chose to provide beds on site you would owe seven and a half beds so under the current or under the current ordinance you would actually owe eight beds under the proposed revisions you would owe seven beds and a 50% cash payment or $325,000. If you chose to do the

Cash payment option, you would owe $2,437,500. And that's multiplying the $650,000 by the 7.5 times 0.5.

So, but the net effect is that you're moving from, again, I just want to be clear, The dollar impact of this on the developers is going to change or is this going to be the, in other words, the incentive here we're trying to do is to get people to build these projects. Can you just comment on that dimension so that we can understand the impact?

So this is another provision where Newton is a bit of an outlier. A lot of communities don't even include this in their inclusionary zoning? And it's particularly complicated in providing the beds for low-income people because You can provide a bed at a certain level of services that the institution or developer will provide, but at some point The person is going to require more services than what they were originally contracted for. And there isn't a mechanism to take that into account. So

It perhaps could work well at the beginning, but it becomes very complicated depending on the circumstances. So to be able to have a cash option here that's more realistic and in some ways more attractive makes a lot more sense in the long run.

Okay, so I'm in committee. I want to just see is any dissent from the recommendation? If not, then I'm going to assume that the committee's in general agreement on this. I think that takes us through the...

Sorry, I think Councilor Albright raised her hand.

Who had to hand it?

I did. I'm just saying I'm I'm not sure I agree with the formula the way it's been reconstituted, so I need to think about that. I'm in agreement in general, but the formula is not quite there yet.

We're not going to vote this tonight. I'm just trying to isolate the zone of uncertainty or still issues that we really need to resolve at the next round but if we can dispose of the ones we can. So you've heard Councilor Albright about that. Is there anything else that we have not already discussed in committee we need to resolve tonight? So what I'm going to do is suggest we move to hold the item, but Councilor Block had asked a question very early about units of under six, I think, Councilor Block. I think we had an extensive discussion about what the right threshold should be, but came out where we are. Do we need to revisit that, or do we just... Black, there's a whole lot of earlier work on this that I would.

So I appreciate that and my comment that you may have discussed it in committee and come to a consensus. And that's fine. I only raise it because when you have a boundary, when you have a break point where it's all or nothing, There's no proportional gradual ascension to this trigger. Then you're creating... The incentive being for a developer can they Can they make a development work at six units because they can avoid this requirement? And so you get a lot of units at that size.

and you get very few at say seven or eight or just above this threshold. And it's just, it's a common problem in a lot of programs where there's a break point where it's nothing before it and then it takes effect after. and figuring out how to ramp up to this more gradually I think just as a principle would be a good idea but you may have already discussed it and

We've spent a fair amount of time on it, but your point, I think, rather than revisit all of that tonight, is that at some point we're going to try and spend one more meeting on the outstanding issues and resolve them. But I think that ultimately, in terms of an explanatory memo beyond what we've had before as background, will be necessary for the council if we want to try and move this forward. So the issue that Councilor Block, while we've talked about it before, is one of those things that I think needs to be part of the conversation and the writing that we do so that our colleagues will not be confused and the public will not be confused and we don't have to revisit this again in the full council or again in the committee. That puts a special burden on the department, but I think it'll save time in the long run. Is there anything we haven't discussed that we need to tonight on this item?

No, I think that's everything.

Okay, then I'd entertain a motion to hold, but at the next discussion, I would like to limit ourselves to those three points. There was one where we still have not reached agreement on the question of Getz. Did you have, no? Okay. So, um, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'd entertain a motion to hold. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Abstention? Okay. Thank you very much. And thank you very much. This is a long conversation that is still continuing, but we'll try and figure out with the department when we can do this and do it quickly, because I'd like to dispose of this before the term ends too. Okay, thank you very much. Moving on to the next item, this is item 293. By the way, we discussed the item I moved home was 4424, this inclusionary zoning, just to be clear. This is Chapter 30 zoning requesting amendments to the zoning to create a new adult daycare use. This is 293.25, and we have Mr. Lamel going to, I'm sorry you've been spending the night here, but anyway, we're glad to have you.

So I don't have a presentation for this item and I think While the use would be a new use in the zoning ordinance, it is an old use that we are kind of cleaning up and bringing back. And what the memo described is that Through a series of other amendments over time, this use essentially has kind of fallen out of other uses that it was categorized as. So the history of this as a use, and I think I think many of you might know about this use or have seen it around. They do exist within the community.

it was previously pre-2015 2015 the zoning ordinance was recodified the intent of that recodification was uh not substantive it was um about uh formatting. There were some cleanup changes that were made. And what ended up happening was this use of adult daycare was previously categorized as a personal service. through that recodification in 2015. The commissioner of inspectional services at the time said, you know, this use no longer fits within personal service. It fits more within a school use. If you remember about a year or two ago, we changed, the council changed school use to really just simplify it to be...

elementary, middle, high school, post-secondary education. And there was a new use of personal instruction that was created for driver's ed schools, coding academies, culinary classes, pottery, you know, things like that. and so this adult daycare use and so on. is an allowed use. It's allowed in the ways that it was allowed prior to the recodification in 2015. So it's an allowed use. and the business mix use in manufacturing zones. This use pretty much exclusively exists in the manufacturing zones right now throughout the city. I mean, it's an area or it's mostly in manufacturing zones.

And then it would be by special permit in the residential zones, which is what personal service or schools was allowed prior to this. The language, the use is really just calling upon the state rules and regulations. There's a parking requirement. And again, as I said, it's a permitted use in those commercial Mixed Use and Manufacturing Zones. So new use, but really old use. Thank you.

Any questions on the presentation? Councilor Danberg.

Yes, a question for Mr. LaMelle. Is this use now not permitted in schools or in school areas?

So it just it was when someone came in to if they came into the building department and they wanted to do an adult daycare provider or business. Since 2015, they were categorized as a school use, and the school use was allowed everywhere by special permit. and so they required a special permit and that's how it was handled. But prior to 2015, if someone had come into the inspectional services, as this use. They would have been categorized as personal service and they would have, you know, okay, you're in this zone, personal service is allowed, it would be allowed by right or it'd be allowed by special permit depending on the zone.

The problem is it's dropped out of the code in effect.

What I'm thinking about in particular is a location like the Andover Newton Theological School, largely empty, all school buildings, There already is a benchmark up there with memory care. And if they were to want to do and adult daycare, could they do it? I think that whole, well, The area, most of the area is zoned in the, it's SR something or other. And I assume that the institution is institutional use. could they put that one of these in there?

As proposed, that would require a special permit, but yes, they could.

Okay, thank you.

So I think the recommendation of the department is to just bring this back for public hearing on November 10th, right? So I would accept a motion to set the public hearing on this item for that day. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstention? Okay, the ayes have it. So we will set that item for the public hearing for that night. And again, I think The explanation you gave orally will be easy to reproduce and you may just sort of do a little visual to make it clear. because I think people want to know where this actually happens. Then the last items we have on our agenda are a series of reappointments and I would propose unless any member of the committee wishes to carve them out to read them all and vote them as a unit. Save time. But I'll read who they are and what they are.

There's 298.25, reappointment of Lee Gilligan to the Conservation Commission, a term expiring November 1, 2028. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you very much. You're pointing out and I apologize. Yeah, no, they can hear it better at home, and I'm not mumbling into the ether, but talking into the microphone. Thank you. Let me repeat that. We can hear you. Okay. 298.25, reappointment of Lee Gilligan to the Conservation Commission term expiring November 1st, 2028. 296.25 reappointment of Charles Eisenberg to the Zoning Board of Appeals expiring November 2026. 294-25, reappointment of Scott Aquilina to the Chestnut Hill Historic District Commission, term of office to expire July 1st, 2028.

325, reappointment of Rick Wetmore to the Chestnut Hill Historic District Commission expiring August 1st, 2028. 2292-25, reappointment of Susanna Lanik to the Chesson Hill Historic District Commission, term expiring July 15, 2028. 291.25 reappointment of Robert Imperato to the Chesney Hill Historic District Commission expiring November 15, 2028. And then finally 297.25 reappointment of Devin Crosley to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a term to expire November 18th, 2026. Okay, so any dissent from that? If not, I will accept a motion to approve those all. All those in favor will say aye. Aye. Opposed? Extension. The ayes have it. I think that concludes our business for the evening. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? Councilor Oliver? So moved. So moved. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

No. Okay. And no abstentions. I think we're done. Thank you very much. Appreciate it, colleagues, and we're Done at 9.30, which is not a course record, but greenback. All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.