Zoning and Planning Committee - February 23, 2026

Good evening. It's seven o'clock. I think we ought to get started. And good evening to everybody. I'm Lyle Baker. I'm the chair of the Zoning and Planning Committee. And this is a novel experience. I'm not used to running virtual meetings, but especially one where City Hall is closed both the day before and the day after. So this is somehow a milestone of some sort. And I want to thank Miles for being willing to Do this effectively while he's off duty, I guess. But anyway, we want to try and keep moving forward on what we've got to do. So I can't see everybody's name on the list. And if I don't see you, it's not because I'm or I don't mention you because I'm not trying to ignore you, but I just can't on my screen. Capture everybody, but I will try and recognize the people who are here.

I see that I can see Councilor Albright from Ward 2, the member of the committee, Councilor Gordon from Ward 6, member of the committee, Andrew Lee, Associate City Solicitor. who's here, Ms. Hueval, Acting Director of Planning, Councilor Getz from Ward 5, a member of the committee, Council Vice President Kalis from Ward 8, a member of the committee, Councilor Wright. from Ward 3, Vice Chair of the Committee, Councilor Roach from Ward 6, a member of not this committee, but welcome, Nora Masler, Chief of Long-Range Planning, Councilor Dahmubed, a member of the committee from Ward 4, Commissioner Anthony Ciccarello, who is here, and I think we're also joined by Councilor Irish, I believe. Anybody I've missed?

Randy Block is being admitted in right now.

Okay, thank you. And the Vice Chair will keep me honest on all of the technical stuff. I appreciate all of that. Welcome, Councilor Block. So we have several items to take up tonight, and I don't expect action on, well, we'll just see what action we want to do, but these are informational and then potential decisions going forward. The first item is 6426, requesting discussion and amendments to Chapter 1.51B of Chapter 30, Zoning. has honored the mayor requesting discussion and amendments to section 1.151B, two-family detached housing. This is an item that I'm going to ask the, who's going to present this for the planning department?

That would be me, Chair.

Okay. Thank you. Nora, what do you prefer to be called? Masler or Colello? I see you on two names here. What's your preference?

Yes, Colello. I got married last summer, so it's new for some folks.

Whatever you want, it's what we want to do. Wonderful. Ms. Coelho, we welcome you in your new name and congratulations. Thank you. Appreciate it. And let me just, before you introduce this, just indicate for members of the committee who are new This issue has been, and Councilor Albright I'm sure remembers much of this history, has been before the Zoning and Planning Committee in multiple iterations over the years. This has been a challenging problem In part, as we may recall, there were times where people were building what were called two-family attached, but they were attached very sparingly, I guess is the best way to describe it. to the point where the question was, were they really attached dwellings at all except in some very tenuous way? And so the version of the two-family ordinance

We have, as a result of the committee's deliberation in the past, to try and make sure that we didn't have this kind of two families attached properties problem. really being treated separately as one from the other. But with the facade ordinance having been enacted, the department thought we should have a chance to look at the Two family options again, and that's the purpose of, I think, the conversation tonight. Is that fair so far? Okay, so why don't you take it away, and then we will see where we are.

Wonderful. Thank you for that context. working on sharing my screen please bear with me this evening I got caught up in the storm with travel plans so if there's any glitches I'm not in my normal setup but hopefully this will all go smoothly As the chair stated, this is responding to docket item 6426, requesting discussion regarding the two-family detached definition. Here's the current definition in the ordinance. Ultimately, as Chair Baker mentioned, this is coming before you because of the facade ratio, which was recently passed by the council. We typically aren't seeing the two family in the structure on the right where one is above the other.

We're very much more so seeing the side-by-side version. and with the facade ratio which limits the width that further constrains the two family options and so we're looking at ways to increase the flexibility given the added regulation on the width. The other issue that we're looking to address really comes from an unintended consequence of an interpretation that is very logical once you read through the language but really was not the intention of the change. and that comes from the definition of dwelling unit which does not include garages. What this resulted in is that garages cannot be touching each other in two family homes.

And so how we see that playing out in practice is creating two curb cuts with two separate driveways, which leads to additional paving, reduces the green area in the front. And we can see a couple examples of how that has happened throughout the city. This example on Lowell Ave with the caveat that this was likely before the garage ordinance. Given that the facade ratio is an additional regulation, what we would expect to see with two families after the effective date? is that orientation being flipped. If they can't go as wide, they will likely flip along the lot.

And so that leads to just a longer driveway and then it kind of forces one of the garages on the front. So part of The proposed change is to address that kind of unintended issue of not letting garages touch the front or touch each other. Here's an example of a two family with those garages touching that wouldn't be allowed today based off of the current definition. So Jane Siniswaso, who is here this evening as well and has seen this play out in the counter, Very often, and I kind of came up with two options for you all, and I'll walk through the pros and cons of each.

So this option, starting with the change from two family detached to two unit, ultimately there is no two family attached, so two family detached. just adds confusion and we're trying to move away from referring to structures as two families and really reference the number of units that we're talking about. And so we propose just simplifying that name to two unit that has no Practical implication, it's more of a semantic change. But then the more practical change is just adding the phrase and their respective attached garages, which would allow those garages to touch and allow for improved designs if those garages touching.

enhances based off of the context. The other option is to just really simplify it down. This gets at the Situation, which I'll go through some examples of where the entire length of the wall that the two families are touching has to be connected. and so that doesn't allow for various configurations that may be more ideal based off of the lot dimensions. So here kind of I tried to just mock up some possible layouts. Definitely happy to look at more based off of the committee's discussion. But here's just one example of how we could

allow for the reduced driveway width in that sort of flipped scenario that we would expect to see after facade ratio. allowing for more of a front entrance on the street facing first unit and then just leading to less paving into the rear of the lot. Another possibility would be to see a similar form as we're seeing now with the side by side. but just having those given the facade ratio regulation extend farther back into the lot. These are not to scale. This is just for diagrammatic purposes. you know expect a larger backyard in many cases but this is just to show how the driveway and the garages could occur

relative to the front allowing just one curb cut with the either option one or option two for the amended language and then here it we would See this as a less likely scenario given the increased construction cost of adding additional walls, additional windows, and having those units looking into each other. but hypothetically the second option would allow this scenario where it is just the garages connecting the two units. and there you can see that in that front oriented scenario. And my Oh, there we go.

So part of what option two does allow for is this scenario that we've seen where Due to the grade, a unit either in the rear or the front is higher or lower. Currently that's not allowed because the wall doesn't extend to the maximum height. Of course, these units would still have to comply with the height requirements based off of average pre-construction grade. And then the other benefit to option two is this scenario where you've got an unusually shaped lot and the units conforming to the setbacks. um, given that the wall would extend farther, um, The option two just allows for this kind of more flexible layout.

And with that, I look forward to hearing the committee's discussion and Jane, please chime in if I missed anything.

Okay, so I want to be heard on this myself, but I'm going to recognize Councilor Albright first. You raise your hand and we'll go around the committee. Councilor Albright.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I feel like we in a way we've come full circle. We started with the trying to prevent the linguine Garages, and now we're back to the possibility of having them again. And I absolutely agree that we need to do something about the definition to make it work better. Absolutely. I have no qualms about that. I just, I'm wondering if, and Nora, you've done, Miss Colello, you've done a fabulous job in showing us up Thank you. The good, the bad, the ugly, the wonderful.

And let us really see what the implications are because we keep changing, we keep tweaking the definition and then we end up with something that the unintended consequence. So I think it would be my request that we have an architect. If possible, think about what are all the things that could happen if we have this definition and then we could think about it as a committee and decide. One of the ones that you talked about, I think it was, I forget which diagram, it was two units with the driveway. And then so the front of the building is off the driveway, which is not the front of the street. So I'm not sure we're going to be happy with that because then we have the side of the house facing the front of the street. So I'm not sure I like that. It's useful, but... It's not where we've been in the past. And I guess the Chase Street...

Thank you for watching. and that's why I love the idea of fixing this definition, but I'm hoping we could have an architect look at this more carefully and think about all the things that could happen with this new definition.

Thanks. Other members of the committee? I can't tell the hands. Miles or the vice chair, help me out if I'm missing.

Oh, I'm next.

Okay.

So I agree with Councilor Albright. I don't want to, I mean, you tried to fix the problem before and I don't want to go back to that problem. So I think it needs more thought of. But some things that people are missing is with the facade ratio, we allow one and a half stories to go to the full setback. So if you're a garage and you have a half a story, you know above it that is allowed and then if you go 20 feet behind the furthest part of the house then you can go you know the full height two and a half stories so you know putting the garages in the middle I mean they still could put the garages on the outside and be actually be wider because if as long as it's only one and a half stories Then they don't have to meet the facade ratio. They just meet the setbacks. So the facade ratio only comes into play of two stories or more, two and two and a half story. at the front of the house.

And... I don't understand if you said that there's going to be more paving if the Rogers are on the end versus in the center. You still got that driveway. You still got a wider curb cut. You know, going up to the driveway. So I don't understand why there's more pavement with the garages on the end versus in the center.

Happy to address that or wait till the end. Go ahead. Let's see. I can pull up an image that shows a little bit. primarily the the concern that it addresses is the two curb cuts um that reduces the pedestrian and vehicle conflict and um Also the concern that was raised by DPW a few months ago, which is just that, you know, Obviously, the more curb cuts, the less street parking possibility, but here the driveway can be narrower than the width of the garage because the cars are able to share that space. Okay.

I mean, in that drawing, I don't think it could be that much narrow if those are two car garages on each side. That second car on the left or the far right, you'll be you'll be driving over the grass in the corner there so I don't think it depends how long the driveway is it's a long driveway I think you can can narrow it but if it's a shorter driveway I think it would be harder to do

Let me recognize Councilor Gordon. I want to try and make sure we get through. Thank you.

I'm just curious. There are two different definitions here. One says when we're looking at the second option, a building that contains two dwelling units, each maintaining a separate entrance. and then when it's written again the separate entrance is not on there and I was just wondering if that was intentional and then my other question is You know, in Newton right now, there's all kinds of two unit houses and they're not all... You know, stacked or next to each other. There are some that are front and back and they kind of go around each other. And are we positing that this kind of building isn't going to happen anymore? Because I would say I agree with Susan and with Pam that more information is always better. However, I really like the simplicity of this definition. and I think there's a lot to be said because we might want to encourage someone to do say a two-car garage that's not attached to the home that both tenants use

And we might want to have, you know, like my two family where I have one entrance, but then you come in and then there are two entrances. So there's so many different variations. So those are my two questions, I guess.

and I don't know if that's a the first one is just is there an intentional omission I just think that's you can clarify that

And the second one is, are we positing that these are the only kinds of two family houses that we're looking to have done?

Yeah, that would involve some other scenarios, but just let's clarify the first point.

Yeah. I would defer to Jane on the definition that predates my time regarding why they specify the separate entrances, but part of it, as far as I understand, is tied to the other definitions for structures containing different numbers of units. But Jane, I defer to you. Before I turn it over, though, I can quickly address. Certainly not, you know, I think... Our goal in this process from a department perspective is to try and enable better design rather than over-regulating to a stringent form. Given the variability of lots and, you know, desires, I think we are seeing more often than not that side by side just because of developer and market preference, I think. What we've heard from builders is that their buyers

tend to want their own front door and then it feels a little bit more private that then goes back into kind of their own backyard. So that's just why we have tended to see more of that form of late.

Right. Councilor Goetz?

Thank you, Chair. I, you know, have a couple questions, but I'm mostly, I've just these amendments that are considered minor amendments. I'm mostly thinking about like, you know, we're changing the terminology to single and multi-unit. And I'm just, is there... in any, you know, because the single family is used throughout the ordinance. And I assume that what's going to happen is then there'll have to be revisions in terms of The, you know, within the whole ordinance, if in fact this changes. And I'm a little curious about where the drivers are with this, you know, because it sort of feels like it's coming through this ordinance. and I feel like I'm a little off topic you know in terms of what we're discussing but I would like this fleshed out a little bit you know in terms of you know because it almost feels like it's a separate docket item. you know so I don't I don't is it is it going to be rolled into this conversation?

I'm happy to address that and thank you for bringing that up, Councilor Getz. I think I clicked quickly so the slide that you're referencing may not have been shown. Let me pull it up so we can see it while we talk through that. I definitely agree. I think this is potentially a different docket item. As we were going through the language, it sort of seemed logical, and so we figured we would raise it given this was a discussion, but definitely happy to Separate them for future meetings. I think this is partially me being newer to the city. We kind of started this conversation of why does it say single family detached when Something that is single family attached is a very different thing than a single family. It's really that townhouse form.

And so it just kind of, fell through this logical conversation that Jane and I had where we're like okay well if what we're talking about is a single unit building let's say that um whereas you know a multi-unit building with separate entrances let's just say that um just kind of calling things what sounds most logical for somebody who isn't as familiar with Newton's specific ordinance. but happy to separate this and work with the chair to think about when it makes sense to come back on the agenda.

I think that's a separate question. Let's leave aside that issue for a bit and sort out, if we can, how to deal with the structural choices that people are going to make. Did I miss anybody on the committee? I want to comment a little myself. Councilor Roche has his hand raised. Councilor Roche.

I'll defer to you, Chair Baker, if you want to go.

No, I'm glad to hear from you.

So I would love it if we could be a little clearer on what the goals are here. I think that there are a lot of people who are more familiar with this than, say, I am. And so that's number one. What are we trying to accomplish here? Number two, I'm concerned that the real problem we're having is the The fact that these two family homes, two unit homes are so garage dominated, whether they're in the outside or the inside, and that's really what is causing the problem from the streetscape or the sidewalkscape. And what I would like to propose is that Any garage on the front of a multi-unit be limited to a single car garage or certainly the width of a single car garage.

If they want to do tandems inside, I don't think I have an objection to that. I know that one of the problems we have is the feeling that having the garage around the side, the garage entrance around the side creates more impermeable surface and limits the open space and that's certainly true but it does present as Thank you. Thank you. The outside of the building or the inside? Wow, I seem to have created a bit of a stir.

Well, I don't know. We'll see. Anyway, let me comment as well. I think part of why I want to be a little cautious about this, having been around this track several times, what was happening was effectively two different Structures being built as a two-family, but they were trying to be too detached rather than attached. But I am sympathetic to the idea of what the streetscape presents, and I guess what I would recommend is that the department and the chair and the vice chair and I, or I and the vice chair work with to see where we come with this in potential analysis. And I think Councilor Albright's question about

Having it run by at least one architect who can run some scenarios for us so that we can get back to you with a sense of what could happen that would meet Councilor Gordon's point of trying to encourage some options that are desirable but not overwhelming the streetscape, which is really what we tried to avoid or to have people game the system, which was the prior arrangement. So I would entertain a motion to hold on this one at the moment. and have the department come back and let's try and sort this out. But to separate out the question of single family versus dwelling unit and we'll deal with that separately.

We have a few hands up still.

Oh, we do? Okay.

So myself and Sire, Councilor Dunham, Bob, and Councilor Albright.

Let me recognize our colleague from Ward 4. Apologies. Thank you. I just can't tell whose hands are raised. Yeah. This is a challenge of the format, but Councilor Dahmubed?

Sure, I think Councilor Wright had her hand up first, though.

And it's just going to be quick. So, and this is to Councilor Roach. So we did do a garage ordinance so we wouldn't have snout houses so that it is a percentage trying to look it up I couldn't find it right offhand but something like 60% or something like that. So we did do something to try to limit the snout houses.

We have that. And I think Ms. Carillo's slides indicated that in one of her examples. But, Councilor Dahmubed?

Thank you, Chair Baker. I'm kind of wondering to sort of building off of the point that Councillor Gordon made about the idea that you might have a scenario with a detached... or we'd want to enable or permit a scenario with a detached shared garage or something along those lines and in reference to Councilor Roche's point and the conversation about a shared and possibly narrowed driveway is there a scenario in which and those of you with more experience than I on this should tell me if this is even within our purview we would consider like permitting something like a shared garage between the two units that would have you know Only three or be three spaces wide or something along those lines. Is that something that we've considered or could consider?

We haven't in the past. I think that's although it's an interesting question. Ms. Corrella, do you have any knowledge on that?

Not as far as I know that we've considered in the two-family definition. I know in some other areas of the ordinance we really do try and promote shared parking, but it would ultimately... be part of this conversation because it would require a change to that definition to allow that.

I wonder if that's a scenario that we could, if we're asking an architect to study or draw through these, could consider as part of it. It strikes me that Councillor Gordon's point about shared detached garages in our vernacular architecture in the city is actually pretty common that two family houses have a shared, you know, two or three car garage.

Thank you. Can I interject?

Yep, absolutely.

Councilor Baker, excuse me, Chair Baker, it's Commissioner Ciccarello. Oh, yes. Just wanted to add to that. Typically, when you have two families and you have two garages that are shared, they're usually a fire separated wall between the two of them.

So the garage is not really shared. It's a shared structure, but not a shared use. Correct. Okay.

I had a feeling that might be part of it.

Yeah. Thank you. Albright, do you have your hand up again?

Yes, I do, Chair. I just wanted to, since I'm so familiar with them because they're on Lowell Ave. And I think it might have been in your presentation, Ms. Colillo. We have a couple of two-family houses, and below they have two car garages. It looks really nice. Maybe I'm just used to it, but it doesn't offend me at all. Am I right that you had that as part of your presentation? I don't know if it's worth sharing or showing it or not. Yeah, happy to pull that up.

Go back here. Nope, not there. They're on Lowell. Yeah, sorry.

Next slide. It's giving me a lag. Oops.

These. Nope, not that either.

I think it's your slide 11.

Okay.

Or at least it's listed as 11 in the packet.

Yeah.

Moving to, oh, it's not there, but... I can send a picture. I mean, I know it's been in past presentations, and I'd be happy to send. it's the second unit is on top of the garages and you wouldn't it doesn't it really is quite Quite, it's very fine to look at it. So I just think that we shouldn't rule out anything until we've really had a good chance to look at it. That's all.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Councilor Getz?

is, well, because people were asking, it's 45% for the total width of the front elevation for a single garage and 40% of the total width for a double. I was looking at that ordinance today.

All right. Well, I think it's a sense of the committee that they're intrigued by some of these ideas, but would like to have studied a little more and maybe looked at some examples of things we would like to see rather than also the things we don't want to see. And is that a fair summary? And if that's the case, then I'd entertain a motion to hold. And then we'll confer with the department and figure out how to bring this back in a second iteration.

So I'll be happy to move hold.

Okay. Councilor Albright has moved hold. All those in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Abstentions? Okay. That's unanimous. Thank you. The next item is 91226. Discussion of possible amendment to change effective date of the 60% facade build-out. This is Councilors Albright, Kelley, Krintzman, Greenberg, and Roche requesting a discussion of potential amendment to Chapter 30 zoning that would change. that would change in the effective date of the 60% facade ordinance from March 1st to June 1st, 2026. Delay in the effective date would allow more projects to finish the multifaceted, time-consuming review process and avoid disruption as well as increased Mid-level review additional costs when charged changes to the city's ordinances are implemented. So this is I think the lead doctor is Councilor Albright. Councilor Albright, do you want to

say a word about this and and we have some communication from the department and the commissioner to reference as well but I that you're the doctor.

Sure. So what's being asked for here doesn't change the policy, still 60% lot width. It just changes the effective date and perhaps in a more orderly timeframe. When the ordinance was passed at the end of October, with a March effective date. At that time, I had asked for June 1st, but that was not suggested by the planning department. So we ended up with a March effective date. and it created a transition of about four months and there are many projects that were on their way to completion and that and could not get there in the four month time um

And I know that I spoke with the commissioner about this, and I'm sure he will speak tonight when this first came up, when the request was made to change the effective date. and he told me at that time that he had put a notice up on the website that we had changed our ordinance, that it was the 60% rule. But the problem is that a lot of developers don't go to the website anymore. They just go to the new gov to file their permits. I'm not sure how many of them knew or understood that it was applying to all development from now on. And I understood at that time there were about 47 projects that were working their way through the system. And I want to be clear saying that I'm sure that no staff is sitting there twiddling their thumbs or sitting on their hands. I'm sure that everybody is working very hard to move these projects through the system.

It just sometimes takes a while to get them through the system. you might ask for a change someone might ask for a change in the project and and the change might come in the next day but having it come in the next day can reinstate a 30-day time frame to get A response to that change. So I understand also that the commissioner has Because of the change in the ordinance, the commissioner has told everyone that they have to change their plans. if they can't get it done on time. And I understand that, but it's really not necessarily a fairness to those people who have changed their plans. It's a fairness to all those people who have started their projects, maybe purchased some property and with an intention, a particular intention,

and it may not be able to work its way through the approval system, the permitting system in in the 30-day time frame, in the time frame by March 1st. So I guess I'm asking for the extension to be fair to all projects. that are working their way through the system. And I do think that when we pass an ordinance like this, similar to what would happen with the garage ordinance We should really take into consideration projects that are working their way through the system and not penalize those projects. So my request is that we give this additional three months for these projects to work their way through.

Okay, so thank you. The Councilor Roche, your co-doctor, do you want to say anything more than what's been said?

Just to build on what Councilor Albright just said, I would say that If it's not too much of an administrative burden, we consider out of fairness to folks who have already started the design and permitting process. that we have a mechanism that allows you to kind of record your intention at an early state and say, I've started doing work. I intend to pull permits. I'm going through the process. And the date that you Make that recording that you state that intention that you get the zoning that is effective as of that date. and then you you would have some obligation to get your permit within a certain amount of time so you couldn't use this as a dilatory mechanisms to just postpone past any effective date of new zoning.

but that would more broadly manage the problem that Councilor Albright is talking about. Those folks who are deep into the process and now have to switch gears at both monetary expense and the cost of time delay from having that penalty. And then the other thing I was going to say is that given the The pain that this apparently has caused, does it make us want to rethink the ordinance itself, or was it intended to be this dramatic a change?

Okay, thank you very much. I've just mentioned that we historically, for members of the committee who are new, and Councilor Albright was part of this, when we went through a very comprehensive review with the department and the council, I mean, the committee, then the council voted this. And there were, it wasn't a unanimous vote, but it was, I think, 18 votes in favor. And one of the changes that we did make at the request of, I think, Councilor Albright and some developers was to move the effective date. We asked the commissioner what his recommendation would be and he came back with the effective date that we adopted. So this would be a change again and I just wanted to mention that that was our history. Now, it doesn't mean that there cannot be other things, but that's just how we got here. But I would ask the commissioner, you've given us a memo in the packet, and Ms. Wewell, you as well. Urging caution. Do you want to be heard on this, Commissioner?

Sure. I feel as though we have to be fair to the people who've already applied to this ordinance and tried to meet the new rules in the appropriate time. I believe if we move this to June 1st or July 1 or even a few months ahead after that, We're still going to run into the same problem with people trying to apply and get their projects in to get in under the wire, which typically happens whenever there is an ordinance change. There's always a rush. Try to get things done to get it under the wire so they can get it in before the change happens. It's quite common. Again, happens all the time. I know Council Rob Wright had said 47 applications. At this point, it's probably somewhere near 60 or 70 applications. since we spoke last.

ISD has been trying to fast track While the applicant goes through the engineering process, we're having the applicant also apply for the building permit so we can simultaneously get these both done, hopefully typically under a 30-day period. I just think it wouldn't be fair to the other applicants who've already applied.

Okay. Thank you. Ms. Whewell, do you want to add anything?

Sure, just to offer my perspective. As I, you know, kind of got up to speed on this provision, I wasn't involved in the development of this tool or, you know, the discussions in ZAP at the time. It seems like this was adopted to sort of influence and urban design piece of what we were seeing on the ground. So I think where I kind of come out is that it would just Thank you so much for joining us. Massing along the street of projects.

Okay. Members of the committee beside who haven't heard spoken?

Attorney Lee has his hand up too.

Yes, Attorney Lee. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wasn't asked this question, but I might as well answer it. And then I wanted to speak to something that Council wrote and brought up that I had not previously been asked about. But with regards to extending the effective date of a residential facade build-out ordinance, there's no legal issue with that because it wouldn't create any legal nonconformities in this particular instance. However, I do want to caution against creating an effective date that is essentially triggered by something other than the issuance of the building permit. The issuance of the building permit is what's required under Chapter 40A. and there's a very valid reason for that. It is a hard and fast process Deadline that you know. When you get that building permit, when it's issued, that's it. It's done. Anything else, even if it's a building permit application, there's a host of questions that arise. Is it a complete building permit application? What happens if it's significantly modified? Et cetera, et cetera.

So I just want to caution against creating some other trigger event for being done before the effective date. If there's a concern about there not being enough time from the application period to the issuance of the building permit, I would strongly recommend just kicking out whatever that effective date is. Happy to answer any questions about the concern, but I wanted to just state it for the record.

If we wanted to do this, we would have to go and advertise a public hearing, right?

That's correct. You'd have to follow every step to amend a zoning ordinance.

Right. And that involves a period of time to advertise and then the committee would have to take it up at a public hearing and then act and then the council would act. What are we talking about in time, roughly?

The zoning and planning committee would have to set the public hearing date that would have to be confirmed by the city council, and then it takes 14 days prior notice before that public hearing date. and then after the public hearing is closed zoning planning can vote it out that same night if they did it as fast as they can they could but then it would go to the city council the city council would vote and it would then be effective 21 days after that so Best case scenario, six weeks possibly.

Okay. Let me, Councilor Albright, you've been heard. Let me just comment. If anybody on the committee who hadn't spoken that I want... No. Yeah. Councilor Kalis.

I just wanted clarity from Councilor Lee.

About the building permit.

About the building permit. Is he saying that the building permit can go after the date that we're talking about?

No, what I'm saying is that under Chapter 48, the default, as well as, as far as I'm aware, every zoning ordinance amendment that was ever implemented... What needs to be done before the effective date if you do not want to comply with the new ordinance is you need a building permit issued prior to that. There's also the special permanent comprehensive permit, but just talking about a by-right project, you need your building permit issued prior to that effective date or else you have to comply with that new zoning amendment.

Okay. All right. Thank you for that clarification. Well, look, as far as I can tell, I hear what the commissioner is saying about the and so on. It was a lot of back and forth, a lot of analyzing different things. And then I think we jumped to implementation. and I think that there are more factors than and a lot of builders or homeowners just didn't understand what we were doing or didn't know and didn't follow what we were doing because we had talked about it for so long.

I mean, those that already approached the desk and were told no, I wonder, Commissioner, do you have their... Can you get in touch with them?

Get in touch with the ones who we've... What we've been doing is even prior, because of the length of time it takes to go through engineering and then through ISD, we had picked a date, I believe, in... May have been February 1 or even mid-January when we were doing zoning. We would put a note in that zoning review to the applicant saying that this would not meet the requirements. facade ratio ordinance. So they would know, but just like, you know, giving you a heads up, hey, this isn't going to make it, but, you know, you still want to apply, you can. So

So they've already probably changed their plans.

Some may have, sure.

Yeah, it's a very difficult situation we're in.

Yeah. Let me say a word on this myself. The process of trying to amend this is going to take time and push it out further in time. And we did Consider, at the time we adopted this, the request to extend the implementation date. But the ordinance has a purpose behind it, and I think that purpose is being served. And to say that people are being affected by it means that the ordinance is doing what we've intended it to do. I'm not in favor of changing the date beyond what we've already done for the reasons the departments have indicated to us. And I think the question that Albright, initially raised, which is sort of the track, and then Councilor Roche, and then sort of what is the process, how long does it take? We've got an item we're going to be looking at in the future that's about how all the development Ordinances work together.

You may remember, I think Councilor Albright was docketed that. And Councilor Krintzman and I are talking about trying to figure out a way to have that conversation in a productive way. And we may do it as part of budget. because it does have sort of resource implications as well as policy implications. But I think that because of the time that would take to make the change and also because I don't think it's fair, my sense is that I would be supportive of holding this item, not acting on it so that the concept is before us and we can discuss it when we discuss those other questions. But if the proponents want to move it forward, we could have a vote to see if there's sentiment in the committee to take it out. My sense is not, but also any amendment we have has to have 16 affirmative votes, which I don't see likely in the council. So again, time and the likely outcome

I think it would be important to tell people what the outcome was going to be now, but I'll leave it to Councilor Albright to decide what she wants to do.

Chair, Council President Oliver has their hand raised. Oh, sorry, President Oliver.

Great, thank you, Chair. For me, I think despite some of the perhaps folks that have kind of gotten far along in the process before this came into play and now they've had to make modifications. I think what I'm hearing is Thank you for watching. In October, when we made an amendment to this change in our zoning to extend and to push out further the implementation or the effective date, I think says everything we should be saying here. I'm not supportive of pushing the date out. I think that that just, it doesn't make sense. I don't think it's going to achieve what we

what the Docketers probably are hoping to achieve, which is to catch no one unaware or kind of midstream, if you will, mid-project. I don't think this is a wise move. And I don't agree with holding the item simply because the item itself won't be useful at a later date. Redock is something different, perhaps, but I think the right move here is an NAN. I personally won't be supporting it, just in case we're going...

I want to recognize Councilor Albright, but I agree, on reflection, I agree that NAM...

Okay, Councilor Albright. Sorry, thank you. That's all I got.

Thank you. So I'm very glad that President Oliver got to speak before I had to say what I'm about to say because I don't think that there's a lot of understanding of the reality of putting a project through the system to get a building permit. You know, yesterday I ran into a guy at the dog park where I seem to meet all the people in Newton that I need to know. who lives on West Newton Hill, but he'd rented a house on Lowell Ave right across from the dog park and that was the first time he'd come over. So I'm glad he was there yesterday. He was told that it would take about five months to get the permits or three months, I think it was, to get the permits that he needed. Thank you for joining us. just last week that it will not take three months.

It will take closer to five or six or eight months to get the permitting process done. And now his contractor can't do the work in the time that he had planned to do the work. so he's going to be stuck in a position of the guy who's renting the house from says he wants to rent it to someone who can Use the whole school year. So he has to be out of the house in the fall and he doesn't know where he's going to go next. So I'm telling you that story because I don't think people on this committee understand the reality of how long it can take to get the permitting process done. And as I said earlier, it's not because staff are sitting twiddling their thumbs or sitting on their hands, it just takes a long time to get the volume of permits coming through our system with the staff that we have. And that's a reality. So it may be that we passed an ordinance in October and therefore everybody should know about it and get things changed.

but when you get a project that's been on the books for months And then suddenly you have to change it, although you've already got the... You've purchased the land, you've got your architectural, you've got your engineering, and now everything has to change because we passed an ordinance that... People didn't even find out about it because they deal with NewGov instead of the website. So the reality of the situation is that we're putting people who started projects months and months ago in a very difficult situation. I'm not against the 60% facade change. I'm not against it at all. At the time, I had asked for a June 1st deadline. Chair Baker came back to me to say March 1st. We never got to talk about it in committee. It was a fait accompli March 1st is all that we were going to be offered. I probably should have made more of a fuss of it at the time.

but you know we have to take the reality of getting permits through the system into account when we pass an ordinance that has this kind of an effect on people's projects and I would like to move approval and we'll see what happens.

Well, you would move, I think you would move approval to set a public hearing because you can't move approval.

Yes, exactly. Exactly.

Set a public hearing.

Exactly.

Yeah. So I think that's the appropriate. If you don't think it's appropriate to... set a public hearing. You would not support the motion. If you do think it is, you would. Okay. Is that fair?

Yes.

Clarify it.

Gordon has her hand raised.

Councilor Gordon.

Yeah, I would just like to know from Councilor Albright how we're not going to end up in this same situation again. And what you are recommending is we would do if you put it off another couple of months because it seems to me this same argument can be made over and over and over again and to Commissioner Ciccarello's point there are already people who have gotten the message and have already amended their plans and are complying. So we're in a not a great situation. I agree with you. Doesn't seem to me that renovating your house is the exact same situation, because I think we're talking about new builds with this. So I do have empathy and I wish there was a way of grandfathering in people who were already in motion in October to allow that. But I just don't see that what you're asking is going to fix the problem. So maybe you could...

You know, educate us a little bit, or me, on what the difference is going to be, other than the few people who know about this at this moment.

Chair Baker, may I respond?

Yeah, sure.

So having been through this before with the garage ordinance, we set an effective date that brought people up short. And I forget the amount of time that we gave them to extend it into. but whatever it was at the time it fixed their issues so that after that point of time everybody was meeting the garage ordinance but it had a chance to have those people whose projects were already in process Thank you for watching. and they just need a couple more months to get their projects through the system. Does that answer your question, Councilor Gordon?

Chair Baker, may I say something? It sort of does, actually, but what it brings up to me is if you already learned this lesson, shouldn't we have done something when it came up the last time so that we're not, we continue to be in the same place? So I feel like the question is still the same, which is how are we going to change the way we do things so that we don't keep doing this There is an equity question here for both the people who are complying and those who are brought up short.

Well, the suggestion has been made that we perhaps ought to have You know, like we have a DRT with major projects. Perhaps we ought to have a mini DRT with all projects so that they understand what the rules are. and that would, you know, nobody would go with ignorance. It would all be understood at the beginning.

I just mentioned that the legal effective date of an ordinance normally is the date of the first advertisement. I think Councilor Lee, I mean, Councilor S-E-L-O-R, Associates of the City Solicitor. Thank you, Vice President Kalis. So what we did at the time was we initially had an earlier date, and because of Councilor Albright's raising the question We actually made the change at the council level, if I recall, to the date of March 1st. And that was the commissioner's recommendation and the department's recommendation, and that's what we adopted. And the commissioner and the department recommend staying put. So I think, Councilor Albright, you've made a motion to set a public hearing. Let's just see where we are with the committee. Yeah. Councilor Getz, are you trying to raise your hand?

Commissioner, Commissioner. You need to correct. Pam is telling you that the Commissioner's got his hand up.

Yeah. I can't tell. Thank you. Yeah, Commissioner.

Yes. I just wanted to answer to the fact that the amount of time that it does take to issue a permit in my department, it's not four or five months. Typically when we get a full application submitted it takes under 30 days. Okay, so a lot of times when people or developers or contractors submit plans to engineering, the corrections that have to be made, we had at least, One or two or three, just for this ordinance alone for them to try to get in under the wire, they had to submit the engineering three separate times because they did not put the correct information on the plan. That's not this department's fault. And it's not the engineering department's fault.

It is the people who will apply who don't put the necessary information that is needed to review and to meet the ordinance for stormwater and zoning and building code.

Chair Baker, can I just say, Commissioner, I'm not putting the blame on anybody that works for the city. I know you all are working very hard to get things done. You're right. Sometimes people don't do the things they need to do when they do their permits. And I agree with you.

Let me just comment on the motion. I'm not going to support it because I think, again, the ordinance is designed to accomplish an objective. And these are, as somebody pointed out, one of our colleagues, I think maybe Councilor Gordon, these are generally new bills. They're not renovation. They're that we're talking about. And then we tried to respond to the projects that were too wide for the site and do something about it. And we can all decide again whether we want to continue that, but that's not what's before us. So we have a motion on the floor to set a public hearing to extend the date. All those in favor will say aye or hold up your hand so we can get a count. Councilor Albright, anybody else?

Aye. I see Councilors Dahmubed and Councilors Kalis raising their hands as well.

Okay. Three in favor. Opposed? I'm opposed. Who else is

I can't tell who's opposed. Council President Oliver, Councilor Getz, Vice Chair Wright, and Councilor Gordon.

Okay. So the motion fails. So, Councilor Oliver, you want to move?

So I would be happy to entertain or put in a motion to NAN the item.

OK. All those in favor will say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Councilor Albright, you raised your hand.

Councilors Albright, Dahmubed, and Kalis opposed.

Opposed. So it's five to three the other way. Is that correct? You've seen better than I can, Mr. Clerk. Correct. Okay. So that's where we are. I appreciate the time of the commissioner and the department's chair, Ms. Wewalt. And again, I think Councilor Albright and others have raised important points. This particular item, I think, is where we are. So, okay, let's go on to the next item, which is A presentation by Councilor Albright and, excuse me, not Councilor, I beg your pardon, Councilor Albright, you're making presentations so often I'm putting you in the hot seat all the time. This is Councilor President Oliver and Vice Chair Wright, which is a request for discussion of possible amendments to enhance the preservation of existing homes. This is 2026. And this is, you have put together

a presentation which I think the committee saw before but because this is an item that has been before the committee for a while and because we have new members of the committee as well as councilors who are interested who are not members of the committee that It seemed to be useful to have this come back before us. So this is really your presentation rather than the department's. And who's going to present this between you or just so that we make sure that We get the slides up the way you want them.

I think I'm starting it off.

Okay. All right. President Oliver.

Great, thank you, sir. And who's ever kind of in charge in the room? I'm not sure who's kind of running the show there, but we can just use the slides as they are in the packet.

Is there a way to share them on the screen? Because the public may not see the packet. Miles, can you show the...

Yes, pardon me. I'm trying to pull up the...

And while you're doing that, I got a couple of things I can just kind of generally share. But I think... To your point, Chair Baker, we originally talked through these slides in ZAP on October 10th. of 2024. And by the way, these are the exact same slides that we used that night. So there are some things in here that People are going to look at a little bit sideways because it's about a year and a half old or almost a year and a half since we ran through these the last time. But we felt it was important to kind of maintain the original slides. as we went through this. And I know that at least one other member of ZAP, Councilor Dahmubed, has kind of made a couple of comments like, hey, you know, I've got some ideas in this space as well.

And that's really why we're here is to really kind of build on the thoughts that we put together a ways back.

Before you begin, let me just make one more historical point, if I can. Yes, sir. and that is that you may recall when we had our meeting earlier where the department gave us some background on this item, the analysis that was done was the teardowns that seem to be most prevalent in the city where smaller properties on larger lots. And so the question is what to do about those specific properties which may still have some potential value as properties that could be used in their current condition rather than just as a building lot. And so this is the following up on that Background information, I think, is important to say. Okay, so carry on.

Great. So we can bounce to the next slide.

The station is visible for everyone. I just want to make sure it's working. Looks great.

So if you want to bounce to the objective slide, there we go. And I've got them here, so you'll see me kind of going back and forth here. but really these are the objectives that we kind of uh not kind of but that we had outlined back at the end of 24 uh notably What we're trying to achieve here is to not only preserve existing housing stock where that house is not only viable, but solves some of the challenges that we have here in Newton and actually gives us what we want, which is in many cases more of a naturally occurring affordable housing option.

as well as some of the other options that we'll get into that are really focused on preserving existing properties, whether they be relatively modest sized single family homes or very large Victorians or other homes, different styles. But what we're really trying to address here is How do we get what we want out of existing properties as opposed to some of the challenges that we see happening on a regular basis, i.e., or for example... tearing down a modest single family home and replacing it with a very large, some people will call them mansions, a very large single family home. And that's really the spirit of what we're trying to achieve here with the ideas that we're gonna spin through here.

And I'm not intending to read these slides, but I do hope, Chair Baker, that what we can do is Get through these couple of ideas and then come back with questions so that we can get through the slides fairly quickly and then take questions because I'm sure there's going to be, or at least I hope, some questions. So if we can go to the next slide, Myles. Um... There are four concepts here, most of which have one or two different ways that we thought of that might be possible ways to kind of tackle each of the concepts. Nothing that we're presenting here, and correct me if I go astray, either Councilor Wright or Getz, because we created the slides together. I don't think there's anything in here that really is a hard and fast rule. These are ideas and concepts that we put forward that we wanted to have the planning department react to.

and help us sift through some of the ideas we're presenting or some other options that aren't listed here. So if we can bounce to the next slide, please. The first concept, and I think most folks here have heard me talk about this. This particular concept actually grew out of a project in Nonantum a couple of years ago. on Clinton Street, but the core idea here is When a property, a lot, that is zoned for BU, one or two primarily, is being converted to 100% residential use,

We'd like to see the residential controls be in place as opposed to business lot controls. And we'll get into more detail here, but just as a couple of points. For example, the FAR associated with BU lots starts at 1.0 and goes up to 2.0. for a three and a half story building or a three and a half story tall building. And we just think that that's leading to some unintended consequences that... We have seen play out several times in the city relatively recently. And what we're looking to do is maintain the character, if you will, of the residential neighborhoods that some of these BU lots are either adjacent to or are within.

Next slide, please. Before you go there, let me just point out, we had, I think, a conversation about that last meeting, too. Yeah.

Yep, good point. Thank you. There is an item that addresses at least in part this idea, but I don't know if it's actually the best way to go about addressing everything that we're hoping to get at here. What we've listed here are four different ways that we thought of that we might be able to adopt. And this is where planning will be helpful. in kind of going through these four options. And maybe we as a group can come up with some others. But the ideas here are either requiring a zone change, right? If you're taking a BU lot and you're turning in 100% residential, change the zone. Therefore, all of the residential controls go with it. Or if we maintain the current zoning of a BU lot, We just require residential controls on a BU lot.

Option three is currently the city council has the option to grant a special permit that allows for residential use on the first floor of a BU lot. We could take that option away. We could get rid of our ability to grant a special permit that allows that. Or option four, modify the use tables that are in our current zoning. that allow that to modify the way it says is residential is available as a as an option. on BU lots, but only above first floor commercial or business. And again, Those are far from hard and fast rules or ideas. We can kind of riff on all of them or merge them together or add new ones. Next slide, please.

This is kind of a, we're going to get into a little bit of the example just so that people who aren't familiar with 20 Clinton Street understand visually perhaps what we're talking about. The existing property on the left versus the replacement property on the right. It was a significantly different project. 20 Clinton Street actually spurred Other changes to our zoning, including the average grade, the height of retaining walls, and this would be another example of one way to kind of curtail this type of an outcome. because what's actually on the lot today is significantly out of character with the remainder of that residential neighborhood. On the next slide, please, sir.

Here's a comparison, for example, again, referring to the 20 Clinton Street. That is an MR2 zoned lot. And as MR2, I believe on... What is it? In the rear and on the right side of it, but on the left side it's business, if I recall correctly, and directly across it's also MR2. But you can see some really stark differences in the dimensional controls here. For example, FAR. gets to 2.0 as opposed to 5.3 at their maximum. 0.53 versus 0.53. Thank you. I love having an engineer in the room to correct the marketing guy. That's awesome. No requirements at all for either lot coverage or open space with a BU lot.

But as we all know, on a residential lot, we want open space and we want the lot coverage to be curved. Unintended. Setbacks are more significant in multi-residential zones with good purpose, I believe. Parking, crazy differences, right, between BU zone lots and multi-residential. and they vary on the BU side and we've also been making changes on that side. I acknowledge it. I acknowledge that with BU. Again, mea culpa for that being a year and a little bit old. and then height. Obviously, there are some significant differences when you get into three and a half or four story tall buildings as opposed to residential, which is two and a half stories tall.

So that really quickly, before we go to the next slide, sorry, I want to pause here because that's concept one is that whole idea of aligning the zoning with intended use or the new use when a property is being kind of rebuilt or redeveloped.

You want comments at each point or how do you want to go through it?

I was kind of hoping we could get through all of them and then come back to them because they kind of intertwine, I think.

OK, carry on.

All right. Thank you, sir. So now on the next slide. Here we go. Great. Thank you. You're there. This concept is really focused on the idea of McMansions, as I'll crudely refer to them, or the tearing down of a modest single-family home and building a Very large single family home in its place. And while I'm not or we are not advocating that we Eliminate this. This is not some kind of a moratorium on teardowns here, right? That's why I was so upset every time I heard that term being played back to us. That's not... what this is, right? And like we're talking about here on this slide

those rebuilds or those redevelopments tend to lead or take a neighborhood down a down a pathway that is, you know, significantly out of joint with the with the neighborhood that is there at the time. On the next slide, You know, a couple of thoughts that we talked about here in terms of how we might get at this is one of the ideas is Really taking advantage of new lot standards, right? When teardowns, and I know that the trick here is finding the right language that defines what a teardown actually is. But Councilors Wright, Getz, and I have been talking to a few architects in town, Newton architects who do a lot of work in Newton who

I think that they've got a few different options that we can review and talk to and obviously modify as we see fit. But it's totally possible for us to identify or define what a full demolition looks like in writing anyway. And I think, Pam, you're going to take over from option two. Is that right? Great.

Next slide.

Can you back up for option just the other two just so we can see them before you? Sliding scale, okay, and large house review. All right, carry on.

Sorry. And then the next slide, that's still a little bit what John, Councilor Oliver was talking about. and option two, which is a thing that we can see about doing is it's actually being done in Lexington now. and they do a sliding scale of FAR for teardowns and I just threw out some numbers. I mean these aren't hard and fast and that but If you keep your house and you add on, you could get a bigger house than if you would tear down and start new. And it would... would promote trying to keep the house, but not in every case. You still can tear down your house and put something else up, but

As counselors, we get a lot of complaints that the houses that go up, they're going from side setback to side setback. Meet the contacts of the neighborhood. Look at Oak Hill Park type things and other neighborhoods and that. And so again, it wouldn't stop teardowns, but maybe people would, you know, Think about it a little bit differently. And Lexington's already doing this. Okay, next slide. I think this is Raina.

Large House Review. I'm sort of like wondering whether or not. Great. So my thought is that we looked at it. A while ago, I think it was 2015 within Newton, you know, but I think what's important here is to sort of revisit it we've got large house review established in Wellesley it was enacted in 2008 and you know I think of it as being the kind of thing where We can learn from our budding communities what's worked within there. And I would hope that our planning department could do a deeper dive in terms of understanding Thank you so much for joining us.

and I think what's important here is they've even improved what I consider The assessment of defining FAR and, you know, defining new limits for FAR. They've also proposed creating a sliding scale for lot coverage. and they're considering average setbacks of the full block so I think that you know what I would want to do is look at Needham's current because it's literally um you know it was their um their study committee presenting to their planning board in January. And it will then eventually go to their town meeting vote in May of this year. But what I'm suggesting is that Newton is a comparable community and I think they've even become a lot more sophisticated about applying large house review.

So I really do think it's a viable consideration for Newton. and I would hope that we would want to consider it. Next. This was just defining what low-charge review is. Okay, that was in the original slide, Deb.

Okay, and this is the third concept, which It's kind of additional units, which has what we said here is pretty much what we did with ADUs by right. So this has already happened. I mean, the state kind of took what we were saying and made it across and the whole state.

Not that we really think that they were copying off our homework or anything.

This other one is adaptive reuse of large homes. So we're doing that right now in MRT. And We allow up to six units and quite a bit of an addition. But what we were talking about here is that would allow up to four units and a very modest, modest addition in the rear for Egress, and things like that. Similar to MRT, but maybe MRT Lite type of thing. Next.

I think that's it. Yeah. And I do think that, you know, with regards to the and by the way, this is just showing where 20 Clinton Street is on a map, just in case anybody needed to swing by and see it for themselves. But my only last comment there on that concept for the adaptive reuse of what we're calling large homes It's meant to kind of It's meant to be citywide or available to any lot on which there's obviously a large home. And that's why it's slightly different from VCOD or slightly different from MRT in the number of units. But I think that there's a reason why people are adopting MRT.

And we seem to have struck on something there that is popular. So we wanted to kind of bring that to a broader scale, so to speak, in a slightly different way, right? But anyway, I see that there are questions already, so I'll just be quiet.

So I'm going to try and recognize people. I want to recognize myself, but I want to get other people in there. I think what I'm going to suggest is that as a matter of process, you want to think about the options you've got. As I hear it, the The question of the business zone we have already before us. If members want to talk about that again, I'm going to recommend that we wait until we hear back from the department because we had a conversation before, but you can certainly raise that. and then let's see about the others. But I want to honor the docketers, excuse me, Councilors Wright and Oliver for their hard work on this and make sure they get discussed the way they want. So let me go to Councilor Albright first, and then we'll see who else's hand is up.

Thank you, Chair. So I won't harp on the, since you just mentioned the, we talked about the BU MR zone issue last time. But I do think that finding the places in Newton where we have BU zones in the middle of a residential area and rezoning it is probably a decent solution to some of that. I am very excited about the adaptive reuse project. proposal that you've put forward here. And I don't think that you have limited where the adaptive reuse could be. So are we saying that are you suggesting that any single family home could be instead of being torn down, it could be

Go from a one single family home to a four unit home. Is that the proposal that you're making?

Yes. And just with very... So MRT, we allow quite a bit of an addition to it and up to six units. And we're not saying that, you know, the addition. And again, this just a high level concept. but needs to be worked out but like maybe a 10% or 15% increase mostly in the rear because you need egress and things like that but you're keeping your streetscape pretty much the same.

So I think that that has tremendous possibilities for a lot of things, not the least of which is creating smaller units for folks who want to live want to move to Newton, but they don't want a large house. They can't afford a large house, but they might be able to afford one of these units. And it provides a whole other path of development in Newton, which I think would be fabulous. So I'm 100% behind moving forward on that idea. And I would like to know more about the Large House Review. How successful has it been in getting Thank you for joining us. but I'm very excited about the adaptive reuse idea.

Okay, other members of the committee?

Yeah, my hand's up, Chair, Baker.

Councilor Kalis.

Thank you. So I think these were all presented, I think, last time, right?

Yeah, this is the presentation we gave last time.

Oh, okay, because I don't remember the far reduction idea, which I found kind of intriguing and would love to hear more about that. I like that you already know where these things have been implemented and successful or not. And the Large House Review, that's something that I'm really interested in as well. So I think all of them are great to pursue. I don't know that... I think last time the planning department chose the first one, right? And focused there. and didn't really look at the other three the three the two three and four um oh no no they didn't look at the first one they looked

Business zoning has been separated as there's a separate right right but um yeah i mean it's interesting because none of these were kind of taken up by planning Correct. And it would be interesting to see where a planning department could take some of these and then to debate them in committee.

If I may, Chair Baker? Yes. Councilor Kalis, you're 100% correct. If you remember, they kind of created that chart that was like impact and effort level and they basically took all four of these and put these as very difficult to do anything with and interestingly enough The one item that they pursued that was somewhat of an outgrowth of this was the 60% facade ratio build-out. Oddly enough. It's not lost on me that there's some irony in that particular point, but you're 100% right. They didn't really take these up until very recently at the end of last term when they talked about the alignment of use to zone.

Yeah.

Okay. Okay. I want to make sure I'm recognizing people. I see Councilor Dahmubed.

Block had his hand up before me.

Thank you, Councilor Block. Appreciate the technical assistance here.

Well, sure, but I'm not a member of the committee, so I think Councilor Dahmubed should go first, and I'll chime in later.

All right. Thank you, Councilor Block. I forgot about that. You're a wonderfully polite team here.

Very happy to always happy to defer to my award for colleagues anyway. But thank you, fellow counselors for this excellent presentation. I, you know, I think it might almost strain the credulity of the open meeting law that If someone were to look at my notes about what I was hoping to work on in terms of preservation, a lot of these are the same ideas. And so it's really great to see that you've already put so much work and thoughtfulness into these. Similar to Councilor Albright, the adaptive reuse is very exciting. And one of, just to kind of Expand on the conversation in terms of incentivizing additional units I'm very keen as some people may know to see how Thank you so much for joining us.

because the state has already effectively done the ADU option, if someone were to be able to say, well, I'm not only preserving the existing home, but I have a plan to preserve X percentage of the existing native trees on site that we might be able to enable an additional unit or something for them as a way of incentivizing the preservation of the native trees there. So I think there's probably many more ideas that I will have as I go through my notes, but I just wanted to put that one out there as I didn't want the potential of that additional incentivizing to get lost.

Now, Councilor Block. You're not a member of the committee, but you're welcome to speak.

Thank you very much, Chair. It's great to see this again. I'm not sure I saw the original presentation, but I have Her discussions over the past year and a half about an awful lot of these. One of the comments that I get... from people in the real estate field and the development field, they really wonder why the new lot Old Lot distinction persists in the event of a substantial teardown. and I understand there are definitional issues but I think those can be overcome and that

If the new lot standards had to be met, if a teardown is, let's say, 50% of a residential... Then some of those teardowns would be discouraged because the replacement couldn't be as large as it otherwise would be. And people just instantly go to that. So I would just encourage planning and everybody else to really focus on that. The FAR...

Miles, can you take the slides in so we can see people? I don't think we need the slides now.

The FAR reduction is an interesting, I think, maybe trying to get at the same sort of incentive slash disincentive. And this is the first I'm really thinking about that. So maybe there are some pros and cons that planning could come up with about one approach versus another approach. I think that would be useful. Just on the BU question, I understand there's a docketed item. I don't necessarily come to all these meetings so I just I just want to toss this out um and again, maybe planning can sort of help focus our attention on this.

I would imagine that the VCOD zoning might supersede or overlay some of these BU zones so that our modification of the BU zone might not be as effective as we think it would be. And so if there is this sort of tension I'd like to know that, first of all, just factually. Does it overlap in a way that would... sort of undercut what we'd be trying to do with BU zones that are being used for residential What we should do about it. Because, I mean, the VC designations are what they are.

But maybe we should still talk about trying to incentivize people to use our residential zoning. and see if we can make it a little more attractive than just the VC alternatives. So those are my comments. Thank you very much.

I want to comment, but I've seen... Wright, you want to be heard, and I think Councilor Roche wanted to be heard.

Can I just jump in really quick? I just want to answer Councilor Block, Councilor Roach. So planning has given us a slide with where all these BU lots are located in kind of a residential, and almost all of them are not in VCOD. So there might be a handful, but most of them are not.

Okay. So Roche? Quickly to clarify for Councilor Block, it's not all BU, it's BU zoned lots that are fully residential.

I'm sorry, okay. Be you lots that become or are redeveloped to fully residential. Fine point there, but distinction with a difference.

All right. Are we everybody clear on what is being talked about? Councillor Roach.

So I'd like to offer a little bit of a historical perspective on the kind of residential development in BU. It's intentional and it's the lesser known partner of single family only zoning where the intention was to stuff, lesser quality housing and commercial and industrial areas for the less economically well off or disfavored ethnic and racial groups. So you don't see the same OpenSpace, and other amenities that you see in more single family, more suburban zones. So I am all in favor of Curing that. And if we're going to have residential development in those areas, it should be with things like open space and other It should be high-quality residential.

It's an important historical fact. I know that that's not... A widely held view, but I would be all fine with max home unit size. One of the things that's kind of missing from those objectives is what is called sometimes conditional objectives. So I want to do X without doing Y. And the embedded conditional objective, I think here, or the... The one that we should be concerned about is without taking people's hard earned equity out of their homes, which may be necessary because of our housing and climate goals, but it may be difficult to accomplish.

which is why the notion of adding additional units is so appealing because it allows us to better achieve our housing and climate goals, more smaller homes. and while maintaining the property owner's equity and maybe even increasing it. So I think that the balance between those is well struck by the proposal for Additional Homes. I am a little concerned about one thing that we talked about which is the mandatory businesses on the ground floor of any residential building in a BU and I think the, was it the stoplight cleaners or whatever it's called in Beacon in Four Corners I think is a great example.

if we mandate commercial on that site it becomes untenable either as commercial or as residential and I understand the desire to preserve commercial tax base. But I think if we look at that more broadly in that commercial district, It may be better for other commercial space and ultimately do better on the revenue side if we have a viable residential property, which then adds economic vitality to the neighborhood and then actually has a bigger economic impact than just simply preserving the commercial. So I'm hesitant to support the mandatory businesses. And then lastly, I'd really like to understand more of the details about the large house review at some point. A lot of points in there. Thank you very much.

If I may, Chair? I just I want to make sure that we're not saying anything about use the term mandatory business on the first floor. That's not what we're saying. What we're saying is if a developer or if someone is going to redevelop the property, and they're going to redevelop it for 100% residential, they simply have to shift to residential controls. Nothing in here, at least I don't want people to kind of misconstrue that. You know, Councilor Roach, I think you're bringing up a really good point. If I'm remembering the property correctly, this is This is kind of a few, this is four or five properties, I think, down from into four corners, if you will, away from Walnut and Beacon there.

I think there is a really interesting conversation to be had there, but it is separate from this. I don't want this to be misconstrued as, hey, it's a business lot, so you have to have business on it. As much as I prefer that, all I'm saying is if it's being redeveloped for 100% residential, some other things need to change as well. That's all.

So let me respond real quickly, Councilor.

May I? Yeah, I just need to be clear about, we're just trying to clarify a point because I want to move back into the main discussion.

Yeah, so I misunderstood something. Let me go look at the slides. and I'm 100% in agreement with you on the residential controls getting back to the purpose of my talking about the historical precedent because there weren't those kinds of residential controls because it was intended to be less high quality housing to begin with. So 100% agree with you on that one.

Thank you. Anyone else? I want to comment, but I want to make sure other people have had a chance to speak. So I appreciate the presentation as I did before, and I appreciate our colleagues doing this. Let me comment on several things. There is several members of the committee. Councilor Wright, I think, was on the council. When we actually created the FAR limit itself, there was a situation that many people may not remember, but where developers, if they were preserving a portion of a house could not be subject to the FAR, but if they were building a brand new house, they were. And what we were seeing is people saving literally a wall, in one case, in the neighborhood I represent, and putting up an immense structure.

and this process of trying to say, wait a minute, we need some bulk control in the city and that affected people's property values because they could do other things beforehand, but it was in the public interest. so I think that while there are changes that our zoning makes over time that does affect what someone could sell for a building at the same time the whole question of zoning is designed as I understand it to make sure that The benefits and burdens are balanced out between property owners that are adjacent to each other in neighborhoods as well as the owner that has the opportunity. So we've done that. I personally would like to see what the Lexington and the Needham What options look like and have our department see if they have any potential applicability here in Newton. Their contexts are different, and so the outcome may be different, but I'd like to see what they are. The large house conversion I'm not a fan of at this point.

I want to see how it works in the VCOD context. otherwise that is a massive change citywide and is really not dealing with a teardown item. It's a different objective and we can achieve I think that objective in other ways but I'd like to see it go and the way that we've started with the VCOD and see how that works rather than make a citywide change. So that's my view. But I think what I would entertain at this point is a motion to hold and Again, the vice chair and I will talk with the planning department about seeing about how we can bring some of these ideas back so that we can see where we go with them. Is there such a motion?

So moved.

Okay. Motion to hold. All those in favor will say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstention? Let's have it. Thank you very much. Thanks for the presentation. Ms. Wewell and Ms. Cololo, we will talk about these afterwards. and thank you very much. We have one other item before us but it's very important and I don't want to lose it because it's at the end. We have one of our number who's being reappointed to the Newton Affordable Housing Trust. This is item 79526. This is President Oliver reappointing Susan Albright as a member of the Newton Affordable Housing Trust for a term of office to expire on December 31st, 2027. Councilor Albright, you're willing to serve? as I understand it.

I am willing to serve.

That's great. And I'll entertain a motion from President Oliver since he made the nomination. You wish to move that?

Well, I'm more than happy to move approval here, but I don't know if anybody has any comment before I do that.

Well, you can move it, and then we can have comments.

Oh, okay.

Well, then I'll move it. All right. Anybody comment? Other than Councilor Albright, you still have a chance to decline.

Are you trying to say that she should run away from the appointment for any reason whatsoever? All right.

Could I just could I add that I'm very excited that soon the chair of the committee will be coming to tell us about this work that they've been doing.

That's just what I was going to say.

Oh, good. Good.

Next meeting. I want to have a discussion about the work of the Affordable Housing Trust and they've got a very interesting plan to bring to us and so that's I wanted to get your appointment done before we had that discussion. So that's the timing. So all in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Abstention? The ayes have it. It's unanimous. We'll recommend to the council. All right, colleagues, thank you all. I hope you're safe in the middle of the snow and are not adversely affected by the weather. But we appreciate you showing up on Zoom, and I really appreciate Myles's stepping up to help us with this off hours because City Hall is closed today and tomorrow and yet he is here. And also the members of the department, planning department who are here and also Commissioner And I do think we were joined maybe by a member of the planning board, but I couldn't tell. I'm sorry, this is just not my... That's one of the reasons I like meetings in person. I can at least follow who's here. Roche.

If you have five minutes after we dismiss everyone else, I'd be happy to show you a couple of tricks right now.

Oh, all right. Thank you. Miles, can you stay on with me? And Councilor Roche is going to show me how to recognize people properly.

Yeah, good thing.

Okay, everybody else, you can go home. This is just tech school.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good luck in school. Bye everyone.

Okay, so the problem that you have, I think, is a problem of you don't see everybody's faces. Yes. So you don't see who's in the meeting and who's raised their hands. But if you look at the bottom, if you hover your mouse, like in the bottom little bit of the screen, the participants, you see where it says participants?

Oh, I see participants, yeah.

If you click on that, a list of participants goes on the right-hand side of your screen. And now watch what happens. So I'm going to raise my hand. And now I pop up to the top. And now, Councilor Wright, can you raise your hand? And you'll see that we're in order of having raised our hands.

Oh, super. Okay.

So I'm going to stay above Councilor Wright. And then, Miles, if you raise your hand, my hand dropped, but you'll see that Councilor Wright stays above... Well, actually, you may see zoning and planning because as the host, Miles is kind of trumping all of us, as it were. But you will see the hands in the order in which they were raised. You still see, albeit a little smaller, The presentation or the picture, the video, but you do see the list of who's there. Now, one of the things that I would recommend that we do is a council-wide

practice is if all of us put Councilor in our names, then that will group us and you won't have to kind of read through the long list of even co-hosts sometimes.

I agree with uh Councilor Roche I've had a few times where I haven't made a counselor a co-host because it will just say their first or last name sometimes with the last names it's easier to catch but sometimes you know if it just doesn't have all their information it's not as clear who

That's a good idea. How do you do that? I don't know how to change a name.

I got my name up here. If you look in that participants row.

You can also just click on your picture. I click on my picture and it says rename. and then I just put in Councilor before it.

It looks like as the host I'm also able to rename participants as well so I can also try and be on top of folks.

Just to make it easier for all of you. I don't want to lose. I think I have to keep this for my academic life, too. I don't know whether Zoom makes a distinction between

You could, but it's more complicated than you need. But you can change it back and forth. It's a matter of typing your name.

What's interesting now is I'm still on top, but I don't have my hand raised.

You're always going to be on the top of your participant list. Oh, okay. So you always see yourself at the top, and then the second person is the host. And then you'll see people in order of their hands being raised.

So also, when I look at all the pictures of people, whoever raised their hands are to the left and the one farthest to the left is the first one raising their hand.

But that's also a function of the view that you're looking at too, Councilor, right? Because if Councilor Baker has the speaker view, he's not seeing everybody at the top.

Oh, you want a gallery. You want a gallery or...

I was just going to say, if you have the speaker, it's great because you can see the speaker. But if there's 25 people in the meeting, you're only going to be able to see... you know four or five other faces if somebody's talking so there's kind of that trade-off between if you want to see all 30 faces and small little squares or see the one person who is speaking but but then there's a participant list so you can kind of yeah decide when and where you want to you know use these old I guess

this is why the participant list is so good because it's independent of the view that you choose you're always just seeing the participants and you're always going to be able to see the people who have raised their hands and the order in which they've raised them So, And by the way, Councilor Baker, the other thing is that you can close that participants list and reopen it. So let's say you're having discussion or the slides are up and you just really want to pay attention. You don't want to see the participant list. You just close it. You hit the X on it or you just hit the participant icon that opened it. And then you say, OK, now we're going to have discussion. You don't need to know ahead of that who raised their hand. You click on it and you go, oh, I see that Councilor Roche is raise his hand first because the it's not showing you it's always going to show you the order in which the hands were raised okay super yeah with the participant there your screen is smaller and so

And I'm just on my laptop, which, you know, I don't have a big screen, so I don't like having the participant there, but you don't need it there until you start asking questions. This way you can have the whole screen to see the slides.

Yeah, exactly, exactly right. So give it a shot, Councilor Baker, and if I'm in a meeting and you're or Miles is in a meeting and you're struggling a bit with it, forget it, just raise it and I'll remind you. And it's a very easy thing to do.

Thank you very much. Okay. All right. Well, I think we're done and please stay warm. Okay.

Bye.

Bye all.

Good night.