Zoning & Planning Committee - September 26, 2026

Wait, what? That's a problem. Oh, it's working.

Thank you.

I'm missing the orange pen. That's the highlight, right?

What will you trade? I'm not trading anything. Look at these socks. You don't have that. Those are Monopoly socks.

I know all of them. I'm going to remind you of that.

She's not joining in here. I hope we're not.

I mean, she might have been.

and so on.

Thank you for watching!

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

Do you use Halloween? I don't.

I just did a Molly's tour.

I'm going to turn off my recording.

So with the two of us, we figured it out.

Thank you.

Spring, Winter, Summer, Fall

Thank you.

Thank you for watching!

It's a 15-minute walk. You know what that is, right? 15 minutes late and you haven't given another 15 minutes? It was a gentle sprinkle first of all.

Someone see what you're doing? That's the five second rule.

There are a couple things that I'd rather not be doing than it wasn't including the whole part of my husband's going back to him.

This is a meeting of the zoning and planning committee.

I'm Lyle Baker, the chair, and we're joined tonight by members of the committee at the table. Vice Chair, Councilor Wright from Ward 3. Councilor Getz from Ward 5. Council Rob Wright from ward 2. President Oliver from Ward 1. Council Gordon from Ward 6 and Kalis, online? It's not online yet. Okay. So, and we've also been joined by several counselors who were behind the Councilor Roche, and the Councilors. And I see Councilor Lucas and Councilor Farrell. I think that's all the councilors in the room. In a moment, we'll get into other people as we go.

So we have sort of two basic topics for discussion tonight and the first item is the first time relating to the housing trust and the Community Preservation Commission appropriations. And then I need to read into the record properly. Excuse me a second. Let me get my documents out here. This is item 256, The community preservation committee recommending the appropriation of $1,900,000 in Community Preservation Act funding with $500,939.35 for the community housing fiscal year 20-year reserve account and $1,394,060.65 from unrestricted prior year reserves to the planning department for a grant to the Newton Affordable Housing Trust with their fiscal 27 funding.

So we have a competing community preservation item being discussed in finance So my understanding is that the planning department representative who's most expert in that will finish that and then come here. But I wondered if the The planning director is here and this is ultimately a CPC request to the council. This has for members of the public and others who are not as familiar with how the community preservation funding works. This is the one place where the mayor does not propose funding, this is something that comes through community preservation committee to the city council and the City Council has the discretion of free actions as I understand it from the law department.

We can approve it, we can deny it or we can recommit it with committed conditions to be satisfied that has happened twice in recent memory. Once is related to the church and aspire renovation for Grace Church where there was a preservation restriction requested, and that was added after the initial approval. And then the other was related to the Baptist Church involving public access to the sanctuary, if I recall. So we have all of those items. I asked the clerk to put this on the agenda at the beginning of the meeting so that we have plenty of time for a conversation around it. We may or may not conclude that conversation tonight because it's a complicated item, It's a significant amount of money. And by the way, we're joined by Councilor Dahmubed, which is related to the city. So but let's see where the conversation goes. Is there anybody here from the community preservation? Yes, you have a question.

Well it's just sort of a clarification because as I understand this is the annual appropriation for the trust So I just don't see this. I see there's a distinction here in terms of its project. It's not a project-based appropriation, so I just want clarification on that from I think people are quite certain What is being asked is money for this purpose and the

My understanding is the Community Preservation Committee has made a decision to send it to the Housing Trust. And we're being asked, right? I mean that's not before us.

No, I think what's before us is the way it's written in the docket item. which to me reads, now I have to go back and read the dark item. Which is basically saying that it's their annual appropriation

Well, I think it's a fair question. It says the docket item says appropriation to the planning department for a grant to the Newton Housing Trust. I think the community preservation Committee, I thought was the CDC recommending the appropriation of this amount of money which ultimately goes to the housing trust as I understand it, through the planning department. But it's not a request from the community preservation committee, not from the planning part. So I think we need to hear from someone from the Community Preservation Committee Kellos, please come join us at the table. You don't have to.

I'll be right back.

All right.

While we're talking about the docket item, I hope you saw the email I sent you earlier.

was pointed out by a constituent that it shouldn't say, I don't think it should say FY24 reserve account. I think it was a mistake and we'll need to amend that.

We've normally done that at the council level because as the council docket item, I haven't gotten clarification with that about If this matter turns on that issue, I'd be delighted.

No, it's not going to turn on it, but we should fix it.

has his hand up if you want me to. Yeah, Councilor or is the city solicitor Lee?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to clarify what the docket item currently before the Zoning and Planning Committee is. So the Newton Affordable Housing Trust under the ordinance they have petitioned the CPC for an annual allocation. And then that is the petition that went to the CTC here and the CCC made their recommendation to approve that application for funds, and that's currently what's before the Zoning and Planning Committee.

Okay, so now but it's still a CPC request as I understand.

You're still muted.

Oh, you got unmuted? Hang on.

That's the wrong person.

We've also been joined by Councilor Bly.

Apologies, I was getting noticed saying that I can't unmute myself. So it's It's a recommendation from the CPC on the application. I wouldn't term it a request from the CDC themselves because the petition actually is from the Affordable Housing Trust, just wanted to clarify that point of where that line follows

Well, I guess my point is that we first normally hear from the CPC because they make the request and their disposition of the funds. The fact that they're sending it to the Affordable

I believe he's at finance right now.

Oh, he's in finance? So we can go ahead with the presentation though. While we wait to hear from the rest of the team here, I thought I'd ask Councilor Albright if you'd like to zero the representative to the Housing Trust if you want to say a word about that. So we're going to jump into that now before... Well, I just want to use everybody's time wisely. Let me put it this way. There's been a lot of interest in this item and a lot of questions about how the money is being spent. And my hope is that the process that we can undertake in this committee will set up the agenda, Mechanism, if not appropriately before us tonight at least at some point soon so that this issue can be resolved here and then go to the finance committee because the finance community deals with financial issues and not the non-financial issues. There are non- financial issues that are wrapped inside this question,

have been dealt with in our committee. If we can deal with it tonight, That's fine. If we can't, you can put it off and if necessary I'll consider calling a special meeting to do that because I don't want to have the matter held up just because of process but i do want to make sure we cook with as much as we can here okay

Thank you for that. So what I wanted to talk about is, well, I want to start by saying that it's, I think it's clear to everybody that the money for 1314 Washington Street. The money for the trust are two separate issues and somehow or other they've been inextricably wrapped up in each other, but it would be good to just talk about the trust tonight since that's where we're going, I just wanted us to recognize that we're really talking about the trust money tonight. And I also want to start by saying that these projects that have just come through are the first time that we've dealt with the VCOD at all, and first time the trust has dealt with a BioWrite project. And I think there's a lot to be learned from this whole process that we've had so far, and I've had a conversation with Chair Houston

and Planning Director Feerick about what are the lessons learned, and what is the framework maybe for this conversation? And I want to propose a framework that there three processes that need to be fixed going forward. One of them has to do with the community engagement process where there's a question on the application, what have you done to do your community engagement? And It's a kind of a little bit of a loosey-goosey question and I think that question can be asked in a better way. And I think Trust can be a little bit more evaluative when they look at the answer. So one issue that we thought that we could fix, it's already in the process but needs to be tightened up is the community process question.

The second issue has to do with parking because the trust doesn't have the expertise to deal with parking. So I've had a conversation with planning director Feerick And I understand that there's a DRT and the applicant comes to the planning department, and they learn a lot about the process. And I think that one process fix could be that the trust relies on the planning department for advice on the parking. Is this sufficient, is it not sufficient? Is it too much, is a too little whatever it is? So that's I think another second process question that could be dealt with and the third process question has to do with design. And if you recall, when our special permits on the large projects that came through they all went through the Urban Design Commission which has architects on it and they gave fantastic advice to the applicants of TRIO, to Austin Street, to other projects.

And that's something that's fallen through the cracks and there is no design review, so to speak. And the trust doesn't see that it's part of their processes with the current membership. So the trust could ask the urban design commission for advice on design. The trust could ask for advice from the UDC on design so those are three important lessons learned, so to speak that we could move forward on and I know that talked with Chair Houston at some point today. And I know that, I think you plan to have a meeting in November which would be sort of a debriefing on this process and so that's... You know, an excellent next step to talk about not you know other issues may come up tonight in this conversation.

But these are the three things that I've seen that need to be strengthened as part of the process in the Thank you. shouldn't be, and I want to just mention something about the timeline of our review and the timeline I know that with respect to design, it's going back the project 1314 is going back to the historic commission on October 22nd. So as a council we will know how the project is being redesigned And I know that the 1314 project is looking for more parking. I think they've already found 20 spaces and are looking for So by the time this project goes to finance committee, which could be at the end of October.

We will know how the project has been redesigned and we will know what the parking situation is And with respect to timing, I'm hoping that as a council we can wait and vote for it. Yay or nay, whatever the vote is for the trust in November, the first meeting in November. which would give everybody, all the councilors a chance to learn what's happened to 1314. And to those people who see these two projects as inextricably linked they will be able to vote for the trust money yay or nay knowing how this project has finally emerged and what has finally happened. So I'm hoping that can lay a framework for the conversation we have here tonight.

There is a question I want to ask about, because you mentioned the 1341 and the timing of that. I want recognize the Councilor from Ward 3 who mentioned to me a question about what processes involved for site plan review.

You know if that's- Yeah, so right now in the BCOD and according to their plan that they have given us right now, they would have to do site plan review. So site plan reviews required for lots over 15,000 square feet and one of their lots is 17,000. They can't build what they're showing us right now, so I expect that they will subdivide the lot. But that has never been mentioned and it'll get around site plan review but we do have a process in DCOD for site plan which I think would be important here. And then we'll look at the parking and the circulation and drop-off songs, which is everything that we were concerned about. Now talking to their lawyer, Bookbinder, Mr. Bookbiner, he believes they are going to subdivide the lot. He believes you know they're working on a redesign

There's parking, some of the parking that he was saying from one of the churches. where Mr. Cork was in the process of getting parking across the street there and with Second Church and possibly the parking garage So, but you know personally is there's a lot of knowns there and You know, being elected by the city, by the residents, I'm responsible for the city money. And the problem here is it's city money being used for this project. And we're talking about, I believe around $4 million, which is a lot of money and it's unfortunate, they earmarked the money that's coming in. The 1.7 or 1.9 was going to go for this project. Timing was different. It would just go into

The Affordable Housing Trust, and then they can do it later. But right now, they said that this money is going to there. So these are big concerns within the community, big concerns for myself. You know, we're giving right now. We vote yes tonight. We're giving $4 million to a black box. No guarantees what they're going to do or whatever. I agree, you know coming out at the end there that we have a final design and something that we can see and vote upon but right now tonight we don't, I mean anything can change and they haven't come back. And they said yes, we're redesigning as we're designing and they have said that to me before. They said it in the local meeting. They set it in Newton historic commission. We haven't seen

As you mentioned, one other process piece that my understanding is that there's an application pending for a landmarking of part of the building site with the historical commission. has not yet been discussed but is still on their agenda at some point. Okay, let me go back. Let me recognize Councilor Dahmubed for a minute

It feels like we have sort of jumped into a bigger conversation and we haven't yet had the presentation, which I feel like would be helpful. But certainly as a newbie here it would be I would like to have the presentation, but

Ms. Ferrer, can you give us any guidance in the meantime until we get... No, we were planning on delivering a presentation ourselves.

Okay. Yeah. Thankfully, I'm joined by Laura who has far more experience and knowledge than I do in this area. So I'm just going to do the easy slides and then hand it over to her for the hard stuff.

That would be great. All right. So let's go to you and thank you for the point. We've sort of had All right. So back in 2021, City Council established the Newton Affordable Housing Trust. This is a

Thank you so much. The seven member trust began meeting bimonthly in June of 2022. Over the last four years, trustees have developed program guidelines and an application process and are now accepting funding applications. During the initial ordinance review process, the CPC agreed to allocate its annual target for community housing funds to the trust for use in future housing projects. So again this is the standard annual transfer to the housing trust from CPC. Since 2022, the trust has allocated a total of over $9 million. The average award per project is approximately $1.5 million.

465 units of housing have been created or preserved by the Newton Affordable Housing Trust. Units that are created are new builds, that utilize this funding units that are preserved, restricted as affordable. So it does allow for the preservation as well as the addition of affordable housing and I will pass it on here because this starts getting into some of the media things.

Thank you, and I apologize my voice is a little rocky tonight. So this gives you a breakdown of the units that have been created by the Housing Trust according to their affordability.

I ask you to come up to the table for the mic and pick even though your voice is not As good as it could be, we're going to get whatever voice you've got. Sure, hold on.

So the breakdown on the screen is just units that we've created. So primarily we've units that are affordable to extremely low, very low and low income households. And those are households that are below 80% of area median income. Under this Community Preservation Act program we're allowed to fund projects up to 100%. and we do have some of those as well. And that's the over 80% in the red there. So this gives you breakdown, it also gives you the affordability level for a family of four. under the Community Preservation Act. Housing has more flexibility than most of the categories, excuse me and so we can acquire create preserve and support affordable housing. We can also do rehab and restoration work if the project was purchased with CPA funds, which I don't think has happened with trust yet but that's certainly something that could happen in the future.

So the current funding request, this was previously mentioned. Sorry. It's one more. Thank you. The current funding requests is our fifth annual request Every year we come in with a press of about 35% of the CPA's annual allocation. And that was based, so way back in 2020 and even before that I think in 2010 when the CPA has had anniversaries and 2020 was the 20th anniversary of the CPA in Newton. We've gone out, we've done surveys, we worked with the community and the CPA committee looked at what What was the need in the community and how might they want to ideally divide up the funds? And their decision then was 35% towards affordable housing. So that's where that number comes from, about 35%. That was the ideal. annual allocation.

And that's what they agreed when the housing trust was created, that they would be open to an allocation of that much. There's no requirement or guarantee, but they're open to that. Next slide. So this is a breakdown. The funds would come from two different pots of money in the Community Preservation Act. Every year, 10% of the annual funds are set aside for housing for open space and for historic preservation. So this would use up the $505,000 plus that goes into that bucket as well as funds from the unrestricted funds which can be used for any project and that's just over 1.3 million. And then this is just to give you a sense of where the balance stands with the CPA fund right now.

As of, I guess August 19th they have just over $6 million in unrestricted The housing trust fund, because it gets used every year and sent over to the housing trust or has in previous years is almost empty. Almost what? Almost empty.

So just to be clear that this represents is all going to the housing trust. Is that correct?

Yes, that was the application

So I feel like I just need to respond to a couple of things that Councilor Wright said. What concerned me the most was The concept that it's a black box, it is not a blackbox. At the Historic Commission last Thursday night, someone specifically asked if there's a change to the design that you approve then what? and they said, you have to come back to us. If any change in the design from what we see at the October 22nd meeting if they approve it or approve it would have to comeback to the historic commission The other thing is that they've made certain allegations or presentations to the Affordable Housing Trust about the number of kinds of, the number and kinds of units and the number of bedrooms and the affordability.

Those are not you know like maybe we'll do it maybe we won't that's an agreement that they've made with the housing trust So this is not a black box. This is the design will be known, the parking will be know and what they're going to do with the money will be no. So once it goes through this process It's set in stone. They will be applying to the state for the money that complements the city money and it will all be known, and whenever it comes to the full council for a vote we will know all this information from their application to the trust, from their review at the Historic Commission and from their parking... pronouncements that they make. We will know all of it and we can decide as a council yes or no whether to move the money from the trust forward so

Just real quick. When I said a black box, I mean today they can say whatever they want to say but they could change it all and I know in the future once we know that there will be Good, but it's hard for me to vote on something that I don't definitely know what it's going to be like.

But you're not voting for the project tonight, you're voting for The Trust And you have time to vote. If you don't like the project and you want the trust never to be funded again because of the project, you can vote no when it comes to the council after we know everything.

I like this project and I want affordable housing. I like that they're keeping the Santander Bank. I'd like it, I wanted to succeed but I wanna make sure it can succeed What happens if we give them this money and then it fails? Do we get the money back or whatever?

Well, I think rather than getting into a conversation here, I'd like to just that as Councilor Albright indicated, there's a point at which the council will vote on this. We need 13 affirmative votes because anytime you have an appropriation it requires 13 affirmative My objective is to make sure that we try and do as much of the homework in this committee before it gets to finance.

So I just wanted to add, I meant to include this when I was doing the presentation The funds get allocated to a project. They don't leave the city until we have a grant agreement in place, till the project is underway and everyone's on the same page on what exactly is being done and once construction is underway then they can send, it's a reimbursement. They send us what they've spent and we can reimburse them but I just want to be clear that we're not just handing them any amount of money today or tomorrow down the road when the project is underway. That's when if everyone's still on the same page, everyone's agreed to the charms and that they're restricted in perpetuity then we can go forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a clarification on that. That means the funds are still allocated to the affordable housing trust but they don't leave the trust? Is that right?

They don't. So generally we work with controllers to set up a separate account So they just move them, you know, in the books. The money is moved over just so we don't accidentally use it on something else. But it's still within the city's accounts. It never leaves the city.

Kind of in the trust.

Exactly, and under their review. Thank you.

So I want to make sure people get their questions answered. Other members of the committee?

My only concern is that I sort of feel as if I won't stay clear with the docket item And I feel as if we're sort of now, you know, going into the purview of the actual project of 1314 which will come again in front of the Council for the second appropriation. So I sort of feel as if this moment and this doc and I specifically for the allocation to the trust of the $129 million. And that's where I want us to stay focused But I don't know, because our purview in terms of what they spend their dollars on is not ours. And I sort of want to keep our lanes clear and someone help me here because I started.

I agree with you that's the case, but unfortunately this item is wrapped inside what they're going to spend their money in.

So I don't think we do ourselves any favors by trying to... No, I'm not trying to avoid the subject. I'm just sort of feeling as if I want to delineate what the docket item is.

I totally understand, but in the background it is wrapped into this project, better for worse and I think that I don't want to get into a wholesale conversation about it here, but I think we have to recognize that's part of the problem. So let me see. The planning director had a question.

No, I was pointing because there's some.

When you're ready to go outside the committee. Councilor Dahmubed, thank you.

Just to say that I wanted to kind of second what Councilor Getz said. I haven't voted on this particular item before. It seems that this is something that we vote on every year and my understanding is that in years past it has been kind of clarifications, questions asked to correct me if I'm wrong and then we typically proceed. I know actually when Councilor Getz was chairing public facilities a few weeks ago We all voted on it then. It was a small group, but it was myself and Councilor Gordon, Councilor Albright, and Councilors Getz, and I think we all voted for it. So I guess I would like to, I agree it makes sense to stick with what's in the docket item. It seems like that's what we have on our plate tonight.

So I just want to make a point about the money. So when we talk about wanting to have more affordable housing, right? It doesn't come from nowhere. There's a cost associated with that. We get a lot through our inclusionary zoning, which is the subsidy that the developer provides to allow affordable housing Lots of folks have issues with inclusionary zoning on large-scale projects, but it does provide a lot of homes. This is 100% affordable and I want to take that back. The housing trust as an opportunity, generally speaking to finance 100% affordable projects.

A much larger state investment. And so we're If you go back to the presentation, we all have them. But if you did, I believe the number is 18,000. That number's probably going to go down because more So that's the money issue. Supplementing is not a lot of money. Second, we're all... We are not, I am not but there seems to be consensus in the room that it is appropriate to use a funding mechanism to directly impose zoning requirements on a project.

And the project is in the VCOD, this is a by-right project I feel very uncomfortable that we that people on the council are proposing that we, through the funding mechanism, try to do something that is not permitted in our zoning code. So those are my two thoughts. Thank you.

I wasn't sure if I was going to bring this up depending on which way this conversation went, but Sean you jumped right in. Which is first of all, I think to Pam's point that this is resonance money that we are responsible for and my question was the average amount that we give per project is usually 1.5 million And I'd kind of like to know why we're being asked to give $4 million. And I don't see that as small, and when you look at the funding for a lot of affordable housing projects, the city hasn't been asked for $4 If I'm wrong, this is the largest amount we've been asked for. And I think it's okay to ask that question on behalf of our residents. Doesn't mean I'm not a proponent of affordable housing. I am voted for this first time I had to vote on it. But now we're having this discussion.

The average award per unit of 18,000 as far as I read it has to do with the previous projects. I believe the amount per unit is much, much higher now. So I think we need to be accurate about that. And then in terms of parking, the reason I think it's relevant are the reading emails that have been going around. I'm the executive director of a food pantry and I see the lowest AMI people come through my doors on a regular basis. And I just have to correct something if we're talking about New York, if we are talking about Somerville or talking about Boston absolutely you can rely on public transportation All the facts that I've seen going around are 100% true. They're not true for West Newton, and I think we have an obligation when we're inviting people into our community, especially those at 30% AMI to recognize what services we're also providing for them.

There have been quotes that have gone out about some of the people who we have had in our community, who felt alienated from their neighbors and in West Newton in particular So I think it is a relevant conversation. I can tell you that people who live in areas that don't have great transportation would rather give up food and would rather, give up housing than give up their car they need it for their children They needed to get to work, so I would really ask us to have a realistic conversation about what's going on here. And I wasn't going to bring this up in connection and I understand that you feel uncomfortable but you went there and I have to respond that it's an important part. People do need to park their cars, and it is a luxury item that wealthier people can afford not to have cars. And it is misnomer in areas with poor transportation that people who don't make a lot of money don't have cars, they do. They have cars.

So let's please just be a little bit realistic about what it is that we're doing and what kind of amenities we want to provide when we're inviting a wonderful project into our community.

So is the chair of the CPC here?

Molly, there's been a general presentation here. Now that you're here, is there something you want to add to what has been said? You know where the slide deck is.

I was in another meeting, so I'm just catching up.

No, I understand. Okay, Councilor Roberts.

I just want to say that Councilor Gordon and I 100% agree with you on the parking issue AMI for a family of four and how much money you can earn. Those people will have cars, so I think that's why so many people resonated with this particular parking issue and it came up at the meetings of the trust. and but it didn't, the trust didn't feel that was in their purview to go there. And, but I think kind of what I talked about in dealing with processes that are lacking was to solve that problem so that when this happens in the future, a closer look would happen on the parking issue. So I'm with you. I just wanted to say that for another counselor that had a similar issue that you did about the amount of money In the past, I think Newton Gardens has gotten 3 million.

The larger the projects, the more 100% affordable the money has gotten bigger. And I was able to have a look at five different other affordable housing trusts and the amount of money they give and it ranges from one-and-a-half million up to four-and a half million. So we are in the ballpark of other trusts, and the ones that I looked at some other communities were not even 100% affordable. They went from large projects with a fusionary zoning in them. So the projects that we're giving $4 million to is 100% portable, so it's... It's sort of a different league that we're in now because of the VCOD. We've got people coming here that never came here before, so we're on a different lead with respect to the amount of money they need. I had meant, I kind of launched into there to thank you for the three frameworks because those were things that are important. And I just want to clarify, I didn't have an issue, I just had a question.

I just wanted to know Why it was so much more than what we've done in the past.

So I'm going to recognize other people here, and I want to just think about our process and how do we get through this? For better or for worse, how the funds are going to be used is tied up in how some people may vote as you've indicated. And I think it's important to have clarity about that before we vote the item. and the chair of finance is now here. And she at least expressed to me that she would like the work on the substance of this item to be done in this committee before it comes to your committee.

I mean, I think ideally that's how it should go in part because I think in finance, some of our committee members are also feeling a bit conflicted about how to you know, where it's gonna go and people wanna make sure that the questions are answered. That said as I've expressed to different residents who have approached me about this as well, it's not really the typical place of the finance committee to be asking questions about parking spaces and loading docks, and details around a project. And so to my mind some of those questions Consideration.

I think would help streamline our discussion a bit more to the funding issues and how we have structured the pathway of funding. Trying to discern the ins and outs have proposed development.

So the reason I'm asking that question is that I'm trying to think backwards to the funding cycle because the project is still there. I mean, if Housing Trust could have the money but it's allocated for a specific purpose and that this purpose is not going to be successful and some sort. Yes. So working backwards, what is the funding cycle to your best of knowledge?

As I understand it in December there's a one-stop application due. That's where they're headed. When in December?

The first week of December. So the objective would be to now we at least you would like to have clarity of a council vote

Chair, if the council votes within the month of December, that application can be supplemented. So if the The second, no if the council vote ends up sliding into early December they can still apply. Not too far into December.

Well, our council meeting in December is on December 7th. So not too late.

Can I provide the timeline that I proposed yesterday? Because I don't think the chair financed it.

Well, let me just back up for a minute. I just want to understand. So if this is working backwards, if the council voted on the seventh on this item. The finance committee normally would meet, your last meeting would be normally the 23rd.

Is that? That sounds right. I can certainly quote I don't have any reason to think we wouldn't meet on the normal schedule in November other than sometimes some years Thanksgiving throws around into things.

Well, Thanksgiving's at 26 so I'm just trying to work backwards from to try and make sure that, if we wanted to try to make sure the process that Councilor Albright has outlined so these various issues could get resolved. And then brought back here so they can be explained to do that in a way that then we could you would have that vote and the finance can take it up afterwards. I'm trying to do You know, if we can avoid a special meeting so that we can do this in an orderly way and enough time to pull all of that together. Our next meeting is October 14th. And if we were to have the processes outlined Now it wouldn't have the final review by the Historical Commission, but would those other issues be able to be resolved by then do you think?

I don't know, October 22nd because that's historic committee and I probably had everything answered by then. So I wouldn't count on having the answers before then.

Well our next staff meeting is the 26th So if we took it up on the 26th, that would enable us. The Finance Committee could then meet on the 9th and we can still vote in November So we could still, if we targeted holding the item until then so that the issues that you've outlined can be addressed and sorted out. Then I think we would be in a better position to try and get this through, and then get it done in a timely way. That would enable it to be voted November and well before the December 1st deadline. I think that's going to be easier to do with and try and adjust all of that on the fly today.

Can I just frame what I think is also part of the timeline conversation? Again, I don't think we should be discussing a specific product as part of this but my understanding from a recent report that was released is that if something goes wrong in that timeline and there's a cancellation of a finance meeting or something, and then it doesn't get voted on in December. This project would miss its one stop deadline and would be held up for a year which could I personally am anxious about the idea of You know, extending this down the road a lot.

If you look at our next meeting coming up in October and the Finance Committee That gives still another council meeting beyond that. Chair, the Affordable Housing Trust has to meet. This is not

they have not voted to give more money. They have to meet and so that means you can't, they can't meet until December and maybe I don't know when did December and that screws up. I would not count on December.

When can the Affordable Housing Trust leave?

We cannot authorize Right now the next meeting is on November 17th.

So, and your next meeting is on the 17th. That's after the city council.

Right.

So that still wouldn't be legal I think to do it. Um so all right

So I just want to make sure that I'm hearing something. We just threw a lot of dates around. October 22nd is the and I'm seeing a lot of people nod. Like are we, I don't see anybody up on the board. That's from our developer and their council? Like that's a date they're targeting?

They promised to return with a design that responded to issues that the Historic Commission raised. And so I would presume they actually would be providing the design prior to that meeting so that the commission members have time to review it. But that was the developer's commitment.

And then I'm going to ignore the word So on October 22nd, it's reviewed by Newton Historic to validate yes we've addressed the design concerns we raised already. Somewhere between now and then There were additional concerns raised by the community that I've heard from the developer they're working on. I know that they're trying to get those done. Some of the questions, I think are bigger than a breadbox some of them are easier to answer or address so i'm assuming That we're going to get answers in the next couple of days I think those are equally as important, frankly than that as to the or as equally important as the questions that came from Newton and Stark.

Easy for me to say. Now I think what, what I'm hearing is barring some calamitous disaster we should have the ability to process not only this item through ZAP subsequently through finance and the city council relatively easy, easily. And you can quote me on that because I did say relatively. with the time that's available, given everything I've just heard well before December 3rd. But what I don't know yet and I think I heard this date When are you planning on meeting at the Affordable Housing Trust? November 17. And the city council would have had to have completed our yay, nay whatever we're going to do before that.

So, that's really the deadline that we have to consider today.

Did I get that right?

Yes.

The timeline that I'm looking at is if we took this up again after Councilor Albright indicated on the 22nd, you can take it up on the 26th and then the Finance Committee has the opportunity to meet on the 9th of November. And Council then meets on the 16th, which is the day before

I just want to clarify with Andrew, can you help? I think we need the portal.

Well, as I understood it from Ms. Houston, as long as we do this well before December, the application could be amended. The point is that they've got the authorization

Right, so we would just need to reschedule the trust meeting I guess is what I'm saying. And we couldn't meet on 17th.

Yeah, so I'm concerned that we're talking way too much about bosses and I don't The questions that I kind of heard about design, about waiting for historic input, about parking. I respect what you said about parking. That's already been decided. It's in the VCOD. You know, I know you weren't on that council but we debated that

To now want to debate that zoning, I think is very dangerous. And I expect you as chair to say no we already have zoning and this falls within that zoning.

Now, if you want to... You've asked me in the chair and I'll tell you it falls within the zoning but that's not the question which was raised by Councilor Albright before he arrived which was that there are parking issues and the parking is being provided. And that's

and so on. because parking has already been decided.

Well, that's a fair point. We had plenty of... I don't want to debate you. I'm just saying that I know what the zoning is but I just want to explain why the parking issue was before it.

I just wanna get it out there that we as a council have been talking about affordable housing for years. Not only is this an opportunity, this is a rare and unheard of opportunity to get 30, 60% affordable housing is unheard of. And that is why it costs a little bit more but we can't talk about this and then have an opportunity in our laps, and then pick it apart by talking about parking and design when these are things that are already done. We've decided on these. And to me The overarching idea is about affordable housing. It's not these other ancillary things so that's where I stand and i'd like to hear us talk about moving the money ahead

That's Fairpoint. I'm just trying to figure out where we go beyond that because ultimately, we're talking about trying to get to a 13-vote council vote. Let me recognize Councilor Wright and then Councilor Gitts.

Not having a pull-off for Ubers and that is going to create such a huge problem on Highland Street. I mean, there's some basic things I'm not sure your rating backs up. But looking at the calendar, the developer said they'll have Ms. Stark documents before the 22nd, which is a Thursday. If they could get it even by a few days earlier, we meet on the 19th And so if we had documents by then, we could cure it on the 19th and that pulls it in a week.

October. But does that mean...

Oh, is it the 14th? No, I'm sorry. Okay. But they may not have it at that point. The thing is that we're responsible to our constituents on how we spend our money properly. That's $4 million to create a bottleneck in West Newton. I want affordable housing, I want this project to work, I wanna help work with them to make it work but what has been presented to us, I don't believe will work And so, and they have said almost even a month ago. They have said to me, yes we hear you. We see that the problem will get back to you. The thing is, they haven't gotten back to us yet. So we're waiting and they were supposed to get back to town on Friday. You know, we're still waiting if we had all that stuff here I think it would have been a lot easier to vote this through but

So let me raise my hands up, and I've got a couple of people who haven't been heard from. Councilor Goldberg? Greenberg.

I think in regards to the timing and when all this all has to be voted on, I think it's important to consider that there may be a councilor at the city council meeting who charges this. So that would add an additional two weeks. So I think that's important to put into the calendar and figure out timing of the voting.

I just have very minor clarification. The development team has submitted a proposal for a loading dock. They did so before that was brought up by residents as a concern, There were some minor technical issues to be sorted out, so that's an ongoing conversation in the background. So just so you're aware.

Okay. Chancellor Roach, you had your hand up behind me.

No, I understand that. I'm in a blind spot. in this regard. Parking is always a legitimate question. The pickup zone is a legitimate City Councilors. The question, and by the way to be responsive to constituents and the constituents concerns about parking are not necessarily ill-considered or ill intended. The question isn't about whether those are important issues or whether we can just yield to the developer, the question is, is it okay to use the mechanism

of funding to do through funding what, as Councilor Kalis so eloquently put it, we've already decided in the VCOD. Our zoning is our zoning. We have a parking We have a zero parking minimum. So what we are doing, let's be totally clear, we are using the funding mechanism to impose additional zoning requirements than we have in the BCOD Trust, not to approve the project because there's no parking? Go for it. If every counselor in the room wants to lobby the developer and say we need more parking, go for it but for this body to make it, and by the way, the record is clear now.

That is the intention for this body to vote down that funding because of concerns about parking which are concerns that would be the same if the developer was building a market rate development. What we're doing is imposing additional zoning requirements outside the BCOD. And not only are we imposing additional Zoning requirements outside of the BCO do, we are doing them discriminatorily against an affordable housing development. and I think that is just plain wrong. So if you have parking issues, lobby the Affordable Housing Trust

The question is, will the council vote for this item knowing what it's going to be spent on? And that's what we're trying to figure out is how to frame the conversation. and I think the process I'm trying to follow is to figure out a way to get to a conversation that will enable a vote to be successfully taken in this committee, that can be taken to finance relatively easily

So I just have a quick question because I feel like we need to narrow our focus and consider that the docket item is in front of us. This will come up to us again, I'm assuming, because there's another appropriation for $2 million from this project. Okay, so how is the additional $2 million going to happen? There is a separate application. I don't think it's another project. No, it's all nuts. It's 1186 wallets. In my head, I have six more in my head.

Two separate projects.

Okay. All right. So this project, the Washington Street Project is only going to ask $1.9 million? It's not going to ask it CPC directly. Okay, so this is it then for the list? Well, this is what we have. This is where it gets really confusing for me because I sort of feel as if I stay focused with the docket item and the $1.9 million. and now I'm hearing all sorts of other, you know, projects that are looming that are going to come, you The Walnut Street, we had two projects that came in simultaneously. One was Walnut street and it's a much smaller project I'm sorry, Chair. Is it okay if I just clarify? I'm so sorry.

That's all right. You were actually in question.

So it's two points 1-5 million. Smaller, much smaller projects slightly higher per unit but great project and the Washington Street Project also a great project much larger and CPC felt they could step in with 2 million toward the Walnut Street. And we provided 150,000 toward it. I will say, and it's 35 units. That's actually completely skewed the per unit commitment that I was trying to figure out how we ever got to the per-unit number that was in the slideshow that was actually not quite the right number. And typically projects we've actually whittled down per unit cost to about 50,000 in units, 60,000 a unit

Newton Gardens was 112,000 per affordable unit. So this project, Washington Street is actually coming in at a pretty low number of 50,000 per unit. And it actually gets spread over a couple of years because it's a big project. I'm sorry to do this But I'm just sort of wondering whether or not we're going to be asked for, you know, in terms of the CDC dollars needing approval from the city council. It would mean...

Anything else has still got to come through us unless it's going through the trust. So let me see if we can get to some level of conclusion here. I think the question is, we can have a voting committee to see whether the votes here send this item straight out the way it is. We can have them vote to hold the item and if that's the case, I would be prepared A discussion in the interim basis on the 14th, and then I hope a concluding discussion on the 28th. so that we will have as many of these issues that Councilor Albright outlined clarified fully in advance, in the hope that we could get a favorable vote from as many people out of this committee and then go to the Finance Committee.

Now if members of the committee feel that they want to vote this item tonight in the current form, we can do that. I'm not saying you can't but I'm interested in seeing if we can get the maximum support Thank you very much. We need to meet on the 14th about it as a progress meeting. And if we could resolve everything by then, that would be great. But my assumption is that you'll still need the 22nd to have some clarification, but that would enable the finance committee to meet at the beginning of the first meeting in November and we could vote on the 16th in the council. That's the process choice. I think we've heard a lot about where people are. I'd just like to see if we can get some decisions at the committee table, so at this point on that question.

I have two clarifying questions to help me understand which of those I would support tonight. One of them is whether or not we're talking about hearing about some changes, or what have you. When we are talking about those changes, are we talking about changes to the affordable housing trusts process? Or are we talking about knowing some additional information about a specific project?

My understanding, again, Councilor Albright can speak for himself. But my understanding is she was talking improvements in their process that could be done prospectively. Right now, the question is what happens to the funds that are being appropriated for this project and where they're going and how would that affect the votes of various councilors? So I would like to get that question resolved because I think the first one is an easy one. The Housing Trust will take care of that on its own. But I do want to recognize Councilor Robert, would you let me recognize Council Lucas for a minute? Sure. Because he hasn't spoken. Council Lucas, welcome.

Thank you. This is so fascinating. and so confusing at the same time. I'm sitting here with Councillor Farrell, and he has the pro forma in front of them. And I'm still confused on this. This is my first Housing Trust CPC meeting, forgive me. But it says that the funding is from the Affordable Housing Trust $4 million They're asking for 1.9 today, what's the other 2.1?

So the trust had just over a million dollars available in its accounts that it allocated to the project. If this was funded, then they indicated they would be willing to vote the $1.9 million to the project. It will still be short, about a million.

we can only give them 1.9 yes yeah so they could apply again in the future so it's possible they could Round of money in 2027 or 2028? Yes. Right now, 2.9 is as far as we can go.

That's all we have. I thought you had 1.9. We have $1 million that we had already, that we've allocated to the project already. And 1.9 that if it is approved by city council, then that could also be allocated.

Got it. So they could be asking for $1 Ms. Kreutzer, in the presentation you had 465 units created by the Newton Affordable Housing Trust. Not asking for it now, but could you provide a breakdown of that 465 units?

Absolutely. And most of it's on our website, but I'm happy to provide that.

Yes. Thank you. And then, you also had some fraction over 80% AMI Housing units have been approved by the trust. Do you know what those are?

So, those are at Newton Garden. What's Newton Garden? Newton Garden was an existing developed... Is that North Street? No, sorry. Yes. So that has units that are 100%, 120% workforce housing that Wind Development was including in their project so we funded that as well as the that were also a part of that project.

It wasn't in the backup, and it was the CPC meeting. The minutes and what happened at the CBC meeting. Were you at that meeting? Or were you staffed CPC? I don't know.

But Molly Hutchings, their staff is

For the, when didn't and Casey vote to recommend the 1.9 million. Sorry, I misunderstood it. Okay that's all right. In July, their July meeting. July meeting okay. And what was the vote? Did the applicant Beacon Communities attend the meeting?

So, Beacon Community is not the applicant for CBA funding. Housing Trust is the applicant I understand.

Were they at the meeting believe they were or not.

They haven't actually submitted an application to the housing trust at that time.

All right. Well, I'll take off those questions. Okay. I'm just trying to understand the process here because this is new.

What happened as I understand it, just to clarify again, the housing trust applied to the CPC for funds. But the project became a live question before everybody after the CBC funds were approved, as I understand it. To be fair, CPC members, we didn't discuss specific projects. No, I understand. So now I would like to get to Councilor Albright.

Yeah, that's what I wanted to talk about. I see no reason to hold this because The only reason to hold this will be because people don't like the 1314 project, and that's not what we're voting on. We're voting Having your, on October 22nd this is going back to the historic commission and we will know everything about the design by then. And we'll know everything parking by then so that if you had your finance meeting on the 26th and voted on that meeting, we could go to the council on November 2nd. And I hadn't even thought about the chartering problem If it gets chartered at the November 2nd meeting, it puts in jeopardy the housing trust's ability to have a meeting in November on this project.

So I frankly I would love this to come out of this committee with a positive vote, but I would rather have a vote than a positive. And if people want to abstain or vote no they should feel free to do it. I would like to move approval And if people want to abstain or vote no, they should feel comfortable doing that. And we can just move the process along because we will know everything before we vote as a council on November 2nd.

So thank you. Councilor Farrell, I just want to recognize you and welcome them in.

Just very quickly . In the performances for a minute, the project already has been given And it's entirely possible that they will come back for another million. At which point, this council will feel pretty bound to give them the million or the project might fail. and so on. Thank you for the time.

Thank you, Councilor Oliver.

So I've heard a lot of comments here that I haven't I'm going to add a few thoughts to the mix that I haven't heard yet. First off, a lot of the conversations that I have had have been with folks in this room and folks who live in the community right around the butters to this project, and folks throughout Newton. more so in the Western name.

And then one thing that, one of the things that I have repeatedly found myself thinking and saying We set up the Affordable Housing Trust. We all thought we were doing everything we could to move this in the right direction, and I don't regret that Now for one second, I think I was roughly seven months on the council at the time and that was one of the first votes that I thought I was like, I know what I want to do here and this feels right. Yeah, go for it. Then, a couple of years later, the VCOD came around and we introduced a very large amount of by-right development in the city. I think

that when you start to overlap those two items, we get into a space that we did not and could not have contemplated in 2021 when we voted for the Affordable Housing Trust. I think we owe the folks at the Affordable Housing Trust a little mea culpa because what we're living right now is The consequences of a little bit of an unintended consequence. I think we put the Affordable Housing Trust in position to review projects in ways that were accustomed to, but they're not. And I think what's, at least for me, contrary to what I've heard from a few of my colleagues in this room here tonight, I'm not asking or demanding at all

Parking of this project at all. What I would like, however, is an opportunity to understand In a couple of weeks, I think we'll have a lot more clarity as to what it is the project actually is. I think that's important Because again, contrary to what I just heard, I agree with you entirely. I think we do need to move this forward. I've heard that from a lot of us. I don't just want an opportunity to vote my conscience tonight I don't just want to vote it out tonight. I want to make an informed vote. I wanna understand the totality of this project. I have all faith in the world, that the developer is going to do everything they can to get it right. I want to know where they end up.

I think that's fair to the people in this room because we're Are there ways this could go sideways? I guess so. But we owe it to ourselves, and I'm asking everyone on this committee to look at the other folks on this Committee and consider Do you know, do you know right now what you're voting for? I think what we've heard is we're a couple weeks out from exactly what we were voting for. We know what we're aiming for. I want to vote yes for it. I don't just wanna vote what I know now. Maybe in a couple of weeks, we're gonna know maybe it won't even take that long

So I'm going to ask people to hold for a minute.

If you don't mind, can I just wrap up? Thank you. So I do think it's important that we're... Like, I'm not looking to hold the item to hold it If this were a special permit, which I know it's not, we'd be giving the petitioner the time to answer the questions that you can start commissioning. The residents have asked? I think that's fair. Nobody that I have spoken to wants to shoot this project down.

Nobody.

Not one single person. What we want to understand is what is the project? And we wanna be able to embrace it in a way that right now, a few of us are really wrestling with.

Again, very quick clarifying point. I've seen a lot of these projects that either because of the funding stack or inflation. That was a big one in the early 20s, or for some other reason they have veered from their original design much later than this process and you all are more active than I am so you can tell me if I'm wrong but I believe that when they're in this funding stage, the actual bricks and mortar components are still pretty changeable. What they're getting funding for is like the set unit count, correct? So the little tweaks that come about as a result of inflation or labor costs or whatever else. The project that you're going to see at the end of the road can and will probably change. Like we had some facade tweaks on a project that went through as just a minor thing, it was still buildable but you can see

I'm just not adept at this.

You're correct that there can be design changes as a project goes through. One of the things that Ms. Kreitzer explained earlier is that all of our commitments are made contingent on final review of the plans and financing package because we don't want to give money to a project that might change. So it It will change. I mean, if it changes we reserve the right to withdraw our funds

So I'm going to... I'm sorry, but that's an important... There is a cloud app? Oh, always, always. Let me tell you, it is sometimes... Hey, you'd be amazed, right?

You know, I'm continuously amazed.

But I also want to add one point to this quick conversation that I do apologize. We're making your job very difficult tonight. At full council, I'll schedule a special so that we can get it heard in time. There isn't anybody on this council who wants this project to get shot down. I'll, you know, I think it takes what? Seven people to obviate a special?

Well now the president will call back himself. You don't need seven.

Do you have regularly scheduled?

Well no if it's a four-man charter it's So I'm going to ask just get a sense of the committee because i need to get a Sense of where we are. A strong vote in the sense that people who would like to see the item held get more information before we vote If we get into a formal vote, then it's going to be a very messy business. So if you would like to just get a sense of the committee for those who feel that they would like on this, and those who are ready to vote tonight. Okay? Just to see where the sense of a committee is. All right? And if you're not certain either way there's a lot of confusion in the room that you're entitled to say nothing or just so you don't want to vote at all. Those who would like to see the item move forward tonight, just hold up your hands. One, two, three, four, five.

Okay? That's the majority of the committee so I think we need to move on that basis. So I will entertain a motion

All right, there's a motion

and I should just indicate that I'm going to abstain because I would like to see the information clarified about where the funds are going not because I'm I'm not confident that something will come out of this, but I would like to see an affirmative vote on the council which is more than 13 or 13 plus. So and then I'm confident in the process where we get us there The majority of the committee has to make that decision. So anybody else want to say they recovered? Yes.

I'm just saying here, I'm going to abstain again it's just not enough information for me to vote affirmative on here and I want this project approved. I just wanna make sure it's a good project going forward.

There's a piece of information that I wonder if I could ask Ms. Houston,

Miss Houston, we've heard a lot about this $4 million or 1.9 and then one and then someday more. Could you explain to us? I think there's a lot of question about what does that money get us? Can you explain the sort of bang for your buck of a $4 million or a three-ish million dollar investment? What it leverages, what does it mean for housing creation?

Thank you. I've been sitting here feeling like We're sort of talking about affordable housing, but this is 72 units of new family affordable housing. 69% of the units are family units and the rest are one bedroom. So it will serve seniors or individual people, but it really focuses on families which we've identified as our most Our shortest supply of affordable housing is family housing. And it has, oh, 19... It has 12% of units I believe are at 30% area median income. Those are like daycare workers, retail staff people

And the balance is in the 60 and 80% units. So when we talk about 60% units, who lives in those units? That's a Newton teacher with and who lives in the 80% units? That's nurses, and Newton teachers with a master's degree and five years of education. Those are really all of those people essential parts of our community. And I think it's why we on the trust feel so pleased to have been able to have a project with one of the premier developers, not just in Massachusetts, but in the nation who is a long-term owner.

This is not a developer who buys and holds for seven years or 10 years or an affordable housing world 15 years in sales. This is a developer who buys and holds, who has an exceptional track record of good management and provides resident services which is A goal we always look for, but it's hard for smaller developers to sometimes deliver. So it is a great project that Because it's by right, there are certain issues we can't step into decisions that this council may after three years of work The VCOD.

So you made the rules about parking and our job is to make sure that projects comply But, and so we can't force that on the developer. And I would hate to think that we would say that we're going to have different standards for affordable and for market but The developer has heard from trust members who might be concerned that there's not quite enough parking and from the community, and from this city. And they're really working hard and are going to get to at least 20 more units, but probably more than that. And they've heard that people aren't happy with the design and their redesigning it's hard It's hard to say to an architect, we don't like the way your building looks.

And he has heard it and is working on coming up with a facade that's more attractive. He's heard from Councilor Wright and came up with the pull-off. That's not the right term, Loading Doc.

I appreciate your answer, but I want to get to a vote if you don't mind. Just one last time. I apologize, but we're going to do this. I think everybody now understands about the project and understands the concerns that people have and then we'll see where we go, okay? I got a lot to get the committee work done. Apologies for everybody. And I want to apologize by all those people who wrote me emails that I haven't had a chance to respond to because they've been trying to figure out how we're going to run this meeting. That's our fault, not yours. Okay there is a motion in favor of the project as proposed by CPC on the docket item before us okay? All those in favor will say, well I've asked you to raise your hand so they can be identified for the record. Okay all those in favour? Councilor Getz, Councillor Kalis, Councillor Dahmubed, Councillor Gordon and

All right, OK. All those opposed? All those abstaining? I'm abstain for the reasons indicated. I think this is a good project and I hope these issues can be resolved before it gets to the council. I think that concludes our discussion on this item. I appreciate it. Councilor Dahmubed?

Just a quick clarification, on this project.

I'm sorry, I'm talking about the project of the House CPC. This is the funding that... Making sure that's what we all look for. Yeah. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the various comments. here, and also the members of the public and the Affordable Housing Trust people who are here. And the CPC people who were here and the staff who were to try and make all of this go. Thank you very much. So folks, I'm going to declare a sudden recess and then we'll come back and talk about it shortly. Thank you so much.

Are you taking a head of the table here?

That's what I do right now.

Anyway, that's it.

Yeah, I was kind of asking to understand what does this mean?

Thank you for watching!

As I said, I'm actually not interested in this project.

I'm Doug, yeah.

How are you doing? Ah, it's this Capricorn boy. I did. A little side of the pressure here, right?

Yeah.

Yeah, Irish

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Welcome, everybody. For those who are members of the committee or interested bystanders, there's fuel here for the vice chair. Thank you very much.

We're going to go back to the agenda and I'm going to pick up item 291.26

Discussion of Newton's Demolition Delay Organs. This is Councilors Baker, Wright, Kalis, Malakie, Irish, Farrell, Gordon, Block and Getz requesting discussion presentation about the experience of Newton demolition delay orgs. For the members of the public watching and also people who are new to this conversation, we have spent a lot of time in committee wrestling with the idea What happens with properties that are torn down and then rebuilt? And Councilor Wright. put together a spreadsheet which we saw last time and a presentation about what has happened to a number of buildings in the city that are, in fact demolished. The historic The ordinance we have with demolition delay as one of its provisions is really what happens before that ultimate demolition occurs and the property is rebuilt and resold.

So what this conversation is designed to do is to look at how that process is currently working. And at a subsequent meeting, I hope to discuss what we can do to improve it and perhaps learn from other communities if there are things that we could be doing that will assist the quality of what gets saved and what gets torn down in the city. We were also joined by members of the Historical Commission who are here online. I think the chair is here, Mr. Cornelius and I thought I saw Ms. Grissom who is a member of the commission, he's here as well. And is there anybody else in your- Harvey Shore I believe is on there. Okay welcome and we're also joined by our planners and Mr. Lewis, and of course We're known by the director and also our long range planning associates. So I would, who's going to make the presentation? Okay.

and this is just going to outline now attached to the agenda you will see that there's a copy of the ordinance in its complete form thanks to Mr. Lee who helped us get to a clean up-to-date version

Yeah, well thank you chair for having me and it's great to be here. So yeah like you said I think the plan for this presentation is just to provide sort of a brief overview of what going through the process for total demolition looks like currently. And I have some slides here, and then I'm happy to take some questions at the end when possible. So this is the existing process as it is. This is sort of a broad overview of everything. As you can see, it can get a little complicated at times. It could be some different spots that can splinter off. This is start to finish. from submitting application to Bulldozer, everything it goes through. But I'll zoom in here on this next page. No, you don't need to zoom in. We can read that. Before you do, I think the clerk can make this screen.

Yeah, well we actually have it.

We're going to zoom in.

We actually will zoom in so no worries about that. Do we need all the names on the right or can you deal with those?

Now, if you can make the... Yeah, that's a little easier.

So this is the general process of how things work for a total demolition specifically. So any structure, any building or structure not just houses or commercial buildings sheds garages anything that has four walls and a roof is over 50 years old. Prior to demolishing that building and prior to getting a demolition permit from ISD, one needs to submit a historical review application. So that's submitted. Once we review that application for completeness, make sure all of the required documentation is involved. We review the application, review the history of the property, our planners along with our NHC chair and we make a determination of historical significance for the building. If it's found to be historically significant, it will be voted on at an NHC public hearing

If it's not historically significant at that point, the review is finished and a demolition permit can be applied for and obtained. At an NHC hearing, the commission votes on whether or not to find the property preferably preserved is the term that we use. And I will get into that in a little more detail in a sec. If the property is found preferably preserved by a simple majority vote, then a demolition delay is imposed on the property. If the property, most properties are not listed on the National Register and the demolition delay period for those properties is 12 months. and for properties that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the delay is an additional six months for 18 total months. An option that folks have if they... Sorry.

When a demolition delay is imposed on the property after four full months have passed, the owner may apply for a waiver of the remaining delay period. whether that be the other eight months or other 14. The NHG then can review the plans for new construction and grant a waiver based on those exact plans So four full months have to pass before that application can be reviewed by the commission. It requires submission of a new historical review application all waiver applications do have to go through the new historical commission at a public hearing. There is no level of administrative review at all for waivers if the plans are approved at an NHC meeting then the remaining delay period is waived. The applicant can then apply for a demolition permit and subsequent building permit. If they're denied, the applicant may reapply, make changes to the plans re-applied to the commission

and while ideally we would like folks to reconsider, this is an option people have sort of work with the commission to find a set of plans for new construction that ideally will mitigate the loss of the historic building is the standard that the commission uses. Ideally, it will fit in contextually and architecturally. Bless you. with the architecture and the general massing of the surrounding neighborhood that the building that it's replacing is in. And however, folks can also wait out the delay if they choose to do that instead of going through the waiver process. I want to go to the next slide this is the standard of review that we have our criteria for historical significance as i mentioned this is uh the first review step that we take when an application is submitted. This is the step that determines if a property

will go to a public hearing of the NHC, or if it's found to be not historically significant then it would be sort of an administrative approval and so on. So the criteria here is if the property or individually, or if it's been determined by the commission to be or its designated meeting staff to be a significant building. If it's associated with Historic people, historic events, architecture, historically significant architecture, architects or the cultural political economic or social history either at the local level with the city, the state of Massachusetts for a country. Additionally, the other criteria is if it's important by reason of period style meaning that the time it was built. If that alone sometimes is enough to consider it to be historically significant

If it's a particularly unique or impressive style of architecture, if there are specific building construction methods specifically character defining features that we're looking to preserve associated with the specific architect. either by itself or in the context of buildings that it's in, which essentially means sort of the greater neighborhood. I think two things I want to note here is for a property to be found Not historically significant per our rules and regulations. City staff, our historic planners, which is myself and our senior planner Kim Crocker and our NHC chair, who's currently dead must all agree that the building is not historically significant. So if any of us feel that there's even a smidge of historical significance to the building it will go to a meeting

and I don't have any exact numbers, but the last time I looked into it since I've been in this role about 75% of the applications at least 75% of the applications that we have received for total demolition do meet the initial standard of historic significance and go to a meeting with the NHC. Sounds good. And then at the meeting, like I said, the commission votes on whether or not to find the property perfectly preserved. that it should be perfectly preserved. That would mean that they believe that the loss of the structure would be detrimental to the historic or architectural heritage, or resources of the city they're essentially weighing the value and significance of the building both on a historic level so sort of how it relates to the history of the city if there are any significant people, events, architects anything like that sort of as you mentioned earlier.

As well as the architectural value if it stands alone for architectural significance as well as how it relates to those in similar buildings and structures in the area, again touching to that context point. And then as well as the extent of the historic fabric remaining in the building or structure The term we sort of use in historic preservation is the integrity of the building if it has significantly lost integrity. Loss of original materials, things being All of these examples from the that you will see here were taken from applications that were submitted for our September 24th NHC meeting cycle, so these were applications that we just waived.

So these are a few examples of properties that were found to be not historically significant. On the left is 76 Parkman Road, this was a property sort of linear ranch Architecturally it did not stand out as significant to us. It had also been altered, there was some work done on it and contextually the other buildings in the neighborhood were in a much different architectural style. And there was several other new construction teardowns and new constructions in close proximity to it, which is why we all agreed that this property was not historically significant Similarly, on the right 54 Avalon Road was an example both of an altered building a building that did not fit as well into its architectural neighborhood. It was a cross cable ranch had been significantly altered, but also significantly lost its historic integrity. It just sort of looked to be falling over. A lot of the other buildings in the neighborhood

older than it in a different architectural style.

I'm going to let him go through, but do you want to comment on that specifically because of your knowledge

Sounds good. Yeah, I'm totally happy to pause if you want to say anything. Feel free. It might open a candle.

Let's go through and then come back.

Then these next set of properties are examples of those that were found to be not perfectly preserved when voted on by the Historic Commission. So this is, on the left, 69 Charlemont Street and 23 Gilbert Street. These are properties that we felt the neighborhood had historic context, but that the individual buildings specifically when the commission voted on them either due to the altered state of them, as you can see there's been some changes made or the fact that they didn't fit in as much to the architectural context of the rest of the neighborhood. The other buildings were in a different style they were not voted on to be preferably preserved by the commission. So these met the standard of historical significance, but ultimately did not come to we're not given a demolition delay And these next buildings are a pair of buildings, 61 Marlboro Street on the left, 16 Columbia Avenue on the right. These are buildings that were

on your left, or maybe I'm looking at the wrong way. Anyway.

It's the same for them.

Oh, my bad. Okay. on these are examples of buildings that were found to be preferably preserved. So they met the standard of historical significance, went to an NHC public hearing and then it was at the meeting the commission voted to find these buildings properly preserved. So a 12 month demolition delay was recently placed on both of these buildings. And then finally, the other option here is partial demolition which is something that the commission encourages Unlike total demolition where one would have to wait for four months to submit plans and have those approved because as Doug always says, we like partial demolition and we want to encourage it. Folks can submit plans with their initial application and the commission can view those right away So this is 16 Weyer Road, which was an example of partial demolition that was recently approved by the commission at their meeting just last month. So in this instance, the footprint of the building was generally retained. They expanded the front porch a little bit

They rose the height of the ceilings up a little bit. And in keeping the general Dutch colonial style of the house, they helped retain the neighborhood context while still expanding the building and achieving Gold that the owner had. And this was, like I said, approved by the historic commission at their most recent meeting. We love partial demolitions and those are always, you know, that is a great option instead of a total demolition. So I try to keep that sort of a brief overview, but I'm happy to answer any questions that I can to the best of my ability.

So we'll entertain questions before we begin. We rarely get an opportunity to see you in these meetings, and so I want to express to you the appreciation I have, and I think many people have, for the time and effort you put in on historic preservation here in this project. I appreciate you. You're not regulars of this committee like your colleagues in the planning department, and we're delighted to have them, but we're say that at the very outset. And also should I say we appreciate the time and attention put in by Mr. Chair, Commissioner Selves, Ms. Grissom was short, and the chair who's here, and all those members who are not here because again They are spending their time to try and help preserve the quality of life in the city.

I'll come out rather than give you over time.

My question on 76 Hartman, when you showed it. You said it is not historically significant and you mentioned in comparison to other structures and newer architecture that are on that stream. That then implies that the more change that takes place, the more difficult it will be to call something historically significant when in fact it should be significant.

So sort of within the way the ordinance is written right now and the way that we weigh these things, currently it's a situation where the way that commission generally feels about things and votes on things, an individual ranch style house is unlikely to be found to be historically significant, preferably preserved by the commission. We do have many neighborhoods in Newton still where there are significantly, a significant number of houses in this style and I think the situation, especially at this time of construction, this mid-century construction and especially here in Newton a lot of these buildings were built you know in planned developments. A lot of them were built at the same time often a similar style, sometimes an exact same style.

And they really hold historic significance when a good chunk of those buildings are left and it was that idea of historic integrity that I mentioned at the beginning Once you start to break away at that and you start see some demolitions, these buildings because they The architectural style is not, you know, these are, I don't want to speak ill of the ranch-style house. I grew up in a ranch-styled house that was added on to. I have a lot of love for linear ranches However, the linear ranch has not received the general acclaim that the Queen Anne or Second Empire some other architectural styles have. And that is sort of why a building that maybe is the last one left on its street when everything else has been torn down may be found not historically significant because

that the significance of that building and of that neighborhood was when all of the buildings looked like that. And when there was a lot of them left, and there are other neighborhoods where those still exist. I think it's also a thing that oftentimes the commission has already seen other buildings on a street and has found them, other buildings to be not perfectly preserved in those instances. And sort of if the bill, if the commission didn't feel that There was significance when there was, you know, five of them on the street or three of them they're highly unlikely to find any level of significance when

I know it's a difficult question.

Yeah, and it is a difficult topic they're not easy decisions to be made we do research every property that comes in like I said almost all the buildings that do all the applications we receive, most of them do come before the commission. It is rarer for those to be found to be not historically significant so there has to be A significant loss of architectural detail or historic context to the neighborhood to put us in a position to say that there isn't anything left.

Can I ask one more question?

Sure.

So the four-month waiver, that seems like an out for developers. They know that it's preferably preserved so they have to wait 12 months. How often do they come back at the four months?

Pretty frequently, I don't have full numbers in front of me. The last set of numbers that I had was between It's sort of a broad overview, but from June to about June 2023 to about December 2024. At that time, a little more than half of the properties that received a demo delay applied. and so on. it sort of comes down for the commission of weighing you know whether to have sort of any influence in the design.

If they grant a waiver, they can have an influence on the design and ideally the design that's brought forward will have The standard they have to meet is to mitigate the loss of a historic building generally. So ideally, if somebody brings forward something for a waiver that's granted it will... Doug has his hand raised I don't know if anybody wants to-

I want to recognize the chair. To stop the propagation on this with a demolition delay, it's 12 months by allowing them to come in to do the plans that actually gives an incentive

Yeah, Doug actually votes on these things so he can probably step in and give a little more help than I can.

If I can add, I think a way to think about this is If they go the full demo delay, Historic's never reviewing what's being built in its place. They have no say at all. The waiver, while it does shorten that time period if it's granted, Historiq suddenly has a say with that replacement structure

So you're, I believe more likely to get a building that architecturally matches the neighborhood than if they just waited out the delay. I think they're more likely

Yeah, Councilor Wright, then Councilor Getz. Then Councilor Dahmubed. I'm going to recognize myself.

So, Councilors Getz and Malakie and I go to Newton Historic a lot. And so if they get the delay When they come back, you're looking for the lines, type of windows and things like that. It's not going to be a ranch per se. It might be two stories but it still has a lot of those features on it. But there are and you get people that come back, especially if they only do one or two a year. There's some developers that do four or five so they already make it into their process It's going to be a dental delay. They don't care if it's already in the process, they already know it and they did the financials and they'll just move on my question to you. Um so in-house before it goes to Newton Historic Commission. And so you find a preferably preserved, who are the three people? And if one of them says they want to preferably prefer

Yes, so how our guidelines are written is the or our rules and regulations are written. Is that The preservation planners and the NHC chair have to agree that the buildings is not historically significant.

So two of us review them.

It used to be just one, but now we both work with NHC. myself and Kim Crocker, who's our senior planner. We'll review them if we agree it's not historically significant then we send it to Doug. If Doug agrees then it is found to be not historically

So all three.

We all three have to agree, if any of us.

And if anyone says no, I think it is when it goes to business.

Right, and I'm sure Doug can attest there are times when we say, we don't think there's much to this, but Doug has found, I

I don't have to bring you all the time.

Exactly, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

All right, that was really good.

Yeah, so just to follow up on that. Thank you, Chair. In terms of the criteria that you use to determine historical significance, I remember this term window shield kind of review. How deep do you go? Is it something that you actually, you pull and look at different records? Do you look at the building?

Yeah. So we always review pretty much the first step would be to look at MACRIS, which is the Massachusetts Cultural Resource Inventory System. It's a database of cultural Thank you for joining us. but it's more likely than not if a building is inventory, there's some level of significance to it. And so that's typically the first step as we look and see if any history has been written on the property previously From there we will look, pull building permit files. Do you see when the building was built? See if any major alterations are in record. Look at the owners and architects that are listed for the construction of the building originally,

any subsequent changes that have been made. If there aren't as many records of things, we only have super reliable records till about 1910 it's before that then we get out the historic maps and we look and see if we can find the property if it's listed on uh historic atlases um if it is before building for records, it's pretty much something where kind of on age alone it's typically, you know by the period of construction is typically going to be found to be historically significant. It's pretty unlikely that I think any of us would find a building pre-1900 to not be at least historically significant enough for the commission to vote on it. And then do a little bit of brief research The owners and architects while we can. And that's typically the level of review that goes into it for that

as well as looking also at photos of the neighborhood that are submitted with the application. And then typically we supplement that with looking around the area on Google Earth and frequently we make site visits out to the properties depending on how recently pictures have been taken for Google images or anything like that.

Okay, and then one piece that I think that I'm remembering You're pretty constrained in terms of the submission for demo. It's a timeline. You have to respond, isn't it? Is it 60 days?

The commission has to make a ruling within 60 days.

So this is something that do you find that constraining?

Not generally in the sense that the way that the timelines are set up, we have a submission deadline first week of every month, first Thursday of every Our commission meeting is held before Thursday of every month, three weeks later. And we hear every application that comes in I would say the timeline crunch is more so about getting all of the applications process reviewed, completeness checks done, making those determinations in the week between the submission deadline and The agenda posting deadline as opposed to the time frame that's needed for the commission to actually make their decision, which can be you know we work pretty hard in that week oftentimes depending on But that is sort of what we do. And sometimes we need to schedule a second meeting in a month if there are an extra large number of applications, but we'll do that if needed.

But we always hear every application that comes in in the month submitted.

We know not to bug them that week. All right, and then just lastly

Would it help to engage the counselors of each of the wards? You know, I mean, I know that this is something that I do because I'm personally interested. and I know the more three counselors are, but I just wonder whether or not that would be a benefit to you in terms of just because we have quite a bit of knowledge just even in terms historically. In terms of community So I don't know if that would be helpful or whether not.

Yeah, we always appreciate when counselors come to the meetings especially and speak properties, you know if they know of any historic significance. Obviously with that time crunch sometimes it's hard to add another layer of communication in that sort of week between submission and agenda posting. But we certainly always appreciate when counselors do come to the meetings speak to properties in their wards or outside of the wards if they just happen to care about a property.

And then lastly, there's something specific in the language of the waiver itself that talks about an owner making a bona fide, reasonable and unsuccessful effort to locate a purchaser for the building and or structure who is willing to preserve, rehabilitate, or restore the building or structure. And that sort of seems like it's a carryover from yesteryear, in the sense of it was prior owner before it even was actually flipped. And I don't know how you feel about that. Okay, where is he? Is he?

Did we lose Andrew? There's Andrew.

Hi, Andrew.

Okay, did he hear that? That was in the prior version of the demolition delay ordinance. It's something that was added again.

No, I know it wasn't. I just wondered whether or not that was old in the sense of just that it's carrying over and whether or

I've seen in other demolition delay ordinances and other communities. I don't know if it's ever actually been utilized in recent memory, but I can't speak to that.

Okay, so let me go around to people who have questions. Councilor Dahmubed and then I've got Councilor Farrell.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I have several questions but we'll try to keep it clean here. Can you give us a sense of Approximately maybe, or if you have the actual numbers would be great. How often the demo delay results in a building going from being proposed to be completely demolished to going to being preserved or partially preserved?

Yeah, so it's a good question. I would say of the latest demo... numbers I had, uh, I have some of them in front of me were, um, from 2024. And at the time there was still some active delays. Um, but at the 50% of the buildings had already been fully demolished by the time that I had done this research. Like I said, it's sort of hard to fully track it out. It takes a lot of... A lot of time and really have to be on top of it. It's sort of outside the bandwidth that we currently have because the demolition delay last year, The owners have two years from the expiration of the delay to get that demo permit. So we sort of have to track it for three years after It goes through NHC to know whether or not it was ultimately demolished.

So at this point in time, which was not all of the applications had been were still within, we're well within that three years for the applications that we received. But at that point 50% had been demolished. I would say we do have some success with folks turning to partial demolition instead of Total Demolition. Recently, we have seen some success with the adaptive reuse zoning where we've had several applications that have come forward for total demolition that were in the MRT districts. And then after they were found to be perfectly preserved and that delay was put on by the commission, owners or applicants came back with a plan to do a partial demolition instead, because by doing a part of the demolition they no longer have to wait even that four months. They can come back at the next meeting and it can save them several more months and that is an outcome that we love because we get to save the historic building.

And even with a partial demolition, a partial outcome to a total demolition.

That scenario that you just described is specific to MRT? Yeah, where we've seen it.

We have seen other... we have seen that happen occasionally outside of MRT, but I have seen it most frequently in MRT I think due to the ability to add extra units and footprint. But that is where I've personally seen the most success with it, with the don't delay changing a total into a partial but i have seen a few examples outside of it as well

Oh, sorry. One thing I'll add. So this was actually just part of another project we were working on and I don't expect you to understand this but when he speaks to how much There's so many paths that a project can go after it goes through historic, that trapping the true numbers because of the time span that this plays out. This is what we'd have to track. And so that's why it's so difficult to track because there's no linear path for every project.

Yeah, I think I'm actually most interested in that first step that you described of hello, I'd like to demolish this building four months later somebody comes back and says That seems to me like the greatest possible utilization of this rule and its benefit because Conversely, the other side of it that I struggle with to understand the value of, though I'm sure there is one but I just don't know it. is a building that sits, rots, is thrown away a year later. And then the new project that is, I think Councilor Wright pointed out, the weight is built into the financials. It becomes a more expensive building. I don't like to see that. From every angle, that is the worst outcome we get. Waste.

We've wasted a building, we've increased the cost of housing so I'm trying to figure out like how often the best thing works and what What if the other part of it could be improved or isn't working? or where there's an opportunity there. As a couple of counselors know, I've been looking into ways that we could encourage deconstruction for those scenarios and guide people towards at least deconstructing I'm keen to think about how we might utilize demolition delay perhaps as a way to incentivize that when demolition is the outcome. Councilor Kalis' question got to this a little bit about sort of like the individual ranch that is, or like the ranch that was once in a sea of ranches and it's now The Lone Ranch.

and I think that that gets to a little bit of the question of the vernacular. That if you're an architect or preservation planner, maybe like familiar with this idea about vernacular as The word that we put on like everyday buildings that are significant because they're everyday buildings and In Boston, we sometimes would say the triple-decker is like the vernacular of Boston neighborhoods. In Newton, we might say the single story ranch just like in the vernicular of Oak Hill Park or some of those neighborhoods. I'm wondering how you consider that we did when I was at my old job, we did the Boston context studies that preempted the zoning that followed them. And so the historic context study centers and what's the vernacular it says like there's a way of characterizing Okay, we know the really special buildings that kind of like pop out to us just visually. What about the everyday buildings? How do we care for those and understand those? Is that something that y'all are...

Working with, thinking about, want to be thinking more about. Definitely.

It's definitely something that we try to be really aware of If you read through our staff memos for NHC meetings, you'll probably see the word vernacular pretty frequently. It's something that I try to use and try to make aware that buildings, you know, it's something can be kind of a struggle. I think sometimes, and if you've done a contact report, you probably see that as getting folks to appreciate the sort of everyday building as significant in its own right. And I think Trying to keep and look for really good examples of those buildings is sort of a way to do that. It's sort of like the building, I think in the one example that I showed the building, the ranch had been sort of altered and wasn't you know the best example but we do pretty frequently I'm sure Doug can attest.

I do pretty frequency put ranches and split levels and things of that nature on He's seconding. On the agenda because I think they are very important and the buildings that everyday people in Newton lived in 1950 are important as the buildings that everyday people in Newton in 1850 or 1750 lived in. So I think, again it's a situation of taking into account you know, what the if there's been any major changes to the building and what the major changes in the neighborhood are as well. If there's any level of significance or anything to the architectural style or anything like that and making sure that we definitely try not to throw something away just because nobody famous ever lived there or it wasn't designed by Frank Lloyd Wright or something like that. We definitely tried to keep out for those and I think

maybe Doug was there.

Chairman, you want to? Sure, just in the decision-making process address that which is sort of two factors that go in and I think most of the commission members do How much of the building stands on its own? And those are sort of the special ones. Like, yeah you walk past it and of course we're going to find that historically significant. But then there's also the words that would pop out at the context of the neighborhood. Is this a street full of ranches? Well, yeah, that's the vernacular for So even though the individual ranch by itself may not be remarkable that's in this over those historical significant standards.

Let me just clarify that point because, you know, and I think the commission has been pretty consistent about this in the staff that if there's context It'll fall in the historical significance. And if the building is important in itself, it will fall in. The interesting question I think for us as a council and going forward is the last ranch in the group which is undistinguished, still worthy of preservation because it was the last ranch in the group. Not because it's in a context and that would be a change I think pattern of decision-making as I've seen it in the commission to go to that, to make that judgment. It would say the individual building while is remarkable because it's unremarkable

Let me get to that point. Most of the stuff's gone, we are contemplating this down in Oak Hill Park where those historic buildings

There's a children's book called The Little House, which is anybody who remembers. interesting to talk about preservation in that content. So I do think that one of the issues as a committee we want to wrestle with is because we've seen the teardowns and the replacements, is there some value even So that's an issue I just want to highlight. We're going to have a chance to talk about this more, but I just appreciate the clarity of the conversation so far. You want to finish? Yeah.

The other question I had and I think I know the answer to this is I would consider as part of a neighborhood's context certain trees of a certain scale to be significant contributions to the neighborhood's character context. Is that considered at all or is it limited to the building in this world?

Just the building as the ordinance is presently written. It's just the building or structure.

Understood and I wanna tread carefully here. Though, I might have a particular image of what a historic building or historically contextually appropriate replacement for a building looks like that could differ from every councilor here and from everybody in the room and everyone at Newton. How do you navigate the question of a building that is functionally and so on. Its construction methodology, its style and its material uses have nothing to do with this time period. And so actually it is not contributing to a body of historic work

it's a lie about its time versus contemporary building that says I'm being built in the way of today and therefore, I'm contributing to historic context because I'm honest about my time.

Yeah, I think that's something that you know looking through the Secretary of Interior standards which are sort of guiding principles for historic preservation in this country. You know and sort of going by general preservation theory. Reconstruction is not a commonly, which would be like putting a new building that looks exactly like the old one is not a commonly accepted practice. It's not something that is seen as historic because, like you said, the building techniques are entirely different. It makes something look like it's Colonial Williamsburg and things of that nature. So I think the job of the commission is to and what is sort of dictated by our design guidelines in the city and the staff recommendations we try to make is, we're not trying to look for the exact same building. We're looking for something that would

sort of complement the context and compliment that existing building. So it probably is just with generally why folks look to and so on. It's not an exact replica of a colonial revival style house, but there are certain design elements that when taken in context to the neighborhood would be reflected with the overall sort of aesthetic.

Just something that sort of learns from its content.

Exactly, yeah it's sort of complementary instead of an exact replica is generally I think what the commission And, you know, folks that come from different backgrounds and part of I think why there isn't sort of staff of people of waivers.

Farrell, I think you're up next and then Councilor Albright.

Thank you Chair. There's so much in this conversation. I have a way for you to notify local councillors of what's coming before you for demolition as soon as you get it. I don't know how you do that, but too many instances where I can think very specifically of a project or two actually. Greenwood, which you may be aware of.

And which I'm grateful that although it took the council from tearing down one of the oldest houses in Newton and not allowing them to create a replica. I want to thank Councilor Getz for all she did to do that. But that process of trying to get involved with you guys is just really hard. Secondly, I worked for a long time to drive by one of the last remaining original houses in Oakville Park and it was allowed,

O'Kill Park, but of Newton to keep this house that was described as not bearing any relationship small, not having any relationship to what was being built and which destroyed O' Kill Park. So I don't want to keep going on, but I would like to know and I would us to work on a way for the commission whether any councilors choose to be prisoners or not. Given how many of the houses that get destroyed are in Ward 8, and how I would drive down a street going, Jesus, where did that come from? because they don't have any bearing to that. They don't look like any of the houses around the street until all of them are torn down and now they all look like these big stucco houses with black windows.

I would like to know whether there's a possibility for you, for the commission, to give us a heads up early on so that we can say yeah okay or Geez, I want to talk to you or whoever else about no please don't do this and let me give you my reasons why. to dissuade developers from automatically going in and tearing things down. and a lot of the houses that are allowed to be joined, and some moderate income people to buy at a million two, and put a couple of hundred in and still have a really nice house for under 2 million

And it's destroying the neighborhood. I walk around and talk to people all the time, but I hope to show them what you're planning sometimes. We need to be more thoughtful about how we're tearing stuff down. And who do we really want to build these houses for? Or who do you want living in these houses? Thank you very much, but I hope you will get back to us and think seriously about how you can be in touch with award counselors and LRH counselors if they're interested. Award counselors to tell us We've got these 10 houses. This week, 10 people applied for demolition of these houses. What do you think? And give us, I don't care, three days to get back to you. Put away for it to notify Thank you for listening.

Yeah, thank you for those comments. It's definitely something that I think about internally like I mentioned earlier it's difficult with the way our submission deadline and then Agenda posting deadlines are set up within the ordinance. We don't have a lot of time to turn around when an application is submitted versus and so on. and so forth.

Just mentioned that if you're talking about a non-profit religious educational use coming in for site plan review under the city's ordinance, as well.

I think, well first I want to acknowledge I think you bring up an important point about neighborhoods like that. I personally live in a subdivision that was built mid-century. I live in delivered on site and built, like we understand the importance of those small ranches. So I just wanna acknowledge that on just a personal note but also I think this is where It's helpful to have David here to understand the limitations of the historic preservation ordinance. I think when you have a, if developers are already factoring in that delay period And what's appealing about those lots with the smaller branches is that they can get more bang for their buck by demolishing it. That's just the reality. They can go bigger or add more units and that's going to make them more money. So it's looking at, okay how does that timeline fit into the financing for these developers?

Like can you manipulate that like really parceling out what can you control versus what can maybe the historic ordinance, maybe that's not the tool for that particular topic. I'm not saying one way or the other. That's what we have to figure out in this process.

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah.

Councilor Albright.

Thank you. Regarding notification, do these people apply through OpenVote?

They do, yeah.

I bet you could make open gov send notice to the board counselors.

Yeah, that's something we could definitely look into is if there's a way to tag you in or... Because I understand how busy you are when you get the applications.

and you have so much to do on the agenda. But if you can get OpenGov to do it, that would solve the problem for you.

So I recommend looking into adding that to the application for sure.

You mentioned about adaptive reuse and the MRT that's become popular, I think. So I'm wondering if that option were more available in more zones and this is a projection into the future that's a guess. Do you think that more developers would do the MRT route?

I'd love to hear your opinion, I would also like to say I think yes, to be honest with you. I think what we have seen through the addition of adaptive reuse is I have seen a handful of developers who hadn't gone with a partial demolition, never submitted a partial application and had always done total demolition, go with that route instead after a property was found preferably preserved by the commission. Like I said, I think finding ways My role here and the role of The Demolition Delay, you know, the purpose is to preserve historic buildings and to preserve and I think that finding ways to preserve buildings is a great way to do that.

So like I said, in my experience since that has been added and come up as an option, take that route as opposed to going with a total demolition? I can't say they wouldn't still at least apply for total demolitions and see if they could get away with it before. But if it was found preferably preserved, If that option were available in more areas, I do think people would explore it because I think the opportunity to still build something that works for their models while not having to wait as long is beneficial.

So the long-range team, we sit in on the DRT meetings every week. And if you don't know what those are, when someone's initially coming in to build something, this is when they discuss like different options. What kind of relief will I need? That's all current show but we're there because we try to look at like me being Nora and myself We try to look at how is the ordinance working for people and we have seen people opt for demolition because we will ask them, we'll say hey why didn't you preserve this building instead of you know starting from scratch like you're proposing and it'll be something as simple as well I could get one more unit if I don't finish it So it's not just where is it zoned, but it's what do the regulations allow and a tool that can be helpful that definitely should be looking into if the council's interested is

How can you make the adaptive reuse option more appealing so that people aren't making that decision based on the dollar amount? And I can't remember the address, but we had one very recently where The building was actually recently renovated.

I know the one you're talking about, yeah.

I can't remember the address.

Yeah, I think it's on Beacon Street but I can say for sure.

And they opted to demolish it because make more money off of that route? And as a developer, that's the right. But those are the things that also factor into it. It's not just is the option there, but what is that optional incentive?

So it feels like we have to make preservation more financially Attractive. And if it means more adaptive reuse, so fine. We'll get four units out of it and we save the building. So I like that option to think about.

Just as a parenthetical, Let me recognize Councilor Wright and then come back to you. I'm sorry, Ms. Colello, you had your hand up? Yes.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you all. This has been very interesting to watch. I had a cold this week so I'm just keeping my germs to myself. But just to build upon Chief Lewis's comment and as well as Senior Planner Wolf's comment. I think part of what has been encouraging in terms of the success of adaptive reuse in preserving architecture and preserving streetscapes is also the types of developers that we're seeing utilize that pathway. It's not necessarily some niche developer who really cares about historic architecture or is trying to do this out of the good of their heart necessarily. I think

No diss on developers, but as Amanda said they're going for the most lucrative option and we're seeing the developers that you know are typically constructing those very large single-family homes in the more modern styles, opting into adaptive reuse and preserving existing structures when that is the most financially profitable pathway. And so that's just been a lesson for me watching at the counter, you know, the types of projects that the same groups are bringing in depending on what zoning is available.

To get back to Councilor Dahmubed, so I looked at 450 teardowns since 2021 and out of those about five percent haven't been torn down yet they requested a permit. A bunch of them are recent so they gotta get things together but there's a few of them from 2021, 2022 so it's only like one or two percent that aren't tearing down and there's so many different reasons you know their finance may have dried up or whatever but they did request a permit but most of them do go and tear it out um One thing actually, attorney Lee I had a question for is in warrant three Getz talked about trying to find someone to buy a house instead of tearing it down. And I'm very worried, and I think Councilor Malakie is very worried. There's an octagon in War... Octagon House in Ward 3

There are only 22 on the National Registry in Massachusetts. There's only a few hundred in the U.S. So that's something, you know, can we use that? You know if they come in I don't know So every couple, they're having money problems. At some point that house is going to be sold. Is there something to find the right buyer? Because I know another house, so I think it was the third oldest house in Newton and a preservationist wanted to buy the house, but she was literally 30 minutes too late. and the developer came in, it was a 1700s house. He didn't tear down the house but he gutted the inside with original hardware and things like that. I would like to see to get a list of buyers or whatever when historically significant house goes for sale

to try and find a buyer for that house versus just going to the developer and tearing it down. And so, to attorney Lee, Getz was reading. Can we use that at all in special circumstances like that?

I don't understand what you mean by use that, Councilor Wright. This is an option at the... discretion of the property owner if they want to try to seek a waiver that they can do this. But if you're talking about mandating them to do this, that's a different conversation.

There are some ordinances we'll get into that I think do require.

Yeah, I know there are a handful of... See, I don't have them in front of me but I know they're a handful municipalities and so forth. So I think it's really important for us to make sure that we're looking at all of the requirements as requiring would buy it. That would definitely require an ordinance change because it's not something that's part of our, or I think it would, I don't know, Andrew you would know. but I don't know what the ordinances look like in those communities. I'd have to do some further research. I do know that's something that some communities Do. But I don't know about the visibility of it.

We're going to get into what other communities do.

OK, but that's something I think we could App here for the really old ones.

I've got a lot of people, but I have Councilor Farrell that I've had, Councilor Roach, let me come back to you. Okay, following up on that I think it's very important to incorporate that into the

routinely put it into the practice that have evidence that a house has been openly listed in a public forum, whether Zillow or MLS or whatever because We have seen houses that sell without ever going on the market, and that is a big problem to me. And I've heard people say they never get a chance to look at it. I think, especially maybe elderly residents or You just want to get rid of the house if their parents left them or whatever. Especially like the elderly residents who are being told by developer, you know, no one's going to buy your house. To me, you don't have

not realizing the full value of their house and we're depriving people who want to buy a house, live in it, to ever have the opportunity to do it. I mean, houses like the two small houses. I think they maybe were unlisted but not some houses that were not and I know I came across Stockbridge being one of the towns they would be mentioned in a link from the Globe article where it is part of their procedure that's like there has to be an affirmative effort to put a house up there. I think the mechanics of those links but can the price be or whatever, that might be tricky. But I think the important thing is to get rid of this idea that sales are gonna happen without anyone but some aggressive agent or a developer getting to somebody first.

Let me do this. Councilor Farrell, you want to follow up point? And I'm going to write that shirt and then go to council.

I see the Newton Store Commission focus on preserving truly historical houses and not be in the business that we should be in, in time to preserve in a different sense of the word, perfectly usable houses and finding a way to It would be nice to have an inventory of those houses that we really do think deserve to be preserved in this city. And that there's some way to alert

The vast majority of the houses are being torn down. want to fix the demolitions of the city, you have to change the door norms. You've got to look at the dimensional requirements. That's the problem. There's no new or old that doesn't affect the dimensions of what's there and what's going on over time. really want to stop demolition and bigger houses being put up, you've got to look at the zoning ordinance. The demolition delay is always just going to be a band-aid. It's delayed. It creates incentives. Thank you. I just indicate to you and other members of the committee, in the process at least I hope the committee will

We're going to try and talk about historic preservation first, and then figure out what our opportunities are in zoning second. But at least this sort of conversation is a start on that track, but it's not to ignore the others.

I didn't actually have my hand up.

I can't remember who. I think the councilor had their hand up.

Actually, I just have a question. Thank you Chair. Councilor Farrell brought up which is

We do need something to address teardowns that doesn't necessarily go through historic.

Well, the vehicle right now we have is historic. Let me just comment that right now, virtually every house that's torn down goes through historic review because almost every house in the city that is coming through the gate is over 50 years old. So automatically they come into the process and once they started that, then made the application. Again, the notice could go out to members of council and all of that but the determination of historic significance is the first on or off ramp and as indicated, it's sort of a two-key system right now. Both of you have to or at least only one person in other words, you don't you have some safeguards in having and more than one person. I mean, one person could be enough to at least get it to the next stage but the question that I think is open

property that is important to preserve and is therefore important to the city's historic landscape, but is not itself historic in its context has changed. That is a unit in the system that right now would normally be felt not historically significant. But we can change that in the order And so everything is built around what our ordinance does. And I hope that next time we're going to be learning some things from other communities that may illuminate options and choices we have. The question of adaptive reuse, the question of whether or not adapted reuse is a whole other conversation but I would like to see where we go with what we can find out about this first. Okay now as well

Um, so that actually my what I was going to say relates directly to that. So one of the things obviously last meeting we went over the new state law changes with variances and nonconformities There are more state law changes in the pipeline at the moment. We don't know where they're going to go, but that will drastically change zoning in terms of how we look at density and things like that. And so one of the Things that, you know, we've talked about with law and is historic right now is one of those things that state laws not touching. Historic as a tool that we can move forward with However we see fit, there's a lot of different ways obviously you can go about it without having to worry about that being undone by something. So I think it's seeing this as a continuing conversation. It's never going to be one fix for everything on all this. There's always a loophole to everything.

And I think what Councilor Baker or Chair Baker, I'm sorry, is getting at is right now historic is something we can run with without having to worry about it being undone when the next economic development bill comes through.

and just to put it, the potential incentive for demolitions may increase if the state initiative passes that allows subdivision in fact for single family houses at 5,000 square feet because then that means The zoning is in effect being changed by the state law, and therefore again this conversation is important to get this sorted out if we can before that happens. I feel obligated to say this, that

The need for housing in this, I went to an event on Sunday night about housing and the Lieutenant Governor spoke again about the need for over 200,000 units of housing. We're talking here about preserving every single family house if possible That's not going to get us to 200,000 units. And that's why I brought up the issue of adaptive reuse is and immediately you guys said no we don't want that we wanted to stop tearing it down. but if we leave every single family house in this country, in this state as it is now, we're never gonna get enough housing and the price of housing will continue to rise. So I just wanted to temper the conversation just some reality about what's going on out there that our sons and daughters can't afford to buy a house in this city.

Well, I understand that but I was gonna say whatever they could afford at 1.2 is not going to be what they can afford in 3.5 after it's four down and so part of the, and we have a significant amount of development opportunity in the city with VCOD This is a conversation we will continue to have.

all right just from a technical standpoint adaptive reuse is a big tool that the state is looking at as well so not to say that we have to steer clear of everything i just want to make our point clear we're not saying don't forget other things just Right now historic is the least conflicting, I would say. But

So, I'm going to try and bring this up.

I just want to be clear about that because I'm not sure everybody understands that.

Yeah, yeah. It also applies commercial to residential.

I will say it's not a debt increase.

If you are just demolishing a building and then building multifamily where there was single family for it to be adaptive reuse, there has to be the preservation of the existing structure in some capacity.

That's what was so appealing about what you said, that it was preserving houses.

Yeah. We're going to have this conversation. I just want to say that since 2020, we have approved in the process of our

already built, or developers already built over a 12% increase of our housing stock. 4,000. So we are producing a lot of housing in the last few years. Not all of it's been built, it's in the process I mean, there's over a thousand units that are going to go from Whole Foods to West Newton Square within a mile or so. So it is happening and I think in that respect we're doing a pretty good job but we're trying Keep some of the houses for people who want to buy a $900,000 house or 1.1 I get it, I get that. Okay. Yeah. All right, Councilor Farrell, remember- Just very quickly, the commission's meeting last week

I don't know what your decision was, but there's and many others who've hit me.

All right, folks. I'm going to ask a motion to hold this item and then next time we're going to learn a little bit about historic ordinances in other places and think a little So, the motion to hold by Councilor Gantz. Thank you all. All those in favor will say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, folks, we're out of here by 10 o'clock.

I thought you said you had a secret.

and so on.

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!