Meeting Minutes: Zoning & Planning Committee
Governing Body: Zoning & Planning Committee, City of Newton, MA Meeting Type: Virtual Meeting Meeting Date: November 24, 2025, at 12:00 AM Attendees:
- Councilor R. Lisle Baker (Chair)
- Councilor Susan Albright
- Councilor Victoria L. Danberg
- Councilor David A. Kalis (Vice President of the Council)
- Councilor John Oliver (Vice Chair)
- Councilor Pamela Wright
- Councilor Randy Block (Non-Committee Member)
- Councilor Stephen Farrell (Non-Committee Member)
- Councilor Joshua Krintzman (Absent for vote on amendment)
- Barney Heath (Planning Department Director)
- Ms. Kreitzer (Planning Department)
- Zachary LeMell (Planning Department)
- Peter Dorringer (Planning Board)
Executive Summary: The Zoning & Planning Committee convened virtually to address two recommitted items. The first item, Docket #275-24-2, concerned amendments to Chapter 30 to allow certain routine residential alterations by right, specifically additions to buildings with existing non-conforming height that increase the non-conforming height but do not exceed the existing ridgeline. This item was approved without amendment. The second item, Docket #44-24, involved the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, with a specific amendment proposed by Councilor Wright regarding the in-lieu payment threshold for ownership units versus rental units. The committee voted to approve Councilor Wright's amendment, differentiating the in-lieu threshold for ownership and rental units, and subsequently approved the entire Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance as amended.
I. Discussion of Amendments to Chapter 30 to Allow Certain Routine Residential Alterations by Right (Docket #275-24-2)
- Purpose: To discuss and potentially amend Chapter 30 to permit additions to buildings with existing non-conforming height by right, provided the addition does not exceed the existing ridgeline. This item was recommitted for further discussion.
- Chair's Rationale for Recommittal: Councilor Baker expressed concern that the proposed amendment, while meritorious, might create unintended consequences for abutters, particularly on sloping lots where additions could appear more imposing. He suggested considering additional protections, such as applying new lot setback requirements or special permit oversight for such situations.
- Public Comment (Email): An email from Jay Walter of the Building Professionals was received, supporting the item but suggesting future consideration of further iterations.
- Planning Department Clarification (Zachary LeMell):
- The actual height of the building is not changing; the measurement method is. Additions cannot exceed the existing ridgeline.
- Only homes taller than 36 feet are allowed to utilize this provision.
- Other zoning regulations (FAR, lot coverage, setbacks, number of stories) would still apply, limiting the practical height of additions.
- Additions are typically one to one-and-a-half stories to avoid exceeding two-and-a-half stories when considering basements as potential first floors.
- The previous height measurement system incentivized retaining walls at property lines; the new system disincentivizes this.
- The recently approved facade ratio requirements would also limit the massing of side additions, particularly if they are over one-and-a-half stories.
- Councilor Discussion:
- Councilor Albright: Satisfied with the ordinance as written after Mr. LeMell's explanation. Noted that applying it to "by right" housing was not on the agenda for this meeting.
- Councilor Danberg: Supported the change, acknowledging potential issues on sloping lots but believing the current proposal is beneficial. Prepared to move approval.
- Councilor Wright: Agreed that drastic height changes are unlikely due to other zoning constraints. Noted that minor height discrepancies (e.g., a few inches) currently require a special permit, which she finds "ridiculous."
- Motion: Councilor Danberg moved to approve Docket #275-24-2.
- Vote:
- For: All present members (unanimous voice vote)
- Against: 0
- Abstentions: 0
- Outcome: The item was approved and will be sent to the full City Council.
II. Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (Docket #44-24)
- Purpose: To discuss and vote on the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, specifically an amendment proposed by Councilor Wright regarding the in-lieu payment threshold for ownership units. This item was recommitted to allow for committee discussion of the proposed amendment.
- Background: The committee had previously agreed on most changes to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. The outstanding question concerned the in-lieu payment threshold for units, particularly the distinction between rental and ownership units.
- Councilor Wright's Proposed Amendment:
- The current proposed changes to the IZ would raise the in-lieu payment threshold from 7-9 units to 7-19 units for both rentals and ownership.
- Councilor Wright proposed to keep the in-lieu threshold for ownership units at 7-9 units, while expanding the threshold for rental units to 7-19 units.
- Rationale:
- In-lieu payments for ownership units currently go to the Housing Trust, which primarily funds rental housing. This could lead to a loss of affordable ownership opportunities.
- Developers specializing in condos (ownership) are distinct from those specializing in rentals; a lower threshold for ownership would not deter condo developers.
- There are limited affordable ownership possibilities in the city, and this amendment aims to preserve them.
- Concerns about the accuracy of the "multiplier" data presented by Ms. Houston, suggesting it overestimates the number of units that can be created with in-lieu funds due to outdated cost data and inclusion of non-apartment units (e.g., homeless shelter rooms).
- Planning Department Response (Ms. Kreitzer):
- Preference: To maintain consistency between rental and ownership thresholds to avoid encouraging one type of development over another.
- Concern: A lower threshold for ownership units (9 units) might discourage ownership development, leading to more rental units.
- Housing Trust Funds: Clarified that Housing Trust funds are not exclusively for rental housing, though historically they have been used for rentals. Ownership projects could be funded in the future.
- Developer Flexibility: Noted that developers often change their minds between rental and ownership during a project's lifecycle, and a differentiated threshold could influence these decisions.
- Affordable Ownership Equity: Confirmed that affordable ownership units do not accrue equity at the same rate as market-rate units, as the resale price is calculated to maintain affordability for the next buyer.
- Councilor Discussion on Amendment:
- Councilor Albright: Noted that very few existing affordable ownership units (only one on the SHI) fall within the 7-19 unit category, suggesting that the city isn't losing much by keeping the threshold low. Believed the money could be used for a "more fruitful cause."
- Councilor Danberg:
- Expressed concern about the "enforcement nightmare" of scattered affordable units in small buildings, as the city lacks staff for ongoing monitoring. Larger buildings with more units are easier to manage.
- Reiterated Anne Houston's point that in-lieu payments allow the city to leverage funds (7-10 times) to create more units and achieve deeper affordability than a single unit provided by a developer.
- Raised concerns about the financial burden on affordable unit owners in small condo associations when major building upgrades are needed, as they may struggle to afford their share compared to market-rate owners.
- Councilor Kalis: Supported Councilor Wright's amendment, stating it's "worth trying" given the triennial review cycle of the ordinance.
- Councilor Oliver:
- Supported Councilor Wright's amendment.
- Dismissed Councilor Danberg's concerns about HOA fees as "anecdotal" without hard evidence.
- Emphasized the importance of homeownership for "intergenerational wealth" and achieving a balance between rental and ownership units.
- Questioned the "multiplier" math presented by Ms. Houston, finding it "unpersuasive" due to non-comparable data.
- Councilor Block:
- Raised concerns about the geographic distribution of affordable housing units, noting a concentration in Wards 1 and 4.
- Argued that accepting units from developers (rather than in-lieu payments) helps distribute affordable housing more broadly across the city, preventing further concentration in areas with less expensive land.
- Stated that while more cash is desirable, this might not be the best way to achieve equitable distribution.
- Councilor Wright (Rebuttal):
- Acknowledged that the Housing Trust has historically focused on rentals but reiterated that developers for ownership and rental are often different.
- Stated that ownership units, while not gaining full market equity, still provide some equity and allow for mortgage payments instead of rent.
- Reiterated concerns about Ms. Houston's multiplier data, citing outdated costs and the inclusion of non-apartment units.
- Suggested that if the multiplier were accurate, the city should be seeing many more affordable units from in-lieu funds.
- Advocated for keeping the ownership threshold at 7-9 units as an experiment, with potential for future review.
- Mr. Heath (Planning Director):
- Stated that in-lieu payments, despite debate over the exact multiplier, would lead to "more units and deeper affordability," serving a lower-income population than prospective homeowners.
- Acknowledged that Ms. Houston's numbers could be quibbled with but maintained that in-lieu funds result in more units and deeper affordability, potentially serving homeless families.
- Councilor Baker: Supported Councilor Wright's amendment, viewing it as a worthwhile "experiment" to encourage homeownership and achieve a better mix of housing types.
- Councilor Albright: Clarified that keeping the ownership threshold at 7-9 units is not "new" but maintains the current structure for ownership, while the change to 7-19 for rentals is new.
- Councilor Oliver: Reaffirmed support for the amendment, emphasizing the equity potential for homeowners and the importance of equitable distribution of units across the city.
- Motion to Amend: Councilor Wright moved to amend the prior committee report to keep the in-lieu threshold for ownership units at 7-9 units, while adopting the other recommendation to expand the threshold for rental units to 7-19 units.
- Vote on Amendment:
- For: Councilor Wright, Councilor Kalis, Councilor Oliver, Councilor Baker (4 votes)
- Against: Councilor Albright, Councilor Danberg (2 votes)
- Abstentions: 0
- Absent: Councilor Krintzman
- Outcome: The amendment carried.
- Discussion on Final Vote:
- Councilor Baker expressed concern that this specific issue might jeopardize the passage of the entire Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, which required 16 affirmative votes. He considered consulting the Law Department about dividing the item.
- Councilor Wright: Stated she would not hold up the entire ordinance over this single issue and would vote for the whole package at the Council.
- Councilor Danberg: Suggested dividing the item to allow separate votes on the homeownership issue and the rental threshold.
- Mr. Heath: Expressed appreciation for the committee's work and would not want to hold up the entire ordinance on this particular issue, suggesting to monitor its impact.
- Motion to Approve as Amended: A motion was made to approve the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (Docket #44-24) as amended.
- Vote on Ordinance as Amended:
- For: All present members (unanimous voice vote, excluding abstention)
- Against: 0
- Abstentions: Councilor Krintzman (1 abstention)
- Outcome: The Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, as amended, was approved and will be reported to the full City Council.