Zoning and Planning Committee - November 10, 2025

November 10, 2025
Watch Video View Transcript
AI Disclaimer: Summaries and transcripts above were created by various AI tools. By their nature, these tools will produce mistakes and inaccuraies. Links to the official meeting recordings are provided for verification. If you find an error, please report it to somervillecivicpulse at gmail dot com.

Podcast Summary

Subscribe to AI-generated podcasts:
RSS Spotify Apple Podcasts

Zoning and Planning Committee - November 10, 2025

Meeting Date: November 10, 2025 Governing Body: Zoning and Planning Committee, City of Newton, MA Type of Meeting: Regularly Scheduled Meeting Attendees:

  • R. Lisle Baker - Chair, Councilor
  • Susan Albright - Councilor
  • Victoria L. Danberg - Councilor
  • Pamela Wright - Councilor
  • David A. Kalis - Councilor
  • Julia Malakie - Councilor
  • Bill Humphrey - Councilor
  • Joshua Krintzman - Councilor
  • Rena Getz - Councilor
  • John Oliver - Councilor
  • Stephen Farrell - Councilor
  • Jennifer C. Kyte - Planning Department
  • Kevin McCormick - Planning Board
  • Lee Breckenridge - Planning Board
  • Peter Doeringer - Planning Board
  • Amy Dane - Planning Board
  • Chuck Tanowitz - Chair, Economic Development Commission
  • Max Wolff - Charles River Regional Chamber
  • Louis LaMalle - Commissioner of Inspectional Services Department (ISD)
  • Attorney Lee - Law Department

Executive Summary: The Zoning and Planning Committee addressed several key zoning amendments. They voted to remove parking minimums for commercial uses in Business 1 (BU1) and Business 2 (BU2) districts, aiming to reduce barriers for businesses. Additionally, they approved standardizing parking requirements for specific commercial uses (personal service, retail, restaurant, service establishment) in other business and mixed-use districts to one space per 300 square feet. An amendment to explicitly allow adult daycare use within the city's zoning ordinance was also approved. The committee discussed progress on short-term rental enforcement and explored alternative methods for public notification of development projects beyond traditional mailings.

I. Discussion of Possible Amendments to Remove or Reduce Parking Minimums for Commercial Uses in Commercial Centers (181.24)

  • Purpose: To discuss and potentially amend Chapter 30 zoning to remove or reduce parking minimums for commercial uses, specifically focusing on Business 1 (BU1) and Business 2 (BU2) districts.
  • Planning Department Presentation (Jennifer C. Kyte):
    • The proposal aims to support local businesses, particularly existing ones looking to expand or new businesses seeking to establish themselves.
    • This initiative aligns with recent City Council efforts to ease zoning and regulatory burdens on businesses.
    • Many communities nationwide have removed or reduced parking requirements (approximately 3,500).
    • Existing buildings in village centers, often built pre-car, frequently lack on-site parking. Current zoning often triggers special permits for new tenants, which are routinely granted.
    • The focus is on village centers, which largely correspond to BU1 and BU2 zoning districts.
    • Maps were presented showing BU1 and BU2 zones, highlighting parcels already under special permits.
    • Clarification on Special Permits: Parcels with existing special permits would still be subject to their permit conditions, even if parking minimums are removed. A legal review would determine if a special permit needs amendment for a change in use. If a special permit was solely for parking relief, it would no longer be applicable.
  • Public Comment:
    • Chuck Tanowitz, Chair, Economic Development Commission, 51 Harding Street, Newton: Supported the amendment, stating it would make Newton more attractive to businesses by reducing barriers. He noted that waivers are already frequently granted, and this change would streamline the process.
    • Max Wolff, Charles River Regional Chamber, 117 Kendrick Street: Supported the amendment, emphasizing that current parking requirements create "red tape" for businesses, leading to vacant storefronts. He highlighted that the issue is not a lack of parking, but the burden of the special permit process for minor changes.
  • Committee Discussion:
    • Councilor Wright: Questioned the impact on parcels with existing special permits, particularly if they only sought a parking waiver.
    • Jennifer C. Kyte: Clarified that if a special permit was solely for parking relief, it would no longer be needed. However, if the special permit covered other aspects (use, non-conformity, dimensional standards), a review would still be required for changes.
    • Attorney Lee (Law Department): Advised against adding language referencing existing special permits in the ordinance, as it's unnecessary and inconsistent with current zoning practices. Existing special permits would still be reviewed for compliance with their specific conditions and approved site plans.
    • Councilor Oliver: Confirmed that businesses without existing special permits would no longer need a parking waiver.
    • Councilor Krintzman: Confirmed that while parking minimums would be removed, other parking-related requirements (e.g., stall width, lighting) would still apply if new parking is created or existing parking is modified.
    • Councilor Danberg: Confirmed that a special permit's site plan would prevent removal of existing parking spaces for other uses without an amendment.
    • Chair Baker: Expressed concern that removing parking minimums might inadvertently incentivize major complexes (e.g., Chestnut Hill Square) to reduce existing parking or build over it, even if they have special permits. Attorney Lee clarified that the City Council, as the special permit granting authority, retains discretion to require parking.
    • Councilor Albright: Emphasized that businesses are generally aware of their parking needs to serve customers effectively.
  • Vote on 181.24:
    • Motion: To approve the amendment to remove parking requirements in BU1 and BU2 districts.
    • Outcome: Approved.
      • For: All present Councilors except one.
      • Against: 0
      • Abstentions: 1 (Chair Baker)

II. Discussion of Possible Amendments to Reduce Parking Minimums for Commercial Uses in Commercial Centers Not Part of the New Amendment (181.24.2)

  • Purpose: To discuss and potentially amend Chapter 30 zoning to reduce parking minimums for commercial uses in other business, mixed-use, and manufacturing districts.
  • Planning Department Presentation (Jennifer C. Kyte):
    • This item focuses on standardizing parking requirements for specific uses (personal service, retail, restaurant, service establishment) to one space per 300 square feet of space.
    • The goal is to simplify the process for existing and new businesses, particularly when uses swap (e.g., retail to restaurant).
    • The current system of tying parking to employee numbers or seats is difficult to manage and can penalize successful businesses.
    • Maps were presented showing where these uses are allowed by right in BU4, BU5, MU1, MU2, and Limited Manufacturing districts.
    • Many of these areas (e.g., Wells Ave, Chestnut Hill, Needham Street) are already subject to special permits.
    • Clarification on Restaurants: Restaurants with fewer than 50 seats are allowed by right where regulations permit.
  • Public Comment:
    • Mack Gould, Charles River Regional Chamber, 117 Kendrick Street: Supported the amendment, stating it would help attract and retain businesses by standardizing rules and making it easier to operate in the city.
  • Committee Discussion:
    • Councilor Getz: Questioned the standardization to one parking space per 300 square feet, suggesting that different business types (e.g., retail vs. restaurant) might have varying parking needs.
    • Jennifer C. Kyte: Explained that the current system already has variability and that businesses are sophisticated enough to understand their parking needs. The goal is to simplify the process and remove barriers for common use changes.
    • Councilor Danberg: Reiterated that business owners understand their customers' parking needs, especially for businesses with high-volume purchases (e.g., grocery stores).
  • Vote on 181.24.2:
    • Motion: To approve the amendment to standardize parking requirements for specific commercial uses to one space per 300 square feet.
    • Outcome: Approved.
      • For: All present Councilors except one.
      • Against: 0
      • Abstentions: 1 (Councilor Getz)

III. Requesting Amendments to Chapter 30 Zoning Relating to Adult Daycare Use (293.25)

  • Purpose: To amend Chapter 30 zoning to explicitly allow adult daycare use within the city.
  • Planning Department Presentation (Mr. LaMalle):
    • Adult daycare use was previously considered a "personal service" but was inadvertently removed from allowed uses during the 2015 zoning recodification.
    • It was then categorized under "school use," but subsequent cleanup of school uses in 2024 further complicated its allowance.
    • The proposed amendment aims to re-establish adult daycare as an explicitly allowed use.
    • The definition would rely on state ordinances.
    • It would require a special permit in residential zones (as it was previously) and be permitted by right in business, mixed-use, and manufacturing zones.
  • Public Comment: No public comment was offered.
  • Committee Discussion:
    • Councilor Danberg: Confirmed that adult daycare, not being a "school use," would not be covered by the Dover Amendment.
    • Councilor Kalis: Confirmed that adult daycare would have its own distinct title in the zoning ordinance.
  • Vote on 293.25:
    • Motion: To approve the amendment to explicitly allow adult daycare use in Chapter 30 zoning.
    • Outcome: Approved.
      • For: All present Councilors except one.
      • Against: 0
      • Abstentions: 1 (Councilor Getz)

IV. Short-Term Rental Enforcement Update

  • Presenter: Louis LaMalle, Commissioner of Inspectional Services Department (ISD).
  • Background: Following a previous committee discussion, ISD sent letters to individuals registered with the state for short-term rentals but not with the city.
  • Update:
    • 77 letters were sent.
    • 6 written replies received:
      • 3 indicated they were no longer renting and would remove themselves from the state list.
      • 3 expressed intent to register with the city.
    • Numerous phone calls were received.
    • Some individuals were found to be in violation (renting or advertising without registration).
    • ISD advises non-compliant renters to cease operations.
    • Enforcement Process:
      • After 30 days from the initial letter, a formal violation notice will be sent.
      • If non-compliance continues after 35 days, tickets and fines ($300 per day) will be issued.
      • Registration will be withheld until fines are paid.
      • Violations are issued to the property owner.
    • Legal Clarification (Attorney Lee):
      • To collect fines, the city would need to file a criminal complaint against the property owner.
      • The City Council recently authorized the Mayor to file special legislation (home rule petition) to allow the city to place liens on properties for unpaid fines and increase fine amounts up to $2,000 per violation. This petition has not yet been filed with the state.
      • If the state approves the special legislation, the City Council would then need to amend city ordinances to specify which violations can result in property liens.
    • Councilor Danberg: Inquired about the possibility of requiring platforms like Airbnb to only list properties with a city registration number. Commissioner LaMalle indicated this is not currently feasible.
    • Councilor Humphrey: Commended ISD's efforts and encouraged continued enforcement.
    • Councilor Albright: Clarified that more than six people responded, with many phone calls in addition to written replies.
  • Committee Action: No action necessary.
    • Motion: To move no action necessary.
    • Outcome: Approved.
      • For: All present Councilors.
      • Against: 0
      • Abstentions: 0

V. Residential Alterations by Right - Height (269.25)

  • Purpose: To discuss amendments to the de minimis section of the zoning ordinance regarding height for residential alterations.
  • Planning Department Presentation (Mr. LaMalle):
    • This item was previously discussed at a public hearing and is now being addressed by the committee.
    • It applies only to existing residential buildings that are already non-conforming in height.
    • The goal is to create a "by-right" pathway for renovations (e.g., additions, bump-outs) that would otherwise trigger a special permit due to how height is measured.
    • The issue arises from the calculation of average grade, where an addition can inadvertently increase the "paper height" of an already non-conforming building, even if the addition itself is lower than the existing ridge line.
    • Example: 163 Lincoln Street, where a minor addition triggered a special permit due to the recalculation of average grade.
    • Proposed Change: Allow additions to existing non-conforming buildings by right, as long as the addition does not exceed the height of the existing building.
  • Committee Discussion:
    • Councilor Wright: Questioned if this relief should also apply to conforming houses.
    • Mr. LaMalle: Explained that current zoning grants more allowance to non-conforming structures. Applying this to conforming homes would require a more extensive review to prevent unintended consequences.
    • Councilor Danberg: Clarified that height is measured from the ridge of the main house, excluding features like turrets.
    • Councilor Oliver: Confirmed that the de minimis section primarily addresses non-conformances.
    • Chair Baker: Expressed concern about potential impacts of side additions on abutters, even if within setbacks and FAR limits. He sought clarification on whether the amendment could inadvertently allow for substantial height increases in non-conforming buildings.
    • Mr. LaMalle: Clarified that the amendment would not allow additions taller than the existing building and that other zoning requirements (FAR, setbacks) would still apply. Side additions are less likely to trigger this issue due to typical lot configurations.
  • Vote on 269.25:
    • Motion: To approve the amendment to the de minimis section regarding height for residential alterations.
    • Outcome: Approved.
      • For: All present Councilors except one.
      • Against: 0
      • Abstentions: 1 (Chair Baker)

VI. Requesting Discussion and Amendments to Expand Abutter Notification Radius (269.25)

  • Purpose: To discuss expanding the abutter notification radius for development projects from 300 feet to 500 feet.
  • Planning Department Presentation (Mr. LaMalle & Ms. Kyte):
    • Expanding the radius significantly increases the number of mailings, with varying impacts depending on parcel size.
    • The department believes the intent (more people knowing about projects) can be better achieved through other methods.
    • Alternative Notification Strategies:
      • Utilizing online sources (e.g., local news organizations like Fake City, The Beacon).
      • Improving the city website for easier access to development project information and status.
      • Providing direct links to the new gov record.
      • A pending home rule petition to eliminate the requirement for newspaper notices.
    • Recommendation: Hold off on increasing the radius and instead focus on improving online and other notification methods.
  • Committee Discussion:
    • Councilor Wright (Original Docketer): Highlighted the issue with 40B projects, where residents often learn about them late in the 30-day comment period for project eligibility, making the 300-foot radius insufficient. She suggested a larger radius specifically for 40B projects above a certain unit count.
    • Jennifer C. Kyte: Explained that 40B project eligibility is a state process with no public notification requirement. The city voluntarily sends postcards to abutters, but the 30-day turnaround is tight, and a larger radius wouldn't solve the timing issue. The full public hearing process occurs later with the ZBA.
    • Councilor Albright: Agreed that postcards are often received too late and suggested more visible on-site signage (e.g., large orange signs) and direct communication with Councilors for listservs/newsletters.
    • Mr. LaMalle: Acknowledged staff time constraints for increased mailings.
    • Chair Baker: Suggested exploring an opt-in email notification system for property owners.
    • Councilor Krintzman: Emphasized the need to satisfy the intent of broader notification, even if the process is challenging.
  • Committee Action: No formal vote was taken on the radius expansion. The committee generally agreed to explore alternative notification methods.

VII. Reappointment of Scott Friedman to the Newtonville Historic District Commission

  • Purpose: To consider the reappointment of Scott Friedman to the Newtonville Historic District Commission.
  • Committee Action:
    • Motion: To approve the reappointment of Scott Friedman.
    • Outcome: Approved.
      • For: All present Councilors.
      • Against: 0
      • Abstentions: 0

Last updated: Dec 6, 2025

Back to Meetings