Zoning and Planning Committee - November 10, 2025

Recording in progress

Welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning and Planning Committee on November 10th, 2025. I'm Lyle Baker, Chair, in charge of the start of the meeting by the members of the Committee of the Vice-Chair and Councilors.

Susan O'Bride from Ward 2, Councilor Vicki Danberg from Ward 6, Councilor Pam Wright from Ward 3, and Councilor Kins is here. Kalis from Ward 8. So I'm glad to see you all and we're joined by representatives of the planning department and we'll get to those right away but I want to indicate we're going to have public hearings on There are three items that are similar to each other. They are 181.24, 181.24.2, and 293.25. 181.24 is requesting the discussion of possible amendments to remove or reduce parking minimums for commercial uses in commercial centers. and that's specifically with a focus on being a new one and being two districts. 181.24 runs two.

This is a request for discussion of possible amendments to the move or reduce parking in and out of the commercial center, which are not part of the new amendment, including the prior item, so that they would involve amendments to the table. and then 29325, which we'll take up separately from the other, that's what I announced as part of the public hearing. is 293.25 requesting amendments to Chapter 30 zoning relating to adult daycare use. So I believe the department is here to present on the parking items, so let's take those. in order, who's going to do that for the department? Mr. Lamel, can you come where you're close to the mic and visible or maybe you have a choice?

I can come, I can go wherever I'm needed. I'm going to share my screen for the presentation. So hopefully you know.

The record shows that Mr. LaBelle is physically present but not visible on the panel.

Is that precise? Thank you for reading the item.

And what the item and then parens two is about is Again, reducing or removing these parking requirements for various commercial uses within different commercial zones, business areas throughout the city.

Do you mind asking out of the

We met on this item at the end of September and the beginning of October and really I think I took away support from the committee on this item really to help support local businesses particularly existing businesses looking to expand or grow or new businesses looking to kind of gain a foothold within the city. And this is all consistent with a lot of work that the city council has done over the last year to two years, making it easier from a zoning and regulatory perspective for businesses to open up.

Mr. Rommel, let me just pause for a minute. I forgot to recognize the planning board is here, I believe, in some capacity. And Mr. Heath is here along with Mr. McCormick, do you want to just introduce your members? Because I think it's important to do that. Yes, apologies.

Thank you, Chair. I'm Kevin McCormick, the planning board. Also here is Lee Breckenridge. Peter Doeringer. I'm not sure if there's anybody in the room. And Amy Dane.

That's all I see right now. Thank you, Chair. Please carry on.

So again, I just want to kind of frame this and situate this item in front of you today. both in terms of the other things that the committee council have done and as well as the support that has been received from comments within committee about this decoupling of parking Commercial Uses. And again, this isn't something that is specific to Newton or the region. This is a snippet of an online resource where communities across the country have either modified by removing or reducing these requirements. and it's about 3,500 across the country that have done this. What again this is, is the removal or reduction of these parking requirements.

and in particular what is I think very relevant here is time and time again an existing space, an existing building will have a tenant that leaves A new tenant is looking to come in and that use triggers the special permit, particularly on sites where these buildings in our village centers were built out pre-car. They don't have parking on site. They never have had parking on site. and the zoning table triggers this requirement and they come and these special permits are regularly and routinely granted by the city council. So as the chair mentioned there's the item itself and then there's parens two with a focus on kind of where to regulate and in particular thinking about our village centers as kind of the

The most important place to create this opportunity and within the zoning framework that really aligns with Business 1 and Business 2, those zoning districts. So this is the entirety of the zoning map in all its complicated glory. When you pull away and are left with business one and business two, these are the areas. And again, these are kind of traditionally means village centers. They overlap and are adjacent to public transit. and again they align with the historic village centers throughout the city as well. Zooming into these maps, these maps were known previously, but now in addition to kind of zooming in geographically where you can see these clustered areas around Albergale and West Newn in this case,

You can also see where a lot of these parcels already have some additional kind of they have a special permit or a comp permit or they're and so on. So what I would say is that by adopting this change there are a number of parcels that already are controlled by a special permit beyond the parking relief. And so if something were to change or evolve on that site, they most likely have to come back to you, the city council,

one of the questions that I wanna make sure public and the members of the committee understand, we'd ask for those that are not part of the VCOD, but also would be subject to the BU districts. Those are the areas not within the village district. And then if they're under special permit, there is a star on them. So if they're in the circle and they don't have a star, they're subject

They would all be subject to the ordinance. It's just that those that are within the circle and don't have a star are really the only ones that could take advantage of

I'm sorry that's better said than what I said so I just want to be clear because we'll go through these but I want to make sure people from the committee and the

My only thought is, you know, in terms of someone coming in and just wanting to change their parking, you know, say a new tenant comes in and then the only thing that they need to change is they're, you know, looking for parking relief. So they too would be exempted, right? They wouldn't have to go through the special permit process.

It depends because most of the special permits are written that they have to stay consistent with the plans and they may have been for certain uses. So for many of these, I think at a minimum, they would probably need to be looked at and determined if they could maybe do a consistency role in through the commissioner or whether they need to come for an amendment. We didn't include the ones that were just for parking relief. So if their special permit was purely for parking relief, and that's it, that would no longer be applicable if the parking requirement was removed. So those are not included here because they could just make the change. But for many of these, they have complicated special permits and they're controlling the building or uses or the layout of the parking and things like that.

So just a Just to follow up so that then when someone comes in and they have the control of the special permit tied to the land, it does go through a legal review? I mean, actually, someone actually goes through?

Oh, yeah, every time there's a special permit on a site, and they come in for something, it gets reviewed. Yeah. and determine whether that special permit is applicable to what they're coming in to ask for.

Just to be clear, if there were a special permit only for parking It would not be starred on the map.

Correct. Yeah. And I also didn't put special permits that were just for signs because that wouldn't... that would also not be relevant.

So I just want to make sure that as we go through those, everybody is clear on the areas that in effect are going to be most affected by this.

So these are just zoom-ins. So we were at Auburndale and West Noon before. This is Noonville, Donantum, and Noon Corner. not an insignificant amount of special permits.

Also sorry if I can just also point out some of these that don't have stars are already fully residential, especially when you're looking at like Adam Street. A lot of those sites are residential properties that predate the business zoning. So this wouldn't be applicable unless A commercial use came in to replace that, which likely would trigger a need for special permits, et cetera, because it's a very different building type than the residential homes that are there. So just because there's no star doesn't mean that's a commercial use that could be making changes by right many of these are already residential they just haven't changed since the zoning came into so they haven't had to seek a special permit to have that ground floor residential. So the orange strip there going down is Adams Street and then Watertown Street.

The top of the team. Just to clarify. So anything in these circles, which is these three lit areas are already formed, yeah. they're already kind of subject to their own special permits.

So the circles are BU1 and BU2 zones that are outside the VCOD. So if they're in the VCOD, they already don't have a parking requirement for commercial uses. So this wouldn't really matter. They could opt into the VCOD as we've seen some businesses do already. and take advantage of the no commercial parking requirement as they add seats, change out uses. The circle is those BU1 and BU2 that this first Thank you. Thank you.

Wonder if they're in the COD and don't want to opt for BC2 or BC3, so they're BU1 or 2, this would all pertain then?

It would pertain. So they could, we didn't show that because they already have the ability to do that.

But for some reason, because one of our rules is once you go to- Yeah, you stay. VCOD, that's it. So for whatever reason, maybe they don't want to do that.

And there will be one or two, then that's, yes, this would apply. Correct.

Okay. And also just as Ms. Kyra was speaking, just because again, I can't remember what it came up. Okay, everybody clear about this particular slide? I just want to make sure everybody is clear on what's happening.

And so here we are seeing Lower Falls and Waban. Again, you can see the MBTA-owned section of the Riverside Station is a parcel of that zone, BU2. and there's other special permit sites as well. Upper Falls, Elliott and Newtons Highlands. Corners.

Back up for a second. There's one parcel that's got crosshatches on it. Just explain the difference between crosshatching.

These are all, this is all VCOD. So it's really only all of, all of Noon Highlands. is in the VCOD and then you've got these parcels here that are really what we're talking about.

What highway or road are those along?

This is Route 9 up here. And then you have Chestnut Street coming down.

And then Oak down towards the bottom. and Needham Street.

So my impression is that this is not affecting very many businesses. Is that correct?

We have a lot of special permits.

Yeah. It feels like it's a very small number of business that will be affected.

Yeah, I mean, I was surprised as I went through. I knew there were a lot of special permits. I honestly was surprised at the few parcels that were left over.

Do you know the number? because it was 118 that are outside the BCLD. I don't have the number.

Here's Four Corners. Most of Four Corners over here, Beacon and Walnut. And then obviously here you have Chestnut Hill, basically every single parcel.

just about there's I think a little bit on Langley and Thompsonville that isn't subject to special permit but might already be residential.

Those are businesses right on Langley. I know, that red there.

And then you have? Excuse me, Councilor Getsch, do you have a question?

Well, it's only in four corners. There's a somewhat little problematic area. It's that stretch on Walnut right were the intersection of Beacon. You see that? Yeah, that one.

The gas station and then the liquor store.

Well, there's a bunch of stores in that parcel already. And it's pretty tight. So, yeah, I'm just sort of seeing this as potentially being an issue, you know, coming, you know, just out of like, it has at least five businesses in there now.

I will say some of those areas have struggled to keep businesses. We've seen a good bit of vacancy and turnover in Four Corners there. I don't know exactly why that is, but I do think if you want to ensure that they have to come through for special permits for parking, that won't help fill those spaces.

I just want to be clear that one of the reasons we asked for this degree of detail is that there's a specific area that this committee feels on reflection should not yet be included. We want to understand what that is. The thrust of the comments so far is that there are a lot of the areas that are outside of the BCOD that are subject to special permits, so the affected parcels are relatively few in number so far.

Right. Okay.

And so here's just a hill we saw. And then Oak Hill Park. And so that is the first item. and then parens two, which was announced.

Right, I'd like to hold that a second just a minute. We'll come to parens two in a minute.

and just I guess this is for the first item. It just is requiring us to put in essentially an exception for those commercial uses, the parking requirements for those two zoning districts, business one and business two.

So I have a clarification I want to ask about that. This is really for the law department. Should it say, and not already subject to a special

Yeah, those are reviewed, like I said, every time to see what a plot like, does that special permit need to be amended? I would That will happen regardless. So there'll still be that level of review each time someone comes in for a permit and they have a special permit and making the determination we, you know, Talk to law if there's any questions there.

I'd like to have that clarified because I wouldn't want to be in a situation where someone has a special permit. They say we don't have to abide by it anymore for some reason. I assume that's not the intent, but that's just want to be clear. So, any more clarifying questions before we open it up to public comment? Councilor Ryan.

So, what we're doing right here, exempting commercial uses from parking requirements in D1 and D2, in the unstarred places. There's really, it's not affecting a lot of properties at all.

Okay. So any more questions or clarifications? If not, I would open the opportunity for the public to comment. It should note we have on the record a letter from the Chamber of Commerce on both items in support of them. That doesn't preclude a supplemental comment from the public. Okay.

I think we have people in the room.

Anybody wish to testify? All right. Please, I'm sorry, come to the table and put your chair up so we can see you and hear you.

I'll stand up. That's easier. I'm going to drag the table. of Donahue Chair, Chuck Tanowitz, Chair of the Economic Development Commission, 51 Harding Street, Newton. I was before this board a few months ago talking about how to make Newton more attractive to business and this is one of those actions I think that will very much make This is one of those things that is a change that's not a change because it's something that already happens. People come before city council, they get their waivers. This is making it permanent without without having to go through the whole process of doing that, it reduces a barrier for businesses to expand or to open. We're very much in favor of those kinds of actions

Thank you very much.

Good evening, Max Wolff with the chamber, 117 Kendrick Street.

I was going to say which chamber, just so the public knows.

Charles River Regional Chamber. I just want to say thank you for having us, I think, a month back to talk about the same issue we brought in some commercial property owners. And as you know, the Chamber supports this docket item. and I think the reason we have these requirements is to address a really big issue. It's parking problems at our Village Center. and we hear from our business all the time. I know you hear it from your residents as well. It's hard to park in West Newton. It's hard to park in Newton Center. I think the problem is that these requirements don't actually solve that problem. They kind of create their own new problem and that's what we're looking to do here. It really comes down to red tape. When a cafe wants to expand or a restaurant wants to add new tables, it's a special permit. It's hiring lawyers, it's attending meetings, it's time and effort that a lot of these businesses don't really have.

and it's all to prove that they don't have the space that we already know they don't have because again I think as the Planning Department alluded to these are old buildings and it also goes for new businesses. I think this has a lot to do with vacant door fronts. I know of a couple of stories from commercial brokers that tenants are passing on Newton. The space looks attractive, but they don't want to go through the process. And I think vacant storefronts also hurt a lot of our businesses. Foot traffic, it gets more foot traffic. So the more vacant storefronts we have, the more it hurts our businesses. when it comes, we're thinking on the first item, but for both items, I think it's important that they both go through together. As planning department alluded to, this is already in place in many parcels, so it's not gonna affect that much.

I think it makes sense to make them through all BU1 and BU2 zones. And then, especially for the second item, if we're not willing to do it for all... No, hang on, I'm going to ask you to testify separately on the second item.

Okay. I'm not sticking around.

Do you want me to hold that? Okay. Well, then I'll hold the rest of my comments for the second item.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard either in the room or online? Close the public hearing. Okay, looking to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Extension? Yeah, I just have it. Okay.

Now, I'd like to... Chairman Baker, point of order. Can we close our public hearing? Can I have a motion from the board to close the public hearing?

So moved.

All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. I want to discuss both items together, but I'd like to have the public hearing separately. So now, if it's agreeable with the committee, I'd like to ask the planning department to present the second part of this, the second item. and then we'll have a second opportunity for public comment and then bring it all into the committee.

So for parens two, What this item is really focused on the areas out the commercial areas, the other business districts, the mixed use districts and the manufacturing districts to say, There is an opportunity to reduce the zoning, the paper requirement for parking as well to essentially do the same thing for both existing and new businesses. but in a way that keeps a parking requirement on the books. And what that would be is essentially an equalizing for specific uses personal service and service, retail, and restaurant. And I think what you're typically seeing most is when

A retail or service leaves and a restaurant opens. We also understand that creating a requirement based on number of employees is a very difficult thing to do and manage. And again, we want these businesses to be able to grow and expand when they are growing and expanding. And so again, this is a requirement that would kind of take the existing in the middle there and make it all the same for these uses one per 300 square feet of space. And Similarly, so what we did was we tried to create a series of maps where these uses, personal service, restaurant, retail, and service establishment are allowed by right

because again, if they have to come in, if the use isn't allowed in the district by right, then they're coming to you guys regardless if they want to open up. So what these maps are saying, is that for personal service and retail, those two uses, they're allowed by right in BU4 and BU5. We do not have a lot of these zoning districts mapped throughout. This is The Pike here. So you can see there is a parcel over here in Newton Corner. And then there's a few parcels over here. on the western edge of the city here.

Before you leave that, councilors from that part of the city, have any comment about these sites? at Ward 4, what is that? Yeah, that's Ward 5.

Ward 4 up here. Ward 1.

Ward 1 over here in Newton Corner. And then Ward 5 down here.

And I know the one in Newton Corner is Living.

It was really good to zoom up the map. See, this is where it got, it was like figuring out with the river and then the because you couldn't zoom up and see the street names. You know, there were two, they blurred out, but.

I was just saying there's, you know, very, very, very, very few parcels here.

Okay, let me just recognize, Councilor Elroy, I want to make sure that we take Thank you, Chair.

I'm just looking at, yeah, that slide there. It looks like our friends at Stop and Shop are not on this map, or at least in this area, right?

They're a manufacturing district, which doesn't allow these uses by right, which is part of their problem.

Right, so this wouldn't... No.

Okay, thank you. Any more questions about this, ma'am? Okay, please go to the next...

Okay, so then you've got, and this is just another area, same uses, personal service and retail. They're allowed by right, the BU4, MU1, MU2, and limited manufacturing. So you've got MU1 and MU2 along Needham Street. You got BU4 in Chestnut Hill. And then you have Wells Ave.

both of those partials are subject to special permits yeah and I didn't map special permits on these apologies I ran out of time but I can tell you that Wells Ave is subject to a number of special permits as well as the deed restriction. In Chestnut Hill, that is the street and Chestnut Hill Square, which are subject to special permits. And then Needham Street much or most of Needham Street is subject to special permits and then the BU4 on the corner of Needham Street is Northland which also subject to special permits.

The one in Chestnut Hill is that what used to be the The piece is not the Chestnut Hill Mall. What's that?

Is that the proposed Sunrise site, potentially? It looks like it. I think it is. Is it on Florence?

Yeah.

So also subject to special permit, which hasn't been exercised, but subject to special permit.

So really, we're not doing very much at all.

Well, you know, some of these special permits may allow. So this one isn't saying there's no parking requirement. It's saying it's just sort of Normalizing the parking requirements. So there may be special permits that allow for some of these uses to change out, which could help in not triggering additional relief needed. But in these areas, if anyone was building something new, they would still have a parking requirement. It's really helping when there's a swap of uses, as well as just making the parking requirement, I think, More logical and not tying it to number of seats or employees, which is one hard to track or enforce. And I think it's just not a great way to go about the parking requirements. It really does penalize businesses that are doing well and may want to add seats or add employees.

And our parking requirements, as I think we've shown in the past, Determining a particular business's parking requirement involves some advanced calculus that requires you to know what the zoning parking requirement was for the prior use that was there. which means no matter how long it's been, it may be vacant at the moment, but you need to know the previous use, what was the use, How many employees did they have at their largest shift? How many seats did they have in order to determine the new uses parking requirement? So I think even aside from trying to make it easier for new businesses to move in and sort of equalizing some of these common uses that swap out on the ground floors, It's just a parking requirement that makes more sense to do it by square footage.

The commissioner of ISD is here. I assume that he would prefer to measure square footage than calendar. So any other questions on this map, Councilor Danberg?

Does this mean we will do away finally with the phantom parking

Not entirely, but we're getting closer.

It's two-thirds of the ghosts. Fewer ghost spaces. Okay, carry on please.

All right. So this next map is showing sort of different use, the service establishment. You're going to see here's the green line here. So this is at Riverside. And then again to Needham Street and Chestnut Hill. So the service establishment use is allowed by right in BU4 and MU2. and I think we've already talked about the special permit that most of these sites have.

And this just takes out the mixed use one along most of Needham Street where it's not allowed by right.

Yep, exactly right. So that is where these uses are allowed. I'll just say, just to kind of summarize, is that I think just as well as supporting what you did with the VCOD and then what the first item here is looking to support village centers kind of generally beyond VCOD. and make it easier for those businesses again to expand or change. And then again, we want to make sure that the process is as simple as possible.

Clarifying questions and then we'll go to public hearing. I'm sorry, Councilor Wright and then Councilor Oberg.

Thank you. In the slide deck online, you skipped over here the one that said restaurants less than 50 seats by right. Oh, there it is. Sorry. So it's saying restaurants less than 50 seats are by right. So if it's more than 50 seats, then it's a special permit? Yes.

We have a special permit requirement for restaurants with more than 50 seats. OK.

Sorry. I thought that was ..

How does this compare to other cities similar to ours? The one for every three hundred square feet. I'm just wondering if we're in a good ballpark or not.

You mean the table?

The parking requirement.

Can I just reserve that for the comments? I just want to find out.

Yeah, I mean, I think there's so many. I think there are similar cities that don't have any requirement. There's some similar cities that have this requirement. There's some similar cities that have more. I mean, it really I think you said early on it's not that this isn't a science and I think you can look to any city and find kind of A different number. You really can.

So, I mean, I don't have any sense for whether we are accomplishing anything or not. I know we got rid of the number of tables and the number of employees, but is this really going to help businesses?

I 100% think it is. I think between the two items, I think we've tried to share and explain with the committee that it is The way that this is being presented, it is limited. It's limited in geography. It's limited to certain uses. But I do think it will have an impact.

Okay, clarifying, Councilor Danberg.

Just to clarify that all restaurants with fewer than 50 seats are covered.

Where they're allowed by regulations.

Okay, thank you. Any more on the presentation? That's it. Okay, let me entertain comments of public hearing. Anyone wishing to testify? By any chance there's a local chamber?

I'll just quickly finish. And I think, as the EDC said. Just identify yourself again. All right. Please. Mack Gould, McDonald River Chamber, 117 Kendrick Street. As EDC said, it's about attracting businesses. It's also about helping our businesses that are here right now. I think a lot of the stories we hear and just that second point, standardizing the rules for cities that want to invest in the city. As Jen said, it isn't punishing that businesses that are doing well, it's just kind of counterproductive. and so I think the you know the city has an opportunity here to show our businesses at a time they're really struggling with I think that's what it comes down to, both of these items, not just the second one. It's about just making it easier to do business in the city.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to testify on this item? Anyone online that's not breaking down? Anyone want to make a motion to close the public hearing? Motion to close the public hearing. Motion to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Okay, the ayes have it. Mr. McCormick?

Yes, can I entertain a motion to close public hearings? So moved. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Now, on the items, I'd like to take them up in order. And then, but Councilor Wright, you have a question?

No, I'm these items.

Yeah, I'm going to go to the first set first, if you're right. Which is the, which is the, I don't know, 181 Friends 24, which is the for removal of the, excuse me, removal of the parking requirement and the parcels that are not part of the VCOD that are not effectively subject to special approval. Okay, Councilor Wright and then Councilor Gant.

I'm not sure how we can do this, but I think some people brought it up is we're helping definitely the ones that don't have special permit, but there's a lot that has special permit. So if they only want this parking waiver, it sounds like they still have to come from Land Use to get that waiver for the special permit just for parking.

No, they wouldn't need the parking waiver. Sorry, I think I wasn't totally clear before. So they would still, this would apply and that there wouldn't be a parking requirement. So they would need an additional waiver. But once you have a special permit, you're pretty locked in on exactly that and exactly what was approved and those plans that were approved. So every parcel that has a special permit that comes through to do anything has to go through that review to see what Will this require that special permit to be amended because you now have a different use, you're making changes to the site plan, those sorts of things. So they wouldn't need to come for a parking waiver, but they could need to amend the special permit just because it's different than what was approved or seek a consistency ruling from the commissioner that it's generally consistent with the special permit that was approved.

So so you're saying so if they do a change of use and it's a special permit so our special permits is it is it more Like dog grooming or is it more a broad thing for the special permit? because I'm just wondering how many are actually going to come for, still have to come for a special.

It depends. So as I was going through a lot of these, so were, a lot of them are honestly for residential. So those wouldn't be coming. This wouldn't apply to them because this is just for commercial uses. So any project in the business zone with residential on the ground floor needs a special permit. So many of those parcels had the special permit to have the residential on the ground floor, or they were a non-conforming Austin residential. that was extending some nonconformity. So this isn't really applicable to many of those special permits. For the ones that truly are commercial uses and this would apply, it would be a case-by-case basis. They'd have to be reviewed to see could they do that under the existing special permit or would they need to come back for something. It depends on the level of what they're doing. If they're just swapping out of use, that may be okay.

If they're doing additional work, they probably would need to come in. Certainly, if they're building something, they would need to come back for an amendment. So they couldn't build on their parking lot just because there's no longer a parking requirement because they're locked in by the plans approved by that special permit.

Thank you.

The only comment I have is in regard to the language that you wanted to see in the actual ordinance and stuff like that. um qualification that you know in terms of whether or not it is regulated or controlled by such a current because I think that if you read it at face value I would refer to Attorney Lee, you know, whether or not he needs to see that in the line.

Lee, do you have a comment? Yeah, Mr. Chair, thank you for letting me speak to it. I would advise against putting any provision with regards to a reference to existing special permits. That's basically every zoning amendment or new zoning that we have. It's the same thing. If there's a special permit that already applies, then it would still have to be reviewed. So that buy-write option doesn't just automatically apply. So putting the reference in there is unnecessary and inconsistent with the rest of our zoning ordinance.

I just want to make sure I understand.

So nothing, none of these businesses that don't already have a special permit will have to come in for a special permit for parking waiver anymore. Nobody doesn't already have a special permit. They will never have to come in to get a waiver for a parking or special permit.

And that's for the number of stalls. So there's still, I think, Probably more work to be done with the parking section because we do often see special permits to waive some of the other requirements, particularly lighting is one that I think we need to address. and that it's just unreasonably high, the lighting requirement is sort of counter to what we generally want to see. So there are still things from the parking section, dimensional standards that parking stall, minimum dimensions, aisle widths, Screening, Buffer Space, all of those things still apply. It's just the number of stalls they wouldn't need to come in for.

Let me, Councilor Bayless, and then I'll go to Councilor Dunst.

I think Councilor Oliver might have just asked, but I'm not sure. So a special permit, and they close. This will make it easier for the next business.

Maybe. It depends. So like I said, if their special permit was just a parking waiver, then that and that's purely it. So if they just had a special permit for the number of stalls and that business is changing, that parking waiver, that special permit wouldn't apply. If that special permit was just for a use. So there are some uses that just the use itself needs a special permit. And that use left then and a new use came in that was by right, then that special permit wouldn't apply. Generally, our special permits get more complex than that and that they're for multiple things. They might be for use. They might be for extending a nonconformity. They may be for some dimensional standard. So those are when we really need to review and determine if what's being proposed if that what is still applicable from the prior special permit.

But in general, it sounds like it could help a new business coming in.

Absolutely. And that's the goal.

Councilor Kirchman and Councilor Danberg.

Thank you. Sure. I think what I heard you say clarifies that in the BU1 and BU2, the businesses would not be required to comply with any minimum parking requirement. But if the businesses chose to either put in parking or there was existing parking on the property that they were taking over, for example, that there are the current existing requirements in our zoning ordinance around the construction of parking spaces, the width, the lighting, et cetera, that would be applicable.

So, Councilor Danberg, I have a question.

Yes, and just to add on to Councilor Prinsman's comments, if a new business comes in, and let's say the previous business was under a use special permit and a parking special permit. Would the parking special permit now be Dunaway, with the exception that if they had parking, they would still be under the requirement that the size of the stalls, et cetera, would have to

That's correct. And if they have parking, so a lot of our parking where it does exist, especially in these older village centers, commercial areas, does not meet the current standards. If they're not touching it, that's fine. If they want to redo that parking, then they would be subject to all of the current parking dimensions. And if they were building new and adding parking, they'd have to comply with that. But if they're leaving whatever is there, even if it's non-conforming they they're fine.

So this is a question I want to follow up on Councilor Danberg because for example the Chesley Hill Square and Chesley Hill Shopping Center both are, if anyone goes over there from time to time, fairly crowded as they are. But they are subject to special permits so that there be some control on the parking. Will this do away with their requirement that they have? certain other spaces through their special permit. That would give me some concern for those sites. The village is in the context as you described earlier, the change of views, I'm not so concerned about, but the major players, if those, again, People worry about parking spilling out in the neighborhoods, and that's part of what the requirements to design the whole area.

So, and attorney Lee or the commissioner can correct me here. If I'm wrong, those parcels are held to certain site plans under their special permit that shows the parking. So even if there wasn't a parking requirement any longer, they can't They can't... changed their site plan to no longer be consistent with what was approved. So they couldn't come in and build something on that parking lot or just rip out all the parking because then they're no longer consistent with the approved plans.

Well, they would have to amend their special permit. What I'm concerned about is that the point here is not to ask people to go through phantom space. But what I would be concerned about is that if we were creating essentially an incentive to take the parking that they do have out of service and put it into buildings that will generate more demand for parking but not supply it. Now, we can say the market was going to make that judgment, and then members of the council can make that judgment themselves. But that piece is different from saying that you, you know, the layout of the spaces and all, I think there's a real, significant difference because parcels that look like they are sort of not part of this requirement because they're subject to special permit could in fact come in for a special permit and say, well, we don't have to provide any parking now.

generally and it's unfair to do that you should let us build this new building and we really have no basis in the ordinance to say you shouldn't be there as opposed to the second table where you at least have some I really want to understand the impact.

Yeah, and so they would always need to come back for a special permit. So you do have broad discretion when they come in for a special permit, whether or not to approve any changes to that plan. I will say most of those sites were when they were approved were envisioned to have a bit of flexibility in having some of those uses change out. Mostly they're going from retail to retail, some retail to restaurant, restaurant to restaurant. They accounted for that typically in their initial parking waiver so that they do have that ability to sort of have some of those uses swap out on those bigger sites like Chestnut Hill Square, The Street, and the Mall. So that's already happening to a degree. But they couldn't take those parking spaces out without needing to come back for an amendment.

because of the site plan, but not because of the requirement.

But the site plan, you would have to approve any change to the site plan. One of those sites, if they're going to do something that removes that park, one, it's in their best interest to keep the parking, as you've said, most of those areas are fairly busy. But if they were going to do something that we're going to remove that parking, they're typically building a new building, which is likely to trigger a whole number of other special permit as well as just the amendment to the site plan.

But could we continue to require parking as part of that special permit?

I would think so. I mean, I'll defer to Attorney Lee here who has his hand up.

Can you clarify that? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So before I answer that question specifically, I think at least the way that I think about it and the best way I can articulate it is there's an existing special permit and not standing one of the conditions that are there is and many more. providing that benefit to the property owner. If that property owner is still getting that benefit of the special permit and that relief, those conditions, all the conditions still apply, including if there's a parking condition. and then to answer your question more directly, just because there's no parking minimum requirement in the zoning ordinance, could you require someone that's getting a special permit to have parking? The short answer is yes. You have to look at it on a case by case basis and then put in your reasoning, but Yeah, you can require it.

It doesn't prohibit the City Council acting as a special permit granting authority from doing so.

But as I hear you, if there's an existing requirement for parking in the ordinance, it said you have to comply with the city parking requirement. and the parking requirement goes away.

In the special permit? You're saying that if the special permit condition is that you have to comply with the zoning ordinance?

Right, you have to do that anyway, but I'm thinking if it speaks to the specific provision, and the provision is it in effect saying that that parking that was in effect at the time, the ordinance, even though the ordinance is amended, is still what applies to that permit.

But that's not how special permits are done. They're done by site plan. This is the building and this is the parking.

Let me be clear. Thank you for the clarification. But I want to be, the conditions may refer to a site plan that have parking on them that may be reflective of the current ordinance. So what I'm trying to understand is we don't want to create, it seems to me by accident, a change in the parking of these major complexes simply because we're taking away what we're trying to do the phantom parking credit exercise which everybody agrees ought to go away so I just want to be clear that we're not creating an incentive for somebody to tear up existing parking to put up a new building and say, okay, I'm gonna get a special permit, but I don't have to provide as much parking for more use. That's what I'm...

They could not do that.

Okay, now why?

Because they're held to that special permit, as Attorney Lee said, all of the conditions that go along with it. because of all the other relief that has been granted to these sites. So if they are coming, I mean, most of these sites came in and asked the city council to waive the parking to begin with. So they're going to, that's, doesn't need to be granted. It was granted that time. They could come back and say, I think we need even less parking now. We want to build a building. And that's up to the council's discretion whether there's a parking requirement or not. I think what Attorney Lee is saying is you can still continue to require that parking or what parking you think is necessary for those sites, but there's absolutely no path for them to do any of that by right.

Okay, let me recognize Councilor Wright and then Councilor Danberg.

To maybe try to clarify, if you're building a new building, no matter what, we have these new parking requirements if it's a new building. Like, you know, one parking spot for every 300 square feet, right?

But that's not if it's not in... Outside BU 1 and 2.

Oh, outside. In BU 1 and 2, there'd be no parking requirement for commercial uses.

But even if you're putting in a new building.

Correct. It's very rare that someone can build a building in BU1 and BU2 by rights, though. I haven't seen any, I don't think, in the time that I've been here due to other things, height limitations, You know, not having residential on the ground floor, et cetera, et cetera. So especially for these sites that are so tightly, the site plan is so tightly controlled, they absolutely could not build a building by Wright. without coming in to amend the special permit and likely seek other relief that goes along with it.

I guess the point of I'll go to Councilor Danberg first and then I'll make my question to Councilor Danberg.

Thank you. And to build on what Chair Baker was saying, if, for example, you had a building It was under a particular site plan. You could not build another building or an extension of the building on that lot. Could you also not, for example, take out 10 spaces and say, I'm going to create a dog park on these spaces. Correct.

That would need to amend the... It would require an amendment.

Okay. So just to be clear, what I'm hearing is that the special permit is originally granted may reference parking requirements and even though we change our parking requirements going forward they still apply to the prior special permit, correct? I don't think that's exactly right.

When a special permit is granted, if it references the ordinances, It references the ordinance in effect at the time of that special permit, not as subsequently amended, correct?

I would have to look at the particular special permanent condition and how it references the ordinance. But the point that I was trying to make, and I think that the planning department is doing probably better than I am, is regardless of how it references the ordinance, if there's a site plan and it shows the layout of the way the parking has to be, it's irrelevant how it references that ordinance. Just because there's an ordinance change and then the way the original layout was set up to comply with the then existing ordinance, that layout, that site plan still needs to be complied with under the special permit. If only reference with regards to parking is to a zoning ordinance or some other ordinance, I would have to look at that particular ordinance itself, how it's referenced. in that special permit to determine which version it is that it's referencing, or if there was some intention that it has to be that version that exists at the time, or if it's one that as amended at a later time.

and it's rare that special permits reference an ordinance because you have to do that. So there's no need to put it in as a condition of the special permit because you already have to do that. The special permit usually is limited to where There's conditions that are required beyond what you would normally need to do or certain relief is granted. Most of what is controlling the special permits really is the plans that are approved and you're locked into those in perpetuity. So that's typically what happens is those trigger the need for an amendment.

So, Councilor Walbright, and then I want to come back to my question again.

So, just to put a fine point on it, the Fante formula that you referenced is never When you're talking about a project like Chestnut Hill Square or the street, the phantom formula doesn't play a role at all. It's a site plan that governs the park. And you don't ever have to worry about talking about the A plus B minus C or whatever.

I think the phantom form group we want to get rid of. I just want to be clear that someone on a major site like Chestnut Hill Square or Chestnut Hill Mall, we don't want to be in a situation where we'd be taking away the requirement or parking at all, they come in and say, well, we don't have to provide parking anymore. and the City Council has to grant that special permit in effect.

I don't think you ever have to grant a special permit.

Say again? You don't ever have to grant a special permit.

What I really wanted to say was, are you ready for our motion?

Well, almost. I want to make sure. Any other questions on this?

I just have a comment, and that is that Businesses, I think by and large, are smart enough to understand that in order to conduct your business and to make money, they need to be able to provide that their customers be able to come and arrive at their business. And so I don't think we're going to have a situation where a grocery store decides that they don't need to provide any parking where they've had a big lot. If their customers can't get to them and can't easily do business with them, then they're hurting themselves. And I think they're smart enough to know that.

I just want to comment that I'm going to entertain a motion to approve this section, this docket item in a minute. But I want to indicate that on the item, I want to abstain until I have a chance to talk to the planning department a little more. about the effective special permit. I'm fully in favor of getting rid of the phantom parking requirement, then steps that we put people through. I just don't want to remove A legitimate claim for parking use is warranted by an advert. I'm going to be clear about that.

Okay, Downs, Farrell.

This is for item 181.24. which is to remove the parking requirement at BU1 and BU2 districts, okay? Any further discussion? I'll second the motion. We don't need a second commission. All right. All those in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Abstention? One. Right. And I'm in principle in favor of this one. I understand that. Okay, let's go to the second item, which is... Thank you for reminding me.

Could I entertain a motion to approve this... The first item, 121-24. Yes, Peter. All in favor, say aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Thank you for reminding me. The second item, which is the modification of the table, and again, for purposes of clarification, that and so forth. where particular kinds of uses are swapped in and out. And any discussion on this item? Councilor Gett.

Well, the only thought that I was having was, you know, in terms of it's a, you're standardizing it. you know you're literally saying just one based on the size of the the actual establishment and I kind of started looking at the uses and there you know there's a lot of Like a retail store may not have as much in terms of like either number of employees or number of patrons, you know, it's, it's, it's, there's a range, you know, and so I sort of felt like that standardization didn't really fit. I mean, I sort of felt like, Is it possible to put in a range rather than, I mean, I didn't know where you were going in terms of, you know, like I felt like I didn't have any sense of baseline, you know?

I mean, I think we've been fairly clear, we as staff, around the requirements and that I think the preferred outcome would be to not have any requirements. However, I think to your point about the variability, I would or you could have, in this case, up to 49 seats and be still by right. So we just don't know. There's a lot of flexibility to Councilor Danberg's point. These businesses are more sophisticated. and they're not going to make a decision with a space that can't support their business.

Zach was saying the restaurants vary greatly. You have Dunkin' Donuts, which has a lot of in and outs, and a lot of people coming and going constantly from the site. And you could have a very upscale fine dining restaurant that has a tasting menu where you're there for two hours and only has a few seats and doesn't have a ton of people coming and going. We're already not accounting for any of that. within the categories. So this is just sort of standardizing them across the categories. We may have retail businesses that are Very successful and have a lot of patrons, which would be great, which is what we want to see, and some that are much more quiet. Thank you for joining us.

each other more easily, which is what we already see happening in the village centers in particular. These are the ones that are constantly coming for a special permit that's always being granted. And the idea here is by having a requirement It's still triggering the need if you're building new to provide some parking. It's just allowing those existing businesses to expand or change or add employees, etc., Wright, and so forth without coming for a special permit.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments? You just said that they could expand and don't need a special permit, but they have a special permit. They need a special permit to expand. didn't quite make sense to me.

So by expand, I mean, they could add seats. Not at a building. We have seen Moldova was an example that expanded into adjacent commercial space and triggered a need for a special permit for parking waiver. So it could be that they physically expand, but into a space that already exists. They couldn't build new without providing.

Councilman Danberg, you had a question?

Just a comment that there is a big difference between a business like a restaurant or a service, a spa, where you go in and You don't come out with a lot of things that you have to carry. If you have a restaurant, if you have a grocery store, you go in and you purchase 50 or 100 pounds worth of goods. A business owner is going to know that they're going to have to require the customers are going to need a place to park so that they can walk out to their car and carry their stuff home. I think that the type of business that is created has its own parking requirement intrinsically.

and I would leave it up to the owners of the business to know that they need to service their customers in that way.

I think that's what we heard when the Chamber brought in a commercial broker as well, that if parking is high on their list, certain properties come off as possibilities.

Any other comments or questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Any further discussion on the motion? Second. Okay. Happy Christmas on a roll. All right. All those in favor will say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? The ayes have it. Mr. McCormick.

Thank you, Chair. I entertain a motion to approve this 181-24 motion.

So moved.

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

So we have another item for public hearing, but we don't have a committee. Oh, good . And the full council. Those are prior .. Mr. Lee, these require two-thirds, don't they? Because they're not helping them. They're just standard filling changes.

We talked about this briefly and we

weren't sure, we need to go back and check. We saw it because it's commercial rather than housing related, but I know that it did sort of call out parking in particular. So we'll talk to the law department, have them confirm prior to full council.

I want to say before we get to the next item, explaining this again for the council with an attachment. that we'll need to have something that I can make sure that the report is clear so that everyone knows where we are. Meanwhile, I'll confer with the law department with you all about the special permits. The commissioner of ISD has been sitting here patiently and I think the hearing on the adult daycare use will not take long so I might take him out of order if he'd like to report about short-term rental because I think that we get him out and go home. Would the committee be agreeable about that? All right. So come sit with us. You have a memo and a letter to us.

but the reason I've asked the commissioner to come back is that as a result of our conversation last time, we recommended that he consider sending a letter out to those people who have registered with the state but have not registered with the city and he made an attachment. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. He made an attachment to the committee room's agenda about that, but I'd like to have an opportunity to explain it a minute because it shows progress on the part of the department.

So we sent out a pleasant letter to about 77 people on the state's list for short-term rentals, just advising them that Hey, if you are operating, you saw you on the list, you're operating a short-term rental, please fill out the form, check boxes if you're reoperating one, and also let them know that the city requires that You do register with the city if you are going to continue operating. So we sent out 77 letters like this and we've gotten six replies, three Breon Renting that were on the state's list that we sent which were whose sales which they had bought the house and are not going to continue short-term rentals didn't even realize they were on the list yeah

So what we ask them to do is to remove themselves from the list. But it's my understanding the state won't remove them from the list unless they were the original president. So that was something that we found out. I'll double check that too for a later meeting. Then we found that three are renting and they would like to register with us. Also, we've got to rental on the ISD website, the ones that are registered. I believe there's 17 now. Okay.

Out of the 77, we're trying to do these mailings in sort of, you know, not shot first, but so we don't get overwhelmed. We sent out 77 and we did get a lot of calls. We did get a lot of people coming to the counter. Some people who were renting, obviously you cannot, Register if you're right because then you're actually in violation. So we tell them to take their ad down. Some people refused, gave them a warning. They do want to register, but we made them understand, well, you can't register if you're Renting or advertising, that alone is a violation. And then they said, well, we already have commitments. I'm like, well, it's going to get to the point where you're going to get a violation if you continue. So we let them know what they're What might happen to them down the road? So we have these three penalties.

But does the violation go to the owner of the building?

The owner, yeah, it's always to the owner. The owner will be the operator now. What's that?

So they may not know that their renters are doing short-term rentals.

No, these are the owners we're talking to. Oh, the occupiers.

Yeah.

In fact, this one that I'm trying to talk about here is... They actually live in Tallahassee. So, and it says right on the app. So, I mean. So they're in violation. They're in violation. So, um. But so we're trying to make them understand about their oncoming compliance. And so once we go through these, many that we've went through, these 77, we'll... if we find more that are in violation and they don't cease and desist. We'll send out another letter that we sent out prior in the last meeting, a violation letter to cease and desist. And if they don't, then we'll stop.

I think Councilor Wright was ahead of me.

No, no, no, I already asked.

Okay. So we've got people who know they're in violation, who are in violation, who don't live in Newton, who are renting short term, and who refuse to comply. What penalty do we have on the books that we can levy to them? Can we give them a $300 a day violation? and put it as a lien on your property or what can we do?

So typically the violation letter will go out after 30 days, okay? Because what we did is we, this was just a mailing that we sent out. It's not a violation. and we're giving them some time to comply. So yes, they're in violation. They may have known they were in violation. Some didn't know they were in violation. We're not treating them the same. So once the 30 days is up, we'll send a violation notice out. Then they'll have about 35 days to comply. If they don't, then we will start issuing tickets and fines. And if they happen to get those violations and fines, we won't register them until they pay the fine.

They will have to pay the fine to register. Okay, and if they continue to let's say they get, how much was the fine?

For a week, for a day? No, it's $300 per day while it exists. But we have to, these particular fines, we actually have to know that they were in violation that day. So we would have to check the sites that, you know, Airbnb or whatever, and see the ad on the queue in order to send them on there. These are actually tickets. They're not the zoning violations that we send out for, let's say, your legal apartments or anything like that.

Is there a way that we can help you here, the City Council can help you to make it easier and maybe too plenty of apply?

No, I don't think so. Mr. Lee has his hand up. I'm just wondering. We've been joined by Councilor Malakie. I just want to mention that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Councilor Danberg, I think part of the reason that the commissioner is having can't answer what the next steps really are because luckily we haven't had to do them, but the next step would be that we would have to file a criminal complaint against the property owner in order to collect those fines. um you did ask you know do we lean the property things like that i do want to remind the zoning and planning committee that currently the city doesn't have the ability to lean any fines however The City Council very recently authorized the Mayor to file special legislation that, if granted, will allow the City to do that. There are things that could be helpful in terms of enforcement, but they're not with the ordinance itself. It's just other authority that we need to state. One of them is the ability to lean the fines and another

Special legislation that we'll be filing for is the authority to increase the amount of fines from greater than 300 and up to $2,000 for each violation.

And is there a On the request to the state that we allow violations to be leaned, we're What needs to happen on the state level in order for the city of Newton to be able to do that?

We're going to file a home rule petition. The state legislature has to pass it and then the governor has to approve it like any other bill.

and we have to amend our ordinances as a result.

Right. If the state does pass or approve that special legislation, then the city council in conjunction with the mayors have to amend the city ordinances to identify which violations can have the penalty of the fines being a lien on the property.

Okay, so have we not yet made this request of the state for a home rule petition.

I think the city council authorized the mayor to file that special legislation at his last city council meeting.

And has that been done yet? Has that been filed with the state?

I do not believe so, because 20 days have to elapse before it's actually effective. So.

OK, so a week ago. No. Yeah. Okay, so after 20 days, will this happen automatically or does the city council need to do something else?

There's no more action for the City Council. The administration will file the letter or have our representatives file the letter with the general court.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

One gentleman you said lives in another city or town. And so anyone that lives in another city or town, what will they have to do to be in compliance to move out of here?

They can't rent their truck or van. Yeah, so it either has to stop altogether or they'll have to move to that end.

So that's on your... Yeah. Definitely. Okay. Yep.

Okay, any other questions? Because I want to get back to the planning department.

The only two pieces I want to add is

you did a great job the city website has all of the information there you know both in terms of like the portal um so it's very easy peasy for anybody who gets that letter to be able to like sort of understand um and i also feel as if You know, that's the first step. I assume that a lot of people, you find out about this because of Butters. start noticing people showing up with suitcases or what's going on next door?

Oddly enough, I mean, we have gotten very little if no complaints since we did sort of a dragnet back last year. We got rid of a lot of non-compliant STIs. Pretty much operated by the same person with different operators. And so we came down, he ended up cleaning his All those properties are now being rented for more than 30 days. So That's the objective we had in mind.

And the only other thought that I'm having is anyway that we need in smaller, with Councilor Danberg, with, can we go to the actual saying to the Airbnb or wherever the platforms are and say, please do not accept any of these properties without a registration number.

No, I don't think so. I mean, there's pretty much free will and if you want to put up your house as a short term rental.

So there's no way to say no?

No.

Councilor

Thank you very quickly. I just want to say I appreciate the efforts. I'm supportive of the home rule we passed in terms of labor and enforcement and stuff, but I do just want to remind us that I think our goal was to get I want to say I appreciate the effort.

I encourage you to go to the second tier of 20 or 70 and keep going.

Well, we want to give ourselves a little time because we did get overwhelmed and we're still out a little bit with calls from people calling all the time too and want the information. So we're going to work on these 70 for us and then we'll send out maybe not as many next time, but we'll keep moving forward. I know you're anxious.

So just to clarify, you said you've had six responses in writing maybe?

Yeah, yes.

And the others have been calls?

Phone calls, yeah.

Okay, so it's better than six people have responded.

Right, yes.

Well, again, we applaud the progress and we will get you back to report more progress. Excellent. I guess I can't speak for what will happen in the new term. I assume you will be questioned about this at the budget anyway. I'm sure. Anyway, I just want to say thank you very much. This is an important initiative that ISD and I wanted members of the committee to see the progress as a result of the conversation we had last time. Thank you, Commissioner. You're welcome.

Thank you.

No action necessary, I think, at this point. Move no action necessary. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Abstention? Ayes have it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you.

Mr. McCormick, thank you for inviting me. Our Commissioner is very gracious and I want to make sure he doesn't go home. So we have another item for public hearing that I mentioned earlier. I'll just read it again. the mayor requesting amendments chapter 30 zoning to create new adult daycare use. Who's on deck for this one? Mr. LaMalle.

I will do that. I do not have a presentation, but if you want me to put up the language when the time is appropriate, I most certainly can. when we last spoke about this at the first October meeting. So adult daycares, these are uses that exist throughout the city through a variety of zoning changes and amendments Essentially, this use has kind of fallen out of being allowed. In 2015, the zoning ordinance was recodified really to make it more user-friendly, putting in diagrams and tables. It wasn't meant to be any substantive changes, but through that process, pre-2015, and adult daycare use was considered a personal service. Then the commission at the time in 2015 of Inspectional Services said with the recodification, adult daycare doesn't fit in personal service.

It really fits in the school use within the zoning ordinance. In 2024, we cleaned up school uses and personal instruction, which then further just kind of knocked it out and took it off the oven allowed use within the city. And so what this is meant to be doing is to bring back and just make it explicitly clear that adult daycare as a use is allowed within the city and it is allowed its definition meets is kind of reliant on the state Ordinance that it references. It has a parking requirement. It's allowed by special permit in the residential zones, which is what it was previously. When it was under the school use and it's permitted in the business and mixed use zones and manufacturing zones and manufacturing zones, I think is really where we see these a lot.

Anyways, kind of taking over underutilized space.

I should mention there's a memo that we all have attached to the agenda that goes into this in some detail. Any questions for the presenter? Yes, Councilor Danberg.

I assume that if it's not under school use it is not covered under the Dover amendment and Was it covered under Dover when it was in school use?

It was not. It's not a protected use.

Okay, let's go to the public hearing. Anyone here to testify on this item? I don't see any hands raised. Am I missing anything? All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Any abstentions?

Can I have a motion to close the public hearing, please? So moved. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Thank you, Chair.

Perfect. This is fairly straightforward. Any discussion on the motion? I mean, the item?

Just to clarify, so does this use have its own title now, adult daycare? Correct. That's much better. I like that.

Thank you. Dr. Kalis moves approval. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor say aye. Opposed? Abstention? Say aye. Thank you very much. You're three for three tonight. And Mr. McCormick.

Yes, can I have a motion, please, to approve this?

So moved.

All in favor? Any opposed? Any abstentions? One abstention. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Now, we have another item that does require the Planning Board I think this is the residential alterations by right item about height. and we had a discussion about this in the public hearing, but because it had not been discussed in the committee before it was heard, it was carved out and we've held it so that we can talk about it separately in the committee. So, Mr. LaMelle, are you presenting this one too?

I am. There will not be anything that you haven't seen before. But it'll be good.

While you're getting set up, let me suggest we all take a brief bio break and then come back in five minutes. Is that right? Recess for five minutes? I was going to say, our plan is to go four floors. I'm sorry.

Yeah, I know. Are we just going to ice them? Is that what we're doing?

You know, you can't really see him. Here he is with his ears and his chef coat.

Before we take up the next item, which I'll read in the record, I just want to mention that tomorrow is, I think all of you know, is Veterans Day. But what many of you may not know is today is the 250th anniversary of the United States Marine Corps.

So there we are.

That's the Marine Corps. I heard this by being yelled at by experts many years ago. All right. So this item, Mr. LaValle, is the item about Residential Operations are hyped by Wright. So do you want to take us through this? I would love to.

This, as the chair mentioned, this item was peeled off from the other changes within the de minimis section of the zoning ordinance. So this is applicable to only existing buildings that are already non-conforming. And in this case, what we're talking about is non-conforming to height, that these buildings are already over the maximum height, the residential buildings. And when we spoke about this at the public hearing at the end of September, there really was unanimous support from the committee. but we want to ignore the discussion. And what really this is we've seen and I will also say is that the day after the public hearing when I came into city hall there was someone at the counter talking about this very issue. They were putting out an addition and they were being triggered into the special permit process.

So again, only buildings that have that non-conforming height By allowing this de minimis relief, you're creating a buy-write pathway. You're kind of simplifying the process, again, for these existing buildings to renovate. and Change. Maybe they want to add an ADU. Maybe they want to just do a bump out. And in particular, why this is coming up now is because of the change that was made to how height is measured. and there was a special permit granted for one of these in August by the city council and that is really what triggered it. they did some minor grade work around the addition but because they had to use the existing grade prior to that grading work their height was on paper bumped up

essentially what we're talking about here in diagram form is if you were to take the building on the left of the existing building where it's already over that 36 foot maximum allowance in height The new addition that's put onto the building, then you recalculate the average grade. The average grade goes lower than what it was before because there's more building that's being taken into account and the height of the building, the zoning height, the height on paper is increasing. And what this We saw this here at 163 Lincoln Street. This was the example that I gave. This was the approved by special permit in August where they're adding that addition in the back. which is lower than the ridge line that currently exists but again on paper because of the topography of the site it is increasing the height on paper. Just another diagram here where you can see

the height of the building was a little over 38 feet almost 39 feet and it's slightly higher a little bit closer to 39 feet with that addition based on how you calculate height using average grade What this would do is to create language within the de minimis section that says as long as your addition is not exceeding the height of the existing You did it by special permit. This was a special permit. And what this is saying is that as part of the de minimis relief, if this came again, it would not require a special permit. It would be considered de minimis.

Councilor Wright and Councilor Danberg.

So wouldn't we want this for houses that are conforming? Because, you know, it does slip away and they add the addition and now the addition is above it, not just non conforming

It's a great point. So the way that the zoning ordinance is set up is that if you're nonconforming, you're essentially granted more opportunity or more allowance. and that's from the state that I think that's really coming down. And if you, our zoning ordinance right now is if you are conforming, particularly for height, you can't ask for a special permit, it's a variance. There isn't a pathway like FAR where you can come to the council and ask for more.

But could we change it so you don't need a variance?

Yeah. I think we'd want to take a closer look, though, because I think once you're already nonconforming, you're not changing the ridgeline. This fits pretty neatly into the de minimis section. I think we need to figure out where to plug that in to do it outside of that and we may want to think about is there a maximum you know we just want to make sure this can't be exploited yeah like if you have a really sharp yeah You know, maybe you get four feet or something like that. Yeah, so I think this is a great first step. I think that would be great to look at next.

And in case somebody comes, I'm sorry, I think I had comes from Danberg and then I'll explain right here.

Yes, go back to the first slide where you had the house with the Queen Anne with the turret. Yes. Yes. Are we measuring from the ridge pole of the main house? or from the top of the tower.

The ridge of the house. So these features are exempted from height in Article 1 and Section 1. So these aren't included. So you'd be measuring from the ridge line.

Fine, thank you.

Councilor Oliver, I have a question. I just wanted to verify, like literally the entirety of de minimis is focused on only non-conforming or non-conformances, correct?

I guess I have a question about where the height actually is. The Lincoln Street example you gave us was in the back. But I could see a situation where an addition could be made to the side where it might have more impact on the butter than it would be to the rear. And I think in the de minimis, didn't we allow somebody to go up a second story Is it going to make them able to go all the way up to super high? In other words, I want to be careful not to create an exception that makes a big addition. in terms of height available as opposed to something that just because of the peculiarity of the grade change like Lincoln Street. Because that was below the ridgeline significantly and they've got a special permit, but I would be

It's uneasy if that building right there is allowed to go to the side because it's nonconforming and then go all the way up to the same height. That makes a very substantial difference. In addition, that may be subject to FAR and that also may play a role, but I just want to understand the scope of what we're doing.

So the previous de minimis item was just about going to the second story within the footprint of the first story. It wouldn't allow you to go beyond that. So if the building was three and a half stories, You couldn't go three and a half stories because of this. I think you're less likely to see this triggered on side additions because really where it comes into play is when you have a change in grade that's somewhat dramatic where you're putting the addition Right, and it's lower. So most lots, you don't have a ton of space on the side, and you're probably not falling off really steeply to the side. It could happen. But more often than not, you see the lot is sloping up or down more dramatically. And so when you go further out,

Thank you for watching. Thank you for joining us. and so on.

I understand that. I guess the point I'm getting at is that there are places where there is a significant slope and the effective impact on the abutter may be significantly higher, literally, because of The height difference. So I would be more supportive of this idea if there were some way of looking at at least this building in the side setback somewhat differently than in the rear. Is that a possibility?

Well, this relief, you wouldn't be able to do this in the setback. Right. period. The other recent change was to allow that second story within the existing footprint only. So this really, I think, is separate. You'd have to still be meeting FAR. You'd have to still be within the setbacks. So it could still have more of an impact if they do go to the side. But you are You still have the setbacks limiting and you still have the FAR.

But is it possible to favor a rear edition as opposed to a side edition somehow? Or is that?

Yeah, I think that gets a little tricky in that not all homes are sort of neatly positioned. I think it's relatively rare circumstances where you have A lot of space left over the side of the house and can still meet the setbacks and put a large addition there.

And the original building is already not performing for height anyway.

Right. And it's not going to be taller than the original building. It's just sort of a quirk with how this height gets measured.

Any other comments or questions? Anybody want to move? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Any abstentions? One. I just want to think a little bit about, and I ask you all to help me think that through. But that's the only risk I'm really worried about. Okay.

Four for four.

Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Norah, I have a quick question. Do we have a vote on this? Oh, it's a zoning amendment, so you do.

Yep. I think they already did, right?

We already did, yes.

I think so. We took a straw vote, but it wasn't in the public hearing, because this item was docketed separately. So a vote in this meeting would be advisable.

All right. If I can entertain a motion to vote to approve this, please.

So moved.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Any abstentions? One abstention. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. OK, now.

Mr. LaMalle, and four for four. Okay, so that takes us to 269.25, requesting discussion and amendments to talk and this is expanding it to a larger distance like 500 feet and the question is what are you What do we do here? And the department has given us a memo, but who's gonna present this one? I will.

So we took a close look at this, our staff as well as staff in the clerk's office, just to see what would be involved in expanding that radius. As I put in the memo, it It kind of varies quite a bit. depending on the size of the parcels basically surrounding the site. So 300 feet versus 500 feet. I think one of them, it was going from nine to eight people and others are well, you know, hundreds and hundreds. more than doubling what's required. I think the intent of this is a really important one in how do we make sure more people know what's, sorry. More people know what the city is working on and know about these large development projects and know where to find information. And that's where I think there is plenty of room to improve that process.

I'm not sure that mailing a letter or postcard to more people is necessary accomplishing that in proportion to the work that would be involved to do so. I think there's other ways we can do this better. I think one important part Attorney Lee has been working on, and I think this is another one that the council approved and the administration needs to file, home rule petition. to not have to put our notice in a physical paper any longer. This is a really outdated way of notifying people of public hearings. I don't know of anyone that's getting the Boston Herald delivered in order to see when upcoming hearings are. People are going online to look. They're looking at the city website. They're going to other sources to find this information.

So I think in conjunction with that home rule petition, it'd be great if we could use more online sources to post these. Some of our local news organizations like fake city does a great job of showing people what's coming and what is happening in the city and meetings that are coming up. I think we could utilize something like that better. to advertise public hearings. I think the city website in general we can make easier to use and to find. In my memo linked to some of the initial changes we've made on The planning website to make it easier to find information on development projects and find the status. I think we're still looking to refine that and make that better as well. and, you know, making sure we're providing links directly to the new gov record.

So the goal is that people are aware of what's going on, especially for these larger projects, know where to go to find that information. and then can find all of the information that goes along with it and not just that there's a public hearing coming up, but they can go online and look at all the documents and the plans, et cetera. So I think our recommendation along with the clerk's office and Ms. Flynn can jump in as well, is that we hold off on increasing the radius, but we work on some of these other methods to make it easier to access this information in ways that people use to find information.

So thank you. This is not a public hearing item. This is a conversation. So I just want to be clear.

If you wanted me to jump in, just from a perspective of it, because you're the ones that we send out the notice I'm in complete agreement with. Miss Kyra. I think that we need to find ways that we'll actually reach people. I don't think the notices is always why we bring people in. I think it's because of websites like Big City, like The Beacon. Notices that we post online on our electronic poster board and if that's how we bring people in and ways that we could I think the clerk's office also could do a better job on our website about promoting special permanent land use items as well as other items on the council's docket. I think that's kind of how we move forward here.

Okay, I want to recognize Councilor Wright and Councilor Albright. I have a comment.

So I was the original docketer on this one. And where this came from, and I'm willing, and we can talk about maybe not do it as broad, but for 40B projects, As soon as they submit it to the state or whatever, there's a clock that they're going to accept inputs from the residents. And most of the people don't and I don't know what the date is like 60 days or whatever but most of the residents even just 300 feet away find out about a 30 or 45 days afterwards and then they gotta you know tell other friends and things like that so it's it's important at the beginning for 40-day projects and again the bigger ones you know if it's 20 units and I don't know what the number is but you know something that's much bigger and there's not as many and then once um 40B projects versus other ones.

So it wouldn't be as burdensome. But there is a constraint of people are supposed to submit their letters to the state. I forget what organization it is. And you said you would collect them afterwards and submit them. But people feel like, well, there's a date that they need to have them in, they want to get it in, and they don't find out about it until after that.

Can I provide more context on that? It is a tough turnaround. It's 30 days. And there's no noticing requirement for those. The way 40B is set up is they submit for project eligibility initially, and that's with a subsidizing agency. It's the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities with the state, or it's Mass Housing. So they submit to them for project eligibility. As part of their process, they allow the city to comment. And we are given 30 days from when they send the notice Thankfully, they email us now. They used to send a letter, and it went to the mayor. So sometimes weeks had passed by the time we found out that the clock had started. We right away turn around and send out notice to the abutter.

So we send an email to the city council as well as to boards and commissions and give them an opportunity to comment. There's no requirement that we notice the public at all as part of this process. We have. So we send a postcard out to the abutters right away. We give them a deadline if they want their comments incorporated with ours, but we only have 30 days. Sending it, I think there is an issue in that they're getting it and don't have time to turn around. A larger radius doesn't solve that because I've talked to people at the site visits. And again, this is fully the subsidizing agencies process. It's not ours. We have no control over it. They set a date for a site visit. I've talked to people at the site visit that were noticed that hadn't received the postcard yet. So sending a postcard to more people I don't think solves that issue. Again, I think

being broadcasting it a little more broadly online because It also is just for the subsidizing agency as part of project eligibility. They're looking more at financial as part of that. It's not whether the 40B gets granted. if they get approved for project eligibility then they apply with the ZBA and then that opens up the full public hearing process where they have many many opportunities to speak and to submit comments. I know it's the first time people are hearing about these projects, so they really want to get those comments in during that first window, but that's not really what that process is for. they still have the full comprehensive permit to process public hearings to do so. So I don't think sending the postcards to more people there helps just because

It's already not getting to them in time sometimes to turn around comments.

But sometimes they do get them. And I think the one in Craft Street, a few people did get them. But they need to tell their neighbors. Even though they're just a couple of houses down, they don't know about it. And again, you know, making people go to the city website every week to see what it is. We need some way to push it out to them on a quicker basis. And that's why I think going to the 500 feet, and again, maybe just for the 40 bees above so many units, so it's really not that many, would make a little bit of a difference.

I'm curious where this will go because, again, I personally don't think it's going to make that big of a difference during that first period. We don't have a lot of time to turn around our comments. and again, it's not really the venue for those comments from the neighbors either. They're looking more at the, you know, and so on. because we'd first have to codify a requirement that is part of a process that doesn't exist at all in any of our city ordinances because we're being invited to comment on something. And so I'm not sure how we create an ordinance to require a certain type of noticing for a state process

where the city's not the decision maker, the city's just invited to provide a comment. And when people do provide comments later, they provide them directly to the state and they still accept them.

I actually think that I'm hearing what you're saying. But more importantly, I think that, you know, in terms of just even 4DB projects, I think that, you know, and this is notification in general of, I do like both pieces. I like the either some place where people are more than likely to look. And I love the idea of being able to then give people more information, you know, just out of like, you know, tag them into the portals and then getting to look at plans. The homepage, you know, I'm just trying to figure out places where people will, you know, and it's unfortunate that people would then have to stumble across it. They'd have to intentionally be looking. But I completely understand what you're talking about in terms of process for us.

Yeah, and I think it's just important to distinguish between the two processes because one is not our process and we are just invited to provide comment. Another is our process, and we have more control over how that works than the former. Yeah, I mean, I think putting, you know, being Trying to find more places to post the information online, making it easier to access. It's helpful for everyone. We've already have been thinking about that and trying to make that easier. I don't know if more postcards achieves that goal.

So I agree with you about postcards. If everybody meets me in the way I do, I'm not sure that sending more postcards would be helpful, especially if it's only 30 days. I think I would be reading my postcards when it's like five days to go over the 30 days. I agree that 30 days isn't as important as the time that the CBA is handling the project. And finding a good way to let people know about that is good, but I think we could do a better job with our signs for our special permits. I've seen, I forgot my phone tonight, but I took a picture of a sign in another city in North Carolina of how they had a, and notice about the, and it was a, it was a catchier sign with some colors to it. And it wasn't, you know, a place where someone wrote it in by hand. You can hardly read. So I think we could do a better job with our special permits, I guess.

Yes, I will say getting away from writing it in five hand and stuff, I think we We did recently redesign them slightly. I think they might be posting the notice on them now. I'd have to check. But we'd have to special order every sign. for that project's particular information if we didn't write it in by hand or do some other method.

Well, even if we write it in by hand still, I think the basic format for design could be Yeah, send us what you saw. Okay, I will.

We have a big stack of them right now that we already bought, but are open to changes for sure.

Well, just the only thing is that the Yeah, we go through a lot of them.

So we have a stack on hand. So what we do is we buy boxes of them. and have the posts as well. Because we don't have a ton of lead time always for someone to get that sign out once the hearing's been scheduled. So I don't think we could, it would be, It wouldn't be feasible to print them to order at the high school, but we may be able to come up with a different design or layout for them. And we can check if the high school can do it cheaper than our current vendor.

So this is part of the larger question of notifying people. And I agree with you that expanding the notice of postcards that are slow, because I don't know about you all, but the mail is increasingly slow. But I'm wondering if as a long-term strategy, and this is not just for special permits, there might be something to suggest to the incoming administration that looks at a way that property owners could elect to get an email notice. Just say I sign here and you send me a note by email at this email address if there's something that's going on that might affect me and I would be grateful. You know, I mean, you can't require people, I suspect, to do that, but if you say, if you would like to be informed about special permits or things that

and not everybody's on the mayor's newsletter, but they're like, no, you know, the street is out and I can't go down that street or whatever. So they may be, this is beyond the scope of our committee and this item. but I do think the doctors have raised an important point and your response, I think, I hope will get us thinking about some more innovative ways

and I think as much as I agree with every single word I'm hearing, we still need to let The Butters know. That's more important to me because there's no reason we can't or shouldn't. I agree that I'm not quite sure how yet, but whether we try postcards And then, you know, I realize that's going to take 93% more time, theoretically. Is that really what that means? Yeah, so it's just like, I mean, It just takes a little bit longer to literally, you know, process 93% more on average.

Yeah, on average it doubles. On average it doubles.

Yeah. I guess all I'm really saying is I completely agree that this is one of those places where the intent, I think, we need to figure out a way where the intent is satisfied despite the process being a bit of a pita. Pain in the... Because to me, the only reason that we put this up is because of the sheer Consternation and just the anger that this causes from people who are 302 feet perhaps away. Whether it's the great 30 day or not, I think we can you know continue to educate and talk to people about that but at the same time I still think we need to be doing everything that we can and even if those things at first are shots in the dark Completely agree.

I think you'll always end up with the person who's just outside the radius. So you do 500 feet, the person 502 feet is going to be upset. So that's where I think focusing on making sure it gets to a butters, but also that we're figuring out how to make that information more widely available for anyone who's interested is important.

And I think I do. Sorry, just to add to the point, I think that there is still a concern about staff time on this. I think we're kind of spread thin as it is, and this does add another aspect to that.

Well, that is completely understood. Yeah.

So, I mean, if the postcard's not the right solution going farther, I think two things you could do that would help greatly, and again, we just got a lot of crap from people on this, not knowing what's going on. is like for a 40B, like the special permit, a sign, but a bigger sign in like orange. So when someone's driving by there, they'll notice what's this about and tell, the counselors because Councilor Malakie and myself have many many times gone door to door and let leaflet to tell people there's an upcoming meeting you know you should get involved here's the website you know like the Washington Street pilot and I believe you guys or someone just did Washington Street and we did all the theater streets onto Washington Street so everyone would know the type of thing so

You know, as soon as you find out, I think going to the counselors and then they can put it on the listservs or they can put it in their newsletter and that, get it out and then a big orange bright sign, big or not just a little one, on the property because that 30 days is fast. And so you want people to get that information sooner than later and making people come to the city website to look it up is the wrong way. We need to push it out.

I agree. So we do send it to the council as soon as we get it for that project eligibility. So we send it to typically the full council as soon as we get it, as well as to boards and commissions. And that's via email. So you're getting that. You should be getting that right away.

So anybody else? I think that we applaud the thought to somehow go beyond Established distance by some mechanism. We don't know what that is. Any further discussion on this item? Do I have a motion on this one? Taylor.

Before we move to motion, do you want You know, whether it's posting on Fake City News or Beacon, things like that.

Okay.

So you have to be documented, but I can assume the doctors will take care of that. Okay. It's fair to say. All those in favor say aye. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Last time, Thank you again, Mr. Farrell. There's a reappointment of Scott Friedman to the Newtonville Historic District Commission. This is a reappointment, and extraordinarily, he would be somebody who wants to see the candidates. To have resumes, any mention is attached. Any questions? Any motion? All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Abstention?

Aye. I think that does it. All right. Thank you very much.

You guys have got a big job.

Thank you.