Joint Zoning and Planning & Finance Committees - January 26, 2026

Yes, I'm still here, Counselor.

Okay, yeah, I understand. I'm having a little difficulty. Now we're here. All right. Okay, I think we're in business. Good evening. This is a... jointly held meeting of zoning and planning and finance committee and then concluding the joint discussion zoning and planning will continue with items that we have on our agenda and operating At a little disadvantage because I'm on a computer that doesn't have a very big screen, so I can't quite tell who's who and where they are. So I'm going to ask Miles to help me out a little bit, as well as the vice chair. Grossman, I think you're there. Yes. Okay.

I'm here.

Wonderful. Just to indicate, I'm Lyle Baker, Chair of the Zoning and Planning Committee, and I'm joined by, I believe, a number of members of the committee, Councilor Albright. I can't quite see who else is... Here, for some reason, the names and the images are poor on this screen, so bear with me, colleagues. Grossman. Do you want to introduce your colleagues? Because I think you can see them better than I can see mine.

So from the Finance Committee, we have Councilor Greenberg from Ward 1, Councilor Malakie from Ward 3, Councilor Krintzman from Ward 4. Charm from Ward 5, Councilor Bixby, who's Vice Chair of the Committee from Ward 6, myself, Chair of the Committee from Ward 7, and Councilor Silber from Ward 8.

Thank you. And colleagues, I can't tell who's here from our committee. Clearly, I saw Councilor Albright earlier, I believe.

Do you want me to feed them to you?

Yeah.

Councilor Getz? Councilor Gordon? Uh... Let's see. I'm looking for, oh, Councilor Wright, Councilor Dahmubed. And that's all I see. Unless there's a, wait, there's a second page. Oliver? Oliver. Is there anybody that I missed?

Councilor Roach is here, but I'm not sure if he is on.

Yeah, no, he's not on ZAP.

At the meeting without portfolio.

and I think Councilor Block is there too. Okay, so let me just indicate that we've joined by several members of staff who I hope will identify themselves as we go. And just bear with the technical difficulties, but this is, we're here to discuss item 6026, which is the CPC recommendation to appropriate $600,000 in CPA historic resource funding, which is various accounts the docket item goes into the details of that to the planning department planning and development department for a grant to the Suzuki school for their elevator project So is Councilor Grossman, do you have any preference about how we go forward? I just asked the staff to make the presentation and then we go from there. Perfect. Okay. Who's going to present this?

Hi, it's me. For those of you who haven't met me, I'm Molly Hutchings. I'm the CPA program manager in the planning department. We might be joined at some point by Buzz Dunker, who is our chair. He is double booked with the Parks and Rec Commission tonight, but I think he's going to be popping in. And I know Laura Foote and Sachiko Ishihara are here representing the Suzuki school and I'm gonna present my screen hold on one second All right, we're here to talk about the Suzuki School and their addition. It's an elevator addition. A few of you, most of you, are probably familiar with this building. The original name of it is the Stables Farmhouse. It's a 1750s farmhouse.

It's a designated local historic landmark. This would be the first The first CPA project in Waban, and this is, I think, a very good fit for the first Waban project in that it is such a... not just a designated landmark but a locally known building it's right there in the village center The detailed project scope has been through the landmark overview process at NHC, which is the most rigorous approval process we have for historic building projects. and it has been approved. It includes an elevator and expanded classroom spaces and it keeps in character with the historic landmark and all the necessary characteristics of the exterior. It increases the accessibility of the building which aligns with the long-term goals of the

of the Community Preservation Committee, and it falls under the category of rehabilitation, which is an eligible expense for historic resource projects. And see, I think I have a picture on the next slide, but I'll skip to it. You can see this in the back. I'll let Laura and Sachiko answer detailed questions about the project scope, but this would be the... This would be the rear addition that you see here that's going in place. The CPA funding for $600,000 would represent 23% of the overall $2.5 million project budget. 23% is well within our guidelines that we give private historic resource proposals. Usually we look for at least 50% match and this is well within that.

$500,000, a little over, is available in the Historic Resource Reserves account, which those reserves are designated specifically for historic resource projects. So this would be eligible for those funds to be spent on that. talked about that. So this is the breakdown. This is the total balance. This $505,000 is the total balance of what we have in our historic reserve funds. We're required to put that aside into reserve funds at the beginning of each fiscal year. represents 10% of our revenue. So that is set aside for historic resource projects like this one. And then the balance would come from the unrestricted account. These are our current account balances for both of those funds and these will represent what they would be after approval. Again, the goal would be to spend down this reserved balance and then

cover the remaining costs out of the unrestricted prior year reserves. And that's it. I think I covered everything, but let me know. I'm a little out of practice because I'm at home and I usually don't do these from home. So let me know if there's any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Hutchins. Questions from Zoning and Planning and Councilor Grossman and your committee? Albright. Are you muted?

Sorry, I was muted. Thank you, Chair Baker. Molly, are there any kinds of rehab projects that would not be allowed for the use of CPA historic money? or are all the rehab projects in spec?

I can't think of an example that wouldn't be allowed. The only thing that... has come up for historic resource funds that is an inalienable expense is anything that's educational. Museum exhibits or anything like that. But any improvement to a building that falls under the Secretary of Interior's rehab standard, I think would be allowed. Okay, thank you for that.

Any other questions? Since this isn't, and Walden is the Ward 5 Councilor.

Yeah, I'm here, but I'm also trying to.

There are a bunch of questions.

Okay, I'm sorry, Councilor Grossman, you've got, you've raised hands, sorry.

That's okay. And if you need any assistance finding the hands on the screen, let me know. I don't know if other people are having this problem, but the location of the raise hand feature, at least on my screen, Yeah, it changed. A different spot than it was before. It's under the React category for those who are looking for it. So to me, I'm so glad that you brought this project before us. I'm very supportive of it. I think it's an absolute no-brainer for us to support it. So let me just put that out there. I think because this is the first CPA project we've had come before our group of new counselors, It would be really helpful, Miss Hutchings, if you could just give a very brief overview about where this money comes from, how it comes into our coffers each year. and how it goes out. So for example, obviously this will wipe out the historic preservation portion of the funding for this year.

I think particularly for people who haven't been through this process before, it would be helpful to know When can we expect that to, you know, be reloaded and, you know, at approximately what level just for background? Thank you.

Absolutely. The Community Preservation Act funding comes from a 1% surcharge on property taxes. You may be familiar with it if you own a home in Newton. It can be spent on historic resource projects, historic preservation, affordable housing, which we fund through our support of the Affordable Housing Trust. Open Space Projects and Recreation Projects. So our program brings in about four and a half to five million dollars a year in revenue through this surcharge and through a state match and it can be spent or how Newton processes applications is that applications are accepted on a rolling basis.

and they're reviewed by the Community Preservation Committee and then they come before a relevant subcommittee and finance before going to full city council for approval. So what you're seeing here is that second phase where it's been reviewed by the Community Preservation Committee they have recommended it for funding and it's now before this time a joint committee which we usually don't don't have that efficiency but the funds are allocated every fiscal year so you should see 10% of our revenue set aside for 10% every year set aside for historic reserve our historic resource projects our open space projects and for affordable housing. Now money is set aside at the beginning of the fiscal year when we do the budget every year.

Thank you. And I'd encourage colleagues who want to know more to dive in. I think, Ms. Hutchings, I know that there's an overview couple pages that I've seen before over the years as items. come through early in a new term. So if you can dig that out and circulate it around as background, it doesn't necessarily, in my opinion, need to be before you know this item is voted on but I just think that a refresher particularly for new people is helpful and just on the point of the joint meeting those of you who have worked with me for a while know joint meetings are not are never my favorite setting. I just think this volume of faces on the screen all at one time is a little overwhelming and that the function of the finance committee is usually to Take a look at things from a fresh set of eyes and a slightly different perspective when it comes to us.

but you're catching us at the exact right moment because while we await our new mayor to start docketing finance items, we don't have a whole lot to do. So I wanted to make sure we could move forward. And I certainly know that the school wants to move forward and is ready to go. So I'm happy to do it in this instance. But finance committee members... Right. Don't don't expect it often. Thanks.

I think now I can see hands raised. So I see Councilor Getz, Councilor Oliver and Councilor Wright, at least on my side. I just need to jump in to let you know I cannot raise my hand so I'm oh okay I padded up but I can't do it on the screen so sorry so uh we'll put you in the queue uh thank you very much Councilor Gordon uh Councilor Getz

Yeah, thank you very much, Ms. Hutchings, for giving that overview because I think that's really helpful. I just want to add that this is a pretty... What I would consider an investment in our community here in Waban. We have four designated landmarks. Very proximal to our village center. And I sort of feel as if this kind of investment is reinforcing You know, what we want to do with our historic properties. We want to invest and we want to see them continue. This one specifically is our oldest. So I really appreciate the support of the committee for this appropriation from the CPC dollars. But it's important to understand that this is what CPC is for. And this is actually, I think, a wise investment in our city.

So I just I want to thank all of the people that were involved in putting this forward. This has been many pieces moving at the same time, but hopefully we'll reach fruition tonight. Thank you.

Thank you.

Great, thank you, Chair. Sorry, I would just, if I may, like, again, Echoing the comments I've heard so far, I am supportive of the idea here and the project, at least in general, But I was hoping you could talk a little bit more about the actual project. I thought I heard something about an addition and I'm reading about an elevator. Maybe you could just talk to us a little bit about what the dollars are going for, like a little bit more specifically, please.

Do you want me to take that, Laura or Sachiko, or do you want to take over?

I'm happy to talk about the project if you like. I'm Sachiko Ishihara. I'm the executive director of the Suzuki.

Sorry, we can't hear you though. I'm losing.

I'm sorry. Is this better?

A little faint, but can others hear okay?

Let me see if I can, I don't know, is that any better? No?

Talk a little louder or come a little closer to the speaker probably.

Okay, all right. I'm unusually not soft. Yes, so this is actually phase two of a renovation project. In phase one when we purchased the building we had to focus in on life safety and all the code compliance in order to have a change of use from a residential and a home business to install the nonprofit community music school that we are. We invested about $2.3 million in our first phase, but we knew that we had to comply for more physical access, which is the elevator. And it is a historic building and as much as we studied it, to try to put in an interior elevator. It was not possible based on its original structure. So we requested the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board, the MAAB, for an extension of time because if we had to

make a bump out addition to house the elevator. It would require a special permit and a delay. And at the time, we were losing our rental location and we were pretty desperate to find a location to operate. So in this phase two of the renovation, we are investing a little over $2.5 million at our current estimate for the budget. very luckily raised about 1.5, a little over $1.5 million. And with the 600,000 appropriation, that will bring us to $2.1 million. of our $2.5 million, and we're not quite in our public phase of the capital campaign. So we are feeling that this is the critical juncture for the board of directors to feel Thank you very much.

while this installation is happening because we don't want children to be in a construction zone. So the main entrance is where you see the glass in the middle. There's a Double Door Entryway. This is the new section that will cover over what are currently a lot of ramps and a small Deck because there are two different levels of the two separate sides of the building. And it will house an elevator and a central staircase. and on the right where you can see it sort of jetting out with also some double windows and a pointed roof with a half moon window there. That is the addition. It will hold two classrooms, one on the ground floor, presumably another preschool classroom because we do run an arts-focused preschool full day, and a second floor community room

which is the largest it will be the largest room a little over 500 square feet with a cathedral ceiling to hold some ensemble performances and some community meetings we currently house the Waban Improvement Society board meetings. Waban Area Council has approached me about possible doing meetings after we build our addition. So we also have the Newton Porch Fest who also meets in our building. So we're hopeful. that with this addition with the elevator we will have more community access via the elevator and we can remove the exterior ramps. That's the project.

Okay, thank you very much.

I appreciate that. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to understand the project a little better. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Wright, then Councilor Gordon, then Councilor Charm, I believe.

um yes so my thank you um uh chair Baker my first question John asked it for me because I wanted a little bit more specifics on that and um you said you had some money earlier, and that was just to make the building mainly compliant to some general standards. Is that correct?

Who's answering that?

I think that was directed to Sachiko and Laura. Thank you.

I couldn't unmute myself because it's controlled by somebody else. Anyway, yes, we raised $2.2 million for the first phase of renovations, plus we raised $1.2 million towards the purchase.

Okay, and then this one is mainly for the elevator and the addition and through other things to make it accessible. Yes. Okay, thank you. That's it.

Thank you. Councilor Charm. Did you have your hand up?

Yes, I did. Thank you. I am from Ward 5. I'm from Waban. I've had the benefit of walking through this space and getting the detailed tour from Sachiko to really understand what the vision of this edition and why it makes sense. I'm really strongly supportive of this proposal. My question was a little bit more to what Chair Grossman was Trying to tee up for those of us who are newbies. So I would love to know, Ms. Hutchings, you know, of... there's a reference that like this would be depleting the historic funds that are available. I would love to just have a sense of like, You know, what is the balance of some of the different pieces of the CPA account? And to have maybe a little bit more of a sense of like what they have been spent on in the past because

I think my question is, I really strongly support this, but is there an opportunity cost? What is the opportunity cost of us giving this funding to Suzuki versus versus something else that might be coming up. And I understand it's on a rolling basis. Seems like they're in the right place at the right time, but would love to have a sense of like, what is that balance for this segment of the funds and any examples of others that have been spent on this?

Yes, so Historic Reserve account is sort of a, I think can be a little misleading of it. It's not... The only funds that we can spend on historic resource projects. It's just funds that can only be spent on historic resource projects. So every year, 10% of our funding is put into these reserve accounts. And those have to be spent towards those type of projects. But this unrestricted fund contains the balance. and that unrestricted fund can go to any category. So we're not prohibited from spending further money on historic resource CPA proposals. Those can still come in Our affordable housing reserve is spent every year because it goes immediately to the affordable housing trust.

We fund them at 35%, so that 10% is included in that off the top. Our open space reserve, likewise, is spent on payment debt service payments for the Webster Woods project every year. So that also doesn't accumulate. So really our unrestricted fund is our CPA fund. That's really The majority of our spending comes out of that fund. Only our historic resource fund can accumulate. And here we would just spend it down.

Have there been other drawdowns on this during this? No, not yet.

Okay. Is that it? Councilor Gordon, sorry, I didn't mean to miss you, but the hand feature is the challenge. So let me come back to you and then I'll pick up other people.

Thank you, Chair Baker. Yeah, I don't know why my hand icon is not on my screen, so sorry about that. I just want to say I love this because two of my favorite things are music and historic preservation. So I hope you will take my questions in the spirit of which they are meant, which is that I was a little, when I looked through all the materials and being a new counselor, The latest financials that were included in the packet were from 2023 and it would have been really helpful to have seen your most recent financials including your fundraising efforts. I think you said that this phase of the project is $2.5 million. And I'm curious how you came up with the $600,000 ask question. and also whether you're getting a lift or an elevator. They're two different types of

and they have vastly different costs. So I'm assuming that the bulk of those 600,000 is going towards the renovation of the rooms. and or the addition of the rooms onto the historic building. So I was just looking for some clarification around that. I also would have liked to have seen some estimates from your contractor to better understand exactly how this all fits into the $2.5 million price tags. Thank you.

If you would like me to answer, I believe I'm unmuted at the moment. All of the material, a budget and a very detailed A construction estimate is in our CPC public file. So you should be able to see a complete breakdown, including an unaudited P&L, profit and loss statement. Our fiscal year runs from September 1 to August 31. So our tax year is 2023, so it's the year ending August 31st, 2024. So you should have both the ending 2023 and 2024. The audit is not completed for the August 31st, 2025, but we did submit an unaudited profit and loss statement.

For the funding that we've done so far, as I mentioned before, we have raised a little over $1.5 million in individual donations. We calculated where we thought we could go with our individual donors and basically what we were asking for is the gap, which turned out to be about $600,000. which would just get us close enough that we think that we'll be able to complete the project in the next, our hope is to start construction in the summertime So we're pushing pretty hard to get our funding in place in the next couple of months. Does that answer all your questions? There were a couple.

Well, I'll just say I was curious about the lift versus the elevator. The link now to the CPC is down. It was up earlier. And I didn't see the more recent financials, but I'll go back and look. So my apologies if they were there and I didn't see them.

Well, to give you a rough sketch, our operating budget is a little over $2 million. Thank you. Thank you. Our normal operating income was around $45,000, and since we've been running a capital campaign, we have a little bit of interest income in addition to that, so we netted about $60,000 for the year. if that's helpful. And for the lift, so we are not installing a full hydraulic elevator. It requires a very large mechanical room. but we are installing, I think, a version of the Lula, which is the lift. I do have my project manager here, Bill Byrne, who might give you more specifics

It is a five-stop elevator. It needs to open up on two sides because of the fact that the two sides of the building are It's a little bit more complicated than your standard Lula. It's for the basement, first floor and second floor of the more modern 1980s edition and just two floors of the Historic Side. And just to reiterate, this would be our very first CBC grant in our fundraising efforts.

Thank you, Chair Baker.

I just wanted to echo my support for this and my enthusiasm to see if you've My favorite things, which is music education, historic preservation, historic architecture, and in particular, accessibility for people with mobility needs coming together through this project. in particular the way that it's been designed with universal access principles makes it a really exciting prospect for the preservation of this beautiful historic building and its future. Thank you.

Okay, is there anyone else who wishes to be heard? If not, I'd entertain a motion on this item from generally the ward Councilor involves, at least for zoning and planning, sometimes moves it, but they also have finance. Anyone care to move this in zoning and planning?

I do. I'll move it.

All right. Councilor Gess has moved approval.

So I move approval of the CBC funding request for the Suzuki School.

Okay. Councilor Grossman.

Thank you. Councilor Charm, would you like to move approval in the Finance Committee?

I would be delighted to move approval.

Okay.

On zoning and planning, all those in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Abstentions? Okay, thank you.

On finance, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Okay, I think that concludes the work of the Finance Committee for the evening. So, Finance, you are adjourned.

Thank you very much for joining us, and I appreciate your indulgence of a joint meeting. I won't try and abuse the privilege, but it was great to see you.

It was wonderful to be with you all. Thank you all for the presentation conversation and for bringing this forward and good luck with the project. It's going to be great.

Thanks. Okay, zoning and planning, folks. We're going to move on. And first, I just want to recognize that we've been joined tonight by Zachary LaMille, our very able planner who is I'm going to depart after today, but we want to say how much we've appreciated his time and service to the community and to this committee. He's been shoveling and taking care of Children and all sorts of things but he is showing up tonight and I just wanted to start the meeting by just saying how much we've appreciated him and if we had an in-person meeting we would I have something for you to eat and drink, but I'm afraid all we can give you is virtual good wishes. But I just wanted to start introducing you and having you say a word before we get into the topics of the evening.

Well, thank you, Chair. This is recorded, so it lasts forever, unlike the in-person treat, so even better. But yeah, no, thank you, really. I appreciate that. I it's been it's been six and a half years and there's been a lot of work done and I am looking forward to kind of keeping an eye and see what else is done over the next two four years and beyond.

Thank you. And we're going to hear from you in your professional capacity, but I just wanted to take a moment to celebrate your service and wish you well in your new role. So, colleagues, I think given we have people from outside the committee joining us that I may take up the BCOD item out of order, if that's agreeable, which would be 3526, because I'd like to have those People have a chance to be participants. The lead docketers are Councilor Block, Malakie, and Farrell. And so because they're not members of the committee, I think if that's agreeable to the department staff. We might do that first before we get to the other items. Is that all right? Okay. So this is item 3526, requesting a discussion on VCOD and accessibility of the Arbondale and West Newton commuter rail stations.

More specifically, Councilors Block, Malakie, and Farrell requesting a discussion to consider whether the VCOD districts in Auburndale and West Newton should be suspended or changed in some other way. until such time as work has begun making the Armordale and West Newton commuter rail stations accessible for people with disabilities. So the department has prepared a memo, which is part of the backup for this item, but I wanted to Again, by offering the docketers a chance to explain their item and then go to the public department for comment. Councilor Block, welcome.

Thank you, Chair. Appreciate the opportunity. Thank you for taking this out of order. In November of 2023, the results of the election at that time influenced the city council to focus a focus on a compromise to Meet the MBTA Community Act compliance and to not go beyond the 8,330 units that is Newton's quota. There was one exception to this general agreement.

Mayor Fuller in her November 14th newsletter said the following. I want to read portions of it into the record. I do encourage the City Council to consider adding one more village center to the zoning, Auburndale. Why Auburndale? We have three commuter rail stations in Newton, Auburndale, West Newton, and Newtonville. All three are accessible only for the able-bodied, and all three only have platforms on one side. These are the only three single platform stations in the entire Massachusetts commuter rail system. Congressman Jake Auchincloss, Senator Cindy Cream, Representative Kay Kahn, and I, Mayor Fuller, have been working hard to have all three commuter rail stations rebuilt with elevators and two platforms. This would be a permanent positive game changer for people who live and work on the north side of Newton.

If Auburndale is not included in our updated zoning, we will run a high risk of not getting the funding support we need from the Healey-Driscoll administration to rebuild the stations. Their top priority is addressing the shortage of housing in the Commonwealth. So the city council in its wisdom responded to the mayor's encouragement by extending the VCOD to Auburndale. and we now know the result of the effort to obtain state and federal funds to rehabilitate and make accessible these three stations funding was awarded for Newtonville, but not for West Newton and not for Auburndale.

As the award for Councilor, it is astonishing to me that these two stations are not going to be made accessible. But that's where we are. And what little leverage Newton exerted by extending the VCOD to Auburndale obviously was unsuccessful. And at this point, I see no reason to leave this VCOD extension in place. If we ever want to reassert the leverage, we can do so, and we should do so, which is why I'm inclined

and included in the docket language to suggest that this zoning be suspended, not repealed, but suspended and that upon determination probably by the mayor that funding is available and construction has begun to make these community rail stations accessible then Then the VCOD would be reinstated just automatically. I think triggers like that are unusual, but I think we should consider doing something like that. I think the second aspect of this that I'd like to mention is the unintended negative consequences of the VCOD. which I see playing out in Auburndale and which may or may not be playing out in a similar fashion in other parts of this city.

The whole idea behind the VCOD was to encourage construction of housing. But what seems to also be happening is that owners of buildings look at the VCOD and they understandably and perhaps correctly conclude that they're Thank you for watching. I'll see you next time. to take advantage of the increased value of their properties. And in the case of Auburndale, it seems as though this is played out by at least one landlord choosing not to extend or offer long-term leases to businesses.

And without a long-term lease, financing from banks is difficult or not possible to obtain. So we've had a store close in Auburndale. Most of you may be familiar with this story. It was just next door and it was a card and gift shop that had been active for about 15 years. It was a successful business, but the owner no longer wanted to run a business. And she couldn't sell it because purchasers couldn't get bank financing without a long-term lease. So it's now a vacant storefront. and it's not a vacant storefront because it wasn't a viable business or there weren't enough customers.

It was all these other forces at play, which at the time, The VCOD was discussed and passed, was not really part of the conversation. It was all about how do we make more housing possible. So I think with a little passage of time, It's time to take another look, at least at Auburndale. I included a reference to West Newton because it too deserves rehabilitation and accessibility. However, West Newton, the VCOD extension to West Newton is part of the compliance with the MBTA Act. So it may be possible. without violating the terms of the MBTA Act to remove only a few parcels and still stay in compliance. So we'll need some analysis

of what's possible in West Newton to make a statement to ourselves, to the state, to the federal government. We're happy to talk to you about promoting more housing. But that will wait. until there's a serious discussion and appropriation of funds to rehabilitate and renovate these two stations. So I will stop right there. Thank you. Chair Baker.

Okay, thank you. The other docketers, I just wanted to indicate, Councilor Malakie and Farrell, do you have anything to add to your colleagues' statement?

I can raise my hand and it is under the react button. Yeah, I don't really need to add very much to that explanation. I mean, those of you not on the council might not have been aware of the various letters we got from public officials say basically sort of threatening that if you don't add Auburndale your and many more. Thank you. We did add Arbondale to the VCOD. It doesn't count for the MBTA communities, so I think we should go back and take it out of VCOD until such time as there's Thank you.

Thank you. you know a thorough analysis of how the numbers actually ended up. I would also point out at the recent when was it November we had that meeting an update from MassDOT and the MBTA about the Newtonville project and Until all three of these stations are done, it seems like we're not going to get increased level of service in the sense of better frequency. We'd get one accessible station, but not the increased level of service.

And I think anything we can do to exert what leverage we have to encourage all three stations to be done Farrell.

Thank you, Chair. I will not repeat the conversations about removing Oberndale because of the VCOD. and the station. I think they're pretty self-evident. I do think all of this brings up a really interesting question for all of us about The impact of the VCOD on the Village Center commercial properties and what is happening with rental in those areas, whether There is some incentive for landlords to hold off.

either continuing or extending current contracts or making new agreements possible until there's a better sense of what's going to happen with actual development. So I think this gives us an opportunity to take a look at Orbitdale and see whether this in some small way helps to improve the commercials. I am fully in agreement with Let's See More Housing. I think we went out of our way during several years to agree to this. I'd love to have a report sometime on how it's working out. But I am concerned that if landlords indeed are withholding the rental of space or increasing the cost of rental space because of the possibility for

greater value in their properties. I think we should look at that. So I'm very supportive of this notion. I don't think it harms Newton in any way. I don't think we're breaking any agreements. And so I'm very supportive. I'm glad that my colleague from Ward 4 set this up. Thank you.

Okay. Well, thank you. I'm going to go to members of the committee, but the department had prepared a response of some length in their memo, and I wanted to give the planning department an opportunity to respond to this item. and then I'll take up, see Councilor Albright's hand and then others. And Mr. LaMelle and Ms. Bewell, who's going to talk about this for us?

I'm happy to say a brief comment related to the memo. I think the counselors are correct that... as the memo stated, Auburndale as a zoning area within the VCOD is not part of Newton's state compliance, right? And there was a rationale and an explanation of why that was. West Newton very much is, and it seems to be acknowledged by the various docketers that suspending it or removing it, whatever language you want to use, would knock Newton out of compliance without adding new areas into the VCOD somewhere else. So that I think that's the kind of most practical, you know, around Newton and state compliance.

And I'm happy to answer other questions related to other elements and items that are being brought up. But actually, I would maybe call on Attorney Lee just to talk about the idea of Suspending zoning versus amending or removing and kind of the practicality of that. I've never heard of suspending zoning.

I appreciate that. I was going to ask him to do that anyway. So maybe we can clarify that at the outset.

Mr. Lee? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'll actually have to apologize in advance to keep you all in suspense. I need to look further into the answer. I'm not aware of a zoning being basically contingent on some other action before it becomes effective and that's essentially what's being asked. So I can take that under advisement but I can't answer it at this moment.

Okay. The conventional model, as we've seen in this committee and the council, is that you either pass something or you undo something. Suspension is not part of my experience as well, although it may be. Possibility, as Mr. Lee indicated.

Exactly. We'll look into it. Usually the way it works is you need to set whatever the effective date is. It's not contingent on some other action. And it would simply be you set it at X date. But like I said, I'll take a closer look at it to have a more firm answer for the committee.

Okay. Thank you. So let me come back to now discussion and committee. I had Councilor Albright.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So it's interesting. Well, let me start by saying I can't imagine taking Wes Newton out of the VCOD. It was difficult enough to do the planning in the first place and to have to take that out and find what would substitute for it would be a lot of work and a lot of I'm not sure if it would even be successful. So I think we should leave Wes Newton alone for sure. With respect to Auburndale, it's interesting. It's sort of a chicken and egg situation. I don't think that Auburndale Station will be fixed for a long time, but that doesn't mean it will never be on the list of things to be fixed. And the statement that we should...

Remove Auburndale as a way of imposing leverage to get the station fixed seems upside down to me. I think that the only way to have leverage is to leave Auburndale in the VCOD and say, come on, state, we're making our effort. to upgrade and make more housing in Auburndale. So now it's up to you to make our station more accessible and work better for Newton. So it feels backwards to take Auburndale out because it hasn't been approved as a station I mean, let's get Newtonville fixed and then let's start working on Auburndale and West Newton together. It just feels backwards to me to take it out.

The other thing that's really important, and this may have to do with the VC2 zoning, I don't, Zach and Katie, Mr. LaMail and Ms. Wewell, I don't think we've had any takers so far on VC2, have we?

There... One. There are projects and things happening. I don't think they're bringing things to a building permit. Per se, but there are projects moving forward in the kind of pre-development phases.

In VC2? Yes.

Yes.

Okay. Well, that's very heartening to me because I was worried that something was wrong with our VC2 zoning, why we had no takers. but that even leaves me more reason to leave Auburndale in to give options for making Auburndale a stronger Village Center than it is now, making it possible to add more housing and more feet on the street for the shops in Auburndale. It feels important to me to give Auburndale choices. You can use the base zoning. You don't have to use the VC2, but the VC2 is... makes it possible for more things to happen. And I really think it would behoove Auburndale to leave it into the VCO2 and the VCOD and give people options. to add housing because really that's the only way to enliven that village.

I've seen what's happened to Newtonville just because we have more housing here. It's made a huge difference. And I only wish that for every village in Newton. So I absolutely feel it's important to leave Auburndale alone. Thanks.

Thank you. I recognize Councilor Kalis. I was muted, so you didn't hear me recognizing.

I thought you might have telepathically. I do agree with Susan completely on that. I think... Part of it is we need to continue to apply pressure to the state and apply more pressure. I think we got... Newtonville. And then I don't know that we I haven't seen really a campaign to continue and to continue to push. But removing Auburndale, I think does send the wrong message. The thing that I really think our planning department should look into is the assertion that values are increasing so landlords are not extending leases. that's what I heard from Councilor Block and you know it's interesting but I don't know and I'd love the planning department or the economic development group

We have two people now to look into that. But I feel like now it's way too early to come to conclusions. on VCOD in Auburndale. I wouldn't take out Wes Newton either. And I do think it sends the wrong message to the state. So that's where I am.

Thank you. I couldn't see if the other hand's up.

Yes, Councilor Leary is here.

Welcome, Councilor Leary. Your hand is against the yellow background. My apologies.

Okay. In my view, it's against the Black background. Thank you very much. I just wanted to agree with the last two speakers. Reversing the Village Center overlay district. will not encourage investment in the Auburndale Rail Station and I think it would be a mistake to change it. As has already been mentioned, the underlining zoning still exists. Thank you so much for joining us. of our economic development and or planning and or if we have the Charles River Chamber involved in this to find out is that one owner doing this? Do we know the reasons for it?

Have you talked to the businesses about this idea in Auburndale and particularly coordinating with the Economic Development Commission and with the Charles River Chamber of Commerce. I think it would be a huge mistake to reverse the VCOD. There's only six of them in our villages. Originally, we had wanted... I had wanted more and we compromised already. And I think we do a disservice to an already struggling village if we did that. So thank you very much. And if anyone has answers to my questions, I would appreciate it.

Okay, I have in order Councilor Krintzman, Councilor Dahmubed, Councilor Wright, and Councilor Roche. So let me go in that order. Councilor Krintzman, welcome back.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to be here. I have always wondered what it was like to be at Zoning and Planning. So this is a little strange, but going to see how it goes. So thank you for having me. I I agree with a lot of the comments that were made by Councilor Albright, Councilor Kalis, and Councilor Leary. So I won't repeat what they said. I think that it would be foolish to actually think that us pausing the zoning on the BCOD would in some way inspire the state to act or that our actions there to sort of as a way to leverage our standing with the state would inspire them. I don't think that's how it works at all. I think actually we should be doing everything we can to encourage the state to invest. And part of that shows a commitment. The second thing I want to mention is that the reason

the state has asked for flexible zoning and zoning that permitted housing by right in and around transportation hubs is because it's good policy. Okay, and so we shouldn't be punishing ourselves and not doing things that are good policy and smart policy for some fantastical notion that is never likely to come to fruition. So for those two reasons, I... don't support eliminating the BCOD. I also want to say that those of us who frequent Auburndale and live in Ward 4, again, I'm a Ward 4 counselor at large, have long believed that Auburndale needed revitalization and needed some improvement. And it was our hope that the VCOD would do that. I think there was agreement that Auburndale needed revitalization. From that perspective, to go back to the zoning that led to a need for revitalization would also be foolish.

Those of us who know the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result Thank you. And again, welcome back.

Thank you. even as a guest. Councilor Dahmubed.

Thank you, Chair Baker. Yes, as the third ward for councilor to speak and a lifelong Auburndale resident, I am very passionate about seeing a thriving future for our village. And I'd like to take the chance to respond to a few comments and perhaps also answer one of Councillor Leary's questions. In particular, I think this has been a question about, and Councilor Block referenced this in his opening remarks, about the retail situation in some parts, and in particular about the unfortunate departure of a beloved business just next door in Auburndale Center. and it just so happens that I have been a lifelong family friend of the family that owns this property and through conversation with them have

come to understand that that departure and also the sort of retail condition of that building has much more to do with an internal family dispute and matter than it does with um The VCOD. In fact, it seemed actually that they may not even have been fully aware of the VCOD. So while I'm certainly sensitive to... Thank you so much for joining us. is a sort of different condition. I also want to align myself with the comments of Councilor Krintzman, Councilor Albright, and Councilor Kalis, and agree that this should not be seen as a chicken and egg problem, but rather as a walk and chew gum problem. and that by eliminating the potential for housing production, we take away our leverage in our negotiations with the state about getting more funding for the Auburndale station, which I have used.

on a nearly daily basis for most of my life and as I have gotten older and my backpack has gotten heavier I experience its challenges firsthand. and I agree that creating more housing unto itself is good policy unto itself. I would love to see us engage with the state Thank you so much. in order to see their investment come to Auburndale and to West Newton. Thank you for watching!

I think these are important ways that we could engage in order to get the kind of investment in our community that we would like to see and to help Facilitate that. I'm hoping in the near future to docket some items around historic preservation in our religious centers as well as a small business preservation plan and incubator proposal. So I hope that we will Keep what we have and seek to see it live up to its potential to foster investment in our community and make Auburndale and West Newton the wonderful thriving villages that they can be. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Wright, and then I have Councilor Roche on deck. And I'll come back to Councilor Block and Councilor Getz.

Thank you. I just want to address Councilor Leary's question. And I know in West Newton, some of the properties there where they're trying to decide what they're going to do with it and going forward, they would not give long-term leases. only short-term leases. And because of that, businesses have been leaving in those areas and it's not being filled. So if the landlord doesn't know what they're going to do or they possibly going to sell it or they're going to rebuild it themselves, short-term leases is one way for them to go about it. But it gives too much uncertainty to other businesses, especially if something like a restaurant where they're going to need to put some money into the business or the building itself. So it does affect it and we're having that issue right now in West Newton. Thank you.

Thank you. And I've got Councilor Roche, if you don't mind, Councilor Getz is a member of the committee and I want to just give her a chance to weigh in and then I'll come to you if that's okay.

Councilor Baker, I was also going to recommend Councilor Block up here to want to reply to something.

No, I see that too, and I'm going to bring him back. Yeah, I can go to the end of the line. I know, that's fine. Thank you. Getz, you want to?

Yeah, no, I just I appreciate this conversation. And I appreciate the docketers just in the sense of like being able to even have this conversation. I actually think that the VCOD needs to stay in place. And I think that many people have spoken to trying to leverage the state. and trying to you know especially Councilor Dahmubed, I just really think that it's very important to have conversations with state representatives so that we understand what we need to do in order to accelerate or even put Auburndale back on the map in the sense of the consideration.

I also feel like we need time in terms of this EDC sort of initiative to work on surveying property owners as well as businesses to find out what needs to happen in order to Incentivize the businesses becoming stronger in the village centers. I'm in a position right now where Absolutely no change to the West Newton BCOD designations. But to the Auburndale, I think of it as we need more of an understanding of what's going on there. And I think that we're on that path right now with the new mayor's initiatives as well as some of the new councilors and the work that they're proposing.

Okay, thank you. Councilor Roche, you were kind enough to allow Councilor Block to speak, so if you don't mind, I'm going to let him respond.

Yes, sorry, I had to unmute there for a second. Well, I'm not going to respond point by point. to different opinions that other people have suggested. My prime purpose in documenting this item was to begin a conversation and I think we've started to do that. and I think there have been some interesting suggestions in all of this. I'll just say this about the idea that Changing the VCOD in some way in Auburndale would be foolish. I think one could posit that implementing the VCOD in the first place

and thinking that that was going to be sufficient signal to the state and feds to get the funding that's needed to redesign and make accessible these commuter rail stations that that opinion might have been foolish as well. So setting aside what's foolish and not foolish, I think the issue is how can we achieve some goals that I think we all share? How can we accelerate the time when Auburndale and West Newton will be rebuilt and be accessible. I don't think there's anybody who doesn't want that to happen.

Having vital and active economy in Village Centers. I haven't heard anybody opposed to that, and nor am I. So it's always a question of how. What paths... Should we design? And I think we should think really hard about that. Some of this discussion feels dated. That dated from From 2023, when the council passed its compromise, some people thinking, oh, we've got to have more options, more choices. As though village centers themselves make these choices. It's actually owners, developers who make choices about what they want to do with their properties.

And, uh, um, and some people just want to have as much of that as possible and others want to limit it to see how it works and Auburndale was kind of caught in between. So I appreciate this conversation. I look forward to having more of it. And I think there have been a number of suggestions here tonight, which perhaps we can follow up on. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Roach, let me come to you and then Councilor Oliver.

I want to start by agreeing with Councilor Block that this is an important conversation and glad he raised it. As to Councilor Albright's chicken and egg characterization, I want to point out one of the risks here is not just that the station doesn't get funded for improvements. but it simply stops getting service altogether. And I think that that's a very real risk. It frankly might be a risk of reduced service when Newtonville comes online and it would certainly become a risk if West Newton were the only and next station to get funded even if there might be some suggestion of future funding for Auburndale as the third station. So I think we want to be conscious that that a risk here is not just the status quo, but worse than the status quo in terms of the transit

I think part of the unintended consequence might be the neither here nor there development opportunity of the VC2. Yes, there's development opportunity, but is there sufficient upside to justify the development costs and the risk? and I think that that's you know discussed a little bit but I think one of the things we need to figure out is maybe there's not enough development opportunity rather than there's too much if we want to have housing. And like Councilors Krintzman and Dahmubed, I don't agree with the premise that housing is only We have housing goals that are certainly tied to transit in some important ways.

but that more housing would be a value to this city and to the region even if the station is not improved. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Councilor Oliver. President Oliver. I didn't mean to just ignore your time.

Yeah, just John, that's fine. Thank you, Chair. I think... There are so many little, and they're not little, so many avenues here to talk about. And I'll just kind of go in reverse order because I think Councilor Roach just said a couple of really interesting things. are made some really interesting points there. It's just the very tail end of what his comments were. And correct me if I get any of these wrong. I think he's 100% right that we do have housing initiatives and parts of our zoning that are not tied to public transportation. We have several that are directly tied to public transportation, and we're talking about one of them right now.

VCOD in particular, right, is designed to be adjacent to, well, in village centers. And in this particular case, one of the reasons that it was I think it's fair to say one of the reasons it is part of VCOD is because of the argument that it is adjacent to one of our commuter rail stations. So I just want to make that point. Like, this is a case where the, you know, the development, right, the by-right development opportunities, and I do see them as opportunities in Auburndale, are tied to public transportation. I think we all know that the public transportation opportunities with our commuter rail stations are somewhat limited.

in particular what I'm talking about is the the frequency of the of the The trains. And as a commuter myself for years and years and years on commuter rail, that was always the biggest problem. with the communal rail itself, let alone that it only went in two directions. But that kind of happens with trains, I guess. So that's one point. I do want to also address something I just heard as well. VC2 was vetted twice, if I recall correctly, as being profitable to be developed. There were, I think, one or two properties that were assessed by I don't think it was Utile. I think it was someone else. Name of the company or consultant is escaping me right now, but that information is totally available.

Is it profitable enough? I'm not quite sure is ours to chase, but they were proven to be profitable. Otherwise, the state wouldn't have allowed us to design VC2 the way we did. Certainly wouldn't have been able to implement it the way we did. I do think this is a really interesting conversation because I believe that Councilor Block put his finger right on it a few minutes ago as well. To me, it's not First, let me back up one step. I don't think removing Wes Newton is even a, that's like a non-starter to me for a lot of really good reasons. I agree with the challenge that Councilor Wright brought up in terms of the vacant storefronts popping up more and more frequently.

That's becoming a challenge now as property owners... might be holding out to see what they may or may not do with their property. But we have to figure that out. And to me, that's an economic development challenge that I think I heard someone talking about. I agree with that one entirely. We should chase that down. I've also heard a couple of analogies here. I heard the walk and chew gum at the same time, and I've heard the doing the same and expecting different. and I appreciate both of them for I believe the intent that was behind them and I do want to point out that Newton's not Newton is not the one or the entity kind of in this discussion that's doing the same thing and expecting different. The state is.

they're the ones who who aren't stepping up to the plate to the commitment that they were talking about at the end of 2023 when we were receiving multiple letters about, hey, you put that in and this is how we're going to get there. Well, okay, let's see the other part of this equation come to fruition. I don't necessarily think that removing VCOD is the way to get there. I agree with that sentiment. But maybe the conversation needs to shift Well, the conversation definitely needs to shift. To what is a very good question. And I appreciate the fact that we're starting to get onto that right now. even though I still believe that our response to the MBTA Communities Act and BCOD is still fairly young. We are seeing developers build using that zoning.

We all know that there are a lot of economic headwinds out there that are posing other challenges as well right now. not to mention the broader landscape that I think are giving a lot of people pause so I don't necessarily think the jumping to the you know Abandoning VCOD or modifying VCOD is necessarily the right way to go, but it is worth Rethinking how we're approaching the work because if what we're saying in Auburndale and to a different degree, West Newton, if what we're really saying is we've got it, we have some We have zoning set up. I think the entirety of Auburndale is VC2. I don't think there's any MRT or VC3 that was left in what was passed. and if there's MRT, there's not much of it.

But either way, the idea there is it's by right development. I believe that we're still using MBTA-like or the identical MBTA Parking requirements. Maybe that's something we need to consider there because the commuter rail doesn't run Very frequently at all. I think it's nine times on a weekday and four on a weekend or at least they stop there. Anyway, I'm not saying that's the solution, and I'm not even saying that really that that should be a consideration, but I think the conversation is really positive. And I hope... The contrary to the recommendation. I don't think this item is an NAN tonight. I think this item might be a hold.

identify some places where we think there might be some interesting conversation to have. One of those places is, granted, not a docket item necessarily, but What do we do about elevating the conversation at the state level? Because I don't think it's just, and I don't mean this just, but it needs to go beyond Newton's representatives to the legislature. I think it needs to go beyond that. Anyway, that was a lot of stuff there. And I'm just going to sit down, close my mouth and listen. Thanks.

Okay, thank you. I have a counselor, excuse me, I thought Zach Lamel had raised his hand. I want to be heard here in a minute myself, but I want to recognize others before me. Mr. Lamel.

Thank you. I'll be pretty quick. One, the consultant was named Landwise. They've just joined U3 Advisors, so they're now U3 Advisors. Two other points is that talking about vacant storefronts and vacant storefronts in our village centers very much predates the VCOD. So I just want to say that... that concern and that problem is older than the village center zoning and probably will continue well on. And then the third piece that I would say is there are really great I hope the council works really closely with the administration's economic development team. There's really creative ways to activate and create allow for businesses to operate short-term in some of these spaces that are turning over.

There's an incredible new business project pop-up that does this work all over the Commonwealth. There are real estate brokers who who who've kind of navigated this landscape. I understand, you know, money talks. And so if the financing can't happen, I know that that is really difficult. But again, there are. companies. There are individuals who specialize in creating opportunity in these short-term Thank you very much. Councilor Dahmubed?

Thank you, Chair Baker. I raise my hand just to ask a question, I think, for Mr. LaMelle or possibly for my council colleagues. Councilor President Oliver referenced that Auburndale is currently only VC2, but my understanding was that there was an iteration of it that included VC3. and MRT and I would like to have an understanding or some clarity perhaps from Mr. Lamel about the process by which that changed and why we have only BC2 now. that may be a long answer but never mind if there's a short one I'd appreciate it

The short answer is that I'd have to go back and look. I don't remember that, you know, 2023 fall debates, but I can go back and get that information.

And if it's okay with you, Chair Baker, I can talk to it for two minutes or I can take it offline if you want to get into it. But within the last, I'm going to say like month or so, prior to the final vote for VCOD, there was a lot of... Information being exchanged, questioning different numbers and so on and so forth, and the compromises that were going along with that. were happening on the city council floor right up until the very end or the vote itself. I believe, if I recall correctly, there were some Relatively small number of VC3 lots, one of which, if I recall, Well, I won't go that far because I'm going to get some of that wrong.

But the good news is I have all the maps over here in my filing cabinet. and I'm happy to share those with you and get them out of my closet but I'm happy to go into more detail on those but really The easiest way to summarize it is things were added in and taken out of and modified from VC3 to VC2. Some of the shapes of the village centers actually in terms of VCOD. modified, were modified throughout that entire process. So that's kind of how we got to the VCOD we have today, where the ins and the outs, the additions and subtractions.

So Anyone else? I just want to say that the process the president described was an extraordinarily complicated one in which there were a number of moving parts to get the council to virtual unanimity, if I recall. Thank you very much. You can't examine this by itself in isolation. It was all part of a package that I got put together to make a successful resolution. It doesn't mean anything cannot be, excuse me, it doesn't mean something cannot be revisited, but that's sort of my memory of the history without getting into details. I think, I just want to comment myself, I'm

I associate myself with concerns about including Wes Newton for obvious reasons, but I'm not sure that the item as framed is going to take us where you want to go. I'm hearing a variety of Questions going on which relate basically, as I hear it, to how the economic development opportunities are occurring in Armordale and maybe in other places. And I think that would be more appropriate for another docket item rather than to hold this one because I think this is a narrow focus. And so I would suggest that the makers of the item, the docketers, consider Reshaping that for that purpose, but I would be prepared to move no action necessary tonight just so that we can clarify what the status of this is. If the will of the committee is to hold it, we can, but I'm not sharing

Any sentiment on the committee or outside really to take Wes Newton out and certainly I think there's a division about whether to do anything with Arbor Day. For purposes of moving it, I would be prepared to move that, but I'll recognize Councilor Albright first.

So actually, I raised my hand before you said you're going to move it because I was going to move it. No action necessary.

I'm always glad to have a member of the committee do something before I do it.

The direction of the conversation would lead one to some different docket items. So I'm not saying don't ever docket anything about Auburndale ever again. I'm just saying this one doesn't work for the way the conversation went tonight. So I would suggest you rethink it and put in some other docket items.

And I suspect there may be some conversations offline now that we've got an economic development operation at the mayor's office that may be valuable as well. Okay, I've seen a hand raised, but I have to indicate the public can't be recognized as part of this. This is all inside the council conversation or the staff. So I'm sorry. So you've moved NAN, Councilor Albright?

Yes.

Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Before we vote on that, I just want to thank our colleagues who are not members of the committee for taking the time to bring these issues before us because I think it's helpful to us all. So notwithstanding the vote, I don't think we should indicate that it's not valuable. And we also had a number of metaphors that came up tonight, which is always fun. Councilor Krintzman appreciates that, I know. All right. All those in favor for NAN will say aye. Aye. Opposed? Me. I'm opposed to any ending this one. Sorry. Opposed? Any abstentions? All right. So I think that we have a full complement of the committee. It's 7-0-1. Excuse me, 7-1-0. Yeah. Right. Okay. Thank you all. And thank you all who are not members of the committee for joining us. We always are grateful to you for taking time.

Okay, let's go to item 2026. This is request for discussion and possible amendments to enhance the preservation of existing homes. This is Councilor Baker, Wright, Oliver, Malakie, Farrell, Getz, and Kalis requesting a discussion of possible entrance to Chapter 30 zoning or other city ordinances to enhance the preservation of existing homes over their replacement by larger and more expensive structures. For the members who are not members of the committee before or just observers, This is an item that we had at last term, which we had taken a number of steps that Mr. Lamel was very helpful in undertaking to do. And as part of the... I'd also ask to be attached to the committee part of the research that was done on the teardowns in the city.

that we had experience that was done by the Utile firm for the planning department. And those are, you can see the images of the large, smaller structures replaced by and some of the economics of all of that. And I thought it would be useful to have Mr. Lamel before he departed to Just frame the opportunity. We've done some things on this item, but we're looking forward towards what we can and maybe can do to assist the preservation of this naturally affordable housing. So let me turn it over to him. and then go from there. And Ms. Wewell is here as well, I believe.

So I think, as the chair mentioned, this conversation was happening throughout last term. And then, of course, it goes beyond that. And then it predates my time here. Thank you for joining us. Teardowns of homes in Newton's residential neighborhood. So looking at the redevelopment of Single family homes and two family homes, either as single to single or single to two or two to one, any kind of permutation of those. and a pattern emerged. We looked at five years of data

Well beyond that five years, there's roughly 100 demolitions of these homes per year that stayed consistent for decades. The last 15 to 20 years and that's about 10% of home sales. So obviously the vast majority of home sales do not result in a teardown. and of course when we map these, which is all provided in the materials that you have, there are concentrated areas so there are an appearance that it is happening all over the city more than those numbers truly kind of portray, right? And so there's an acknowledgement that there's certain parts of the city that are seeing these demolitions of homes and the creation of much, much larger homes more than others.

and that has to do based on three pieces of information that we gathered in that what we saw and what we see is Homes that are being sold that result in a demolition are typically small, much smaller than the average across Newton. They're typically on lots that are larger than what exists throughout Newton, and they're usually post-World War II construction. and so if you kind of line up those three factors, it's very likely that the home will be torn down and that's because, you know, The development potential, the value is so great that you're paying for the land and you're able to build something significantly larger.

As Utile and Landwise showed, there are numerous other considerations. There's been numerous changes. Within Newton, there's changes in the broader market, housing costs, labor shortages, etc. that kind of all pile on each other to eventually lead to A decision, right? And what we came away with, and I think what we being the planning department said from the beginning is that The conversation and the framing should not be specifically around the preservation of homes. It should be ensuring a quality outcome. whether that outcome is preservation, whether that outcome is new development.

that should be the framing and then you can develop rules and regulations to support that to support preservation and adaptive reuse and to support new development or the combination of the two that gets a result that is good for the street, the neighborhood, the city and beyond. Where we landed last term was a tool called the facade ratio. I won't get into that. It was specifically geared towards that is that a quality outcome is achieved. And The other more extreme kind of possibilities when it came to policy

and I can share my screen quickly here to pull up the matrix that you all had in your in your packets but these were these were explored right these were The various policies that planning and staff could look at based on the goals that the City Council of the last term gave to us, right, around preserving housing stock, increasing access to attainable homes, and then contextualizing that new development to the neighborhood. and what you can see here is the x-axis, x-axis being kind of what we think as the level of engagement needed given the impact of some of these changes. and versus the y-axis being the level of analysis needed. And we landed in the bottom left corner as a kind of quick

So to speak, for the facade build out, all the way up to, and before I say it, I would say that none of these were things that staff were pushing for. We're putting this out there for discussion, but all the way at the top is a building moratorium. If you take... The literal, we want to just stop new development. We want to stop demolition of existing homes up to a building moratorium. And then you have kind of these various items and everything in between. and I think I'll just turn, Chair Baker, sure, apologies.

No, no, that's fine. I just want to, I have, Councilor Oliver has raised his hand, so I want to give him, but thank you for the overview. And again, we're, I'm going to miss you and hope that you thrive and prosper in your new role. Councilor Oliver, President Oliver.

Thank you again, Chair. So I think I just want to open with, certainly for everybody here who is new to this topic, at least not new to this topic that's too broad but is kind of hadn't been kind of following along with the item I think it was like 85 24, and I can't remember the name, 41 something. I think I might, and, you know, Chair Baker, maybe, uh, Maybe you and I can talk about the possibility of doing this, but I really don't think that it would hurt for Councilors Wright and myself to review the slides that we put together

In November or October, whatever that was, of 24, because I think a lot may have gotten lost in or over time. For example, and I think I've said this every single time I've seen that slide we just saw, nobody ever talked about a moratorium. on teardowns ever. So I think that perhaps it might be worth, you know, either going back to that original presentation, you know, the slides that is, Spending 15, 20, 30 minutes, whatever it takes to kind of go through where we actually started with this conversation, because it's not about stopping teardowns.

It's about focusing on what, or it was originally about focusing on what we collectively, at least at the time, were saying we wanted, which was to curb single-family homes being torn, attainable single-family homes, regardless of lot size. Thank you for watching. with 5,000 plus square foot homes that were selling for three plus million dollars. And again, it's not eliminating that top end of the market either. It's focusing in on what it is we're actually incentivizing in the city. And I think that that, you know,

and there were some other topics as well that I really do think are worth revisiting because I don't want to start, for example, where we left off because what I'm hearing is that maybe there's still some confusion on what it was we are actually originally trying to achieve here. and I guess from that perspective I believe that this current topic I'm going to go one step further and say I actually want to present those slides again because they have been misinterpreted. I'm going to go that far. I want to get back to what it was we were originally after and restart to a degree the conversation from a better place of understanding because It's got nothing to do with the moratorium and stopping teardowns. And I'm not exactly saying that that's what Mr. Lumel is after, but the word moratorium needs to be struck from the conversation moving forward.

I would just note that there's a typographical error in the planning department report which refers back to a set of recommendations, but at pages 36 through 34, and I'm not sure no What 36 through 34 refers to, but I assume it is someplace in the document. But I think a future opportunity to do what you indicated would be useful from my perspective. But I want to recognize Councilor Albright.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm glad that President Oliver raised the issue of going back to what we originally wanted. I think we've lost the focus of what it is we're trying to achieve here. and I'm worried that we could go back to the bad old days where we do a little bit of this and a little bit of that and a little bit of the other and then we come up with a mush at the end that doesn't accomplish anything except for a bunch of little things. So I think we have to go back and focus on what it is we're trying to accomplish. And in the chart that Mr. Lamel just showed, it had something that I'm very interested in because we've learned a lot about MRT and how successful that's being. And could you just put that chart up one more time, Mr. Lamel? Are you able to do that?

So when you see adaptive reuse, it's labeled as preserving current housing stock, but it also could be increasing access to attainable homes. and it also could be contextualizing new development to the neighborhood. So I hope that we can have a close look at adaptive reuse as... One of our larger goals, and I'd be interested to see, you can take it down now, because I just wanted to show that adaptive reuse... and I think we've learned that MRT is being very successful in getting some stuff done that we like, especially getting some increased housing. So I really want to see what Councilor Wright's and President Oliver's slides tell us because I think we have to go back to the beginning and figure out what it is we're trying to achieve.

Thanks.

Thank you. I appreciate that. And I think that what I would hope is that we could take this up again at a later time. This is our last chance with Mr. LaMelle, but we have Ms. Wewell and other members of the department, and I think there's an opportunity to do some homework and then bring this back to the committee. But I think that's where I would like to leave it tonight unless there's any further discussion on this. Councilor Wright, do you want to say anything?

Yeah, just real quick. So I did review our slides, John's and my slides, just before this. And one of the items in the slide was adaptive reuse modeled after similar to MRT. and that was one of our ideas that we put forth that we wanted to further explore.

Great, so we'll have another conversation about this, but if members of the committee are agreeable, I'd entertain a motion to hold this item, and then we can go do some homework.

Excuse me, Chair, could I just make one comment? Sorry to interrupt. This is Miles. Oh, yes. Pardon me. So you just mentioned a typo. and the planning memo. I just wanted to note for everyone. So it says pages 36 to 44. If you say 36, 44, not 34. When you put a link, page 44 is the end of that document. So just to clarify what that typo is.

Thank you very much. It's a small matter, but one that I just wanted to clarify. Thank you very much. Okay. I'd entertain a motion to hold. Anybody wish to move it? Councilor Oliver? Yeah. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Hi. Stay in. All right. Thank you very much. Now moving to our last item. This is an item that I think Councilor Albright and Kelley this is 4226 ordinance change in chapter 30 to allow raised beds in the front and rear setback under certain conditions and we're assuming that these are not things you sleep in right this is something else But this is requesting a discussion and amendments to Chapter 30 zoning to exempt raised beds four feet or less from the definition of a structure and allow them to be placed within a setback. We don't have a planning department memo on this one. This is an initial opportunity for Councilor Albright, and I don't know if Councilor Kelley is here, if you would like to explain what this is about and why we should take it up.

So this was a docket item that was on our docket last year. And I failed myself that I think I was supposed to do some research. and come back to the committee with my research, which I have subsequently done. But I don't know if we would have had time to take it up anyway. So there are lots of people in Newton who have raised beds. And when ISD discovers them, ISD makes them take them down. So what's sad about that is that there's a real movement abroad in the land to do what they're calling urban agriculture. which I have learned a lot more about recently. Somerville has a new article in their zoning ordinances all about urban agriculture.

and allowing all kinds of growing things in your front yard, your backyard, your side yard and there are lots of cities and towns all over the country that are specifically allowing raised beds to raise You know, food. Cucumbers and tomatoes and so forth. To create your own vegetable garden on a bed that might be... 2 feet high it might be as high as 4 feet high. I think they're finding that particularly older people who don't want to bend down to do their gardening can use a raised bed It works well for people who can't bend down a lot or even for people with wheelchairs who can't get down on the ground. So I have a lot of cities and towns ordinances and what they've allowed, and I would be glad to supply that.

If the planning department is willing to get involved, I'd love to work with them. Thank you so much.

Thank you for having me. I think is there... Any sense that these occur in any particular part of the setback?

Yeah, various cities and towns have various rules. So some of them say two feet. And actually, the proposed zoning ordinance says Back when James Brees was still here, there was a proposed zoning ordinance which included you could have raised beds in the setback as long as it was two feet back from the lot line. But there's, you know, five feet, 15 feet, 10 feet. I've seen all kinds of rules about how far back it has to be.

Well, so Councilor Kalis.

I see these when I walk my neighborhood in the front and the side all the time and I love this idea. I didn't realize it was a rule that you couldn't and I'm shocked by that and would love to Okay, Councilor Gordon.

Yeah, I agree that it would be great to be able to do this. I would ask when you start doing the research, Councilor Albright, that we think about multifamily houses, two families and multifamily houses. because often those houses are closer together there's a driveway in between and then you have this tiny sliver of land that's on your neighbor's side but it's still yours And I would like to see some thinking about maybe not putting raised beds that are closer to your neighbor's house than they are to your own house, if that makes sense.

Sure.

Councilor Dahmubed.

I just wanted to add that in addition to the points that Councillor Albright mentioned about food sovereignty and security, in some cases these are important for people who do want to pursue that sovereignty and security. because of the condition of their soil, which might have lead or other dangerous chemicals in it, and also because of conditions that are ongoing in our city that might have resulted in the stripping of topsoil from their property and making their soil otherwise fertile. And Cash for Greenberg, welcome.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I want to thank Councilor Albright and Kelley for bringing this forward. I think this is very important. I wholeheartedly support it. It gives our residents an opportunity to grow their own food organically, supplement their food Expenses and also it gives an opportunity to remove the lawn space, just green grass from their property and make it more Thank you.

I just kind of thinking of the prior item, whether you have a large lot with a small house that raised bed around it by special permit might Preserve the House. That's an adaptive reuse, but never mind. All right. So I think there's enough interest here in members of the committee that we might ask the planning department to Confer with Councilor Albright and Councilor Kelley and let's think about this. I should just indicate from my own point of view, I'm sympathetic. But I'm always conscious that as you move into the setback, it means that there's a potential impact on your neighbor and Sometimes these structures can not only be tall themselves, but what grows on them gets tall and there's a screening effect that you want to be careful about and think through before you do it. which is one of the reasons I think we have not done this in the past.

So if we want to make a change, I think we need to be careful about those collateral impacts. But let's see where we go. Councilor Charm, excuse me.

No problem. Thank you, Chair. I'm fully supportive of the spirit of this. I know several neighbors in my area and other residents. who have and really enjoy these beds for many of the reasons that other counselors have mentioned. I wanted to just ask The authors of the docket item, I noticed in the title of the docket item that it only mentions the front and rear setbacks and it does not mention the side setbacks. And I wonder whether that was intentional. It feels like it should be any setback.

From my perspective, it was not intentional. Last year when I docketed it, I forgot to put rear. So I've made front and rear, but side set back probably ought to be there. I can see if I can amend the docket item.

Well, I don't think you don't worry about that. I think that we can expand the scope without getting too much trouble. I mean, this is a discussion item now. You have to docket something anyway that will turn it over.

No, no, it's more than a discussion item. It asks for amendments if possible.

Wait a second, let me double check myself. You may be right.

I learned my lesson already.

Yep, yep, you got amendments in there. Okay. All right, well, we'll figure something out. Councilor Malakie.

Thank you. And here I was kind of happy that you weren't including side setbacks because side setbacks are often only seven and a half feet. I guess I like the idea of growing stuff and all that and not having contaminated soil, but just something to think about is that we have a lot of Great changes happening up to the maximum allowed on property lines, you know, three foot 11 inch retaining walls, especially if you're including the side setback and even on front and rear, we've got that. You know, House of Newton Corner with the 25-foot wall that the rear of Butter put up. And if we're going to be adding four feet of

Something, essentially a wooden wall on top of an existing almost four foot retaining wall or higher. I think there ought to be some minimum setback for the Bet itself. Because allowing it in the setback seems to suggest that it could be literally on the property line.

Thank you. Councilor Getz?

Yeah, I concur with what Councilor Malakie is saying. I actually am fully supportive of supporting people growing their own food. I think it's an important thing that we do. But I'm also concerned about just the structural element of this, and I really would like to see what other communities are doing in terms of the placement of these beds. and I'm also concerned about the proximity of the a raised bed in the front you know just out of like you know being a you know a problem for um you know pedestrians so I think that you know starting with you know taking a look at what other communities have done would be great and then also too you know just taking a look at the side setbacks because I've already had constituents reach out to me about

Even plantings that are proximal to their property and that they're literally on the property line and they're creating problems. So I think that this, you know, is something that I'd love to see happen, but I think we're going to have to be pretty, you know, in terms of getting it into formatting and editing. You know, ordinance language is going to be a little bit of a challenge. We need to work this one out.

Councilor Oliver.

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to agree with the last couple of comments here. Perhaps for different reasons, but setbacks are not... I've heard a lot of people recently talking about setbacks as kind of wasted space. but setbacks are actually really important. They serve a very important use. I'm all for anyone or everyone growing food on their own property because that I mean, that makes total sense. You know, we've got people growing pumpkins and they're doing their cucumbers and obviously tomatoes and what have you all for it. Setbacks are a smart use of what I'm going to call white space. It's a buffer zone. And removing that buffer zone, I think, gives me a lot of hesitation. I can't stand it when we allow people to build buffer Structures into setbacks.

I think we should be very cautious about utilizing setbacks for, frankly, anything. So I'm all for it on your property. I don't think that's what we're debating or talking about with this item. But as we move forward, I think we need to really concern ourselves not only with the topics of food sovereignty and soil conditions and so on and so forth, Whether or not that falls into zoning, I don't know, but I would doubt it. It does seem to me that We really need to understand some of the possible downsides here. You know, corner lots where people have on, you know, up to the sidewalk, you know, something that's growing four plus feet tall or what have you. I don't know where we're going to end up, but all of a sudden you can't see around a corner.

You know, pedestrians can't see oncoming cars and vice versa. Like we just need to like setbacks serve a very important purpose. and I'm just going to urge us to be cautious about this. Like, this actually made more sense to me, I believe, last term when I think Councilor Albright Our counselors, Albright and Kelley, had it docketed as side setbacks, not front and side.

Never that. It was always front.

I thought it was side. My bad. Okay. Then it didn't make sense to me last time either. I just didn't know it. But I'm all for the positive part of this. But as we all know, we always get those constituent calls about the folks who are not Not doing the positive part of it, right? So anyway, just my 10 cents. Looking forward to the conversation because I think there is potential upside here as well as downside. But thank you.

Albright, you had your hand up, but it's spoken. I want to recognize Councilor Gordon. I'll come back to you in a minute, if that's all right.

Yep.

Councilor Gordon.

Yeah, I just, I don't know how clear I was when I spoke before, but what Councilor Oliver and Getz and Malakie were saying, I just want to reiterate because I am actually very aware of certain situations where people have put raised beds in the side setbacks. and it's causing problems so I just wanted to put that out there that it's not just theoretical um it's uh It seems that it's a trend, at least in my neighborhood, where people want to grow things, which I adore, but they don't want to actually do it in the area that's near where their house is. So it causes conflicts with their neighbors because it's so close to the property line. So I just wanted to clarify that.

Albright, and I want to be heard, but I'll recognize you first. Councilor Dahmubed as well. Councilor Albright?

So I want to thank everybody for all the comments. I do want to say that most of the ordinances that I've seen usually limit um like 100 square feet or I mean it's not like you can fill your front yard with raised beds you have a you would allow a certain amount of the space in your front setback to be used for raised beds So we can set all kinds of parameters. And I think all of them have setbacks from the lot line. So none of them say you can have it right up to the lot line. So we would have to talk about 2 feet, 5 feet, 10 feet, whatever it might be. Actually, most of them don't allow... Thank you for joining us. of raised beds in the setbacks in Newton.

But I won't do that because ISD will make them take them all down. So we'll find pictures from other cities and towns.

Councilor Dahmubed.

Thank you, Chair Baker. I just wanted to add, and I think these might be things that come up as we study this and draft ordinances about it, but often these raised beds are being placed primarily for the purpose of gaining maximum sunlight. and being able to facilitate the growth of the food. And as another understanding, if we're concerned about the visual impact around corners and those kinds of things. I'd like to understand if there's anything that determines the placement, for example, of mature trees within the setback that might similarly impair visibility or fences. So maybe we can consider those kind of corollaries.

Thank you. Thank you. And I just point out that in We have a fence ordinance that's designed to limit the size of fences and boundary situations with the street, not just neighbors, but you know, I know that in the historic districts, structures are very carefully scrutinized for also the same concerns. So I share some of the concerns of Councilor Oliver, but let's see where we go with this and I can't see who's raised a hand to that. Raina. Okay, Councilor Getz has moved hold. All those in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Abstentions? Okay, the ayes have it. Thank you very much. This will be You know, in the Garden City, somehow a conversation about gardens is going to be an interesting one. But I want to again thank Mr. Lamel and thank Ms. Wewell and all of you who are here and are taking your time. and I think that concludes our discussion. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Okay. Thank you and good luck, Mr. Lamell. Thank you.

Bye-bye.

We're done. Thank you so much.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.