Zoning and Planning Committee -April 28, 2026

Okay. Good evening, everyone. This is a meeting of the Zoning and Planning Committee for April 28, 2026. I'm Lyle Baker, Chair of the meeting, and we're going tonight by Wright, who's down the hall but will be back shortly, the president, Councilor Albert from Ward 1, Councilor Dahmubed from Ward 4, Councilor Albright from Ward 2, Councilor Gordon from Ward 6.

We are joined also remotely by Councilor Getz, Ward 5, and we have, I believe, a member of the Planning Department, Laura, is here remotely, as well as Mr. Lee.

I should indicate that last night I had announced that we were going to do a public hearing on raised beds, but through inadvertence, the councilor's computer did not send Thank you very much.

Oliver?

Yeah, Steve, I just want to let you know, Councilor Kalis just let me know that he will be late.

Okay. Thank you. And any other Councilors joining us remotely? Any of the planners gonna be here in person?

I don't think so.

All right, well, I prefer you in person, but let's go with what we have. The first item is 12626. This is the authorization to submit the fiscal year 27 annual action plan. This is in honor of the mayor requesting authorization pursuant to the 2025 revised citizen participation plan to submit the fiscal year 27 annual action plan. to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD for the city's Community Development Block Grant and Emergency Solutions Grant funds, as well as for the West Metro Home Consortium. And who's going to present this now?

That will be me, Shaylin Davis Iannocco.

Okay, and would you identify yourself for the public on the record so that we can make sure everybody knows who you are?

Of course. Yes, I'm Shailen Davis-Ionaco. I'm the Housing Program Manager for the City of Newton.

Okay, thank you. So we have documents in front of us, but do you want to walk us through what we are are going to hear about and what our specific role is.

Yes, absolutely. So each year, the planning department will come to the zoning and planning committee after we host our public hearing with the planning and development board. During the 30-day comment period, we'll come to the Zoning and Planning Committee and ask for approval to submit the plan, the annual action plan, to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. We are asking you to vote to authorize the mayor to sign and send the plan to the federal government, essentially. And this is an annual report that we do each year.

Okay, so want to take us through it so we know what we're endorsing?

Of course, yes. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. All right, is everybody able to see the PowerPoint? Yes. Yep. Great, okay, I'll make it presentation mode. Okay, so again, annually, the city of Newton receives about $3 million in federal block grant funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This is authorized by Congress and then signed by the President. These three grants are known as Community Development Block Grant or CDBG, Home Investment Partnership Program or Home and Emergency Solutions Grant or ESG. The biggest grant is usually CDBG at $1.8 million dollars. Home is slightly smaller, usually around $1.5 million. And then ESG is a very small grant, usually about 160 grand.

and these are largely to provide decent housing, suitable living environments and then supportive services for low to moderate income individuals. So every five years we do what's called a consolidated plan. We are in year two of our consolidated plan. Every year we do an annual action plan. So this is the FY27 annual action plan that we are presenting tonight and are submitting hopefully mid-May. And each year we also do a Kaper or the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report to show the federal government essentially what we've done in the previous year. So right now we're kind of in this middle circle at the one-year annual action plan. Like I mentioned earlier, we hosted our public hearing with the Planning and Development Board in early April. It went very well, I would say. We are in the middle of our 30-day comment period.

We're accepting comments until May 7th, I believe, at 5 p.m. And so far we've received one comment and have acted on that feedback. Jumping into the annual action plan, we actually received our, this is kind of a rarity for us, we received our actual numbers, so we're not working off of numbers that we're assuming. This year, so for FY27, we are receiving $1.8 million in CDBG funding. The Home Investments Partnership Program will be receiving just short of 1.5, so $1.49 million. And the Emergency Solutions Grant is about $163,000. Just to note of the total, Newton is anticipated to receive about $129,000 in home entitlement funds. The Home Investment Partnership Program grant is split between the 13 communities in the West Metro Home Consortium, which I will talk more about later.

Now CDBG is the biggest grant. It's that $1.8 million grant. So this is how we break that down based on feedback we received during the consolidated planning process. So 60% of the funding annually goes to affordable housing, and that's preservation, production, rehabilitation, and down payment assistance. 20% goes to the actual administration of the program. Human services, that program gets about 15% and that is our cap for nonprofit assistance. That's a HUD mandated cap. and Architectural Access. So that's really the removal of architectural barriers for people with limited mobility and disabilities. That's about 5% of our grant annually. Let's talk a little bit more about the 27 goals and activities. Our first goal, production of affordable housing.

The big one this year is the West Newton Armory is set to come online in... During FY27, I believe November 2026 at the moment. Preservation of Affordable Housing. We'll be using some of our CDBG funds this year to rehab the roof over at Coleman House. It was one of the things that got Cut off the list during the big Coleman House rehabilitation a couple years ago. So we're excited to support Coleman House again with this project. and we're also looking to rehab some of the units at the Newton Housing Authority's new high departments with our FY27 funds to bring them up to a better accessibility, largely looking at kitchens and bathrooms to make them for the folks living there. We have a couple other potential housing projects. The Newton Housing Authority's management portfolio has been on our list for a couple of years.

We'll continue working with the Newton Housing Authority to see if there are any sites available that need some rehab. and then potential Newton parcel redevelopment. This has been on the list for a couple of years. This is the site over at the Walker Center next to the Williams Elementary School. This is in reuse still. So we'll have to come back to this at some point. I think it's kind of in limbo at the moment. So not sure that it will really be housing in the future, but we will see. The third goal is the support of affordable home ownership. So we provide $10,000 in down payment assistance for low to moderate income first time home buyers. and we're anticipating serving approximately two income eligible homeowners this year, but it could be more. Housing rehabilitation. So our housing rehabilitation program supports nonprofit

Housing units as well as low-income homeowner housing rehab. So we're anticipating rehabilitating one homeowner unit and approximately 12 rental units with the NHI. Our fifth goal is fair housing, so we'll continue to collaborate with the Newton Fair and Affordable Housing Partnership as well as the Homan Consortium to increase the knowledge about fair housing laws and obligations, especially during April, which is Fair Housing Month. will continue the implementation of the analysis of impediments. And most importantly, we're kicking off our year three Three with Suffolk University Law School's Center for Housing Policy and Justice for fair housing testing throughout the consortium, which we're very excited about. Our sixth goal is human services. So again, that's the program that we're capped at 15% of our annual grant.

So this is financial support for projects that directly provide stability across the lifespan for Newton's low and moderate income populations. I won't read these all, but most of these grants are going to provide childcare, tuition assistance, case management services, With the case of the Cousins Fund, it's rental relief, utility relief for people who need it. All of those people, again, will be low and moderate income. and it's about $278,000 total for that program split across all of the agencies you see listed here. The seventh goal, this is really related to the Emergency Solutions Grant. It's the supportive services for homeless and at-risk of homelessness individuals. So we're hoping to provide these services for individuals and families needing financial support or emergency shelter.

So the FY27 ESG recommended grants, about 60% of the grant will go towards emergency shelters, which you'll see listed to the right of the screen. I think it's about 20% of the grant goes to homelessness prevention, which is case management and rental and financial assistance for folks. who are at risk of homelessness, and then rapid rehousing. This is the same thing as homelessness prevention, but it's for folks who are actually unhoused at the moment. and then the ESG grant is capped at seven and a half percent for program admin. So that's the breakdown of that grant. And then the seventh goal is architectural access. We're really excited to pair the architectural access funding this year with Newton's housing funding to rehab the entrance at the new high departments, which is also where The Newton Housing Authority's management offices.

It's not accessible for folks with disabilities at the moment, which is a real barrier for people at the Housing Authority. So we're excited to pair those together to do, you know, a bigger rehab over at the new high departments on Licking Street. There will also be the installation of rectangular rapid flashing beacons at Lincoln and Harrison streets to be completed during FY27. Now to get through to the West Metro Home Consortium. These are 13 contiguous communities all around here. So it's basically a big circle, not including Lincoln, Western, or Wellesley. Throughout the consortium, we're anticipating rehabbing units, existing units, producing new affordable units, and then providing tenant-based rental assistance. That's one of the larger programs that exists within the West Metro Home Consortium at this time. And you'll see

I mean there's work going on in all of basically all of the consortium communities all 13 of them at this point. We're also anticipating launching a new regional TBRA program for the RHSO, which is the Regional Housing Services Office. They manage the home funds for Bedford, Concord, Lexington, Natick, Sudbury, and Wayland. So the smaller communities within the West Metro Home Consortium. There is a 30-day comment period, which I mentioned before. It ends Wednesday, May 7, 2026. And our submission deadline to HUD is May 15, 2026. So we're hoping to get this in soon. and then again we are hoping for a vote tonight to authorize Mayor Laredo to submit this plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. And I am happy to take questions or comments if you have them. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Questions or comments?

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Shailen, for that very... A question about the Walker Center, the real property reuse. So what is it that we would put money towards if that were to move forward? How would we help with this money?

It kind of depends. So the joint advisory planning group, I think, voted to have housing in one of the houses, but not the other house that currently exists on the site. I think Reuse voted initially to send the whole parcel to the schools and then the council kicked it back to Reuse. So that's kind of where the limbo is with that project at the moment. I think when we kind of scoped it out initially we and if we just use the buildings as they are it was I think my construction manager estimated like Okay, so there's money set aside for the rehab of the building for...

if it's used in that way for affordable housing.

There isn't at the moment, there's no earmarked funding for that project. We will have some extra funding to reallocate to projects as they come up. So if that project does come up in the next year, we could reallocate some funding there.

Okay, all right, good. And RRFB, that's at Harrison and Lincoln. So is that part of the architectural barriers money?

Yes, it was a previous year's funding, so the FY27 funding is going toward the new Hyde Apartments, but the work for the RRFBs will be done during FY27.

I was wondering if the button is low enough to be handled by people in wheelchairs.

Thank you.

I think so. I think that is a requirement, but I would have to ask my colleagues in DPW to verify that.

I always stand up when I push the button, but I don't know if I'd be able to reach it if I was in a wheelchair. So I'm just asking you to check on that.

Thank you, Councillor Albright. I'll make a note about that.

And the one last comment was the Suffolk, what was the Suffolk part of Suffolk that you're collaborating with?

Yes, so over the last two years, actually last three years really, but it's taken a while to get the third year contract executed. that Suffolk University hosted or essentially launched a fair housing testing program on behalf of the West Metro Home Consortium. and over two years conducted 140 paired tests to test for racial discrimination and source of income discrimination within the West Metro Home Consortium. I believe about 25% of those tests came back positive, which is really a negative because there was evidence of discrimination. which is not great. So the West Metro Home Consortium voted last May after that program really wrapped up to continue that testing on for a third year to see if we could, you know, lower the stats or just do some more work with Suffolk.

Does the law school work with that unit in Suffolk?

It does, but I don't.

I may have to refuse myself on this vote because of the university's involvement, but anyway. But they've actually done really good stuff.

Yeah. They do great work. Thank you for that. Of course.

And I didn't teach any of them. So I can't claim credit. Never mind. All right. Any other questions? Yeah, that's right.

So I want to follow up with what Councilor Albright just said. So you're going to do more testing, but what are you doing to try to lower that prejudice?

That's a good question. So with the first round of testing, the 140 tests and the 25 tests that came back with evidence of discrimination, Suffolk, you know, kind of bashed those tests, if that makes sense. So essentially MCAD likes to see Three instances where the same real estate agent, the same real estate company, etc. has evidence of discrimination. So essentially, Suffolk would batch those tests. Send a batch to MCAD or the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and they would take them to court, essentially. So Suffolk actually won a lawsuit last year in August, I believe. and the real estate agency owed Suffolk $10,000. And then that real estate agent or the real estate agency itself

needed to do a certain number of fair housing trainings or tests, or excuse me, trainings after the instance or the lawsuit was finalized. In addition, we will also continue to do fair housing trainings throughout the West Metro Home Consortium, usually hosted by the City of Newton in partnership with Suffolk University's law school. So we can kind of spread... And what happened to that money?

Where did that money go that you won the lawsuit?

It's for Suffolk University's program to continue testing.

I have a question in goal number three, support affordable homeownership. And you said it's a $10,000 grant. To me, a grant is not a payback, but we've been presented... that there's like $10,000 and $50,000 to help purchase those items first-time homebuyers, but then they have to pay it back when they sell the house. are the condos. So is it actually a grant which you don't pay back? And what is that other one I found was $50,000. that also help with purchasing a home.

Great question. So the rehab program, will, there's usually up to $50,000 available for low to moderate income homeowners in Newton to rehabilitate their property should it need it. And that comes in the form of a loan. The $10,000 grant is for down payment assistance and I do not I can verify that with our program guidelines, but I'm fairly certain that that's a grant that is not paid back to the city of Newton.

I can actually confirm that that $10,000 for down payment is a grant. It does not get repaid. Andrew.

And the homelessness, the rapid rehousing. So those people are homeless already. Housing, there's not a lot available. It's very expensive. So How do you help them with that money? Do you find them a place in Newton or what happens with that? So it's not... Or family units, do you help?

Apologies for interrupting. So it's not the city of Newton that finds the housing. We administer the grant, which essentially means we're kind of the pass-through agency to a nonprofit. with specialized housing case managers who are able to better assist very vulnerable populations like those at risk of homelessness or experiencing homelessness I'm not entirely sure what their methodology is. But I do know that they work to have really great relationships with landlords and real estate agents in kind of the general greater Newton, greater Boston area. and tend to have pretty good success in getting folks rehoused. I also know that in Waltham specifically, the Waltham shelters work really closely with the city of Waltham. for their home TBRA dollars.

So a lot of the Waltham home TBRA dollars house people who would need to be housed under a rapid rehousing as well.

So what are these Newton dollars? It's two different buckets. Walton has some money and maybe some of the other communities have money, but this is just going to a general fund in the Boston area, not necessarily to Newton people who are homeless.

ESG grant is administered in Brookline, Newton, Waltham, and Watertown. So it's a smaller catchment area and people from Newton do of course receive this funding. We don't have any nonprofits in Newton anymore that receive this funding. There are a couple of shelters in Waltham that receive this funding. And then the Brookline Center for Community Mental Health also receives this funding. but people from Newton are referred to those places as they need assistance. Okay, thank you. Of course, thank you.

Councilor Goetz, I'm sorry.

Thank you, Chair. I actually just have a couple of quick questions. The parcel redevelopment, the Walker Center, You had mentioned in your comments that you had spoken with somebody and it was going to be $500,000. Was it rehabilitating all of the houses there or was it... Just one. Is there a breakdown? You know, is there a possibility of trying to focus in a little bit in terms of trying to find out whether or not there's viability in any one specific building, you know, in terms of a potential housing? We didn't see any. Is there any documentation that we can review? Or I'm assuming it'll come back to reuse. So that then there might be a moment to look at that content. But I just didn't know how viable that option was.

in terms of whether or not any one of the units could be, houses could be rehabilitated.

Yeah, so this is just from my construction manager. I don't think our consulting team looked at if you just rehabilitated the houses themselves without creating more density on the site. So our construction manager estimated somewhere in like 500 grand for all four of the units I believe that exist on the site currently. I think it could have been less. It could have been more. I would need to verify that with him. We haven't talked about that in a couple of months at this point. and costs might be greatly exceeded what they were just a couple of months ago at this point as well to keep in mind. And this is not fully rehabbing the houses that are there. It's bringing them up to you know, livable standards for folks and then restricting them.

Yeah, because the viability, it's because some of us went to go look at those units, those houses, and it seemed like some of them were pretty close, you know, in terms of, yeah, they may have been a You know, it seemed like at least one of them was potentially very viable.

Yeah, I think the larger costs come from needing to de-lead the houses, obviously. These are big houses. If we, you know, rehab them as they are, we assume families will live there and any house, or any unit with a child under six needs to be fully de-leaded per lead safety federal laws.

Okay. All right. And then normally we receive a letter from the Planning and Development Board in the past we have. You know, is that coming? Is it coming?

Yes, that'll be coming to you. They did recommend it, but it'll be in writing soon.

Okay, sorry. I just kind of remembered that in the past that there was something in writing. Thank you. Yeah. So I was just sort of surprised. But they did recommend. Okay. All right. And then just, you know, I mean, in terms of, you know, but you can't answer this question. It's like the funding stream. You know, it's just sort of I'm concerned, but at the same time, these are probably numbers from, you know, that were generated like two years ago, if not longer. So I'm just assuming things may change.

Yeah, things at the federal level are a little rocky for these block grant funds. I believe the president's current proposed budget for next fall does cancel out these grants, so zero out these grants. We have them for FY27, which is great. FY28 is a little bit more murky, but it Candidly, it was pretty murky in FY27 with all the government shutdowns. So I'm hopeful that we will continue, Congress will continue authorizing these grants. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Getz.

and Vice President Kalis, Councilor Dahmubed.

Yes, thank you, Chair Baker. Thank you, Ms. Davis-Ionaco, for the great presentation. It was really helpful. Councilor Getz drilled into my question about the units and 500,000 Walker Center, so that's great. did have one other question about the down payment assistance. It says, and you mentioned approximately two income eligible homeowners would be assisted in FY27. Can you help me understand, is that because we only have Approximately $20,000 allocated for down payment assistance or is it because we only get about two eligible applications a year?

So it really depends on how many new homeowner units come online. So if you ever receive an email from the planning department that says, hey, we have new homeowner units, condo units for sale, Their deed-restricted, income-eligible homeowners or homebuyers may purchase them. Those are the units we target for down payment assistance, generally speaking. So I think, you know, There's the Walnut Street condos as an example. There were a couple units that are deed restricted there that came online. And any of those Homebuyer that would like to use Newton's down payment assistance program are eligible. So it kind of depends on how many condos come online at the end of the day. We've had years where there's eight or nine and then years where there's one or two. So we safely say two and then hope we exceed.

Got it. And is that down payment assistance restricted to our Newton residents or is it or is anyone eligible for it if they're buying one of those units?

Anybody buying a deed restricted unit in Newton is eligible for that program.

Thank you.

Any other questions? I just have one. We talked a little bit about the expiring restrictions of being restricted and I didn't see this reference in the plan and I didn't know if they If there was any thinking about what Newton could do, I know this has been a topic of conversation at the state level, but have you any thoughts about that? It's one of those issues that we're concerned about.

Yes, so it's a slightly different issue from the FY27 annual action plan and I've actually been working on a spreadsheet for ZAP hopefully in the coming weeks, months perhaps to, you know, present what Newton's process is with expiring uses and expiring units and see if you have any feedback, any questions or concerns about the current process. But essentially what we do is when we know some of the units will come offline or they are expiring, we, excuse me, my daughter is behind me. One second. Okay. Sorry about that. Sorry. Single parent today. Single parent to a three-year-old today. So essentially Newton's process, when units are coming offline, when they're due to expire, we will reach out to the property directly. and inquire if they are interested in extending that affordability.

Generally, we try to get perpetuity Sometimes it's not perpetuity depending on what their financing is. So we had success at the Avalon, I believe. or the Avon, one of those. So they were a 40B, their mass housing loan, their 30-year mass housing loan came to a close. They paid it off. We asked if they wanted to extend and they agreed. So we signed a new regulatory agreement and I think restricted those units in perpetuity. We don't always have success, unfortunately. I think recently the Evans Park units came offline or those units expired, and we haven't really heard yes or no from Benchmark if they are interested in extending that. and so on. Sue, some new preservation project or something like that.

They're not always interested in extending, but that wasn't the case with the Avon when they extended. We didn't, I don't believe... Give them any money for rehabilitation or anything like that. And they still chose to extend that affordability. And then importantly, with 40 bees, that are currently permitted. They are required to sign a regulatory agreement after their first regulatory agreement ends. in their comprehensive permits. So they are required to essentially restrict those units in perpetuity with the city of Newton.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions?

I think we have just an up or down vote. We can't amend the This plan, but we appreciate hearing about it. So I'll entertain a motion.

Is this an approval? Is it a record?

Record of approval.

Okay, so I'll move approval.

So Councilor Albright's moved approval. I'm going to just abstain simply because of the Suffolk University tie here. I'm not sure I have to recuse myself. The law department can advise me, but rather than get in a jam, I'll just not vote on this. Okay, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? And one abstention. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And your daughter's also welcome to join us. Thank you so much. All right. Okay. The next item is 4226. And as I mentioned, we will Try and take this up the first public hearing, the first meeting in June because of the public hearing notice. We have a difficulty. But this is Councilors Albright and Kelley requesting a discussion and amendments to Chapter 30 zoning to exempt raise vets four feet or less from the definition of a structure to allow them to be placed within the setback. So we have a planning department presentation, but you have something to supplement it, Councilor O'Reilly? No, okay. So let's just... Who's presenting us for the department?

That would be me, Chair.

Okay.

For the record, Nora Colello, Chief of Long Range Planning. I will go quickly because I know we have a full agenda this evening. Much of the start of this presentation is the same as last time we discussed it, but I thought it was important to continue to include you all see the slides, right? Yes. Okay, great. I thought it was important to include because this was the parameters that we were operating off of for the diagrams. And so I pulled together some roughly scale diagrams, aerial views showing the maximum build out based off of the language in the previous slides.

So here you can see I know there was concern or it seems there was concern raised by the committee about particularly those tighter two-family homes that might have Non-conforming setbacks or narrower, especially side setbacks. And so here diagramming it out, I came to find that This home would not be able to do the maximum square foot written in the drafted language because they would not be able to comply with the side setback if they were to put the beds adjacent to the house. Here you can also see the maximum potential build out for the front setback, the rear, and the side.

and here... Just to clarify for everybody's benefit, when you're talking about the setback, you mean the setback required still for the raised beds, not just the side setback.

Yes, exactly. The five foot or three foot setback defined in this draft language.

I just want to be clear because there's the regular zoning setbacks, but we're talking about the setbacks.

Yes, thank you for the clarification. Yes, so this is, it's a bit of a The setback of the garden bed allowed in the setback of the zoning. So this diagram is showing the maximum Gardenbed situation if this language were passed. Currently they would not be allowed in the setback at all, so it's unlikely there would be any garden beds allowed in the front of this home.

I'm sorry, I thought the purpose was to allow them in the front? Or are you saying now they wouldn't, but they would be under this ordinance?

Yes, I'm saying if today they aren't allowed, this diagram is showing what would be allowed if the committee passed the language.

I just want to be clear because the image we have This color image is easier to read than the, we have just a black and white printout here. Councilor Gordon, and then I'll go to Councilor Elk.

I just wanted to clarify, the two and the sides would be allowed or would not be allowed?

All of this would be allowed based off the language. What this is intended to point out is just that they could not be the full width allowed because They have to meet the setback stated in the garden bed language either way. So if they couldn't meet that setback, they would have to just... handle a very very narrow setback or a very very narrow garden bed if any garden bed there.

So what the sort of the brown the brown images you have in rectangular form would be permissible under the proposed ordinance. And some situations would not be available. because the setback is too narrow already, a non-conforming setback. I'm talking about a zoning setback.

Yes, because of the distance from the building to the property line. They couldn't build a raised garden bed because it is too close to three feet already.

Okay. So, Councilor Albright had a question.

I just want to make sure I understand what you're showing us. Are you trying to show us the limits of the use of the garden beds close to the setback? because in the rear of that property where the trees are, you would never put garden beds underneath trees.

Yes, yeah, thank you for the question. So yeah, I was showing if this person wanted to go up to the absolute limit in terms of proximity to the property line. and the absolute limit in terms of the square footage of Garden Bed they could create.

Okay, so it's unlikely that they would be there, but they could be there because the setbacks were.

Exactly. Yeah, this is not, they likely, as you said, wouldn't be there for practical reasons, but legally could.

Got it. Thank you.

Hand up, Councilor Gap.

Yeah, just a clarifying question. Thank you. Are these to scale? Yes. you know are they because this this property has a frontage of 64 feet right so yeah so

They can be 80 square feet, but they can't be more than 10 feet or 4 feet.

So 10 feet of width.

Yeah, so this length right here, this is 10 feet. and this width right here is four.

Okay, and are they placed, you know, are they maximally placed, you know, in terms of the you know, the the

Yeah, so the measurement was from the property line and then I put them as close together as they're allowed to be. I don't know why someone would want them that close together. I think in this case it would actually be in the way of their pathway, but for the sake of... Portraying the information in the language that I wanted to show the maximum scenario.

Okay. All right. And then, well, I can get into other questions later, but that was a clarifying question for me, just in terms of if those are both 10 feet. you know that's a third of the full frontage so you know dimensionally it's not looking correct to me you know but that's just because I was sort of seeing 64 feet as the max I wanted to ask you if they were at scale. Okay, thank you.

So now you've taken us in one of the images. Do you want to take us through the others, Justin, I think?

Yes, if there's no more clarifying questions, happy to continue. So this is just another example, but looking at a single family home. And this... along with the following slide points out how Thank you for watching! Distance that the garden beds would have to be is measured from the property line, of course. So these are actually farther than the language... requires from the sidewalk um but that's because they have to as written right now they have to comply with the property line um conversely

This image, it's a little hard to see, but this is the property line. And so for this parcel, the sidewalk is actually on the property owner's land. and so this property owner could based off of the language build right up to the sidewalk um So I'm not sure if that's a clarification or an amendment to the language that the board would be or the committee would be interested in. But I would defer to to Our legal team, I believe we could say, and, you know. at least X number of feet from the sidewalk as an additional.

To me, that would be pretty, just because you're trying to make an effective setback, the setback. and that would be an anomaly. I think most people would not expect to see that Wright and Bunning, those streetscape. So, And also, if somebody wants to put in a fence, you can do that legitimately, but it has to be four feet and improved by urban design, so you don't want to have two conflicting structures if you can have it. But that's just my view. and you want to show us the elevations?

So here is a, you know, hypothetical 36 foot tall home. and this is showing the height of the two feet allowed in the front setback and then here is that same 36 foot Tall Home. Imagine now I removed the porch to try and make it look like the rear of the building. And this is the allowed height in the rear based off of the red line language in the slides.

Now, just clarify the front and the rear. The front is two feet and the rear is up to three and a half feet. But you have these Just the way the boxes are done, they're on stilts. They don't have to be on stilts, right? No.

Yeah, I was modeling after the accessible raised beds, which was the purpose for that. 3.75 number because those were the ADA compliant product. But yes, this area could be wood as well.

Yeah. Okay. Councilor Oliver.

So can I ask a question because this one reminded me about, I was walking around today and I saw the lot was flat, but about eight feet from the house. They had built a stone wall that was up maybe three feet. And they had flower beds. It was a raised bed, but it was a flower bed. in front of the house. Would that be illegal because it was more than 80 square feet, what they've done there?

I would defer to the commissioner on that one. If you recall, and I can share my screen and go back, the language that makes raised garden beds not allowed in the setback currently is the definition of the structure um and structures are an assemblage or other combination of materials at a fixed location upon the land. I'm not sure where the commissioner would determine the line is on how to interpret that sentence between cinder blocks that are holding some dirt but don't have four sides. Ultimately, that would be his determination.

Well, we can discuss this. We can go over that later at the next meeting, I guess. I don't know if the commissioner is here or not.

I don't believe so. You want to shut the door just for the noise?

Thank you.

If we implement this change, it would supersede what's currently in the ordinance today, correct? In other words, it would no longer be a question. It would be written. We would be changing.

Yeah, so it would be an addition to the... List of structures allowed into the setback.

So then I think the answer to Councilor Albright's question would be, it depends on how many square feet that is, that coverage is. And if it's over 80 feet, it would be out of compliance, right? That's my understanding of it.

I think it would be only if 80 feet were within the setback.

Well, it was definitely within the setback. Well, sorry, Councillor Albright, maybe I wasn't understanding what you were describing. Is this, you know, like a typical raised bed on all four sides?

Yes, it was because it was a stone wall that was created in front of the house to hold I don't know why they did it but that's what they did it was a stone wall that had flowers in it in front of the house it was a stone wall not a bed It was a stone wall that was built up. I don't know if it meant it was wood or a stone wall.

It's still a raised bed. Yeah, that's why I was referring to the assemblage or other combination of materials at a fixed location upon the land. So it depends on how the commissioner interprets it.

Yeah.

I'd also question whether it's a retaining wall. No, it was definitely not a retaining wall. The front lawn was flat. Okay. I have a picture of it, but never mind. I don't want to get them in trouble.

I think the question, though, you've raised is an interesting one, which I hope that when we get to the public hearing, you might clarify, which is... How does this work with our existing... We went through a lot of trouble to have people who build things above four feet go through the process of review. And I want to make sure, at least that's my view, I'd like to see what they... The impact of putting these things together would be interesting to see what happens.

Thank you, Chair, actually, for raising that because it seemed that was a point of clarification at the last meeting as well. The thing that protects the city from someone exploiting this to create retaining walls is the square foot maximum. So since it can only be 80 square feet, unless you could build a retaining wall in a house that was a tree house or a miniature house, that retaining wall couldn't be considered a raised bed.

Now, the item specifically refers to, I think, in the front and rear setback, but the drawings indicate in the text that it can do more than that. I just want to be clear what we're talking about. in any of the setbacks. Your scenario is a given, right?

Yeah, and that's the determination of the committee whether to include side or not.

and that's important, I think, when we just have to decide if we want to do it and if so, where and how much. But anyway, Councilor Gordon?

Yeah, just the words of Councilor Kalis. resounding my ears when you said at the last meeting, I can't believe we're discussing this, of course, this should be allowed. And what I keep coming back to, and I think what I would have liked to have seen for the properties that you show is what they are allowed to do right now. because I've spent the time between the last meeting and this meeting, meeting with the commissioner and surveying things in Newton that I've seen. Not that I want to disagree, but in terms of a whole systems thinking way of looking at the unintended consequences, I did notice that there are quite a few raised flower beds that are actually in the shadows. So I think we cannot make an assumption that these are people who are gardening and they are of course only going to put it where there's sun. I mean, we looked at that example of 11 George and I know that was done to show what the maximum was.

And I think it's helpful to see what can you do now, which is largely closer to your home. And so I am wondering, and I talked to the commissioner, and he is only aware of one complaint since this last came before the council. and I am just still very, very hesitant to, especially without understanding what people can already do, start mucking around with this. And I did start speaking to some people. They were saying, well, you know, what's to stop people from sticking a, toilet planter along the front of their property. Well, I just, I think that there's a lot of unintended consequences here about what kinds of structures are being built, what they look like. The pictures are beautiful of these raised flower beds that are very attractive. They're not all like that. And I just think we have to really take this, for me, seriously. And I am still

very concerned about building in the side setbacks in dense neighborhoods. And we are trying to build with more density more and more. and it's not just about the garden bed. It's about people working on the garden beds and how far they are from other people's property lines and what that means. So I'm concerned about a lot of the unintended consequences here. I will say I work in food insecurity and very, very, very much support home gardens. So this isn't coming from that place, but I would like to see what is, For those properties, what could they have done before we start talking about what they cannot do?

Okay, so let me go to Councilor Albright and then Councilor Bell.

So I just want to add, I don't want to embarrass anybody, but what can be done now is to have a conglomeration of 8, 10, 15, 20 large pots in your front yard. which are ugly as sin. And that's legal. That's perfectly legal now. So there's a lot we can do now that is maybe not what we want, but that's what's legal. And there's no way to stop that. I think we're trying to make it possible for people to build gardens where there's sun in their properties.

I just think that's an incorrect assumption. I'm sorry, but I do want to recognize Councilor Dahmer. and Vice President Koehler. So I'll mumble that one more time.

Well, I think actually my point has been made, but maybe because of Gordon's point, I think you're right.

I think these diagrams were intended to be illustrative of what is possible, and it is possible that people will have shade-bubbling flowers that they'll put in the shade. Which is why I think these diagrams are a good illustration of what's possible.

It's not really a question or comment. It's just a comment. So, Councilor Gordon, what is it that you need? I just want to make sure that the planning department hears. specifically what you need to see to be able to either move forward or not?

Well, since we're having a public hearing, I just think it's important, especially for maybe the properties you picked out, Here's what we could do if we change the ordinance. This is what people can do currently. Because I feel like this discussion when I talk to people, there's an assumption that you cannot have raised flower beds or vegetable beds. And I think that that is not an accurate discussion because you can. So now we're talking about the placement. I'm not sure you can.

They're illegal. If they're a structure, it's illegal and a setback. How many people have learned to lift lots to grow things outside the setback? Well, this is part of my question.

It would be good to see what's allowed now, what would be allowed

I mean, if you have to be, if your front setback is 25 feet, which is SR 1 and 2, I think, and you have to have at least 25, more than 25 feet in front of your house to grow Anything in a raised bed. So that's a large amount of land in the front of your house.

Okay, but like when I talked to the commissioner, so I showed him. Land in my neighborhood, which is densely populated, and there was plenty close to the house that was not in shade that is legal right now. And they aren't big, they're non-conforming MR1s.

So that's why... Raised beds?

Yeah, because it's right next to your property that is allowed.

So, Ms. Colello, could you clarify that? Because if a structure is not allowed in the setback, I assume that means from the property line to your house.

Yeah, you cannot further a nonconformity. So if there's a nonconforming structure in a setback, That structure is allowed to stay, but you cannot build a structure further into the setback.

Right. So you can have a flower bed in front of your house in the setback. You just can't have a raised flower bed.

On the side yard, at least my understanding with the commissioner, was in this two-family neighborhood, you could have legally raised beds next to your house. Ms. Colello, could you talk about that?

I'll follow up with the commissioner and check what properties he was looking at and what dimensional controls for the next public hearing.

I'm also willing, if you email me, to give you the examples that I discussed with him specifically. Yeah, that would be great. The discussion was what would be allowed under this versus what you can currently do.

I thank that clarification for the public hearing.

Was the, was the setback, so Sykes setback came out around two and seven and a half feet. Was was the setback where the house is farther than that so they could have it right along the house. It was the house like 10 feet away from the side setback.

He gave me this chart and we went through it all and Then we pulled up pictures and he walked me through what you could do now in my densely populated neighborhood versus what this change would do. which for me in the side setbacks makes me not in favor in this densely populated and it didn't exclude though having it in your yard where there is sun. So that was a big question of mine.

Okay.

Would you be comfortable on the front and the rear surface? Well, I had to think about that more, but the side setbacks are what I've gotten really stuck on.

Councilor Oliver. Great. Thank you. I'm still doing the example that we just heard from Councilor Albright. The conglomeration, I think, was the term of the pots in the collection, right? Were those outside of the setback? They're basically on the line.

They're in the middle of their front line.

So they're not in the setback, but they're within the

The setback is 25 feet.

All right. It's okay.

That's another one.

The stone wall is, we don't know. But the pots are legal.

Well, it's not the structure, but the problem is it's in the setback. in this particular instance because it's within 25 feet of their lot is what I'm hearing. So if that is indeed the case, are we actually changing that? Will this make that

Legitimate? Which?

The pot in the setback.

They're already legal.

Right.

The pots are legal now.

In the setback. It's just a raised bed. You can have pots anywhere.

We're already talking about raised beds. Pots you can put anywhere. Yeah.

which is the odd bit.

Bottomless pots, homemade pots, toilet pots.

Sorry, that was someone else's example.

You know, if you go down Beacon Street, going west of Newton Center, there's a home just before Walnut Street. Oh. that has got a bunch of gardening pots in the front setback would be a good example of what Councilor Albright is talking about. So the thing that I worry about, is my in-laws live further west on Deacon Street and they have a two or three foot little stone wall and then the dark green is the latest. This lovely little Japanese maple. And I think that what we're going to find is that we are making it legal and non-conforming a whole bunch of stuff.

and while we're focused on those various bags, and by the way, this is not the biggest issue that I'm worried about on the date, but in general, but, I wouldn't want us to do something that makes non-conforming stuff that has been around for a long time and is very much part of the design language of the landscaping in the city of Duluth.

I think we need some help from the commissioner to really understand all that.

I don't think the commissioner, I mean, the commissioner may be able to do it. I think what we need to do as counselors is go around in our wards. and say, here's some stuff that would be nonconforming. Is it a raised bed if I had a sloping lawn that met the sidewalk, and now I've made it a foot or two higher, and now it's sod, but it's now a raised bed. where previously had they been, you know.

I want to recognize Councilors that would be because it would be illegal. Yeah, it would be illegal. So hang on a minute, let's hear from Councilor Getz.

Thank you, Chair. I actually, you know, I think that, you know, all of this discussion and I'm very concerned about the side setbacks. Especially as Councilor Gordon is talking about the MR districts. But I think that we really need to think about pre-existing non-conforming setbacks. If in fact you have a pre-existing non-conforming setback, I don't think they should be permitted in there because they're tight to begin with. and many people sometimes their property is right on the property line and or you know it's you know Three feet or there's just there's the proximity of the buildings and then you add in a structure I think is really kind of problematic. But I think that the commissioner can weigh in on this.

I also believe that it's important for us to think about the number of raised beds that are allowed per lot. within the setbacks. And then the last piece that I was concerned about was what Nora was mentioning the proximity that sometimes the property line is actually encompassing the sidewalk. I think that's really an issue just because I feel as if It's a problem if, in fact, you've got a structure right on the sidewalk. And I've always been concerned about these becoming... If someone falls on the sidewalk, they nail themselves on a raised bed. But these are, you know, we'll find out more, you know, after the public hearing, but those are my initial concerns. Awesome.

Yes, as you go down.

Okay. As you plant, face plant in the garden. Okay. Thank you.

Another person is going to opine.

Mr. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are just a couple of things that Councilor Getz said that I think it's important to clarify in the proposed language. The first one is we don't need to worry about non-conforming setbacks or anything like that because the current language that's being proposed for these raised garden beds. Doesn't allow the garden bed anywhere under setback. There's still a separation requirement between the front line and the lot line itself. and then where the garden bed is. So non-conforming setback, conforming setback, it's irrelevant, right? All we're looking at is how far does it need to be from law line. The comment that you and Nora mentioned with regards to the sidewalk, if it's a public way, there shouldn't be any situation where the lot line itself of that property actually is at the Nora, is it the way that we define front lot line in our zoning that it is not the lot line within the boundary of the property, but it's something else?

I have to double check. Let me take a look. Because I looked at it. I'm pretty sure the front lot line that we talked about or that it's in zoning, it's talking about the boundary line. And if it's a public way, there's no way that the boundary line is in the sidewalk. That's all within the public way. With that said, I'm happy to amend the language or amend the proposal so that it's clear that it is 3.75 feet from, I'm sorry, three feet from the property line, for example, for a rear, no, that one doesn't work. five feet from the front lot line or the edge of the sidewalk, right? Whatever is more. And that's an easy clarification. I hope that just cleared up a couple items. Okay.

Thank you. Councilor Kaler's So I'm hearing concern about the side locks, and I could agree with that in dense places, but I'm wondering, Mr. Lee, if there's a way to isolate that within dense neighborhoods in some way because there are many houses that have side lots as their or side yards, basically, as their yards. And there's plenty of space there. I don't want to exclude those.

I can speak to that if... The way to do that would be to set the raised garden bed setback such that someone could not build... if they were too close. And so the committee could determine what too close is. Let's say five feet is too close. And so if A raised garden bed, or if two homes were less than 10 feet apart, a raised garden bed could not be located. in that side setback because there would be nowhere to put it and comply with the setback required.

That sounds good. I mean, because I'm talking about 30 feet, 20 feet between houses where the side setbacks are. There's plenty of space.

Well, if there's plenty of space, you can actually put it inside your own envelope.

Depending on where the sun is. and the setback. So I just want to make sure there's an accommodation for that.

No, I wish that everybody else may get to, yeah, Councilor Gordon.

So if we get examples of what's allowed and not allowed, it would be good to show both so that we can talk about that because we just picked a number and be interested in what the real...

So Nora, it's what's allowed and not allowed, probably a variety of situations.

Yeah, and a variety of feet for the side setback.

Yes.

Right.

Oh, I think we need to give you some, I mean, you can't, you'll end up drawing drawings, you know, you'll have 30 drawings. So I think, I think there, some somebody who uh we ought to give you some parameters to work from I mean uh

I can definitely contribute.

So maybe, Councilor Gordon, you can talk with planning and help us get some clarification. Whether we agree with it or not is another story, but at least understand it. Okay. Any other comments?

I guess my question on that would just be do we want to define it as I'll let Nora decide that. I think it's going to be easier for the

We have a situation in the zoning which is a little tricky where you measure distances between houses that are nonconformity. But I think for purposes of giving the commissioner somewhat an easier matter to try and interpret because then you have to do measurement of the other house you want to be from lot line I think is a presumption and start with that and then see if that You know, if it doesn't work because there are situations where the neighbor's house is different, then perhaps we can just, but I'm just thinking administratively, it's going to be hard enough for him to deal with this. And I'm not sure that, but that's just my perception. Councilor Wright?

I also think we need something in here, attorney Lee might say, for existing conditions that are already not in compliance. You know, those front retaining walls, those are, all of those are not in compliance.

This is going to have an enormous impact on these efforts to level people's lives.

I mean, this may be a reason why we don't want to go here, but that's a whole other story. and Mr. Lee.

I'm sorry, your hands up. Thank you. I apologize, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, Councilor Albright, did you want to go first?

No, I just think we need some clarification because I'm not sure that a stone wall that raises the level of the lot is the same thing as a structure. And I don't know what the answer to that is.

The stone wall that raises the level of a lot is a retaining wall. There's a different definition for it. I really don't see a situation where a retaining wall and a raised garden bed would be conflated. They're two very different things. Of course, with that said, I would defer to the Commissioner of ISD but I believe that he's seen enough of them that there wouldn't be a confusion if you had it seems like the confusion of the materials it doesn't matter what you make the the um the It could be stone, it could be bricks, but if it's set up in a way that it's there and it's there for planting and it's raised up, the walls are there. If it was wood, it didn't matter. It's a garden bed. So I'm not quite clear on the confusion between what could be determined to be a retaining wall and what could be determined to be a garden bed.

I'm hearing a lot of, you know, oh, this very weird potential thing can come up where it could look like this. But I don't really think that's mostly what's being legislated here. So, you know, we all know what a garden bed is. We all know what it looks like. The current practice is that you're not allowed to have them within the setback. And the question for the committee is, do you want them to be in the setback? If you can think of exact So situations where you look at something and it's not clear if it's a retaining wall or if it's a garden bed, happy to look at it. But abstractly, I'm struggling with it because it looks like the definitions are clear enough to me. But if there's a deficiency, please let me know and then I'm happy to see if there's a way to tweak the language a little bit. What I actually rose my hand for, though, was, and I apologize, Mr. Chair, because I've been following it, but maybe I misunderstood. Is there discussion right now about potentially

putting a requirement that the raised garden bed has to be a certain distance from a structure on the abutting property?

Like the... That's the question that's raised by Councilor Kalis.

Okay.

And I... At least for myself, suggested rule that's lot-based rather than neighbor-based. It was easier to administer, but that doesn't necessarily take account of the context that he's recommending. I do want to recognize Councilor Wright and then I'll go back to her. Councilor Kaler, do you want to clarify that?

No, I thought that Ms. Glala understood it. Yeah, okay.

So the commissioner, ISD, we brought this up of a retaining wall. And if you have the retaining wall along your backyard or whatever, he would consider it a raised bed and it would be illegal.

I'm not sure. I'm not sure. We need to find that out, but I'm not sure that that's right.

So I think we can have the public hearing on this one. I'm trying to make sure the commissioner is here.

Do you hear the same thing? I'm struggling. If I put pansies, In the first two feet of my leveled wall, my leveled lawn, how is that not a raised garden? It's not raised.

I can speak to that. It started, right? So Ms. Palello has an answer for this.

It's clear that this is a major issue.

So to clarify, Attorney Lee had the foresight to define raised bed. And so we have a pretty narrow definition of what that bed could be. Um,

And so... Yeah, that's not what you were talking about. No, it's not.

And that's how I'm going to build my basement. If you don't mind, let me just...

Sorry.

So...

My only point is that this whole thing is going to devolve into exceptions because if I make my Ray's bed looked like a raised level. The whole thing is subject to subjective nuance that doesn't make me feel totally comfortable I just point out that two things. One is we've got a ton of structures out there. And my guess is that we have a ton of structures out there existing, nonconforming. If we're going to do this, we probably should have. A grandfather clause. And two is we have to be really careful about this leveling of the lawn and how the two things could be conflated. That's all. I'll leave it at that.

All right, so I think what I'm hearing is that two things. One is that we need the commissioner of the public hearing. And second, we need to have some clarification of what you could do as of right now without asking for any of this relief, right? That's your point. So that we can at least understand what the impact of the change would be from what we now have as proposed. So I think that, is that clear enough to you, Ms. Colallo, in terms of what we do next?

Yep, thank you.

Okay, all right. So I don't know. Then I'll entertain a motion to hold this item. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Guys have it. All right. OK. The next item is 4526. Changes in the MRT section of the VCOD to increase MRT proposals. This was suggestions about updates on the MRT. This was something that we talked about, just want to understand. What the scope of this item is, so this is counter over and I'm going to read the whole thing in the record if you don't mind, even though it's long, just so that the planning department will understand what you are trying to get at. would like to discuss with planning staff on suggestions to update the MRT within the VCOD. This is a subcategory of the full zoning scheme that we passed two years ago.

request discussion and ordinance updates on the following aspects of the MRT. One, allow more flexibility on the number of units per building when there are two MRT buildings on one side. modify parking setbacks. Three, modify the minimum distance between buildings to incentivize the adaptive reuse of more homes. Four, reduce the MRT parking requirement. And five, increase the MRT footprint and relate the changes to the number of units proposed. So this is an item that you've had a number of things listed here, Would you, again, I don't expect a long discussion of this, but for the planning department's elimination, do you mind just explaining what you mean by this?

So I sent Miles a PowerPoint. because everybody has to do a power play.

I'll entertain a motion to entertain a power play. Okay. That's not part of the rule. Go ahead.

So I'm I don't know if we can read that, Miles. There we go. That's better. So those of you who were here last term, remember that at one of the last meetings, Zach Lamel gave us a bunch of things that he suggested might help if we made amendments to, and one of them was about the MRT. So I just documented those in this document and this docket item. and we can go through them just really quickly. Go ahead, Myles. Next slide, possibly. That was just reminding everybody what the definition of So we wanted adaptive reuse, small scale units, multifamily buildings, similar in size to the residential neighborhood. So we want to keep that scale. And these were the five things that the chair just read.

I'm trying to illuminate each of these a little bit. I'm not the planner here, but I'm just going to illuminate them. Go to the next slide. The first one has to do with the number of units we require, as I understand the ordinance. And Nora, please correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not the planner here. We can have up to six units, but they have to be three units in one and three units in another. And what's interesting about that is that the property may be big enough for the house that's being adapted may be two units and the new one could be four units and it's still six units but it's not legal according to our ordinance. So just to allow flexibility to allow not just three and three but also two and four. So that's one issue that I'm asking about.

And the next one is, there is a minimum distance between buildings of 20 feet. And I'm wondering that, well, The planning department is wondering, is 20 feet the right number? Could it be less? And still, so the lot may not lend itself to have two buildings that are 20 feet apart. Maybe 15 feet is a better number. Could this be studied and could a recommendation be made for us to discuss that shortened the distance between the two buildings, if there were two buildings? Go ahead to the next one. This has to do with where the vehicles are parking in the property. And again, could some definition be changed about where the parking stall is located? Because if you're going to have six units, there may be some issues about where the parking stall is located.

And maybe we could be a little bit more flexible to make the building actually look better for the people who live there. So the next one. Right now, you have to have a half a parking space per unit if it's adaptive reuse and one space per unit if it's a, and if I spell things wrong, which I can see I did, one space per unit if it's new construction. So this example was given to me that if you had three units in an existing building, that meant three spaces. if there were three units in the old building that's one and a half spaces which you have to round up to two so this ends up with five spaces could we be a little bit more flexible in the number of spaces that we require for these buildings so that's another thing I would love us to discuss.

And the next one, Miles, is, okay, this is a slightly more complicated, but there's a maximum footprint of 1500 square feet. And I was talking with Councilor Wright and you realize that I didn't clarify that if you're talking about six units, we might wanna allow more than 1500 square feet for the footprint. And I looked at the missing middle housing website because they have a whole section on types of housing. So I use the fourplex housing as a model And if you go to the next slide, this talks about the lot sizes and the next slide, Miles, it talks about the size. So it shows the width of the building being 35 to 56 feet. and the depth 32 to 60 feet. And if you go to the next slide, Miles, that shows a range of footprints from 1088 to 3360.

That's for a fourplex. And it's still reasonably small sized units. We require 1,500. I would love to discuss as a group, if you're going to go up to six units, could we possibly allow a footprint of, let's say, 2,000 to 2,500 square feet?

We can't go up to six units on a 1500 foot footprint. The maximum is four units.

I understand, but we allow six units. so what's the building though in two buildings in two buildings yes but we if you if you're going to go to four four units in one and two units in another you might want to go bigger than 1500 square feet And that's what the fourplex in the middle missing middle goes from 1,088 to 3,360 square feet. I'm not saying that we go that big, but we might want to consider 2,000 square feet. for a four unit building as a footprint. So I certainly don't have the answers. These are things that the planning department at the time that they gave us this presentation at the end of the last term had talked to a number of developers who were doing MITs. And these things seemed like issues that were worthy of discussion. And that's why I brought them forward.

Thank you for doing that.

Allwright. When you talk about the adding flexibility, it's in combination with the two to four units as well, right? So it's the If we're going to have four, four on a 1,500 square foot footprint doesn't make any sense.

Yeah, exactly. So if you don't do the two and the four, maybe you don't need to worry about the 1,500.

Maybe it's something like 3,000 or maybe a little bit more spread across the two buildings as opposed to a straight 1,500 person per building.

It could be like that. I mean, there's lots to consider and lots to look into. And... We've been very successful, it seems, in doing the MRTs. More successful in doing them than anything else. And I think they're more acceptable to many of the people in the community than the larger buildings. That was why.

Thank you. Again, this is just a scoping point, not really to get deep into the choices, but I wanted to have an elaboration with the documents. So, Councilor Wright, Councilor Oliver, and Councilor

So one of the things the developers are doing right now to get around the 1500 square feet footprint, they're adding 25% because of these little bump-ups that we allow and making it look Really weird, these buildings, because they're maximizing it. And the other thing is, except for the one unit, one project, it might be a second one. No one's going above seven or above six. Because you got to lose. Yeah. Even though it's a small amount of money.

I'm only talking about six.

Can I just add a follow-up on her? What was the point of your first comment?

The T-100 isn't really the right number. They're building right now with a footprint of 2,000.

So you're saying a little bit bigger is better?

No. No.

I want to get that out.

They already follow the loophole. to make them bigger than 1,500 feet.

As I understand it, you're bay windowing all the way around.

Yeah, the push out kind of, yeah, all the way around. I'll give you, I'll forward you one that

Well, I'm just trying to figure, I'm trying to understand this in the context of what Councillor Albright is talking about and potentially making them larger.

Yeah.

If they're already making them larger. If we do make them larger, do you think they're just going to continue to make them even smaller?

Yes. 100%.

Yes.

Unless we disallow Baker's.

And I thought when we originally allowed this was to, we wanted smaller units. and not bigger names. Most of the developers go to the maximum FAR. So you give them more and they're going to go more.

I just wanted to connect those things. That's a great point once I understood it.

Can I ask a clarification? Can I ask a clarification? Thank you. Just so I don't think that I know the Bay exception.

So they push out, you're allowed to, so that you don't have a flat building all the time, you can put little things on the building, push outs and stuff like that. And so they're put all the way around it. and I went and did the measurements and I think it was close to 25%. But how does the bay window change? No, the whole footprint though. It's not just a bay window. So it's a push out of three or four feet by six feet and they're putting them on the front of the house, four of them and two on the side and four in the back of the house.

It's called counter-lever?

No, the footprint is actually pushed out.

But how can they make this footprint larger if it's restricted?

because those little things don't count the way we wrote it.

Up to 25%.

No, no, they just don't.

And this may be something we have to, we did this in order to provide some some architectural articulation if I recall so that you didn't just have a flat wall but what we've got is the articulation has become the wall and maybe that's an adjustment that we have to make in the other part.

Or you allow, because it does have a depth limit, maybe you only allow one on each face or maybe two, you know, on two faces you allow two. but they're putting in as many as they can.

We have one and one raised.

In the side setback zone.

I don't know if we're going to continue with this or not, but if we do, Ms. Coelho, could you provide us some information on The floor plans of the ones that have gone forward and what we like and what we don't like about what, you know, I don't know if you want to decide what we like and what we don't like, but just show us what's going on so that we can compete. this issue to what's actually going on.

Since there aren't so many of them, I can put together a little image portfolio and the committee could determine what they like and don't like. Thank you.

Okay, that's a good suggestion. Okay, any other discussion? Councilor Oliver.

He had something. He's lost his train of thought. But the one thing I will say And Councilor Wright touched on a part of this, and part of it is also what Councilor Albright is saying. Like, I'm okay looking at these things, but at the end of the conversation, or basically to start the conversation, What I'm almost hearing is we want to redefine what MRT is because the definition of MRT says small units, small buildings, transition from big to what I'll just call the neighboring because it's in different places. and this to me, like I understand and appreciate the two versus four and four versus two. Like that makes sense to me. Like, all right, I'm listening. But once we start making these that much bigger, I start to lose interest in the notion of it because it's no longer MRT in my head.

That house in the background is a fourplex. That looks, I mean, I... Right, but it's doable to make it look like something that we like. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not talking about what it looks like. I'm talking what it looks like from the neighbor's perspective.

I agree.

Thank you, Chair. I actually, could we remove the, I want to see the room. I'm sorry, I'm just seeing this middle, thank you. It was like I was seeing the slide deck. I appreciate this conversation. I think that getting a little bit to understanding what the MRT is creating. I also want to know the economics, what's going on, what they're selling for. what the floor plans are, you know, what they're actually creating because I think that will feed the conversation in terms of what Councilor Oliver was going after and Councilor Wright in terms of just how big these units are. and if in fact there are pieces that we need to amend in terms of what's allowed, Those articulations. I think that's a real issue. So I think that we actually need to do a deeper dive in terms of the case study of the ones that we have already in place.

So what I'm hearing is, before we bring this back, that we should have a portfolio, as Ms. Colello indicated, and you've just reinforced, of exactly what is our experience so far in this context. Does it work?

I would just add to that when I was in here that I think it would be good to know how many are being built, how many are in the pipeline, because I'm getting feedback in Ward 6 that for some neighbors, they are a little stuck. and some of the stuff that's going on and I think that you know when you started you said let's look at this to motivate how can we get more and you ended by saying actually I hear it's really successful so I think It has been successful at least in Ward 6. And if we're going to continue discussing it, I would like to know what is being built, what's in the pipeline, where we're going. And when you talked about parking, were you talking about fewer parking spaces or allowing more parking spaces? No, not more. Okay, so I'm also getting a lot of feedback throughout Newton that people are very upset, one, that there is no parking for PCOD and what that means for their neighborhoods.

and in the neighborhoods that have MRTs, they're really upset because they are renting or owners are buying, having two cars. expecting somehow that they're going to be able to park legally on the street. And so I want to add that voice to this discussion that I know cars are something that we are always discussing, but there are already neighborhoods that are having Anxiety over this and I'm not even quite sure where to go with that.

Just to address the first question, there is a VCOD tracker of all projects that are complete and in the pipeline per the committee's request a few months ago. And I actually did just update that this afternoon. So that's it. If you look up Village Center Overlay District Newton, that's on the website. And you're correct. I was actually noticing that quite a few of the MRT projects are in Ward 6.

Thank you for that.

I didn't know about that. Okay, Councilor Wright, and then I want to move on.

Yeah, I keep track of all this and I have a spreadsheet and I look at DRT and what they're doing and stuff. So in general, the lawn... Lots, they're keeping the original house and they're putting a house in the back. The other lots, the beautiful houses in Newtonville, they're tearing down the beautiful old house and subdividing a lot and putting two new buildings on there.

Okay, Councilor Dahmubed. Thank you. So, I mean, I would also like to connect this conversation to what you mentioned, Councilor Wright, which is that the conversations we've had around preservation, I think this is also part of that and how do we Figure out strategies for incentivizing preservation within the MRT districts. I think, you know, just at sort of first glance, some of these might be tools for that. um I'm particularly sensitive to this right now because it's a project in my neighborhood that's being discussed beautiful old 18 something 1850s house and it's like can it work it's not MRT but I was discussing it thinking through it I was thinking could MRT have been the tool or could it still be the tool that saves this house, you know? So I think as we get deeper into it, Ms. Colello, maybe there's a way, and I'm happy to chat with you on this if it's helpful,

that we kind of understand which of these tools can actually help us preserve houses. The four and two switcheroo option seems like that might be one of those tools. and so I think that'd be helpful.

Four and two switcheroo? Yeah. Mark? Now we know what to call it a four and two switcheroo.

I'm all about branding.

I will just raise too that the 1500 square foot footprint, that's for new buildings. For the preserved building, they can add 50% of the existing footprint while the committee's talking about different numbers of units and what's allowed. up to six units are allowed in the adaptive reuse building but what we're really seeing is only three because I think that addition maybe isn't allowing for more in that existing building. So that may be one avenue for strengthening the preservation arm of the adaptive reuse pathway.

Okay. So I'll entertain a motion to hold. Thank you for clarifying that. All right. Councilor Payless moves whole. All those in favor will say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. All right. Thank you. and now we have 4626 periodic update of BCOD proposals. This is, I won't read the whole item, but with suggestions change, this is to try and get a sense of what's, The loose ends that we want to try and tie up. And Ms. Colello, you have a presentation on this one. Do you want to take us through that and then we'll ask questions?

Gladly. All right, does everyone see the slides again? Same nice blue background? Great. Here's the docket item. I just for myself highlighted that this line is what allows us to talk about, we confirmed with the attorney that we can talk about changes made. So here's an overview of what I'll briefly talk through. Each item itself I'll be quick with because there's quite a few. We'll talk about overview and purpose, formatting, allowed uses and operations, the big topic of the committee this term, architectural preservation and parking dimensions.

So where these came from is looking to share with the committee emerging themes that have come up as we have implemented. VCOD projects. Certain use provisions may limit reasonable adaptive reuse opportunities. Some parking dimensions create unnecessary or efficient site plans on constrained lots. and several sections would benefit from minor clarification and reorganization. So we've got this is the breakdown starting with formatting and readability. I don't know if anyone on the committee has ever tried to find something in a subsection of 9.2.6 but it's approximately 10 pages long so

If you're looking for 9.2.6A2D3, it's very hard to track back what section that is. So this is simply a recommendation to improve the formatting of section nine to create clearer subsections. Number two, Banks in VC3 by special permit. Right now there's no ground floor banks allowed at all in VC3. This has made it difficult for existing properties that have banks and want those bank tenants to stay to opt in and it doesn't Really further the economic development goals. Banks are a commercial activity. And so it could increase flexibility to allow...

Banks in the ground floor of VC3 by special permit, as is the case in VC2, except on priority streets where the intent was really to keep the most active uses safe. Trash collection unit threshold. This is one where it's just really the difference of one word. Currently, the ordinance says that trash collection has is determined by the number of units in a building. But as we've been discussing in MRT, we're often seeing Six units across two buildings, which doesn't trigger the private trash collection threshold. So the suggestion is just to say... If there are more than, I believe it's five dwelling units on a parcel rather than in one building, the applicant is required to have private trash pickup.

Turning to architectural preservation, this is a point of ambiguity that would just be helpful to clear up. Currently, it's unclear whether... existing accessory buildings. So for example, carriage houses, that don't comply with MRT dimensional requirements like setbacks. It's unclear whether someone could add on to the other side of that building. with that addition complying with the setback so let's say that that existing building is one foot in the MRT setback right now it's not clear if they could add an addition onto that structure even if that was fully out of the MRT setback. So it would be helpful I think for ISD to

Clear that up, especially trying to encourage the preservation of existing structures and potentially historic structures. Minimum unit count for existing secondary structures. This is also similar to the discussion that we were just having, but that same kind of carriage house. is too small to meet the minimum of three units. I think it's pretty intuitive that let's say a 600 square foot carriage house, if somebody wanted to put a unit in there. and had to meet the three unit minimum. You can't really make a 200 square foot unit. We actually had this come up in MRT. Somebody was doing MRT, the adaptive reuse path.

and they had an existing structure in the rear that they would have loved to put a nice, you know, small unit in, but they couldn't meet that three unit minimum. And so they... Ended up just having it be office space that was deeded to one of the other units that they were creating on the site. And so one kind of big caveat on reducing the minimum to ensure that we weren't creating incentive for building larger units. would be to set a size requirement on that so you know For example, hypothetically, if the existing secondary structure was 600 square feet, they could have one or two units instead of three. But if it's

12,000 square feet or I don't know if that wouldn't even work 5,000 square feet um they have to meet the minimum so we're not just getting larger units um VC2 and VC3 facade preservation. I know this isn't new to some of you, but what we're seeing is there are some buildings that are... In the pipeline for VC2 or VC3 that have great street front appeal, right? The Rice Valley building, it's a nice facade. But if that building opts into BC3, which it may do, they can't keep that facade because it's out of compliance with our ground floor height.

And so this issue identified is just removing the barriers to preserving that facade in a preservation context. Situation in the future. Parking dimensions, I'm almost done, I promise. This actually really gets at what Councillor Gordon was raising. We've heard from abutters during site plan review and MRT that they would prefer to have more parking on the site. and the builders or the applicants are willing to add more or would actually like to add more. I think it improves their resale value, but the dimensions don't work.

Currently, we have the same dimensions for MRT projects as commercial and public parallel parking or commercial parallel parking. And so... Reducing that slightly to allow for more parking on site if the applicant wanted to provide that would reduce the constraints. And then similarly, the MRT has a parking setback that's four feet. And so this both limits the amount of parking that can be provided on site and also Pushes parking into sometimes a less desirable location for example we had a project where somebody wanted to provide parking along the driveway

kind of to the side of the home a little bit out of the way. But that wasn't going to comply with the forefoot setback. And so they ended up putting it very prominently right in front of the home and adding additional paving. and of course we would want to be cognizant of the abutters and not just push cars right up to their homes so we could add a screening requirement and maintain some Parking setback, just reduce it to allow a little bit more flexibility for our intended outcomes. And then this is more clerical in nature, reorganizing parking to reduce referencing. Right now, VCOD parking is both in Section 9 and the General Ordinance, Section 5 for parking. And so it would just be cleaner and smoother.

If we, you know, without changing the requirements, put it all into one section for easier referencing. And that is all I have. Happy to answer any questions or come back to any slides.

About the parking, the 9 by 19, what are you recommending it change to?

9 by 19. Currently it's 21.

Oh, right now it's 9 by 21?

Yeah, for parallel stalls, right, Nora? Yeah, just for parallel.

You have clarification about... Oh, yeah, I'll go back to the bank thing.

So... One of the things we wanted to do was to allow commercial on any floor. Right now, You can still do residential by Wright, but you could do commercial if you wanted to make a little medical office building in the middle of your Newton Center. That's something you could do. What happens is right now in the banks, We didn't want banks on the first floor, so they had to be on the second floor, but we don't allow commercial on the second floor. So we basically outlawed banks in the village center.

That's not accurate. We don't have an allowance for ground floor and second floor banks. I'll defer to Attorney Lee. We clarified this.

Okay, because I thought there was no commercial allowance on the second floor. I think maybe with the first floor was the special program, I'm not sure, but we pushed them to the second floor, but we don't allow commercial on the second floor. But I'd like to see commercial on any floor, not just, you know, just... Andrew, are you still with us? Right now, unfortunately, you know, it's all residential, but at some point, you know, things might change and more developers may start building a little bit more commercials.

I'm not sure what it is you're referencing, but I'm not aware of anything in the BCOD ordinance that prohibits commercial on the second or any of the floors. The only requirements with regards to commercial is the first one that it needs to be mixed use. So there does have to be a residential component, a minimum residential component, but I'm not aware of any provision that dictates where that has to be. The other thing is there does have to be commercial on the first floor in the, I forgot what the street's called. The priority mix used street or something like that. And you have to have active commercial uses on the first floor.

Well, it's good to know because I know some people didn't think they could do it. that have plans to put commercial above the first floor. I'm going to double check it though.

Okay. Any questions about these? Some of them are very modest clarifications, you know, like they're The way the numbering system works and making the ordinance so it's readable and all things being equal, we might as well make it readable. Why should we make them? Pardon me. But so I think the, any questions on any of these? Is there anything that is not discussed that we Gatz, sorry, thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Chair. You know, I got really sort of a little bit confused when you were, I don't know, the additions to existing secondary structures. because you actually called out carriage houses. And I didn't know, you know, and then I went in to, you know, to... Thank you for joining us. We can put an ADU into a carriage house and it's going down that road, but in terms of converting an existing carriage house or accessory structure, I didn't know that they were eligible for conversion. Do you understand what I'm saying? This went into a space that

I did understand that in the ordinance itself you can have multiple principal buildings and that they could go through a site plan review. But it got a little sort of murky for me because I did not think that there was a secondary structure that would be eligible for adaptive reuse. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Yeah, I believe it would have to go through site plan review as well. But regardless of whether that structure is existing or new, it could be the secondary principal structure.

Okay, but that was kind of interesting to me because I just thought that you had one principal building that was eligible for the conversion, you know, in terms of the adaptive reuse, but, you know, that was it. you know so now you're informing me and telling me that there are houses that accessory structures that are actually being considered um that they can go through a reuse process. So this is interesting to me because, but you're also saying to me that it actually then is required to go through a site plan review. Okay. Yep, exactly.

So, thank you. I think there, it seems to me as I hear it, there's sort of two clusters of things marbled into this presentation. One are the, what I would call, the very minus clerical and those we could seem to be we can move along relatively quickly the others may involve some substantive language changes and some rethinking a bit and that might be separated. So I'm going to suggest for the purposes of this item that the committee docket a clarification item because this is a we're really tagging along at the very bottom of a docket item but for a clarification of and potential revisions to the VCOD ordinance so that we've got a document that's appropriate for all of these things.

and then maybe ultimately advertised but we can do the clerical ones on the short order and then the others might take more time especially if we're doing something with MRT because that's really tied together with this. But that's how I think we ought to proceed, but I'm open to suggestion otherwise. Right, Councilor Elmer?

I think that's a great review, and I just want to thank Ms. Colillo and I don't know if you did it yourself or with Ms. Wewell or who did it but it was a great compilation of secretarial kind of reorganizations versus real Small changes that could make a difference. I want to thank both of you for doing that. I think it's great.

Thank you. I'm sorry. Councilor Getz.

Yeah, sorry. I actually, you know, in terms of the architectural preservation, I actually believe that, and I've been working with, we were with Dahmubed, we were trying to sort of incentivize preservation in the BC2 and the BC3. and I think that that's a larger scoped project you know in the sense of revisiting the ordinance language but I do think that there's value here you know in the sense of wanting to consider preservation and incentivizing preservation in those two, the VC2 and the VC3. Okay.

So if it's agreeable to the committee, what I will do is... Work for the clerk and the planning department to try and craft a two-tier docket item on this to pick up what I would call more ministerial changes and then another item. Thank you for your time. All those in favor with the to hold this item with that Understanding for documenting. Say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Abstaining? Okay. Well, that's fine. Let's do that. All right. Let's see. The last item is just for me to report for you all. We've had this whole deception on Route 93. There's a letter from the mayor that has gone out through the report line. It references, and I'll ask the clerk to make sure copies of that report. This is really quite extraordinary. The owners of The Street, you know, where the Star Market is and all of that, have actually come out and formally opposed the Brookline rezoning. Not just to oppose the rezoning of their parcel, You may remember it was built in, it was divided into multiple parcels. There were the piece north of Route 9, the piece south of Route 9 with the big chunks. But they proposed the whole thing on the grounds of concern that the degree of square footage

that is part of this project is so significant I mean part of the rezoning that it's going to have spillover impacts on their property people trying to park and otherwise take up some of the spaces that are really reserved for their Commercial uses. So it's quite interesting. You rarely see that kind of situation occur, but there's that letter and that's what's referenced in the mayor's letter. The mayor's letter speaks in part also to the Problematic use of what they refer to, and you may recall this artifact, where you go You can't go across Ruth Dine on Hemet Street in the direction you have to turn right if you're going across and go down and make a loop. And then the same thing having to go the other way. And he implicitly asked That conversation go on with the state before this result rather than wait until afterwards because it may affect what you can actually do.

Their traffic planner, as you may recall, had estimated about and I think that the opportunity here is the Brookline obviously can do what it wants but for the highway they have to get permission from the state and the state involves the city of Newton as well as Brooklyn because of its regional impact and so my there's no action by the committee but my recommendation is to that follow up on the mayor's letter that we'd be in touch with, or at least the mayor or those in the neighborhood or people who are concerned about it, be in touch with our state delegation to say, There's no loop there.

There's no cut. and in order to do that there's got to be a modification of Route 9 and as far as I know there's nobody who stepped up with a check to pay for it and so it's a solution that requires some geometry not So my sense is, stay tuned. The town has an advisory committee, which is supposedly passing on matters like this. It has a land use subcommittee of the advisory committee, which deadlocked three of three about the proposal. And so I don't know what the advisory committee in turn is going to recommend to the Board of Selectmen, but the The vote on this is scheduled for late May. The town, in the meantime, I think in early May, is going to vote on a major override.

and you've probably seen some signs on the sidewalks of Brookline if you've been around about that. Somewhere in the order of $20 million, as I understand it. So this is not directly tied to that, but it's... These properties will generate tax revenue at some point that will help defray the costs of what Brookline wants to do, but I think none of these projects are going to get built soon, even the big one down there, Hamilton Parkway. However, that's the best information I have at the moment. Any comments for anybody? Any questions? Councilor Wright.

So that's the first time I heard that this build-out would triple. That's the traffic on Route 9.

That's the projection of the traffic planner who worked on in the beginning of their traffic analysis, if you look back at it. I'm not, it's a percentage, it's a number, but it's in that range.

Oh, I mean, it's bad now.

It's, let's say there's a and it's obviously Brookline has an interest in people being able to get back and forth through Brookline just like we have people interested in getting back and forth through this. Any questions? I'll just entertain a motion to hold on this, and if there's another report later, I'll be glad to bring it up. All right. All those in favor say aye. I'll move forward. Opposed? Ayes have it. All right. And I think that does it for tonight. All right. I want to thank the planning department and certainly Mr. Lee and the law department, Councilor Getz attending from afar. We're always glad to see you, but we'll either take you in virtual form. All right. Okay. That's it. Thanks so much, folks.