Newton City Council - August 10, 2026

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Alrighty folks, can we perhaps take our seats please while I put on my coat.

Recording in progress.

Alright folks, how we doing out there? We're looking pretty close. All right, so tonight I think everyone is aware we have a bit of a different agenda tonight when I hope we're all looking forward to. I know I am. So the order is going to be a little bit different tonight. I intend to open the meeting, which I'm officially doing right now because this is irregularly scheduled depending on how you look at it Meeting of the full City Council and I should say that online we are joined by Councillors Krintzman, Irish, Block and I believe that's it online. Oh, I'm sorry yes and Vice President Kalis thank you for that. I don't see anyone else here on my list but I'll come back to this

Oh, and there's Councilor Roche. Fantastic. Thank you. Oh, now I see Councilor Bixby. All right this is fun but not terribly. All Right so we're gonna get on to the next slide here. on to this evening. So the first thing I would like to do is invite Councilor Albright up to the podium and I'd also like to suspend our rules or take a vote to suspend the rules, to invite our dignitaries as well as our chorus inside the rail. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Fantastic. Can we get everybody inside the rail and Susan, Councilor Albright want to join me up here? Yeah, anywhere that makes sense for you is fine.

All right, I'm handing this over to Councillor Albright for the fun portion of our discussion this evening.

Thank you, President Oliver. So we have a very special thing happening tonight. I had planned to do a commendation for Hubie Jones who happens to be my next door neighbor and it turned out that when Councilor Dahmubed found out about it, he said I was a member of the Boston Children's Choir which is going to be mentioned in this commendation and I would love to have them come and sing a couple of songs in honor of Hubie Jones. So, I think we'll start with one song from them and then we'll share reading the commendation and then will have a closing song from him So please, go ahead and sing for us.

Voices sing to earth and heaven ring, bringeth the harmony of liberty. Let our rejoicing rise high as the glistening stars, let it resound high as

Thank you for watching!

I sing song of our new day begun, and as my job to victory is won. Seymour, Girls in the days where fools are born and died. And with a steady beat, God caused our weary feet to the place for which our God is born.

We have

We have come, turning our back to the wonderful story. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

T.Rosa, Lula, Mahogany, Getz and his daughters

and the rest of us.

So before we read the commendation, we have some wonderful guests here tonight. Hubie is not here, he's having some health issues. He's right across the street but we've talked and he will be watching the YouTube video of this meeting so he will get to see it. So, we have here Tanya Jones, Tanya Clark-Jones who is Hubie's youngest daughter and there were eight of them, eight children My next door neighbor was always a busy place. We have Charlene Morrell Smith, who is also a co-founder of the Boston Children's Choir. We had Claudia Mathis, is that right? Mathis, who is the current co-chair of the Boston Children's Choir. And Jessica Chen was the director of advancement. And thank you so much for coming.

So this, as I said, this is for Hubert Eugene Hubie-Jones on the occasion of his being awarded an honorary doctorate in humane letters from Boston University.

Whereas, Huber Jones served as one of the most influential scholars and activists for the underrepresented communities in Massachusetts throughout his long career. in public service, and whereas Hubert Jones served as the director of the Roxbury Multi-Service Center a national model for neighborhood based social services. And

whereas Hubert Jones worked to investigate the exclusion of thousands of physically and mentally disabled students from attendance at Boston Public Schools led to the passage of the Massachusetts special education and bilingual education laws. And whereas Hubert Jones was the first African-American appointed to a deanship at Boston University,

whereas Hubert Jones was a pivotal founding board member of City Year, an educational nonprofit organization designed to bridge the gap in under-resourced public schools while developing the next generation of civic leaders. And whereas, Huber Jones founded The Boston Children's Chorus which since 2003 has served thousands of young people from the Boston area and many from Newton based on the idea that young people making music together across ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds can be a force for social good and social justice. And...

whereas Hubert Jones and his wife Kathy, also a member of the Newton School Committee at one point have lived in and raised their family in Newton since 1961. Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council of the city of Newton honor and congratulate Hubert Jones on the occasion of his receipt of an honorary doctorate of humane letters from Boston University, and wishes Hubie and his family continued good health and happiness for years to come. This resolution offered on the 10th day of August 2026 by Councilors Albright, Lucas, Micley and Dahmubed on behalf of the entire City Council So thank you very much, and we have a final song from the choir.

Have courage my soul, and let us journey on.

I am far from home.

Thanks be to God, the morning might have been The storm is passing on, hallelujah Courage my soul and let us journey on The storm is passing over.

The storm is passing over, hallelujah!

The storm is passing over, the storm is crossing over, hallelujah. Alleluia!

Thank you for joining us, Mr. Mayor. It's gonna be a hard act to follow but we'll give it a shot. We'll give is a shot, thank you. All right, folks. So just as a recap, I think I've got a different list on lot joining counselors joining us online. I see Councilors Krintzman, Block, Irish Roche, Kalis and now Farrell. And with that I believe we have a full city council is that correct? Fantastic so just a couple of Our housekeeping items, we are being both audio and video recorded. I've talked about the folks who are online those of you who are using computers or other devices from inside the chamber, please make sure you're muted to avoid feedback.

As the clerk mentioned in his email to everyone earlier today We're going to keep pushing on this one. But in September, both of our council meetings have been shifted off of the Monday to the day following. So we have meetings on Tuesday, September 8th as well as Tuesday, Sept 22nd Now that I think we've mentioned that eight times, we'll see how many of us get that right. Small challenge for us there. All right. Still louder? All right, I'll keep going. Sorry if I get too quiet. I'm trying to avoid the explosive P sound here. All right with that said let's get right into our first call. We're not going to do Pledge Allegiance this evening because we've already had some entertainment going our way. Thank you, though.

So jumping into first call, I'm going to start with land use. Councilor Kelley?

Thank you, Mr. President. The Land Use Committee report starts on your page 156. On July 21st the land use committee met We have won the first item. It was going to be on second call tonight. Second item was held Third item was approved as item number 228-26 Request to exceed FAR at 33 Aspen Ave, and that was approved 7-1. I would though also like to ask to set some public hearings.

Please proceed.

Thank you. These, I would like to set these all for August 25th Item 257-26, which is a request to exceed FAR and further extend nonconforming facade ratio stories and front setback at 99 Oakdale Road. Item 258-26, which is a request to change from an existing nonconforming residential use to another to allow four residential units on e-building with the city council determining appropriate density and dimensional controls to allow reduced maneuvering aisle and driveway widths. and to allow parking within the setback at 395 Lexington Ave. And finally, also for August 25th item 259-26 which is a request to allow a combination of retaining walls exceeding four feet in height at 83 Commonwealth Park West. Thank you.

Thank You for zoning and planning Councillor Baker

Apologies, Mr. President. I think there was one more item from land use on page 158 at the bottom of the next meeting 226-26.

That is correct. Newell Road?

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.

Sorry, item 226-26 on page 158. I don't think we got that into the record.

Oh, in fact I didn't do anything on page 157. Sorry, Councilor Krintzman which one exactly are you asking about?

Item 226-26. Okay.

Oh, right.

Just so you know 225-26 was held.

Yeah sorry I do see that it was not in my other notes sorry I'm requesting public hearing for 226-26 request to exceed FAR at 43 Newell Road All set?

Actually, the way I read it, I think Landius approved the item.

I see that. It was approved 6-0, I'm just sorry confused about a few other things on this page but we're done with that part. Thank you.

Anything we need to address right now?

No, I see that they've been held in or referred for later. I just didn't see that on my notes. So sorry.

It happens. Y'all set? Yeah. All right, thank you. Councilor Baker for zoning and planning.

Thank you Mr. President. The Zoning and Planning Committee report actually begins on page 158 but the three items to report for action tonight on first call is 193.26, the reappointment of Michael Alperin to the Newton Affordable Housing Trust and 194.26 re-appointment at Judy Weber to the new affordable housing trust and then finally 244-26, the appointment of Catherine M. Farrick as Director of Planning and if I could just spend a minute to indicate we're very grateful to her for taking on this responsibility. There's an extensive conversation with her that is part of the zoning and planning committee report, and attached to the agenda for that meeting is her resume and I hope that members of the council have not yet had a chance to meet her, but you will have that opportunity very soon. and I want to welcome her as chair of the committee that works with her very closely to the city and hope that all of the opportunities that she has are fulfilled.

And at that, I move the report.

Thank you. For programs and services, Councilor Krintzman.

Thank you, Mr. President. The report begins on page 159. The Programs and Services Committee met on July 15th. The first few items are held but item 192-26, the appointment of Cynthia Wayne to the Human Rights Commission was approved by a vote of seven to zero. Item 245-26 A request to set early voting hours for the September 1st, 2026 state and federal primary. Election was approved but with a change on Tuesday, August 25th by extending the hours to 8 p.m. That was approved by a vote of 7-0 and item 246-26, a request to set early voting hours for the November 3rd state and federal general election was approved with a similar change by amending the Tuesday, October 20th hours rather than ending at 5 p.m to end at 8 p. m

and similarly Wednesday, October 28th by extending those hours instead of ending at 5 p.m., ending at 8 p. m. Want to quickly mention that in September when The Programs and Services Committee takes up charter reform again. We expect to be looking at the article dealing with the composition of the City Council if folks are interested, so that will likely be during one of our September meetings. With that I would move the report. Thank you Mr. President

Thank you. For Public Safety and Transportation, Councillor Lucas.

Thank you, President Oliver. The report begins on page 161. The committee met on July 23rd. We had one item that was held we met again on July 29th. Only thing to report out is 223-26 for Reed Isaviev requesting a new public auto license that was withdrawn without prejudice in a vote of 7-0. We met again on, we've been busy. We met again on August 5th, and again that item was held. That concludes the report. I do have one announcement to make, and that is the committee is going to meet again on Wednesday, August 26th and that will be our last and only remaining meeting in the month of August. And the only item on the agenda for that day as of right now is the overnight parking ban. Thank you, and that concludes the report.

Thank you. For public facilities, Councillor Getz

Thank you, Mr. President. The public facilities report begins on page 163 and we met on July 22nd with one item to report out from that evening, docket item number 222-26. We approved or granted location six zero with one abstention on Prescott Street. The item number is 222-26, as I mentioned. I'd like to ask for a suspension of the rules to be able to report out one item that was discuss this evening. It's the item that we found- I assume there is no written report for this item? Correct. It's item number 221-26, the CPC recommendation to approve $232,000 for the cupolas and windows at City Hall.

We needed a suspension of the rules. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Please proceed.

Okay so we met this evening and I'd like to report out that we approved the item five with two opposed and with one absence. And it's to be approved as amended in the sense of we had to switch the account number that it's getting pulled from, and with that I move the report.

Great, thank you very much. For finance, Councillor Grossman.

Thank you, Mr. President. The report begins on page 164. Our first item 209-26 the appointment of Ryan McLaughlin to the Financial Audit Advisory Committee was approved six to zero Item 220-26, the reappointment of Alexander B. Jeblon to the Financial Audit Advisory Committee was approved 6-0. For the next item, I do need to request a poll my committee. This is item 221-26, the CPC recommendation to appropriate $232,000 for the cupolas and windows at City Hall At the time of our meeting, it was approved with the account number as written here in the docket as four to zero to one. but tonight at public facilities that account number was amended so that the funds would come from the historical preservation account within the CPA bucket and not the unrestricted reserve fund. So if I...

could please pull my committee, Mr. President?

I think that just requires a simple suspension of the rules, correct?

Probably so. May I have a suspension of rules to pull my Committee?

We need a quick suspension of the rules so that we may poll the Finance Committee. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Fantastic. Please proceed.

Okay, thank you. Finance Committee members present if you are in favor of changing the account designation so that these funds come from the historical section of our CPA funds as opposed to the unrestricted bucket of CPA funds. Please raise your hand. Yes? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. OK, I think that's 8 to 0. Thank you very much. Then we have a couple other items, number 237-26 the appointment of Christopher Breski to the John C Chafin Educational Fund was approved six to zero Item 240-26, a request to accept a grant of $19,500 from AARP was approved. Five in favor, none opposed and one abstention.

and finally item 243-26 was a request to accept and expend a grant of $218,708 for the city's fiber optic network and that was approved six to zero. With that I move the report.

Thank you. For real property reuse, Councilor Malakie? There is no report. Super. Can we do a roll call vote for the first call items please?

Albright, Baker, Bixby, Block, Charm, Dahmubed.

Aye, except for number 221-26 on which I vote no.

Councillor Farrell? Aye. Councillor Getz? Aye Councillor Golden? Gordon, Greenberg, Grossman, Irish, Kalis. Kelley, Aye. Councilor Krintzman?

Aye.

Councillor Leary? Aye Councillor Lucas? Aye Councilor Malakie? Aye

Aye.

Councilor Roach?

Aye, with the exception of 228-26 for which I vote no for the reasons I stated in committee and 221 26 for which i vote no

Councilor Silber? Aye. Councilor Wright? Aye President Oliver?

Aye

On this vote the ayes are 24, the nays are zero. There are exceptions noted or two exceptions to 221-26 and one exception to 228-26. The votes there are 22 to 2 on 221-26 and 23 to 1 on 228-26. Motion carries. Thank you, sir.

All right, we're going to move along to second call. We have two items on the second call those are items 104-26 and item 130-26 Simply so that I can participate in the conversation for 104.26, Baker to come on up and join us to take over the gavel for this item. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. So colleagues we have an item that was reported at the last meeting and then chartered but I think Custom is that when the item is chartered, the counselor who had chartered the item I would recognize first and then go to the chair of the committee. I can't see behind me.

Yeah, that's Councilor Block. Thank you, Councilor Baker. Can you hear me all right? 60 Brookside is a 3,272 square foot two-family house which was sold 10 months ago for $1,616,000. The special permit before us proposes to build four residential units with a total of 9,138 square feet. I asked a real estate appraiser to assess what these four units will sell for His answer is between 1.4 and $1.6 million. What is proposed at 60 Brookside, is that two housing units of 1600 square feet

that are worth about $800,000 each are to be replaced with four housing units of 2,300 square feet that will each sell for about 1.5 million dollars These numbers tell an interesting story. This plan will not make Newton more affordable, in fact it does the opposite. It will make the housing at 60 Brookside more expensive than it is now, and consequently, it will make Newton less diverse, not more so. I've heard several city councilors and some abutters express concern that if this plan is not approved, that a larger and more expensive houses will be built by Wright. I agree that is a possibility It's also possible that a three unit development will be proposed.

It's even possible that the developer will sell the house as is and move on to other projects that are more lucrative. In short, the future is unpredictable. However what is absolutely clear to me is that demolishing the current two-family house at 60 Brookside and replacing it with four somewhat larger units runs counter to Newton's housing goals. On policy grounds, I cannot support this plan. However, as I said in committee as the special permit granting authority we are required to make certain determinations including whether this plan will have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Every parcel on this street has a one or two family home. 60 Brookside would be the first parcel to have four housing units.

This increased density by itself will have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Further, this will certainly not be the last such proposal. If you are looking for another adverse impact look no farther than the parking layout in the basement The current structure at 60 Brookside has easily accessible off street parking. The proposed basement parking is so congested that people will, in my opinion, avoid using it whenever possible. Thus, up to eight more vehicles will park on the street making it more congested and more hazardous than it is now. To my mind this proposal just does not add up. It's bad housing policy and it's bad for the neighborhood, I will be voting against this. Thank you Mr. Acting President.

Well, let's hear from at this point. The customer of the chair of land use who reported. Is there any other hand up? I want to make sure I don't miss someone.

When this first came on second call, I read everybody the whole report. I think we've been over...

I'm sorry, can you speak a little closer to the mic? Yes. Thank you.

When this was first on second call, I read the full report and I think most of us have been through it all. I'm just gonna highlight a few of the details from the land use committee process. This proposal has gone through several site plan and building configuration changes since it first came to us in October 2025, in response to neighborhood and land use committee input. Most, perhaps all committee members and neighbors thought that the design is attractive. It fits with the character of a neighborhood. It gives the appearance of a single or two family home is set back quite far from the street, similar to most of the other homes on this street. Resident parking for two cars per unit in the building is below grade. Councilor Block referred to them as basement. I would just say they're in garages. After moving the location and reducing the square footage of the structures, a waiver for side setbacks is still required. It's a long narrow site

But the structure itself, the house is set back over 55 feet from the street. This passed well in land use and I still support it. I think it's an excellent project of all the many I've seen in my nine years on the Land Use Committee I will still be voting in favor.

Thank you. Who else? Councilor Wright, I recognize.

Unless someone convinces me otherwise, I'm voting no on 60 Brookside. There are four reasons. First, the people most directly affected by this project are opposed to it. We received a lot of emails, some supporting the project, some opposing it, some residents who changed their minds then they change their minds again Last week, I mapped out the emails from the residents who opposed the project. What was striking was that the people who live next to the project or directly across from it were opposed. The support was generally from people further down the street or on other streets who would not experience the immediate impact. That matters to me and the biggest issue for me is the setbacks. Second, this is a new construction project There is a clean slate. When you're building from scratch, I think we should expect the building to be designed within the setback requirements.

Hence, here the applicant is asking to reduce the setbacks with the entire left side of the building approximately 15 feet into the setback and the right side approximately 10 feet into this setback. That is significant. Look at 157 Langley, which is now two to six knolls. It's a very similar sized lot about 14,600 square feet compared with 15,385 square feet at Brookside. Yet they were able to build three units and keep the entire project within the 25-foot setback. If they could do that on a similar size lot, I think we should be asking why four units at Brookside cannot be designed to respect the setback Third, we have already made decisions about where we want density in Newtonville and West Newton. Newton has rezoned much of nearby Washington Street and its major arteries for higher density

There are already more than 1,000 units built in process or in the planning stages along a little over a mile on Washington Street and the major arteries. This is where I believe we should be putting our additional density in Newtonville and West Newton, on the major corridors not on residential side streets. I support housing. I support additional density, but I don't believe that means every residential side street should double or more increase their density Fourth, I'm uncomfortable with the buy right argument being used as a leverage against the council. We've heard the argument that if we don't approve this special permit, the developer can build the buy-right project We all know that. The applicant showed us what that Buy Right project could look like. It pushes the limits on setbacks, FAR and other zoning constraints, and it's a modern building which is very different from the 1865 home

I've been analyzing more than 400 teardowns since 2021. Take two to six knolls as an example. That property was initially purchased for 1.475 million, The three resulting condos sold for a combined $7.12 million. I don't think two units here would be as profitable on this lot versus 3 or 4. Is all this additional relief necessary to make this project financially viable or does the special permit primarily make the project more profitable? When we're talking about a clean slate development on a residential side street, on a large lot, large enough to accommodate three units, I think we should expect the developer to design the building to respect the setbacks. I would also like to see workforce housing, but that's something I cannot require.

So unless I hear something that changes my mind particularly about why this much setback relief is necessary and what What alternatives were considered? I intend to vote no on 60 Brookside.

Thank you. Others wish to be recognized? Councilor Gordon and Councillor Albright.

Thank you, Chair. I'm really torn on this because I think that the design is exactly what we would like to see in Newton. Beautifully done. I don't have a problem with there being four units But I do have an issue with them going into the setback and I would have preferred sorry you just hold up What did you say?

I just couldn't hear that You have an issue with what?

With them going into the setback. I would just echo what Pam has just said. Sorry, the little fuzzy thing is gone.

Yeah, just hold it up a little closer to... Okay.

So I'm torn because I like the design. I live around the corner from Knowles, which is what Pam was just referring to and it's a really beautifully well done project. And I would like to see more of those in our neighborhoods and fewer of the giant white and black two family houses which also exist in my neighborhood and I call them on steroids. However, the units that are being put in that the setback allows them to do are all really big units. They range from 2,000 to 2,300 to 2.400 to I think I was told 2,600 square feet and I think we need smaller units. We should be sending a message. And when I think about the people who voted for me, and I think of the residents that live there, we need to keep those neighbors in mind. I don't know if I have to state here whether I'm voting yes or no yet.

I'm struggling with this, and so... Just to clarify the rules indicate that if you intend to vote no you should state your reasons so that if the item does not prevail can prepare a board or council order that reflects the adverse concerns. But you now have to declare yourself at this point, that's all.

Should I vote no? It's because I think the units are too big and I would have preferred them not to go into the setback. Thank you.

Okay. Councilor Albright is next, I believe.

Thank you Mr. Chair, Mr. Acting President. So probably should have read this first but that's okay. As I've gotten to know all of you my colleagues on the council and some of you I've known for a long time, and some I've know for only six months. I've learned that this is a body of smart people and that we care about the people in Newton. We care about our constituents, and we care their families, and I appreciate all of you When we discuss an item like Brookside, I know that we all have in our minds and across the housing issue is that's being addressed in a very small way on Brookside.

I'm sorry, can you just get a little closer to the mic? Yes. Thank you.

The housing issue feels very loud when I do that but okay. is a problem that we have in our state and across our country. I hope that when push comes to shove, or perhaps when push come to vote, that we will pass this project because we know it alone won't solve the crisis It alone won't make Newton more affordable, but it will be serving as a model for how we can make housing in Newton more portable. When Councilor Block talked about the houses selling for 1.5 million, that sounds like a lot of money and I agree it is a lot but all the new houses in Newton these days are selling for four, five, six and seven million dollars. So that is the context of these units These are not big units. 2,000 square feet is considered a small unit for the new houses that are being built in Newton now We have a developer who created a building that fits with the neighborhood

He created four more units that are more affordable than the 3,000 or 4,000 square foot units that will come by Wright most likely if we don't approve this. The developer was responsive to the land use committee. They said the first project was too big, he made it smaller by 1,000 square feet. He also took one unit out of the main building and put it as a carriage house. The main building in Carriage House is a model of kinds of buildings that we have in Newton all over the city The setbacks are better from the neighbors. We've had a lot of talk about setbacks. I want to be clear, this is...the developer took the advantage of having single family attached kind of building type. That type of building requires a 25 foot setback on all sides.

The MR1 setback, where this unit is requires a seven and a half foot setback. For them to have a 25-foot setback on the sides of this building would be ridiculous. It's not possible, it makes no sense and frankly we should probably change that ordinance

Councilor Albright, I think you've run out of time at least as the counter appears.

Can I have another two minutes?

Councilor, Albright has asked for an additional two minutes to suspend the rules. All those in favor say aye. Aye

I want to be sure that everybody understands this setback issue is a red herring because the setback issues of the Bywright house is seven and half feet. and this new building is set back 15 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. Yes, it went into the setback but it's the set-back of 25 feet of a single family attached building type and it would make no sense that the building would look ridiculous if it had 25 feet I feel like we are a smart enough group to pass this project, to make Newton a model city to be copied by other cities in the state. Over the last several years, our legislature and legislatures all over the country have taken away local control of zoning. from cities like ours. I think we can show people, I think Newton can show that we don't need them to take our control away. We can do this. We can create housing, smaller units, 2,000 square feet.

A million and a half dollars is a lot of money I guarantee you that I understand that but it's not five seven and ten million dollars I hope that this council will act as the smart people that I know we are, the caring people that i know we. and please don't use the setback as an issue. It's not an issue, this is an MR zone. The new house that's built by Wright whatever it looks like will most likely be closer than the current building that's proposed. And I really hope that we'll pass this project. It's a great project and it looks wonderful in the neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. I thank Councilor Lucas next, and Councilor Malakie, and then Councilor Leary.

Thank you Mr. Acting President Baker. I voted no in committee, I'm gonna vote no again tonight. Setbacks do matter. They matter when the people who live directly next to this project are saying we want the 25 foot setback. It's a trade-off, if you want the extra density of three or more units and single family attached there is a trade off One of those trade-offs is the setbacks. and they're telling us, we got another email today from another side abutter saying I oppose the setbacks. We work for our residents The other thing I want to say is four units is too many for this project. As I said during the two public hearings, three would be perfect for this site.

We get an extra housing unit, we abide by the setbacks and heck, if the developer would have proposed three units from the very beginning, the project would've already been under construction. I guarantee you that this would've passed easily in one meeting at land use The developer, in my opinion, made a mistake. they got greedy, they're going for four. They're building into the setbacks when I said at both public hearings you need to bring the units down to three and not build in the setback. Plain and simple, and this would have already been well on its way. That didn't happen. Four units is too many. One of the reliefs that they are seeking is lot area per unit. That is part of our zoning, it is listed as relief being sought

and a question I always ask myself whenever someone seeks relief on lot coverage or a lot area per unit, why does this particular developer or any petitioner deserve a density bonus? They're knocking down a house. There's no affordability component at all. We did approve Thurston Road, I think all of us voted for it perhaps. that was at our last meeting, there was a waiver for lot area per unit and for lot coverage but there was an affordability component. So in my opinion, that was fine This one, not so much. So I am voting no. I urge everyone who was on the fence to vote no and send a message to this particular petitioner and to our residents who live here in Newtonville that we will abide by our rules and our setbacks, and not grant this type of relief. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Thank You. Next have Councilor Malakie

Block. Thank you, so I don't want to be too repetitive but I agree with many of the comments that have been made particularly starting with Councilor Parking, and the awkwardness of the underground parking spaces leading to people tending to park outside on probably any decent weather excepting snowy weather in winter and very hot weather in summer. Secondly, Councilor Wright's comment about it being a clean if you know tearing everything down clean slate new construction I see no reason not to be able to adhere to the setbacks To me, I would disagree that 2000 square foot units are small units. They may sound small in relation to what we see getting built as some of the larger units and others of townhouses, and certainly single-family houses.

But it's bigger than my 1,700 or so square foot house. the smaller 800, 900 thousand 1200 square foot houses that people live in. So I don't see that it's impossible to build either smaller units or three units as has been suggested and create a smaller structure that complies with the setback. And I would just like to add, I guess, I'm really disturbed at what I felt like we were getting, hostage letters. Please approve this because- Can you get closer to the mic for just a second? What I felt were like hostage letters. Please approve this, it's going to be so much better than what they say they will build if you don't approve it and I don't think we should be susceptible to that pressure.

It's not a good practice, it will just lead to more of the same type of threatening-type proposals so I will be voting against this.

Thank you. Councilor Leary is next.

Thank you, Mr. Acting President. I am on the Land Use Committee and this project came before us several times. There was a lot of work that went into it I am going to be voting for this project as i did in land use committee and some of the comments have already been made. The 25 foot set pack does not make any sense with this project. It is beautiful, it fits into the neighborhood Four units is not excessive. We do have a housing crisis, we need housing and housing in Newton is very expensive as we know and continues to grow. We need to develop more units I mean, and I'll also say there's never a perfect project. If this was more units, five or six smaller units, more affordable, there'd be more of them. and I think this is a good compromise.

And I think actually will fit into the neighborhood, and will not cause disruption so I will be supporting it thank you.

Thank you. I have President Oliver. Excuse me. Councilor Grossman next, sorry.

Great thank you President Emeritus Baker. As I mentioned in land use when I joined that meeting, I will be voting no on this project. Not because it has four units Not because I have a problem with the underground parking. I believe this project represents what I consider to be a problem, with our zoning. I don't know how many people in this room have already issued complaints about our existing zoning. I've heard a few already. This is the solution to the problem that is our zoning, I cannot vote for a project that I think is at least equally as bad as what could be built under our zoning, simply because

That means I supported a project I can't stand for. I don't like this project, I think it will do adverse harm or will cause adversity in this neighborhood. It doesn't make sense to me. If this developer wants four units, I'm all for it. Make them 1,500-1,800 square foot units, things start to get a lot more palatable in terms of overall massing. The simple fact of the matter is, this isn't about the number of units for me. I intend to make a very smart decision on my own tonight and vote against this project If we have a housing crisis, great. Let's solve it. Let go get the four units. You know what the other problem we have in this city? Diversity of housing units. We've got plenty of 2,300 to 2,200 square foot units

What we don't have a ton of or enough of are the 18 to 2000 square foot units, or even smaller that are available for purchase on streets like Brookside. So if we continue to vote for projects like this, special permits by the way, what we're basically saying is this is an acceptable end around to our zoning. I think what I'm hearing tonight is we'd rather fix our zoning than improve projects like this one. Again, I have no problem with four units here. I have a problem with 4,2300 or whatever the average number is that lead to this kind of project. What did I hear was like 9600 square feet of building? It's a little large for this lot.

Otherwise, I have no strong opinions about it. Thank you.

Thank You. I have Councillor Grossman next?

Thank you, Mr. Acting President. I just wanted to rise briefly to say that I am going to support this project. I went and I visited the street in the neighborhood and took in the context in the surrounding area and spent some time there I think the design is really beautiful. I think in many years of debating our housing needs and the city among the council, one of the comments I've made a lot that we haven't really had a tool to address through our zoning, is that to me design is really important. I've never had a problem with density of units but I want it to fit in and be beautiful have a welcoming feel and sometimes we have projects that come before us I still think the density is okay, but the design might not be that nice. And in this case, I think the design is really beautiful and I really do think it fits in

I respectfully disagree that we have enough units that are 2,300 square feet. I actually think it's a really nice size for a family that could live really happily in one of these kinds of units and can't afford one of those six, $7 million houses because I mean our prices really are climbing in that region. So for those reasons, I am gonna support this. Thanks.

Thank you. I have Councilor Getz followed by Councilor Micley and then Councilor Farrell.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Acting President and our president emeritus. I'd like to associate my comments with those that have spoken before me, Councilors Wright, Block, Gordon, Lucas, and Malakie. and I'm glad with this item having been chartered that everybody had an opportunity to visit this property, to go by Brookside Ave. and to appreciate the value of this street. And to appreciate historic assets that are on this street and others. This, no one has mentioned this, this property is a circa 1888 Queen Anne, OK? And if you stood in front of it, you would appreciate the amount of detail that's on this house. It's incredible. We've approved many single-family attached special permit processed houses through keeping the original and then building to the back. building all the attached units.

We've seen this again and again and I actually want to go through this and sort of figure out how many kept the original structure because that's what's a value on this street and you look next door, and you see the same circa, the same era renovated property with the same setback. It's just gorgeous But what's important to me here is that people are speaking to, you know, what is wrong with our zoning. I sort of see this as single family attached is required to go through a special permit in all residential districts, all the SRs and all the MRs. It's a special-permit process. So what controls the massing? It's the setbacks. because there's no far. Far is not part of the equation. This is overfar by 25% in terms of the actual construct that's being proposed, but that's not part of this equation. So what I consider is the respect for the rules that are in play when it is being permitted

If you require relief for the setback, you violated the rule. You need to stay in that lane when you're getting a single family attached permitted process. And the only other thing that I would suggest is that, you know, I listen to the butters. The butters that are going to be directly impacted the immediate, the direct abiders and those that live on the street. And I weigh their concerns highly because they're the ones that are going to be living through the construction and the redevelopment of these four units with these eight and potentially 10 parking spaces on that lot. But the main piece for me is that I feel as if we need to revisit our zoning because with these single family attached units that are being permitted, need to respect the historic assets on the lots. Thank you.

Thank You. I now have Councillor Micley, I believe and also I have several counselors online whose hands are up, the clerk has alerted me so I'll get to you.

So apologies. Thank you Mr. Acting President. So whether this project is beautifully designed, the right number of units two three four five whatever the right numbers is. Whether the setbacks are too far or too little What I think of those issues to me is secondary, to what the residents in the ward think of these issues. I view the job of the Ward Councilor as representing the viewpoints and the rest of the residents of the ward as best as possible. And that isn't always possible, sometimes it's hard to know what residents think about an issue, On this issue, there seems to be a pretty strong consensus that the residents of the neighborhood, the residents at the ward I represent are not in support of this project. They think it goes one unit too far and they have a right to that opinion.

And my job here is to represent that viewpoint here at City Hall, so for that reason I'm going to vote to represent the viewpoint of the residents that I'm here to represent and not support this project. Thank you.

Okay, I believe now I can go to Councilor Farrell. Then Councilor Kalis and then Councilor Roche. And then Councilors Charm. I don't want to miss you but I wanna take some of the online people.

Thank you, Acting President. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I'll try and make it brief. I have spoken with many residents on this street. I was invited to coffee A couple of months ago to meet with maybe a dozen of the residents and I heard them express their concerns. and I shared my thoughts with them at that morning meeting as I did during the very first hearing about this. And we are somewhat in disagreement about it. I mean, not about their opinion. Their opinion is legitimate. But about whether this should move forward. I believe the developer listened and, in fact, reduced the size. And we have four smaller units that while they might not be

as low priced as we would like them to be are in fact a very moderate price relatively speaking. The design, I think the design is extraordinary. I can think of only one other building that came before a special permit that was more in keeping with the neighborhood where it was proposed and with the environment within which you will live. And I think this is absolutely spectacular. I hope that if we approve this, they will encourage developers all over to in fact consider the neighborhood and environment as well as the opinions of residents. But consider the environment that the building will be in. Too often we get buildings that are absolutely out of bounds with the rest of the neighbors on the street architecturally.

I think this will allow for families, hopefully younger families. Maybe they'll have some kids and go to school. They certainly will be able to access the village center nearby Hopefully all of the things that many people keep talking about, reducing charge traffic and so forth. So I'm in favor of this project, but what really I want to speak to at the moment is that when I hear ranking members of this council talk about a problem with zoning and the talk is about processes that they know are a problem. and I want to know with all due respect where those voices were during the special project process

even if it extended a bit, even if we had to stay the later at night but to help educate us about what the process is that you think is bad and how we're gonna fix it. Not only for residents in developing the city, but for developers. Developers want to know what is the process What are the problems with zoning? And we need to start listening to them and stop changing the rules. Special permit exists to in fact allow differences from the zoning regulations, as I understand it. This project appealed for some special project exceptions and I think The Gibbon, that's what they were... We talked about and we asked for changes. They made changes. I think we've got to stop

Denying stuff once we've gone through a process. We got to make our processes work. Anyhow, going on longer than I should. I'm gonna vote in favor of this and I would love to work with all of the councillors who I don't think participated in this special permit process for this project, who didn't help educate those of us who would like to have heard from you months ago about what your specific concerns were. I'd like to know from the Zoning Committee when you are going to start listening to these issues and getting resolutions to the problems that some of your members have just addressed. Thank you, Acting President. I'm voting in favor of this.

Thank you. Let me just reset the timer. I now have Councilor Kalis followed by Councilor Roach.

Thank you, Mr. Acting President. So I do realize this is a special permit but at the same time I am very frustrated by developers going way beyond the boundaries of our zoning. To me, asking for some relief is totally... I think it's very important. But what I'm hearing here is that They've gone way beyond the boundaries of zoning. It sounds like many of my colleagues are putting design as a standard over zoning, which to me is a big problem. And there's no affordability. I mean,

1.5 to 1.7 million is a good price I just, I mean that's an expensive house We need to be encouraging these developers to be putting more units on these properties and helping them shape that so they're smaller. I mean, 2,300 is bigger than my house too. It's huge. We don't need that much. We need smaller units and this is what we've been arguing for for years and I just can't believe that we're What I'm hearing is colleagues want to approve this, where we're encouraging the wrong behavior from developers. I think this will have a negative impact on the street, community.

I'm not for it.

Thank you. Roche. You're muted, Councilor Roche, can you unmute?

Good evening, thank you President Baker. There are a lot of interesting issues and How we can encourage the generation of smaller homes is I think critical, but it's just not germane today. And I think Councilor Gordon really got to the heart of this issue which is we don't have the choice between the developer making smaller units, smaller four homes and we don' t have that the choice of three homes. The choice is between, and it always is a choice between what is available by right and what the requested relief is under the special permit.

What the buy-write development options does by making that explicit, it provides context for this project and for the decision we have. and the question is whether the developer who has made concessions in terms of design to fit in with the visual character of the neighborhood has done enough with the design, with the changes to make the overall size of the building smaller. To make the home smaller, whether that is enough to persuade us that this is a better project for the neighborhood. then the buy right alternative.

Change is coming to Brookside Avenue and the change is either going to come in the form of a building that looks like other homes on the street or a building Homes that have been built, the teardowns, the white sides with the black windows. And I am convinced that on this street the four homes in a building that fits in with the visual character of The Neighborhood is a better option. We'd like to have smaller homes. These will be smaller than the alternative. We would like to larger setbacks given the rights that the developer has by right There's some leverage there. And so as much as we might like something else, the choices are this or the buy right alternative and I think this is better for the street, better for

and better for the city overall, I am going to vote yes as I did in committee. And I hope that more of my colleagues will thank you very much.

Thank you. Councilor Charm, I think is up next. Anyone else?

Thank you, Acting President Baker. This project really makes me scratch my head in so many ways because when we talk about housing, there are so many things that we say we want. We say we want the developers to be listening to the community. This is one where the developer has made many revisions and has made concessions in response to the neighborhood We say that we want smaller units. As we have established, these units are smaller than they would be by right. Yes, they're not 1500 square feet but they're a much more manageable size for the price per square foot that new homes in Newton are making today. That makes them another thing that we want, which is starter homes for young families who have kids.

If we were to just be letting these homes and these designs Be by right, they would be larger. That price would be higher and that would be even less accessible to many of the neighbors that we are hoping to welcome in and into our schools and our community. We say we want off-street parking with two spots per unit. This is one that the developer I think got very creative to hide eight parking spots, It's astonishing from the street. You would never think that there would be eight parking spots underneath, I think that's a huge benefit and then we also say that we want and many more. Setbacks and Massing.

And so I was a little concerned about the setbacks in massing, and like many of my colleagues, I drove over to Brookside, took a look at the street, and one of the things that really struck me There is a building that just went up that is a direct abutter and I looked it up. It has a five foot setback against this property line from one of the direct abutters, and it went up two years ago So, and the massing is... very similar to the neighbors on the other side of the street. So it feels to me like those are hollow arguments, and when I think about all the things that we do want The smaller size, the off-street parking, the starter homes, the lower price. Those are things that make me want and yes, the design. I think it would help to maintain this as a beautiful street

I think those are the things that we want. I support this project and I urge my colleagues to support it as well, thank you.

Thank you. At this point, I'm going to yield the chair back to the president. I think he's finished speaking so the order I have so far Mr. President are Councilor Silver and Councilor Golden and then see who else, including yours truly. And this is the clerk's timer.

Thank you, President Emeritus Baker. You know there are some words that just have a problem enunciating? There you go. All right I believe I'm on to Councilor Silber is that correct?

Thank you, President. So I just want to say briefly the whole process of this has really been one where I've heard a lot of confusion from residents and reacting in fear. And that doesn't always make me feel super encouraged about a project, It makes me feel like there's a lot of things going on in the background that I may not appreciate, and I may feel comfortable with if it were my neighborhood. And I respect what the neighbors have to say because ultimately when we when we decide to allow a change in our zoning for a special permit, we're effectively placing that cost on the neighbors. That's what we're doing and there's really no other way around it

I also don't hear very much from my constituents about wanting more density. I just don't here it, Maybe I'm not talking to the right constituents, but I don't hear a cry all the time for more and more and what I hear is we're going to choke on all the development that's coming our way. and for that reason, I guess the final reason being that I don't love to be scared into approving something. especially when the alternative is actually less concerning and less impactful on the direct abutters. So for that reason, I'm gonna be voting no.

Thank you. Councillor Golden.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to be voting yes to advance the project and and I want to say that in the context of being very respectful and appreciative of the arguments on both sides tonight, there isn't one pro that I did not agree with here. So there's a little bit of creative tension going on in my head, but these are a lot of subjective calls we assign our own subjective and so on. So I'm looking at different determinations to each one of these pros and cons, and weight things differently. And when I look at the things that I really care about, uh, I'm weighting things like design, I am weighting It is impossible for me to lose sight of how important it is to grow the number of units not just in Newton and others.

But in the Commonwealth as a whole, some estimates are we're 200,000 units behind where we need to be. Some believe it's more closer For me, both of those are big numbers and both of them deserve consideration and need to be addressed no matter where in the spectrum you think we are with regard to the requirement to build for human beings. This is at the end of the day, we talk a lot about sticks and stones and they are important. The sticks and stone of the buildings but I'm really focused on the human beings who need housing and others, not just here but throughout the Commonwealth. The setback incursion is a concern That brings me to your point, Mr. President on the need to address zoning. I take that very seriously but where you and I differ is I do not want to forego opportunities that are here right now

in the hope that we will get a more comprehensive zoning solution further down the road because I don't know when I want to take advantage of opportunities that are here, opportunities that reasonable. Opportunities that will yield quality housing for people who desperately need it. here as well as 351 cities and towns throughout the Commonwealth. and finally IDP units, inclusionary development units whether it's deed restricted affordability or income-restricted affordability on rentals I would like to see a lot more of those units sort of populate our agenda than we are currently seeing, and that's true in so many places.

whether or not there is an income-restricted unit being offered by the developer, that does and others undercut or obviate the need for the sheer numbers of units. All along the socioeconomic spectrum we need more units, and four quality units, well-designed units that I think fit in with the neighbourhood, the character of the neighbourhood. And by even permitting I do not see this particular situation as presenting a profoundly and so on. There's no harmful or deleterious impact when it comes to a barters on the subject of setbacks,

When I weigh the variety of factors, I come down pretty firmly on this particular project in favour of creating the units in this environment, in this type that I think will ultimately benefit the city and the neighborhood. So thanks very much.

Thank you. I think that is your first time speaking, sir. Surprised you with that one, didn't we? You thought. We forgot. Uh-huh. I see. We see you. Okay. Councilor Baker.

So this is a very difficult project, as you all heard because of so many issues being raised and persuasive arguments on both sides. I just want to address several and if I end up not supporting the item, I will tell you the reason why. But I still want to think about it. The special permit process requires us to weigh the public benefit against certain criteria, and a key one for me here are two of them. The specific site is an appropriate location for such user structure and the use as developed and operated will not adversely affect the neighborhood. And the ordinance goes on to say, The City Council shall not approve any application for a special permit unless it finds that said application complies in all respects with the requirements of this chapter. So it, I think puts a burden of persuasion on the applicant to satisfy all of the standards as well as to satisfy public benefit. Now obviously

Many members of the Council have articulated important public benefits that the project can serve, but other members of council have articulated some of the problems with use as the site has developed. There's one other aspect that I think is important. Nowhere in ordinance does it speak to what the buy-write alternative is by comparison. Certainly, that's in the background, I suspect of some of the public benefit conversation but it is not an explicit standard. So I have to weigh it against the criteria, and I've heard concerns raised that are legitimate about setbacks. and some of the access, and therefore if I end up not supporting it because of those issues articulated by colleagues. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. I have Councilor Wright next. And I don't...I haven't seen any other hands so as of right now, Councilor Right is our la- Oh! Is somebody online with their hand up? No, I don't see any other hands. Thank you.

Thank You. I just want to point out that these units are four or five bedroom two and a half for three and a baths I don't consider that a starter home. My starter home was 1,200 square feet two and half bedrooms one bathroom. That's a starter not something this size. And also I'll stop there. Thanks.

Fantastic. All right, I believe that brings us to the conclusion of our conversation around Item 104-26, I think it behooves us to take a roll call vote here. And just for the record, those of you who have not stated why you're voting no if your voting now please do so when you vote. Thank you

Councilor Albright. Aye. Councilor Baker. No. Counciler Baker, do you want to offer a reason for the no?

comments.

And I do mean for those, just to be very clear the law department needs to be able to review the record and the recording tonight. Anyone who does vote no should this item not be approved or rejected they have to be able to explain all of our individual reasons why we voted no. So if you've already explained it, there's no need to go into further detail but I have heard a couple folks who may vote no who were less than clear as to why they were voting no.

Councillor Bixby? Aye. Councillor Block? No. Charm. Aye. Councilor Dahmbabad? Aye. Councillor Farrell? You're on mute, sir. Farrell, you're muted.

He's trying to trick us. You're still muted, right?

Councilor Farrell we can live with a thumbs up or a thumbs down here. Aye. Thank you, sir. Councillor Getz?

No.

Councillor Golden? Aye. Councillor Gordon?

No

Councilor Greenberg?

Aye.

Councilor Grossman? Aye Councilor Irish? Aye, Councilor Kalis?

No I think it sets a bad precedent for the street

Councilor Kelley. Aye. Councilor Krintzman. Aye Councilor Leary. Aye, Councilor Lucas.

No

Councilor Malakie? No. Councilor Micley? No Councilor Roach? Aye Councilor Silber?

No

No.

President Oliver?

No.

On this vote, the ayes are 13. The nays are 11. This motion is subject to a 16-vote affirmative threshold. Motion fails.

Thank you Mr. Clerk. All right, our next and final item for this evening is Item 130-26. This is 1100 to 1102 Beacon. I believe this was put on second call, but not sure I know who put it on second. Councilor Malakie? I believe we've already read this project into the record, so I don't think we need to go back to that. However if we do please have that handy. Councilor Malakie if you wouldn't mind kicking us off on this item?

Sure, and I'll try to keep it to the three minutes.

Right into that microphone please.

Let's try to get it at the right height and I will try not to pop any Ps. So, I guess I wanna start off with some of the arguments for that I've heard that do not resonate with me. I've heard at least one person say this property is an eyesore the way it is. I don't want to factor that in. To me, that's rewarding neglecting a property, rewarding leaving buildings empty. I've heard the owner is unable to get a reasonable offer as a commercial property. To me, if you have a property in Newton and you can't sell it the price is too high. Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. I don't feel that it's our job to sort

and, you know, wish-fulfillment people making a property worth more than what somebody thinks it should be worth instead of what it is in current market. I've also heard many people say it's more housing, it's four units. But we could make that argument about any of the properties on this stretch of Beacon Street that are currently zoned commercial. Everything we do tends to be cited as a precedent for the next thing that comes along that's similar. We've already heard in the most recent meeting and the petitioner referenced 1114 Beacon as a precedent for 100% residential with 1.25 parking spaces per unit. We approve this.

We'll not only be losing a potential space for a business, will be kind of signalling to all the other property owners on the properties next door, the properties down the block and I can list them if people are interested. and others that are currently business use but could potentially want to do the same thing. That is depleting what the 2018 pattern book itself called then both a business center and a village center. It's not a village centre as we think of our 13 villages, but it's got a critical mass of currently zoned commercial property and a variety of small businesses.

Thank you.

Even during the discussion of this item, I heard people saying what a shame we're losing commercial property. I hear that a lot but as I've said before, we can't keep bemoaning the loss of commercial property and voting to give it up. I think we ought to be incentivizing the retention of commercial property. I regret that 1114 Beacon, we did not hold out for mixed use on

Are you all set, Councilor? You're at three minutes.

I'm pretty close. I think I've made my point and I will be voting against it. Thank you.

No thank you. I have Councillor Lucas followed by Councillor Wright.

It's already turned on. Thank you, President Oliver. Yes again I think we've seen this movie before. I voted against this in committee and I'm gonna vote against it again tonight. It's simple. as Councilor Malakie just said, this is a village center not one of the official 13 village centers but it is still a village Center. This is an ideal location right in four corners for either mixed use development or commercial development. We need to protect our business use zones and we have to make sure that they have a commercial enterprise or a mixed-use development. That's why I voted against this. Nothing more, nothing less. I would have been happy to work with the petitioner if they were doing live work use that they initially presented earlier this term, but they withdrew that and are going for all housing.

I think it's very short-sighted to go to all housing in this location literally next to a gas station in another commercial enterprise. That's all I got to say, thank you.

Councillor Wright followed by Councillor Kelley.

I just like the idea of using commercial property for housing. Non-housing projects help more with the city finances than residential projects, but this is a unique situation. This is a very small lot 5,331 square feet and no street parking on either side. It is a difficult place for business. It abuts a gas station and small business, and then large housing projects across the street in two-door downs. I think it's not out of context. Four Corners is not one of their 13 village centers where I probably would have had a different answer, where we need to protect our retail commercial so much more. It meets the setback requirements. It's asking for a special permit for 35.4 feet of height, where 48 feet is allowed by special permit. Residential is typically 36 feet.

The houses behind this lot are on a small hill above the lot and the added height on this project should not be an issue. I will support this project.

Kelley. Followed by Councilor Leary.

Thank you, Mr. President. Because I haven't given like a little recap of the project this is the first time on second call, I'm gonna do a little bit of that before I give you my opinion and how I'm going to vote on it. after coming before the city three times in 2025 with owners stating that they had been unable to sell the site for commercial use despite trying for five to six years, after which they withdrew the petition in December 2025. In 2026, the proposal for four three-story, three bedroom units came to land use four times in attempts to get a successful residential or combined residential commercial development. That's seven visits to LANDU so far for this project, in case you're not doing the math at your seats. The site is surrounded by mixed uses of an office building, a Whole Foods supermarket

Walgreens, a small-scale retail strip, a gas station, single and multifamily unit residential buildings all at four corners in walking distance to Cold Spring Park and Mason Rice School. Based on suggestions by some councillors, including Councillor Lucas, the petitioner changed the originally proposed use from residential to live work units. with residential on the upper floors and commercial on the first floor. This was actually an exciting idea for us to consider, and we did look into it it's something that all of us should be thinking about but in this case after analysis the committee felt that majority of the counselors felt that commercial on the first floor at this site as counselor

Wright said to very limited parking, only one space per of the four units was not going to be tenable for the goal of increasing foot traffic, sidewalk vitality and increasing commercial development in any significant way. It also posed parking problems. So on July 21st, the land use voted six to two in favor and I believe which is so unusual here, we all should applaud this. I believe all three Ward 6 Councilors are in agreement with that decision and I will be voting in favor of it.

Thank you. I have Councilors Leary, Gordon followed by Block

Thank you, Mr. President. I will be brief. I associate my comments with Councilor Wright and Councilor Kelley This has been a frustrating project for me. As has been noted, it's been before land use multiple times on different iterations It is not a viable commercial space. That's just a dead stop it's not going to happen I don't want to see that Vacant for another six or seven years, that's how long it's been vacant so far and actually I think it's an ideal location for residential has been mentioned with being near a beautiful park, Cold Spring Park in the service school down the street and of grocery store and walking to two village. So I will be supporting this and I hope never to see it again.

Fabulous, thank you. Councilor Gordon followed by Councilor Block?

Thank you, Mr. President. This site was the site of one of my first jobs. It was a veterinary clinic when I was growing up and I've watched it turn into other things since then. I'm speaking because generally speaking, I do not support converting commercial to residential. I didn't agree with the decision when they decided to put housing at the corner of Jackson and Boylston that had a Sushi Man, and a Chinese restaurant I wanted that to be mixed use, it's housing. I wouldn't have supported Northland when they said oh poor me I can't build commercial. I wasn't a big fan of the Opchugung project either, which is the big housing complex that's one space over from this. However, I do think it is a unique area and I think someone living there I'm sure will appreciate the amenities that are nearby. I think it enhances that area actually and so I am supporting this.

Thank you.

Great. Councilor Block, followed by Councilor Getz. And those are the only hands I've seen.

Thank you, Mr. President. I will be brief. I definitely want to associate myself with remarks from Councilor Leary that we never see this again after this vote. I share that. In committee, I voted against this project. I'll be voting against his project tonight. This is a very complicated parcel As Councilor Kelley said, it came before the Land Use Committee seven times. That should tell you how complicated it is. I draw the line on the parking. Whether this is residential, whether this is commercial they need to solve a parking problem

There's no parking on Beacon Street. There's not parking on Walnut Street. Any visitor, I'm not sure where they're going to park in a reasonable distance to get to this location It just does not feel right to me. I regret that. I wish there were a more obvious use for this property, but it may take merging with some adjacent property in order to make use of this parcel. But I can't support this proposal as presented. Thank you very much

Getz, followed by Councillor Silber then Roche.

Hi. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to give everybody a sense of the location of this parcel. It's one off at the intersection of Beacon and Walnut so it's right next to the gas station so that people understand the proximity to that very dense and busy intersection. We've seen quite a bit of residential redevelopment in Four Corners with two BU lots being converted, the one at 114 Beacon Street, the one that's been mentioned as well as the BU Unlotted on the other side of Whole Foods at 1062 Beacon being converted from BU to 100% residential. I believe that this parcel should be an opportunity for mixed use if not left at 100% commercial. I am the lot that surrounds it, behind it has a significant amount of available parking in that.

So as Councilor Block is suggesting there needs to be some sort of symbiosis or some sort worked out relationship for parking and a parcel. I actually supported the VCOD that was being considered for Four Corners. This parcel was designated as one of five on a priority street, This section of Beacon Street was considered a priority street, and with that it means it needs to be kept as commercial on the first floor with the potential for residential above. So I will not be supporting this petition because I believe that some commercial needs to be presented as viable in this area for corners.

Councillor Silber followed by Councillor Roach

I just want to say this, I've only really seen this once and I found it a confusing proposition but at the same point I think commercial is struggling along that piece, and I think the city would end up making more money with that as a residential than with it sitting unused. And I just don't really see what else we can do with it, I just dont' see where it would get merged into So, I'm puzzled as to whom will live here and how they will get places but I guess that's not really our problem so I will be in favor of this.

Interesting twist of logic there at the end. I like that. Councilor Roach? And then, I don't see any other hands in the room or online so I think this might be our last speaker on this item. Oh, I'm sorry, Councilor Malakie.

I wish to associate myself with the comments of Councilors Wright, Gordon and Silver. I will be voting yes.

I didn't even get a chance to start my timer, you're done?

I'd like an additional five minutes, I'm done.

Fantastic. Assuming you are kidding, Councilor Malakie.

Yes, I'd just like to take issue with the idea that it's not viable for commercial. It was commercial for decades. I think since approximately 2004 or so as as the dry cleaners and also a tailor. I recall getting my first suits when I ran, first ran, getting taken up there Dry cleaners may have gone out of fashion, but tailors have not. And there are other businesses as I mentioned that surviving on that stretch, and I just would like to list them. Next door at 1106-1108, that's another small building. That's the one with a parking behind it but also with parking in front. There's a nail studio, there's a Pilates and gyrotechnic studio, the owners Marilyn Bizzuto's electrolysis Laser Skin Rejuvenation, another skin care business.

An acupuncture and nourishment counseling person and a licensed social worker all have apparently offices in that building. We've got, I'll skip the Citizens Bank because that's sort of a one thing with their decent sized parking lot but down the street at 1134 or 1136 Actually, that's on the other side. Scafidi Brothers Market and Deli and Boston Vegan. There are two buildings that appear to be contiguous but they're actually two different addresses 1138 to 1142 has Mano Tai, Four Corners Pizza, Newton Wine and Spirits. 1144 to 1152 has Hans Dry Cleaners, a Salon Descencio, Duncan, and the Newton Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics which is a rather bigger space. So those are some of the businesses that are there now

and these are the types of small spaces that will be at risk if we follow the pattern that we're likely to do tonight A teardown with replacement, with no commercial in it. that sort of cascading effect of loss of business one after another, that's going to diminish the choices for the people who do live there and the choices Office Buildings. There's the one kitty corner across the street on the northeast corner, there's the office building somewhat to the west of these so it's not just residents its people who work in those businesses who are going to have less businesses to go to. So I would urge that we not set the pattern of losing small business spaces and defaulting to a situation where all that's left is national businesses.

Bixby.

I wasn't going to speak because it's really hot in here and it's getting late, but very quickly as the ward councillor, you know unfortunately in that list I do know at least one that has gone out of business and as ward councillor I did just want to offer my support for welcoming a few new folks to the neighbourhood, to support all of those businesses. The businesses in Newton Highlands and Newton Centre that are a quick walk, bus ride or bike ride away. And so I will be voting in favour. Thank you.

All right. I don't see any further hands. All right, there we go. And by the way, I should also just mention this item also is 2 thirds. It requires 16 votes to pass. Roll call vote please, sir.

Councillor Albright?

Aye.

Councillor Baker? Aye Councillor Bixby? Aye Councilor Block? No Charm, Aye. Councilor Dahmbud?

Aye.

Councillor Farrell? Aye Councillor Getz?

No.

Councillor Golden? Councilor Gordon?

Aye.

Councilor Greenberg? Aye Councilor Grossman? Aye Councillor Irish? Aye, Councilor Kalis?

Aye

Kelley, Aye. Councilor Krintzman? Aye. Councillor Leary? Aye! Councilor Lucas? No. Council Malakie? No!

Aye.

Councilor Roach? Aye. Councillor Silber? Aye Councilor Wright? Aye President Oliver?

No. And by the way, just for the record even though this item is going to pass I'm going to be looking at the first condition. I believe this would adversely impact the neighborhood.

On this vote the ayes are 19, the nays are 5. Motion carries.

Thank you, sir. Thank you everyone for sticking through the sticky evening. But thank you again to Councilors Albright, Dahmubed, Lucas and Micley for the entertainment kicking us off this evening thoroughly enjoyed that Thanks everyone. Have a lovely night.

Yes? Yes. I mean, that's something that...

and so on.