It wasn’t the only development-related item on the Zoning & Planning agenda last night, but Ald. Amy Sangiolo’s Docket Item #237-14 requesting aone-year moratorium on the demolition of 1- and 2-family homes was probably what filled Rm 202 last night. It was prompted by concern over both the current pace of teardowns, and what’s replacing them. Both Sangiolo and Ald. Vicki Danberg noted the loss of naturally affordable housing stock. (Note to insomniacs: Thursday’s Newton Historical Commission agenda of 25 items includes 15 full house demos and five items scheduled to start at 11pm or later!) It was also inspired by a recent moratorium in Belmont –expiring on June 30 — on duplexes replacing single-families, while the town figured out what to do. (A new bylaw was recently passed.)
Ald. Sangiolo notes that driving down many streets in Newton like Dartmouth St, or Auburn Street (above) “it looks like a war zone.” She’d like to “take a breather” like Belmont did. Regarding whether anything could be done over the summer, given the need for a public hearing, Sangiolo said she’d forgotten about summer because of how “Land Use seems to be kickin’ up a storm holding public hearings.” Nevertheless, it appears a public hearing will not be held until the fall. But the Z&P Committee members discussed concerns about both teardowns and a moratorium.
Ald. Hess-Mahan warned about unintended consequences, noting what happened when they got rid of the 50% demo rule, and changed FAR, when they had to do emergency legislation to accommodate people who had projects already designed and ready to build. He also didn’t want to penalize someone in his neighborhood closing on a house to do a teardown where the new construction would be consistent with the neighborhood. Ald. Danberg noted that MR1 areas are particular targets of developers because of the size of what can be built, and that adequate notice to neighbors about demolitions is another problem area. After a recent Tab article on teardowns she was shocked by the volume of phone calls and emails she received from people (and one developer outraged in a different way). She also gave examples of “partial” demolitions in which the original house is enveloped or overwhelmed by the “addition.” (#237-14 is only aimed at full demolitions.) Ald. Kalis said he can see supporting a moratorium and would like to see the administration work on a framework over the summer, and to be able to take concrete steps at the end of the summer. Ald. Yates is very happy the item has been docketed, thinks the transition will be tricky, and talked about the impending demolition of the historic Wetherell house, and how the developer might now work his way down the street, and you could find historic districts like Upper Falls, which was drawn narrowly 40 years ago, “inside walls of massively built housing which would not, as Alderman Danberg says, be affordable to any of the people who live there now.”
There’s a lot more, and I hope to have full audio online tonight, but for a sampling you can go to the Newton Villages Alliance Twitter feed.
The next step it appears, will be Amy Sangiolo working with Planning over the summer, and an August Zoning & Planning meeting, date to be determined, with just this item on the agenda.
Also on the agenda: #238-14, requesting the development of a Housing Production Plan. I’ll leave that for another post.
Addendum: here’s the full audio – with tracks!
Thanks so much for the recap, Julia.
Julia, I was there for most of the duration and appreciate this very accurate recap.
I look forward to following this issue and item with interest.
Another point I tried to make was that we need to have a much clearer idea of what this proposed moratorium on demolition is intended to accomplish. In Belmont, the moratorium was apparently limited to replacing single family homes with duplexes. The proposed bylaw that would replace that moratorium would require a special permit to build duplexes.
The demolition moratorium proposed here and what it is trying to accomplish is far more open-ended. In other words, what is this “breather” intended to accomplish? Will it ban complete teardowns as well as partial demolitions by homeowners who just want to build an addition? And what will happen when the moratorium expires? Will some substantive zoning reform replace the moratorium? Do the supporters want longer demolition delays? Something else? Until I have answers to all of these questions and more, I am not sure I can support it.
As Ald. Johnson said last night, seniors who are sitting on their nest egg and have built up substantial equity in their home over the last 30 years or so and need the money to retire, or move into assisted living, or a nursing home, or medical care, etc., may have a very important stake in how this plays out. If they cannot sell their house for a year because the buyer can no longer obtain a demolition permit, or have to sell at a significantly lower price, it could have a very real and substantial adverse impact on their lives. Hence, the need to exercise caution in moving forward on any kind of moratorium.
Ald Hess-Mahan has this right where he asks what this proposal no-build period intends to accomplish. If the BoA is envisioning that the development up-cycle is a limited and predictable period (ending with the next downturn), that part they got right, it’s limited and predictable But if they further envision that forestalling construction will forestall a pipeline and those at the end of the pipeline will be cut off when the up-cycle concludes, I don’t think that’s right at all. None will be cut off — it is not a pipeline, it is (my words…) “pent up investment”. Instead of a pipeline, it can all occur in the same limited period.
Newton can’t get the the ultimate end goal where it has much greater control over these projects without embracing large chunks of the projects — progressive advancement with very limited control, higher control thereafter. It’s not right to say we want our flavor of affordable housing (e.g., a split ranch at a selling price of $650k) but resist definitive Affordable Housing — eg, Austin St project, in part. Restricting a family’s ability to sell (including the split ranch family) at the highest price available might make Newton’s own brand of affordable units (so-called) but does nothing to help true Affordable Housing. The idea that anyone would approach that split ranch homeowner, an investor in Newton and what it is today, and say we are taking charge of your resale value by limiting the attractiveness of the plot is utterly off the chart in terms of what a community should allowed to control. Shame on those that want to change homeowner investment in this way.
As much as I dislike the huge houses that are replacing tear downs in my neighborhood, I don’t think it’s the place of the BOA to call a moratorium without an end goal in mind. A breather to determine what to do about them could have serious unintended consequences.
After living through a year and a half of living with the worst developer imaginable, who hired subcontractors who broke multiple zoning regulations and snubbed their noses at us, I’m ready for a moratorium. All anyone is asking for is some time to think through what we want this community to be like in the future.
If anyone thinks that we’re going to have a community with $2m homes and 40B housing and nothing in between is living in a fantasy world. It just doesn’t work that way. Rather than looking like Brookline, we’re beginning to look like Wellesley.
In Amy I trust. There’s too much going on, too fast, with no connection to a citywide vision to what we want to be. I don’t want to be either Austin St. urban or recklessly overdeveloped with no thought of the impact to our overcrowded schools and quality of life. It is time to take a breather and just think so that we won’t be victims of ruthless developers.
Yes, being opposed to something with an alternate vision isn’t helpful.
I’ve added a link to the audio in the post.
Dan – If the docket item had an concrete outcome attached, Newton being Newton, would spend the next year dividing into camps for or against it. If it’s more open ended, then we have a better chance of keeping residents open minded.
Maybe I agree with everyone here, more or less.
I believe that there is a problem with the symptom of seemly every house sold is now a tear-down but if the docket item does not include some actionable item after the one year period it is just delaying the a continuation of the same problem. I would like to see this tied to a completion for the zoning overhaul which may be what the actual problem.
What Groot said.
I’m curious what people think about the idea of encouraging the Historic Commission to enforce the current demo delay? Currently the demo delay seems to be waived regularly as a trade off for design concessions from the builder. Would ‘across the board’ demo delays for all projects help slow the pace? My guess is that the reprcussions might be larger projects coming online after the delay.
I’m guessing that some of the people that want to restrict what can be done with the small house that might represent a future teardown, don’t live in a small house. If you do, are you willing to let Newton tell you which buyers you can sell? This is not a minor question in terms of resale value. No, it’s not completely fair to ask “what’s in it for me” on every BoA proposal, but in this case… shouldn’t we???
I empathize with what Hoss is saying about the obvious fact that a house is most often an older homeowners major asset and that a developer just taking it for a tear down is a quick fix that relieves a lot of the tension and maybe the realtor fee involved with moving. The inference and the assumption is that a homeowner will make out much better going with a tear down developer than trying to sell the existing house to a new owner. I’m not entirely certain this is always going to be true, especially for smaller homes on smaller lots in today’s hot market.
Just an open question that I don’t have the answer to.
Suppose I have a nice and well maintained, but somewhat modest (by Newton standards) house on a 3,000 foot lot next to somewhat similar houses with somewhat similar amounts of land. Zillow and my real estate agent tell me that I could get approximately $630-650,000 for my house. (BTW. I know of 2 young couples with kids who could afford something in this price range.)
Could a developer really offer me that much more for this piece of land? Would that developer be ready to do so??
@Billy, I’ve only been to about two and a half Historical Commission meetings, but based on my limited observations, I think they probably see that so many developers are willing to wait out the one-year demo delays anyway, that if they can get a design concession by shortening the delay, it’s a win for the city. Then there are the developers/owners who would rather build just what they want even if they have to wait a few months longer. I saw a woman who could have had her delay waived if she switched from vinyl to clapboard or composite or anything but vinyl for the new house, not agree because she really wanted vinyl.
My impression is that a one-year delay does not really change outcomes that much. I think it needs to be longer to actually result in a different outcome, i.e. an existing house being sold to someone who wants to live in it as opposed to tearing it down. I also think Vicki Danberg’s suggestion of having demolition permits non-transferable is a good one. People are applying for permission for demolitions just to get the clock running.
Bob – A more knowledgeable person may have more accurate information, but I’m pretty sure the lot needs to be a certain size in order to build a mega-house.
Bob, developers are willing to pay a significant premium for a single family house they can tear down and replace with a larger home or a two-family. And not just in Newton. I represent a client who is part owner of a duplex in Somerville (Somerville?!?) that is assessed at around $500,000, has a FMV appraisal of $550,000, and a developer has offered to pay $700,000 to renovate it and flip it. Yes, you heard that right. A duplex. In Somerville.
Billy, the Historic Commission often waives the delay for a partial demolition based on a review and acceptance of plans for renovations/addition. The NHC may also waive the delay for a total demolition, but that generally takes longer. Candidly, I think the unintended consequence of refusing to waive demolition delays would be that developers would build the time factor into their plans and build even bigger and more luxurious housing to cover the carrying costs. Homeowners who actually plan to live in a new house, on the other hand, would be the ones who suffer.
Hoss, the question I ask myself is do I want to live in a city where the government (really, an historic commisswion comprised of citizen volunteers) get to tell me what I can and cannot do with my house. The Gropius house is a registered historic landmark, but may not suit everyone’s taste. The White Elephant on the corner of Wykeham and Chestnut Streets, while not a historic landmark, is another example of a certain kind of architecture that may not be to everyone’s taste, but so you really want to live in a community where your neighbors get to say that because they don’t like it, you can’t build it, even if it is legally conforming in every way to local zoning?
Meanwhile, in West Newton, we have an abandoned house which has been a derelict eyesore for over a year. A buyer is willing to replace it with a nice Dutch Colonial that is similar in size and design to the other houses on the street. But, because the city has commenced criminal proceedings against the current owner to compel him to restore the house to a livable condition, it will require demolition review by the NHC. As I understand it (Jim Cote, feel free to correct me), the current owner has run out of money and cannot afford to fix it. The buyer has talked to the neighbors, who would love to see a new house there with new neighbors living in it. If the NHC finds the existing house–a 1949 Cape and attached garage–to be historically significant and preferably preserved, the neighbors may have to live with this blighted house for another year. Lose, lose.
We already have an ordinance which imposes a significant (and often costly) one-year delay on demolition, the purpose of which is to require the owner/developer to explore alternatives to demolition. Imposing an added across the board one-year delay, without any review or individual due process hearing, however noble the purpose, is a significant burden on the owner of a property and not one we should pursue without a damn good reason and a clear plan. While I am always sympathetic to neighborhood concerns, the owner deserves the benefit of the doubt on this question. Let’s figure out what we hope to accomplish before we go taking private property rights away from people who, like the rest of us, pay substantial property taxes in this burg.
As the docketer of the item, the reason I did not put specific objectives for the moratorium is because I wanted to get feedback from my colleagues on the Zoning and Planning Committee as to whether or not they agree that there are problems in our zoning that would merit consideration of a moratorium and what they think those problems are. I thought the meeting was quite informative and I hope to work with the Planning Department in the next few weeks to bring more specifics to the proposal. A moratorium would not go into effect unless it is voted out by the full board and not until a public hearing has been held so the public will have an opportunity to be heard.
Ted: Given the number of demolitions – partial and full that have been approved by the Historic Commission, I do not agree with your characterization of this group of volunteers – many of whom have much more expertise in architecture and historic preservation and in real estate. Yes – they do regulate what folks can do with homes they deem “historic” but as I just pointed out, many of them have far more expertise than some of us have on the Board of Aldermen and we get to tell people what they can and cannot do when we make legislation or approve or deny special permits.
Cocktail hour conversation with a developer who had purchased a premium property (flat- square-corner lot in a high-end neighborhood) with a less than premium house on it that he planned to demo:
T. Malloy: “So, what happens if the Historic Commision makes you delay for a year?”
Developer: “They’ll be doing me a favor. This is xxxxx, it’ll be worth more in a year!”
@Ted. Last weeks I took some clients from France to West Somerville, Arlington and North Cambridge to do a detailed survey of several neighborhoods as possible places for them to rent a house, condo or apartment. We looked around Tufts, Clarendon Hill and Teele Square. Rentals have skyrocketed over there. They are now approaching North Cambridge levels. In other words, the $700,000 the developer is willing to pay may actually reflect the value of the property in a crazed market while the appraisal just may not have caught up with what’s happening on the ground.
Hate to tell you, but a growing number of residents are concerned enough about what’s happening to housing in the city that they’d like the BOA to intervene. There are a number of eyesores in the city, but that shouldn’t stop the BOA from acting for the greater good.
You can’t be for tearing down modest homes that are replaced by $2m mansions and affordable housing. The two just don’t work together. What do we want in Newton? My preference is for a diverse economic mix of residents, along the full continuum from affordable housing, modestly priced houses to high end houses.
The HC makes deals with developers all the time, as was obvious in the case with the open and shut case in my neighborhood. Perhaps someone has the statistics on the percentage of developers who actually wait the full year for demolition.
Jane, I can try to get statistics on demolition delays from ISD and the Historic Commission for the August ZAP meeting when this is taken up again.
Amy, you are correct that the citizens on the Historic Commission have more expertise than many or all of the aldermen in matters of historic preservation. But they are still unelected officials.
Bob, you are correct about spiraling property values in the Tufts area (my alma mater, Go Jumbos!). But the reason those property values are rising is the developer interest in renovating/replacing mid-20th century duplexes and triple deckers in and around Powderhouse Square.
Take a look at the planning department’s powerpoint presentation for housing affordability at its recent presentation for the Consolidated Plan (see Slide 28). As of 2010, the household income required to buy a median priced single family home in Newton was far above 100% of the area median income (AMI) used to determine affordable to low to moderate income (LMI) households (<80% of AMI), and well above the median household income in Newton. In other words, most of the people who live here could not afford to buy their own homes. Preserving and/or artificially depressing property values for existing single-family housing by putting a one-year moratorium on demolition of "modest" homes (which are not affordable to median income households let alone AMI households) is not going to address the need for diversifying affordability in our housing stock. What is needed is a strategic plan and zoning reform to encourage residential development that will begin to fill the yawning gap between housing that is affordable to LMI households and housing that is simply unattainable for the vast majority of Newton residents. And that is not going to happen in one year, or even five.
*let alone LMI households*
Jane — The moratorium (no build period) would effect the “duplexes” that alderman are concerned about as well as the larger “mansions”. So aren’t we hurting both ends of the economic scale? Those duplexes are the kind of modest living that you’re envisioning — and would include rental opportunities.
Ted — I tried to look to see what “Jumbo” is (Tufts), still can’t figure it out.
I come at this from two directions one as an elected city official, and 2nd in my day job as a financial planner with clients using their houses for retirement purposes. ( as has been their plan for years) Is it better to sell to a developer for knockdowns, or as is? Every situation is different given seller’s needs/desires, and the market, which is precisely why you cannot throw a blanket moratorium on house demolitions. Even”as is” sales will normally result in the buyer seeking to make modifications and improvements that will require city reviews.
Also, caution to all that there are two entirely separate issues going on in Newton housing right now on one hand we have the 40B quagmire, and the other buy/knockdown houses. These will have to be resolved separately, and now that we have the Wells Ave 40B situation in hand, I am sure Wards 1 through 4 will now get more respect when it comes to jamming projects into tight spaces.
I agree with the all of the above comments from my colleague Ted Hess-Mahan as all of us, elected or not, certainly have our work cut out for us.
@Hoss the prices of many of those duplexes are over $1 million – not modest in my opinion.
Hoss, all of the “townhouses” created in the recent developments in the Elm St. area of Ward 3 turned rental units in older multi-family homes into luxury units listing from $900K to over $1.25 million.
@Ted, what’s the saying about “hard cases make bad law”? In your example of the neglected house that the buyer wants to tear down, on the face of it, it would seem to make sense to allow it. But isn’t that sort of a green light to anyone older, who’s planning to sell their house in five or ten years, to forego maintenance? Especially since just about anything can be a teardown it seems, from small capes to brick colonials in Waban. It won’t matter to a developer doing a teardown whether the existing house is well-maintained or not, they’ll pay a price for the buildable lot based on what they can build on it. The current homeowner who anticipates selling in a few years might as well save the money they’d spend on maintenance or improvements. This in turn would have the perverse effect of encouraging even more teardowns, since anyone looking to buy such a house to live in it wouldn’t pay as much because of its condition, so would be unlikely to outbid the developers competing for the teardown.
I believe, from my limited attendance at Historical Commission meetings, that they don’t want to cause a “moral hazard,” to use the insurance term, by incentivizing poor maintenance by making poor condition of a house a reason to permit easier demolition. I think that’s an appropriate public policy goal.
Julia, I think we need more than just anecdotal evidence about the problem before we arbitrarily deprive homeowners of their property rights. An indiscriminate ban on demolitions is bad law.
Hoss, info on Jumbo.
This will be my last post until the World Cup match between US and Germany is over. The US Team needs my undivided attention.
I got snookered! No jumbo
Sorry, Hoss. I was distracted. Here is the skinny on Jumbo.
I won’t spoil it for anyone who still hasn’t seen the US v Germany match.
Wow, poor jumbo… captive in a circus, killed by a train, frigidaire fire, and forever after with in his beloved Skippy (crunchy style). And he represents good luck??? THAT is hilarious.
That is so sad! Not much protection for animals back then if they let him get hit by a train. Where do they keep this jar? In a safe?
Here lies the conundrum… Everyone loves that their home has such a great value when they go to sell (after all, this IS Newton!) but… there is little truly affordable housing here for the average person. The Newton Housing Partnership folks and CANDO can tell you this. Low to moderate income housing is not a reality in Newton. Newton’s Inspectional Services can not keep up with the work load and there is an ongoing concern on the quality of work out coming out of this department adhering to our existing ordinances (note Jane’s earlier comment). I am for new construction, and don’t know if the ‘land use’ determination should be done by the city’s elected representatives. Is there such a thing as a dedicated land use or zoning board/department in cities and towns? This of course would mean yet another city department where we would have to pay salaries and benefits (including pensions). The big question is this the reason why governments were formed in the first place? ¡Ay, caramba!