Tonight on Common Ground, Ken Parker raises the question about development in Newton and what, if anything, should the City be doing differently? I don’t want to steal Ken’s thunder, so I won’t post my comments here until after the show … but I figure I’d give you all a chance to catch the show tonight (8pm NewTV on the Community Channel). It seems pertinent to some comments on a couple other threads.
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
I don’t want to take this thread off topic but I did want to welcome our newest Village 14 contributor!
(Now all we need to do is get Bob Burke to fulfill his new year’s resolution to contribute as well.)
Thanks for the welcome, Greg!
So the guests on the show tonight were former Alderman George Mansfield, newly elected Alderman Emily Norton, me, and local activist and village14 blogger, Dan Fahey and hosted by Ken Parker.
The topic was ‘Planning and Development’ but I think the key was really focused on what Newton needs to do to be more proactive about development in the city rather than continuing on this path of being reactionary and subject to multiple threats of 40B development and being able to better distinguish a real threat from a bluff.
I think the obvious first step is to simplify our zoning. People want to do business in the city, but due to their past experience and the fact very little has changed, they won’t come back.
Zoning Reform is in progress, but it will take time. Something that we could and should have in place sooner is a Housing Production Plan. which, once in place, would at least take us out from under the constant threat of 40B developments as long as we continue to demonstrate progress according to our plan.
It continues to baffle me how Parker’s Common Ground always has the same tired guests. Can we rename this show Kenny Parker’s World (akin to Wayne’s World on local cable access)? I have no interest in even watching it with the same old banter where Parker either winds up talking over his guests or suddenly realizing the contestants have the same viewpoint and ultimately there is no controversy, then blathering about the tiniest minutia of discord that is essentially insignificant. It’s just not that interesting (and I haven’t even watched it). 😀
This is why Charlie Shapiro does such a great job with “Newton Newsmakers”. He brings in new with some of the old familiar faces. Ultimately, it’s just much more worthwhile local cable programming.
Agreed, but my understanding is that the plan has to show that we are going to get to the 10% threshhold within 4-5 years, which is way too much for this city to keep up with. Once we don’t stay on course, we lose the benefits of the plan anyway. We should certainly try, though.
I believe back of the envelope calculations estimates that we’d only have to produce about 160 qualified units a year, which would be about 0.5% of our housing. Our overall housing growth (whether it be new development or simply new renovations) significantly exceeds that every year already, so I don’t see why that would too difficult to achieve.
These do not necessarily have to be net gain units. We have several projects that are replacing existing units … either existing 2 family with 4 units (a gain of 4 qualified units but only a net gain of 2 units for Newton) or existing 4 units with 7 units (the case with a project near Myrtle Baptist Church) where none of the 4 units had qualified before, but all 7 units, after the project is done, will. Of course, not all new units will or can qualify as units that would count toward our 40B quota, but it is possible, with a plan and a concerted effort, that 160 of them a year would.
More importantly, as Emily Norton had pointed out on the show, by having a plan, the City and the people of Newton, are more likely to be able to guide a more equitable distribution of these developments rather than leaving it, as it currently is, up to developers to decide where the projects are ending up.
Basically, the fear of failure may be preventing us from even trying, which would be a shame since it seems to me that it is quite within the realm of possibility that we WOULD succeed.
Success prevention pretty much guarantees failure. Risking failure some times results in success.
Just a quick reality check on likelihood of success of an HPP in Newton:
In the past 4 years, Newton has made little or no progress toward the 10% threshhold.
To achieve HPP requirements, Newton would have to produce 162 affordable units a year, or roughly the equivalent of an Avalon Bay on Needham Street every two years for at least five years. Or ten Court Street 40Bs a year. Or eighteen Engine 6 developments a year. Or twenty-three plus Myrtle Villages a year. Or…. I think you get my point.
Nearly all of the sixty plus communities with approved HPPs are significantly less densely populated and developed than Newton.
Of the sixty or so communities with approved HPPs, currently only 6 have certified plans that allow them to deny a comprehensive permit under 40B. Chelmsford has the highest annual goal, at 69 units, which is less than half of Newton’s annual 0.5% goal for affordable units.
That is not to say that Newton should not prepare a Housing Production Plan. It should. But our expectations for achieving those goals should be realistic.
Ted Hess-Mahan — Is the little or no progress you mention against a growing number of total housing (working against a growth stream), or has Newton not added any significant units? Just curious with respect to growth in terms of units, not a percentage to a moving target
Also, you had a particularly strong opinion on the Engine 6 situation and I wonder if you know if any of the unfortunate folks from Pine Street Inn’s Jamaica Plain housing (same type as the Engine 6) were brought to Newton? This was the house that was damaged a few weeks ago. I was really hoping with all our “focus” on this type of housing, we’d do our best to take people in. Thank you
Correction: *five* Court Street 40Bs a year.
After reading Ted’s comments my first thought is why do we need an HPP at all? A plan of this type suggests that Newton some how needs significant housing development. Already Newton is a fully built out community. Does anyone living here want the city to become a more densely populated city. The public rail system at present fails to offer adequate service.
If we plan more housing growth, surely transportation and education growth must be done also.
Thanks Ted for providing your additional insights to the topic. I regret that you lost your position on Land Use. Could you explain to us how/why this change occurred. I for one would like to know the implications of this change by Scott Lennon.
Colleen,
The benefit of an HPP is that the city doesn’t fall victim towards 40B developers as long as the city stays on target of it’s plan. 40B developers often have held the city hostage when it comes to affordable housing their leverage will be negated.
I agree with Tom that progress on Zoning Reform and simplification needs to pick up in order to encourage business to come and stay in Newton.
I agree with Greer and Ken that Newton needs to do to be more proactive about development in the city rather than continuing on this path of being reactionary and subject to multiple threats of 40B development and being able to better distinguish a real threat from a bluff.
I also agree with Greer and Ken that Newton should create a Housing Production Plan to take us out from under the constant threat of 40B developments as long as we continue to demonstrate progress according to our plan.
I was intrigued by Alderman Ciccone’s and Jeff Seideman’s proposal to reform the accessory apartment regulations to help bring in $1M/year in new tax revenues and help us get out from under 40B.
And I agree with Bill Heck that 40B is a horrible law and I believe it needed to be repealed in 2010.
Unfortunately, Newton has a mayor that believes in selling Newton taxpayers on 40B projects.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/x1528795642/Newton-mayoral-candidates-talk-housing
It’s nice to know that there is an upside to Greer not running again for alderman. Welcome!!
@Greer — Terrific that you are now a V14 contributor! I look forward to your future posts. It was an informative discussion on Common Ground last night, I encourage people to watch it.
@Colleen Minaker …
I feel this is a misconception. A plan of this type need not change the rate of housing development growth already existent in our city.
Development is happening in the city. Some of it resulting in a net increase of housing units, some not and much of it simply resulting in replacing existing units.
I see an HPP as a way to simply organize and guide our development so that since development is happening anyway, we may as well be making progress toward meeting our 40B quota. For a city as densely populated at Newton it is not that difficult to achieve the 40B quota. We’re actually pretty close already. My understanding is that we’re already at 7.5% and that is without actually trying.
Imagine that if we were actually more intentional with our development. We may actually hit the quota!
Basically, to have an HPP would simply get us more focused and allow us to address affordable housing proactively rather than simply reactively.
What would an HPP look like? Would there be a preconceived notion as to how dense the population ought to be? Would new developments be equally spread throughout the city ? Would we want limitations on rapid growth and development.
I can understand the need for planning but how is consensus achieved?
Has anyone visited Pleasant St. in Watertown lately? The developments along there are a bit out of control.
@Greer, welcome to V14 bloggership. I’m really glad you’re going to be pushing the issues here, too! Thanks also to Ken for bringing the HPP idea to his show.
I need to go back a watch the video of the show, but in concept the HPP idea makes some good sense, and it’s something I suggested during the campaign last year. Per Colleen’s question, it would not increase the rate of overall housing production but would instead provide something we need – a clear regulatory path that shows developers exactly what we expect. With such a plan, both developers and the City have predictability. We also make progress against our affordable housing needs.
The challenges Ted notes are real, but (and I think he agrees with this) it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Trying also means that we will lessen (but not eliminate) the rationale for using 40B as the primary affordable housing tool in our City.
@Colleen, I got “Chris Christie’d.”
@Chris/Greer/Colleen et al.:
For the purposes of Chapter 40B, “affordable housing” is generally defined as housing units that are:
• Subsidized by an eligible state or federal program.
• Subject to a long-term deed restriction limiting occupancy to income eligible households for a specified period of time (at least 30 years or longer for newly created affordable units, and at least 15 years for rehabilitated units).
• Subject to an Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan.
Basically, there are three ways to promote the creation of affordable housing: 1) incentives (e.g., exemptions from zoning restrictions under 40B); 2) subsidies (e.g., CDBG, HOME, CPA funding); and 3) mandates (i.e., inclusionary zoning that requires affordable units in developments that include 6 or more units). In order to get to the 10% threshold, Newton needs well over 800 units of affordable housing. That means a combination of 40B developments, publicly funding units and inclusionary zoning units.
The barriers to creating more affordable housing in Newton are are more formidable than is being represented here. Developing affordable housing is expensive in Newton, primarily because real estate is far more expensive than other places. The average cost is now north of $450,000 per unit. The way 40B works is that developers can create mixed-income developments of higher density than is allowed by right, and subsidize the creation of affordable units with the sale/rental income from market rate units. There have been relatively few inclusionary zoning units created, since it only applies to projects that have 6 or more units.
Thus, while having an HPP is worthwhile, meeting the goals in the plan will likely rely upon a number of 40B projects around the city, as well as permitting larger residential developments that are either subsidized by public funding or mandated by inclusionary zoning or both.
@Colleen … there isn’t a Housing Production Plan for Newton yet.
However, yes … I would like to see more even citywide distribution be a part of the plan. I believe with a 162 units for the city … that’s approximately 20 units per Ward … 12 units per village … I think Newtonville and West Newton have been meeting those numbers pretty regularly.
Happy talk Greer.
At least if one buys into Ted’s analysis; which I do.
We are at the mercy of 40B’s, with very little leverage.
Is there any talk of another campaign to repeal 40B?
The main reason for 40B laws is to breakdown the exclusive home/living trend of affluent communities. Why shouldn’t people of modest means be allowed to live in Newton? For all the priviledged people who live in Newton and many other metro west towns the implementation of 40B developments is the only way for many not so fortunate people to live in and enjoy the amenities of cities like ours.
There is a near constant threat of 40B developments to neighbors / abuttors when builders / developers get any sign of push back from neighbors on what they want to build or do with a project. The problem stems from the fact that many developers are not invested in the immediate community so care less about the build fitting in with the neighborhood and more about how much profit they stand to gain so inherently want to maximize the size of the build even if it is completely out of keeping with the immediate surrounding homes and upsets the entire neighborhood in the process.
The City of Newton’s mantra is “Preserving the Past; Planning for the Future”. You would think that having better control of where and how development (including affordable housing which tends to be higher density) is done as part of planning for the future would be something the City would desire.
When a developer / builder wants to build something completely out of keeping with the neighborhood, or something that towers over a neighbors house and yard now that all mature trees have been cut down and gets push back from the community it’s almost universal that the next comment is, “well if you don’t go along with what I want to do I’ll do a 40B and put even more units on the lot and we’ll see how you like it then”. How legitimate are these threats? It’s hard to say but it is a commonly used tactic and threat nonetheless.
I’m not against affordable housing at all, in fact I welcome it as it adds diversity to the community. The problem with a lot of the recently proposed 40B projects is that they exceed the current neighborhood density by such a vast margin that it’s only natural for neighbors to oppose them. If proposed 40B or other affordable housing proposals blended into the existing neighborhoods rather than sticking out like sore thumbs I think there would be far less push back.
An HPP would be nice as it would take away some power from developers wanting to get their way and using 40B as a thread even if they have no intention of building affordable housing. But more importantly it would put a plan in place to better manage where we want development to occur. For example, it would seem more appropriate for higher density builds to be in multi-resident zones rather than single resident zones. Proposals like Wells Ave and others in the works would more than meet the quota for affordable housing for a couple years.
Peter – Drive down Derby Street in West Newton to see how real it is. They wouldn’t let them do what they wanted so they pulled the 40 B card and now we have a mess – I dont think a fire engine could get into this development if there was a fire.
Joanne – I assume you are referring to 254-262 Derby St? Looks like it was a 3/4 acre double lot with an older home on it. Doing a Google search on that address got me to a townhouse-style plan for a 40B development in the works prior to 2005 but I don’t think that was what was ultimately built? The development at 192 Lexington St was slightly bigger at 1.1 acres lot. The developer there did a nice job as the 12 units blend in with the neighborhood. I’ve heard it referenced a number of times recently as an example of how 40B’s should be done in terms of density and size of structure unlike some of the more recent proposals like that on Court St which I think is (or was) proposing 36 units on a similarly sized parcel of land.
Over-development is rife in Newton in all shapes and forms. We need a comprehensive plan to guide responsible development and growth in Newton as it would seem to me that current zoning laws are far too generous and I’m disheartened by what is happening all across the city. I’m hopeful that our elected aldermen and the zoning reform which is already underway will take us in the right direction.
Peter, could you give us readers an idea of what you think the right direction is? I am concerned about the rate of development but am unsure about how to determine the correct course to follow.
@Colleen. Zoning is a complex subject, but it is clear from what is being discussed in public hearings at City Hall, on various blogs and across groups of residents, and in our newspapers that there is a significant and growing percentage of Newton residents who are fed up with what and how much is being being built by right (i.e. by zoning laws) and allowed to be built via special permits. As someone said at the ZAP hearing last night, special permits are not so special when they are almost always approved.
There are pockets of Newton which are like a war zone where if one didn’t know better would think these are newly formed neighborhoods because of all the activity. Two come to mind – West Newton around Elm/Webster/Oak/Cherry and Newton Center around Chase/Ripley – both MR1 zoned but abutting SR3 neighborhoods. How we slow down the pace of change in such neighborhoods was the subject of last night’s ZAP hearing.
The city wants moderate growth and has a comprehensive plan of where that growth is desired (around the village centers), but there is also a desire for more affordable housing (the topic of this thread). My thought is that we revert to the original type of buildings in the village centers (business districts) – commercial on the street level with residential space above. This would allow a higher density (smaller, more affordable units) to be developed without adversely affecting the surrounding established neighborhoods where open green space is desired but being lost because of development. It would seem to me that the comprehensive plan should be revisited to check whether the goals and intent thereof matches what is happening in reality. I’m not sure that’s the case when you have docket items like last night’s ZAP where a large chunk of neighborhood is asking to be reclassified from MR1 to SR3 in an attempt to quell the significant and undesirable change.
More generally what I’d like to see though is:
– A comprehensive review of FAR allowances and what really is appropriate in terms of size allowables. This seems to be the biggest concern across residents – the sheer size of new builds and how they completely dominate a lot. On an old 5,000 sq ft lot one can by right build a 2,500 sq ft home (0.5 FAR once you add in the 0.02 bonus if you stick to setbacks), but when that same house is listed for sale it all of a sudden is 4,000 sq ft. Why? Because finished basements (even if they are walk-out level) and I believe finished attic space doesn’t count towards the FAR. That 4,000 sq ft house in many SR3 neighborhoods would be double if not triple the size of the neighboring houses and be completely out of keeping with the character of the neighborhood. There are older larger homes in SR3 neighborhoods, but they are generally on larger parcels of land so that 4,000 sq ft house fits in because there is sufficient green and open space surrounding it. Basically I believe that the current FAR allowances are too generous by maybe as much as 20% given what is and is not included in that number. But developers are pushing the other way saying that the current FAR is too restrictive!
– A reduction in the number of special permits being issued relating to exceeding FAR.
– Stricter laws in terms of retaining mature old growth trees via the tree preservation ordinance. Clear cutting lots just because a new home is being built is not progress. There are too many examples where literally thousands of years worth of growth has been eliminated on a single lot, i.e. 20+ 50yr old trees! We won’t see that growth return in our lifetimes even if new trees are planted. One thought is that if developers / homeowners want to take down a forest then there should be a stipulation that they either replace or pay into the Tree Conservancy fund so that the City can plant new trees elsewhere maintaining some semblance of balance.
– I’d like to see the city actively working towards meeting the 10% threshold for 40B’s so that we can get out from under the constant threat of this when a developer doesn’t get what he wants approved. But there are many factors which need to be taken into account in terms of where such developments occur (I believe we need about 800 units built or converted) so as not to further upset the density and character of our neighborhoods and put pressure on traffic, schools, water runoff etc etc.
These are just a few thoughts which hopefully are along the lines of what our board or aldermen and planning department are thinking.
Peter, one of the downsides of rezoning multi-family to single-family is that it instantly makes every two family in the district a nonconforming use. Those property owners would then have to come in for any addition, even a mudroom, because they would need a special permit for extending a nonconforming use (unless the de minimis exception applies). This has nothing to do with FAR, and as a result we have had people coming in for a special permit to add 19 square feet to their homes. That is just ridiculous.
Where the special permit process has been useful and productive has been in reducing the size and/or number of units in developments of attached dwellings. Not allowing special permits will lead to more 40Bs, which are exempt from zoning restrictions, and more single family monster homes.
But with respect to FAR petitions, I am one of the few aldermen who has ever voted against new construction that exceeds the FAR, based on my judgment that those particular projects were out of character with existing structures in the neighborhood, which is what our ordinance says. Frankly, I think FAR is an entirely outmoded way of regulating residential development. My sincere hope is that zoning reform will lead to a form based code that will emphasize the kind of development we want and that is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
I agree with you about where the residential density should be in village centers. Unfortunately, landlords may not have much of an incentive to rent to residential tenants, especially when office tenants and banks are willing to pay top dollar rents and enter into long term leases.
Ted, I agree that having to come in for a special permit to add 19 ft or make a modest expansion does seem ridiculous, but that is already the case for any existing multi-family grandfathered in in other SR neighborhoods. I’m thinking out of the box here, but for the Chase-Ripley area where a change is being proposed, it’s almost like we need a new form of grandfathering that, if the zoning change is approved, would allow an existing multi-family in that area to have MR1 FAR and setback requirements also grandfathered, but that any demolition, partial demolition or new build would need to conform to SR3 zoning requirements. this might alleviate concerns of people who own the existing multi-resident homes or condos while also helping to remove what seems to be a bulls eye target on this neighborhood for unscrupulous development. Having said that, our zoning ordinances are complex enough without adding more exceptions to the exceptions.
I’d be interested in hearing more on a “form based code that will emphasize the kind of development we want and that is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood”. This is the first I’ve heard it mentioned, but then I’m somewhat of a novice on zoning have been thrown in head first because of my own neighborhood situation.
Peter, there is a wealth of information on the intertubes about “form based zoning” and “form based codes.” I suggest you start with this primer from the state, and then Google “form based zoning” and “form based codes” for articles and examples of FBCs.
Very interesting discussion showing how much we (and I include myself since I just spent a lot time catching up) care for our city.
About the trees. At a meeting 12/5/13 where Tree Preservation was discussed, I learned that under section 21-83 (e), “construction activities under the drip line of a tree are prohibited”. That’s why the first thing a developer will do before building a mansion is to cut all the trees; it makes using machineries easier and no one can say he went too close to the trees.
oops! meant ‘machinery’.