This week’s agendas are full of how Newton uses its money, and how Newton residents want to use the land.
There are heartening reports of the fitness of Newton’s balance sheets and financial procedures, although the emergency replacement of a boiler at Pellegrini Park hints that our capital structures may still be lagging somewhat.
The rest is Zoning and Land Use–so no surprises that land is at issue. Do we want dense development in village centers, per the Comprehensive Plan? Or will Newton allow the Centre to be re-zoned single-family to reflect its current use? Should we allow multiple additions? Parking lots? Accessory apartments? Pet hospitals?
Frankly, I’ll be interested to find out the result of the Food Truck discussion and whether we can define a nuisance property. And I’m watching the Waban Reservoir discussion–which is in Chestnut Hill, if you were wondering.
Allowing accessory apartments is way overdue.
Accessory apartments have been legal in Newton for approximately twenty years. A small
number have been added most years . Numerous attempts have been made to loosen the requirements but have mostly failed because many homeowners did not want any Federal or other public funding and the restrictions that would go with it to qualify the units to count against the 40B requirements and more importantly many units could not accomodate the code requirements for a second means of egress.
You’re right, I misspoke (mistyped?) – I did realize that some were allowed, but I know it’s much more restrictive than it should be. Why should homeowners have to take public funding in order to be allowed accessory apartments? They should be allowed even if they don’t count against the 40B requirements. Of course, they should also be required to conform to safety requirements.
mgwa, you are correct. The current accessory apartment regulations are too restrictive, which is the real reason so few have been permitted. The building and lot size restrictions in the accessory apartment ordinance prohibit them on most lots and overlay districts in certain areas are even more restrictive. The attempts to liberalize the ordinance (mostly mine) have not failed because of a lack of subsidies or 40B. Rather, the BOA has repeatedly rejected real reform to allow additional accessory apartments because of concerns about density, even in neighborhoods where there are already a number of “undocumented” units.
The public funding/40B issue relates solely to whether accessory apartments can qualify as “affordable” for purposes of being included in the subsidized housing inventory that is used to measure whether a community has reached the 10% threshold to be exempt from 40B.
Ald. Ciccone and I have had an item pending for several years that would grant amnesty to existing units that are brought up to code, even if they would not otherwise qualify because of lot and building size restrictions. This is a serious public safety issue, since these units already exist and in some cases fail to meet minimum fire and building code requirements. Unfortunately, the working group that has been meeting to address this item has made limited progress. Now that I am on the zoning and planning committee, I intend to pursue this and other issues in earnest.
@Ted – this is an interesting topic. Per your thinking, would accessory apartments require a special permit? I ask because otherwise what would prevent someone for example who owns an already grandfathered in 2 family in an SR3 neighborhood on a small lot from being able to put a 3rd unit in the basement as an accessory apartment? What would thereafter happen if the home were to be converted to condos? Could it effectively become 3 separately deeded units or is an accessory apartment by definition a unit adjoined to the rest of the home / unit?
@Peter, all good questions.
Currently, based on lot and building size and whether a lot is in an overlay district, most accessory apartments already require a special permit. Those which do not require a special permit may be allowed by the planning department following an administrative approval.
Under the proposed amnesty, only existing accessory apartments units that could and would be brought up to code would be allowed. So a nonconforming 2 family in a single residence district would not be allowed to add an accessory apartment in the basement. This could be done either by special permit or through an administrative approval process. But Newton already grandfathers certain accessory apartments that have been in existence for a long time. The primary purpose of the amnesty would be to encourage owners of illegal units to come in and make them both legal and safe. In my opinion, placing too many restrictions on a permit could well be counter-productive. For that reason, I favor administrative approval.
An accessory apartment is, by definition, an “accessory” use to a dwelling. Several years ago, because of a nonconformity created by a condo conversion of a legal accessory apartment in a single family district, I got an ordinance passed prohibiting separate ownership of an accessory apartment. To my knowledge, this was an isolated incident, although there may be others.
I have to disagree where it says “heartening reports of the fitness of Newton’s balance sheets”.
Bill Heck and I have evaluated Newton’s balance sheet and we found that Newton owes over $1 BILLION in debt and interest bearing (net unfunded) retirement benefit liabilities. Serving this pile of obligations costs Newton taxpayers $54.7 Million annually and represents almost one-sixth of every dollar spent by the city.
http://newton.patch.com/groups/newton-taxpayers-association/p/tax-increase-bill-is-misnamed-and-misrepresents-facts