The word “process”, is used to describe the agreed-upon, knowable and observable steps the government and ordinary citizens can anticipate when watching the progress of a political issue. It illuminates the path that we expect to follow to be heard in an adversarial or administrative setting. But, process is meant to offer meaningful participation and not demean the value of that participation by paying it no homage.
Last Wednesday night I attended the Zoning and Planning Committee Meeting of the BOA, specifically to hear the discussion of the possibilities of intervention of some sort by the City in the Congregation Mishkan Tefila pending property sale to Boston College.
To do that I sat through a Public Hearing on an item of great importance that I had only dabbled in following. Several times over the last few years I attended the nitty-gritty, down and dirty, Chapter 30 Zoning Regulation Revision sessions of Phase I. I felt assured that the purpose of Phase I, to re-codify the Zoning rules that govern our City’s building laws to improve their usability, needed full attention by the editors, but less from me personally, since the pact that was articulated by the Committee many times was NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES WILL BE MADE IN PHASE I.
I know the sessions, even after the Consultant gave his report, were tiring and tedious. As a non-lawyer, with a shallow knowledge of zoning challenges, I recognized the importance that substantive changes would make and figured that I would delve deeper when Phase II arrived. Others were wiser than I. I know several capable experts in our Zoning Regulation’s workings who pored over those details, following the redline edits at each ZAP Meeting, writing to the Committee to point out errors and omissions. Here is how the “process” played out in its fully flawed entirety.
At the Public Hearing Rena Getz, Ron Mauri, Debbie Waller, and George Mansfield spoke to further errors and omissions that the “final” document contained. These were not “scrivener’s errors”, those trite, trivial, unintentional mistakes that result from the slip of a pen point. If these errors and omissions are as described, they will leave the Phase 1 document with holes, dead-ends and missing information. The ISD will have to interpret its permissions with no written legal framework for some of them. To fix these problems, amendments to the new Regulation would need to be passed. Remember that using the tool of Zoning Regulation amendments led, in the first place, to the desperate need for the recodification of the convoluted document that evolved! I don’t think this is the “perfect” being the enemy of the “good”. It is the “tired” wanting to get it off their desk on a busy night.
What happened at this sham “Public Hearing”? You can read the Report here but here’s the short story. There was a back and forth discussion about whether to hold the item for two weeks to resolve issues mentioned during the public hearing, and if it was practical to have a separate item on the substantive change of the “Two-Family Detached Home” definition that Ald. Ted Hess Mahan squished into the recodification due to complaints from his constituents about an extremely out-of-character new double-house in their neighborhood. The specific comments from former Alderman and knowledgeable former ZAP Committee member George Mansfield and others were completely ignored as was a written submission to the Committee by Rena Getz. Instead of either having a substantive discussion of the points raised or holding the item for two weeks, this Docket Item to substitute the new Zoning Regulation for the old one was passed by the Committee on Wednesday, with Ald. Kalis abstaining; Alds. Baker, Sangiolo, and Yates voting no; and Alds. Hess-Mahan, Johnson, Leary and Danberg voting yes.
So, why did they hold the Public Hearing? There was no homage paid to the basic premise of a Public Hearing. Nor was respect paid to the process via the content and context of issues raised at that Public Hearing. It was an empty motion to meet a legal requirement and follow a seemingly pre-ordained path to immediate approval. If the public’s input is so meaningless, then the BOA should change its By-Laws to do away with Public Hearings. Otherwise, the BOA should change those same By-Laws to hold an item for some definite period in order to air and answer the issues put forth at a Public Hearing. At the very least the Committee should acknowledge and discuss the merits of the content of the public’s specific input and criticisms before voting.
What do you think?
Sallie your observations and comments make complete sense. Thanks for posting this. Thanks for pointing out another reason
to consider electing new representation in November.
Sallee does a great service with this post. While it may not be unique to Newton, it is with great frequency that the public input stage is just a formality.
On the contrary, Ms. Lipshutz’s rant is of little service past perhaps some catharsis for the author. The issue is obvious as is the solution. Those who would like to see more substantive use of public hearings always have the option of putting into office likeminded individuals. That this will never occur may be attributed to a number of reasons, but the conclusion is clear: Newton, as reflected by the results of the electoral process, is satisfied with the public hearing process.
This TED talk discusses the issue of ‘what if cities were democracies but no one showed up’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTnPXqwjGV8
@Elmo: Maybe my rant (which I personally thought was a well developed and civil argument) will enlighten some voters as you suggest… as well as some who would revise our Charter… to formally ensure that our representatives proffer at least a charade to the public that their voices matter!
Sallee
Thanks for posting. So you know, I abstained specifically so I could follow up with the Planning Department to better understand the extent to which the Planning Department could review and potentially integrate errors/corrections and public comments into the ordinance prior to the vote on Monday. I had conversations with Planning and some of those residents who made comments and feel more comfortable with proceeding. So, to say there was no homage paid to the Public Hearnig is incorrect. I know I am not alone in valuing the comments from residents and the forum a public hearing provides. Regardless, if the sentiment from residents is that nobody is listening, that’s a problem.
David, it is a ongoing problem, and not just with the behavior of the BOA. The SC and the mayor’s office are just as guilty as far as not really accepting public input unless it matches what they want to hear.
The current Zervas project is an active example. The public input sessions were basically just to listen so as to identify and minimize expected negative factors of the 500 student school at the location and around the neighborhood. There was never any intent to discuss anything other than a 500 student facility, period. The SC from the beginning was focused on jamming a 500 student facility onto that location even if it required the city exercising its eminent domain option. The SC accepted ideas from the community as to how to mitigate the various increased problems. In essence, the community has been offering free consulting services to solve the SC created problems.
In the 1920s Newton started to implement more zoning laws to restrict various types of dense and unhealthy residential and commercial development which were prevalent in Boston. Over the past few decades I have observed the zoning process and I do believe that the people enforcing the codes are the very ones impeding the process not the rules themselves.
Presently, we have a group of govern’t officials who do not like the zoning laws and want to change them to allow for more dense apartment development in both village centers and else where throughout Newton. They say they want a speedier process and this is true. They want new rules and they want a quick increase in the housing stock for young professionals and empty nesters.
Yes, they are listening somewhat at public forums but they have an agenda for housing growth that precludes the notion of a quiet, tranquil village life style.
Colleen, you are wrong, in 1923 Mayor Child’s approved the first Zoning Ordinance in Newton after rejecting the previous two submitted by the Aldermen. In approving the ordinance Mayor Child’s stated that he rejected the previous two because they were selfish and did not include any option for housing other than single family homes. He stated that the children of Newton residents should have the opportunity to live in the city they had grew up in. His most important statement was that it is the character of the people not the type of houses they live in that makes a good city.
This record can be found in the 1923 Annual Report to the City.
Thanks Sallee for your post. It really feels like the Administration is going to through the motion sometimes, with a big waste of everybody’s time.
What I also found upsetting was the way the voting went:
– the motion to hold the Phase 1 version and discuss it again before presenting it to the BoA was tied at 4-4, therefore defeated.
– the next motion, to approve the Phase 1 version and present it, was tied at 4-4; tied, therefore defeated.
At that point, the Chair asked if anyone wanted to change his/her vote: one person did and the motion to approve was passed.
I know people are allowed to change their vote in a committee session. What upsets me is: why didn’t the Chair asked after the vote for the first motion whether anyone wanted to change their vote? That process seemed pretty unbalanced to me!!!
If I am overreacting, I am sure someone will let me know :-)))
What David Kalis said.
The Phase I revision of the Newton Zoning Ordinance (NZO) that was the subject of the public hearing is basically a reorganization, reformatting and clarification of the existing ordinance without any substantive changes, except for my item that is intended to further restrict the definition of “two-family dwelling.” Phase II will address more substantive changes.
Zoning & Planning has been reviewing and revising this document for many months, and a public hearing was previously held where a number of issues were raised by the public. ZAP and the planning department went back and addressed many if not all of the concerns expressed and the further revised NZO was scheduled for a public hearing last week. A handful of additional technical concerns were raised, most or all of which can be fixed administratively before the revised NZO goes into affect.
Like David, I had a very useful and productive dialogue with someone who had some questions about the two-family dwelling definition I had proposed, and I believe we worked things out to his satisfaction. So the aldermen not only listened, we communicated with the members of the public who raised concerns in an effort to resolve any concerns, confusion or differences of interpretation.
So, I think this post was a little unfair to the members of ZAP, the clerk’s office and the planning department, who have been working very hard to get this into shape. This has been a long, very public process, and there has been a lot of communication with various members of the public on all sides about it. At some point, calls for further delays to address points we have gone over before and/or elected not to address start to sound like obstruction. My hope is that we will FINALLY pass this tonight.
And look, it’s Sallee’s Rant Room. Again.
@Marti and Elmo: You guys think this a rant? If I were ranting, I would be throwing hysterical, wild, word pillows at your comments and would openly and clearly argue that neither of you had taken the time to ingest the substance of my arguments. There is a disservice being paid to the public…you and me (unless your alias or avatar or Muppet fur hides the fact that you are not the public). If you want to see a rant, I can give you one, but this is not it. Not nearly!
Ted, All,
As best I understand, the process to “fix administratively” that Ald. Hess-Mahan mentions is to go through the whole process of a new petition, discussion, advertisement, Public Hearing, committee working session, and approval by the full Board. I don’t believe there is any alternative once the draft is approved by the Committee and the full Board, but I will be pleased to learn otherwise.
The prior Public Hearing Ald. Hess-Mahan referred to focused on the many unintended differences between the existing ordinance and the new draft, and there were many and they were of substantial impact. Everyone agreed there were not supposed to be unintended substantial differences. The City staff led by Clerk Olson undertook an extensive and careful effort to find and fix these problems of consistency or correlation between the old and the new. They released a revised 172 page draft on, I believe, Friday 9/11/15, so then there was a reliable draft that the public had three working days to review before the 9/16/16 Public Hearing. What Sallee described is what transpired, namely, public input but no discussion of that input before a vote was taken.
Here is one specific example that I brought up at the Public Hearing:
Open space is one of the 11 (old lots) or 12 (new lots) dimensions listed in the tables in Article 3 that a lot and dwelling must conform to. All but “Open space” are defined and easy to find, e.g., Lot-related terms are in 1.5.3, Setbacks are in 1.5.3, Height is in 1.5.4, etc. I asked why an “Open space” definition is omitted? Residents would need to contact City Hall to get an answer. They would be told to use the definition in Article 8 for “Open Space, Usable” and not to use the definition for “Open Space, Beneficial.”
1. It seems this fails the “user-friendly” and “clarify content” objective that Dan Sexton mentioned at the PH (read the report) and that we’ve heard so often before from others.
2. It cannot be a substantive change, because it is no change. It just describes current practice.
3. If this were a complete oversight we would have to accept it. Given that it was raised at the PH, it should have been addressed. Otherwise the PH is a sham as Sallee Lipshutz noted – an empty exercise to meet a legal requirement.
4. This is just one example of issues raised at the Public Hearing that were completely ignored by the ZAP Committee before its vote. There was no discussion of the points raised during public hearing. Four members, Alds Baker, Kalis, Sangiolo and Yates, first voted to Hold the item for two weeks so the issues raised could be addressed. Alds. Danberg, Hess-Mahan, Johnson, and Leary voted to recommend immediate approval.
So why have a Public Hearing if the Committee does not even give us the courtesy of discussing the points raised before voting to recommend approval? Why would taking two weeks to address the issues raised matter? Will there really be a quick admistrative process to address the issue raised?
I’ll be interested to see if this is approved by the full Board of Aldermen tonight in complete disregard of the PH input and process. It’s a sad day for Newton if 16 members of our Board of Aldermen allow this to happen. I expect more from our elected officicals.
Ron, according to the memo from the Interim Planning Director, James Freas, I believe that the administrative fixes are for “scrivener’s errors” for which a new public hearing is not required.
We will have to agree to disagree with respect to the other concerns you raise. The Board Clerk and the Committee Clerk, in collaboration with the planning department and the law department, went over the revised NZO with a fine toothed comb to make sure that the existing ordinance would be consistent with the revised version and provided a spreadsheet highlighting changes from the previous draft. Those of us who approved the revised version were satisfied that the clerk’s office, the law department and the planning department had done their job and accomplished their assigned tasks.
Ron-If you want residents to understand your points, then you need to get to the point. I understand you are closely involved with the zoning regulation revision, but 99.9% of the residents in the city are not.
I ask you to imagine the typical Newton resident reading the following from your post: “Open space is one of the 11 (old lots) or 12 (new lots) dimensions listed in the tables in Article 3 that a lot and dwelling must conform to. All but “Open space” are defined and easy to find, e.g., Lot-related terms are in 1.5.3, Setbacks are in 1.5.3, Height is in 1.5.4, etc.”
After reading that, I can’t tell what I’m for or against. Ald. Hess-Mahan says in one paragraph that clerk’s office, the law department and the planning department approved of the revised NZO.
@Jane,
Zoning Ordinance is land use regulation. In theory it allows us all to know what we can and can not do.
The Aldermen attempt to fix issues, only to find unintended consequences.
Love or hate the rules, we get to the tricky part – interpretation. It is perceived that Inspectional Services are much more Developer friendly than they might have been in the past. I believe that this has to do with enforcement tools (or lack of). Basically if agreement can not be met the next action is court. And then the court gets to scrutinize the ordinance.
And if the ordinance is sufficiently vague then what case can the city make?
As for this thread, I attended many a ZAP session where they would go tediously go through the redline document. I was quite shocked to find some sections wholesale changed just days before the public hearing. For me its a gamble, and only time will tell if it pays off. What I don’t understand is the last minute rush. Why would the city spends a couple of years producing this piece of work, only to risk it going out incorrect for the sake of 2 weeks.
I am glad we are getting some new ordinance out of it – but the price we pay we will remain to be seen.
And finally you point of people not understanding. In my experience, more often than not its more a case of people not understanding how the city allows monster,out of context buildings. Zoning Reform Phase 1 is certainly not that. And given it has taken over 2 years to modify some wording and supposedly make the document clearer – how long will it take to pass zoning reform phase 2, along with public input!
@Sallee, Simon et al – I am glad someone is watching….Thank you.
Rant
Verb: “Speak or shout at length in a pompous, emotionally charged manner to express a negative opinion” add rambling – sounds on point to me.
Noun: diatribe
You may think it is a “well developed and civil argument,” but the definition disagrees with you. All caps – shouting. At length – definitely. Pompous. – several paragraphs about you that were extraneous and an attitude of presumption that after attending the last Public Hearing of many on a particular subject, you have enough knowledge to declare “NO ONE IS LISTENING.” Emotionally charged manner – no contest. Express a negative opinion – yep. Rudely at that. Your definition of rant sounds a bit over the top, so no, please don’t start doing whatever that is. Your “short story” description of the hearing was cherry picked and distorted. “Ingesting the substance of your arguments” lead me to ascertain that this is an over the top post meant to politically persuade voters to see things as you want them to, just like your last one.
When you finally get to the purpose of the post, you refer to it as a “sham “Public Hearing.”‘ The wording of your first sentence is confusing and misleading insinuating that the two discussions were related to a common disapproval or distrust of the “squished” in definition. And for some reason lead to an interpretation that there is something sinister about listening to and following through on complaints from constituents. Do you want two houses on one lot connected by garages? Do you want “extremely out of character” houses in your neighborhood? And Ald Sangiolo asked about the new definition being separated because she wanted to know if it could be approved to move forward while not approving the rest so it doesn’t seem controversial.
As for questions and comments being ignored, there were eight people inquiring and almost all of their points were addressed or discussed.
Ron Mari “noted that some of his comments from the last public hearing, including his own, directed some of the changes?” The ZBA must have listened to him. The “useable” open space reference was addressed by Mr Freas.
His statements about garages were him wanting to be certain the new definition of multi family did in fact restrict houses connected by garages. The new definition says the “shared wall extending the entire height of one or both units” with an illustration. His last question was “Why is a single family detached a minimum of two units?”
George Mansfield began by stating he “did not read the most current version of the draft ordinance?” And his mention of “dead end” is to reference two items that remained in the Definitions but not in the document. They need to be removed. And that the changes “make sense to him but feels they should be reviewed?” Mr Freas addressed this as “a very simple fix and can be just be removed.” As did David Olson.
Debbie Waller wanted the zoning of Newton Wellesley Hospital to be changed. Ald Sangiolo said she would talk to her about it personally. That seems like a phase two item to me.
Rena Getz had previously submitted a number of questions. According to the discussion some concerned different ordinances, some belonged in phase two, some were rejected by the Planning Department and some were trivial. She was to “speak with James Freas, Dan Sexton or David Olson to clear these items up.”
As for the voting, Ald Kalis has explained above why he abstained.
Colleen and Howsrd, couldn’t you both be right? One is why zoning was started and the other is how it happened?