UPDATED WITH VIDEO:
The TAB’s Jonathan Dame reports on Monday night’s Housing Strategy meeting and all the inevitable disagreements that followed.
…the forum turned increasingly tense as [Judi Barrett of RKG Associates, Inc.’s] question-and-answer session went on, as tends to happen during any discussion of what is doubtless the most contentious and polarizing issue in the city today.
Clearly we need to get this for everyone involved in zoning, housing and planning discussions in Newton:
Love Urban Planning and Board Games? Cards Against Urbanity Is For You.
http://www.governing.com/topics/urban/gov-cards-against-urbanity.html
@mgwa: YES!! I tried to get a set before Christmas and they were sold out!
I did buy the Machi Koro game and can’t wait to play it!
I’m glad Dame focused on Barrett’s comment about fixing the zoning code as a route to ending some of the divisiveness because I was really struck by that too. Hopefully we will be able to share the NewTV video from the evening. I’d urge folks who didn’t attend check it out.
“fixing the zoning code as a route to ending some of the divisiveness”
It took two years to carefully codify the present zoning document to represent a consistent and readable copy of what we live by now in our zoning world. No substantive changes were made (or none without debate for clarity). The second half of the task will be even more gargantuan. The Councilors will need to debate all the hot issues in full view of the public: increased density; architectural character; subsidized housing; commercial base expansion; historic preservation; transit-oriented development; infrastructure capacity; increased housing choices. It will surely be deeply contentious. Special interests will wail. But, if we can all survive the process with reasonable civility and reduced zealotry, we will have a blueprint to guide our expectations for that most important of our investments: the community in which we live. Let’s hope it happens carefully and quickly.
The consultant later admitted that most of what she called ambiguity in our city’s zoning was in fact the extensive use of discretion that she disliked. This discretion in the ordinance may in fact be one of the reasons that Newton is “beautiful” as she admitted later.
The term “politicicized” that she used apparently could also be stated less pejoratively as “responsive” or “accountable”.
The use of the arcane word “typologies” rather than the simple , clear word “types” may have contributed to the lack of clarity that she and her colleagues found. They divided types of housing differently than the ordinance and the land use in the city do. They stated that “multi-family uses” were prohibited in Multi-Residence one districts when in fact two-family homes are allowed by right in MR-1 and townhouses are allowed by special permit. To state that only garden apartments or denser buildings are multi-family is simply not correct.
You can’t come up with a useful housing strategy if you can’t correctly describe the provisions of the existing ordinance. The irony that a second consultant describes the revised ordinance as “unclear”after a previous consultant worked with the Planning Department and Zoning and Planning Committee for more than two years to clarify it is almost too painful to dwell on.
City Councilor (and ZAP Committee member) Brian Yattes
Just added the video, thanks to NewTV.
Councilor Yates (or Yattes if you prefer), I don’t want to get into an argument concerning the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, but technically speaking Judi Barrett was correct. A “Multi-Family Dwelling” is defined as 3 or more units in a single structure, such as an apartment building. An “attached dwelling,” or “townhouses” as you refer to them, is defined under “Single Family Attached Dwelling” in the zoning ordinance. So, by definition, it is not a “multi-family dwelling.” Similarly, a “two-family” is, by definition, not a “multi-family” dwelling. And, unless I am very much mistaken, Ms. Barrett correctly stated that multi-family dwellings are not allowed by right, at least, that was what I understood her to mean.
As for “typology” versus “type,” having read the materials it was pretty clear to me what was meant, but I suppose reasonable minds may disagree. But I am certain that, standing alone, it does not justify discounting everything else the consultants had to say.
As for whether the special permit process is “politicized,” I suppose it depends upon where you stand. But I think she was spot on. The special permit granting process is supposed to be quasi judicial, and based on determinations of fact and application of the law. At the same time, however, special permit granting authorities are granted broad discretion to deny a permit for any permissible reason, which is where the politics so often comes in. We are not supposed to do a head count of how many residents support or object to a particular project but, as elected officials performing a quasi-judicial role, there is an inherent conflict of interest between our political interests and the proper exercise of our quasi-judicial authority. That is particularly true for a ward councilor, whose re-election may well tip in the balance upon a single vote for a controversial project, albeit one that satisfies the special permit criteria in every respect.
The more discretion the council exercises through requiring special permits as opposed to by right development, the more politicized the process becomes. In my view, having more by right options, so long as they are clearly defined and strike an appropriate balance between the competing interests of petitioners, neighbors and other stakeholders, reduces the amount of arbitrariness and uncertainty that the special permit process necessarily invites. And that would be a good thing.