Newton;’s Charter Commission to will tackle yet another hot topic “Article 7: Planning” when it meets Wednesday May 4, 7 p.m. at Newton City Hall. The meeting will include both a public hearing and panel discussion.
Confirmed Panelists include:
- Councilor Ted Hess-Mahan: Alderman/Councilor, Former Land Use Committee Chair (Newton)
- Councilor Marc Laredo: Alderman/Councilor, Land Use Committee Chair (Newton)
- Candace Havens: Former Director, Planning and Development (Newton)
- Edmund Tarallo: Former Director, Planning Board (Malden), Planning Director (Woburn), former President, City Council (Waltham)
- George Mansfield: Planning Board Administrator (Carlisle), Former Alderman and Former Chair of Land Use (Newton)
Too bad there is an important conflict that night:
Middlesex DA Marian Ryan is hosting a forum on the Opioid Issue and addiction at Newton Wellesley Hospital this Week, Wednesday, May 4, 2016 from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. at the Shipley Auditorium, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, 2014 Washington Street, Newton. Rep. Kay Khan is also speaking.
Newton Patch announcement here: http://patch.com/massachusetts/newton/da-ryan-host-community-conversation-opioids-0
I know Emily, I wish I could go to that! Unfortunately, we have had this planned for some time.
🙁
I look forward to tomorrow night’s roundtable discussion with the Charter Commission, which promises to be illuminating. It sounds like Councilor Norton will miss this meeting, which is too bad. At last night’s City Council meeting she took the rather remarkable position that Councilors should not have to get training about fair housing laws because we vote about things we know nothing about all the time. Unfortunately, what we don’t know, can hurt the city.
If we go down the path of requiring training on everything we vote on, we’re going to be requiring a lot of training. I think it is more prudent to rely on the professionals we have on staff to protect us from being sued by HUD or anyone else for that matter. We have excellent planning staff and an excellent legal department, for just two examples.
Speaking of LAnd use, the Cabot PTO just sent out that the LAnd Use Committee is considering granting a special permit for a 113,000 square foot facility for storage units right at the end of Cabot Park. Over 1,000 storage units. This is a poor place to put this type of facility. Box trucks are going to be going down the streets surrounding the school to get to the facility, and that is a huge amount of additional traffic. This proposed use is larger than zoning allows. I’d be fine with office space at that location, or housing. But that is a lot of additional trucks being driving through the streets of Newtonville. Anyone else think this is a really bad idea?
By right at the end of Cabot Park, I mean on Newtonville Ave, across the street from the Park. But the trucks will be directed by GPS to go down Cabot, Newtonville Ave, and Washington Street. This does nothing for the village. Also, if zoning relief is being requested, what is the accomadation the developer is willing to give in return?
Fig highlights an important topic– another request in Newtonville to allow a development that does not fit within zoning. This one had no redeeming value for Newton, other than enabling the property owner to maximize the profits by pursuing something not allowed by current zoning. I can’t fathom how any City Councilor would supporting making an exception for this development.
As important is a message and petition going around from the Cabot PTO, which claims the Ward 2 Councilors haven’t been honest about their rationale for exploring alternative site designs very late in the game for the renovated Cabot. The Councilors have claimed that the alternative designs are related to the Potter property purchase opening up new possibilities, the PTO claims this is not true.
I’d suggest both of these merit threads. Its not everyday that in the process of building a school, the PTO calls out the Ward councilors for not being forthcoming and subverting a public process by meeting with residents in non-public settings, outside of the agreed upon process. Pretty strong words have been said.
This merits further attention, a thread on Cabot (again) at minimum would be appreciated.
Paul mentioned the petition going around from the Cabot PTO regarding the late-in-the-game decision to explore alternate designs. In the absence of a new thread on Cabot (which is absolutely warranted given what’s going on), I’d like to provide more info on the petition here for those who are interested.
The petition is headlined: “Support the approved design for Cabot School and keep the project moving forward on time and on budget”, the link is http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/support-the-approved?source=c.em.cp&r_by=15662562
Many in the community are enraged at proposals to delay the project and investigate alternative designs after the plan has ALREADY BEEN APPROVED by the Cabot School Building Committee. I have written to my city councilors about the issue and have not received any response.
I encourage anyone who feels strongly about this to contact their city councilor. It doesn’t matter if you live in Newtonville; your councilor will still vote on the issue.
Ali
I’d echo Ali’s sentiments. I didn’t realize discussion about Cabot was happening outside of the existing thread on that topic – I posted the petition link there earlier today.
Paul, you are absolutely correct – this is not the kind of thing that happens everyday. Since the Cabot School Building Committee voted 17-0 (with one abstention) to approve the existing design on April 5, groups of individuals have been meeting behind closed doors. As far as we knew publicly, the approved plan was moving to the city council for full approval. Instead, we received an agenda a few hours ago that indicates the CSBC will be voting AGAIN on Thursday to potentially open the process up again to explore a single alternative proposal (but no others).
All three of our city councilors stated in emails to many of us that they would not favor any design review that would result in timing delays or cost overruns. Both are now certain. Pretty strong words indeed.
I agree with Paul (Paul that is like 5 times this month!). Two new threads would be helpful.
Did anyone go to the Land Use meeting tonight? Where are the Newtonville City Councilors? Do they support the Storage Unit project? The new school design?
Lack of communication breeds frustration.
The Land Use Committee did not vote on the storage facility special permit tonight. They listened to the developer’s attorney present the proposed project and then dozens of public comments and a few questions from Councilors. They will discuss it again on May 24. All three Ward 2 Councilors and two of the Ward 1 Councilors attended the meeting. I have to mention that Councilor Laredo did a fantastic job of moderating the meeting. It was very professional, civil and polite and I really appreciated it.
Greetings all, there was no vote on the storage facility petition tonight.
Re Cabot, I encourage people to attend the School Building Committee meeting Thurs at 6PM at 100 Walnut, Room 210. The acquisition of the 23 Parkview property means a previous design which places the gym at the north side of the project can now be revisited. There was little enthusiasm for placing the gym on the SE corner but all thought it was necessary.
I have been reassured Cabot students will not be in Cabot any longer regardless of this change. At most they will be in Carr longer, but there was a good chance they would be in Carr till June 2019 anyway, and moving mid-year is not ideal.
@Emily
The Cabot PTO says that the Parkview property makes no difference to the alternative site design, and that you and the other Ward 2 Councilors are simply revisiting a decision outside of the process because a small subset of residents are unhappy.
If there is a specific reason that the property purchase changes the situation for the alternative site design, please explain. Otherwise, 23 Parkview is just being used a pretext to revisit a decision approved 17-0 by the CSBC.
Also– please stop moving the goalposts. Parents want the new school for Cabot. Not more time at Carr, making the days longer for our children, who will need to be bused to that school. Your suggestion of a longer timeline has a direct cost, and it would be borne by the children.
I would appreciate a response to the question on how the 23 Parkview property makes a difference. The Cabot PTO says it doesn’t.
Emily, you may have missed it, but new Councilors already receive training on the special permit granting process. Unlike our legislative function, the special permit granting authority of the City Council is a quasi-judicial function that requires an understanding of our role, which requires impartial, unbiased and apolitical decision making. We are supposed to determine whether a particular project satisfies the special permit criteria in our state laws and local ordinances and, if so, impose conditions that mitigate the impact of the project.
Similarly, members of public bodies that have a policy or decision making role in permitting and funding housing ought to, at the very least, know what the fair housing laws are so that they too can be held accountable for their votes. When I hear that Councilors are demanding that developers not include 3 bedroom housing units in their residential projects, for example, I despair because that results in discrimination based on familial status, which is prohibited under our fair housing laws just as surely as excluding housing or the chronically homeless from Newton based on NIMBYism is unlawful discrimination.
Equal housing opportunity is the law. Ignorance of the law is no defense.
Emily, in Newton there are few qualifications required to run for the office of city council. Training in Fair Housing Laws and Special Permiting should be required of every new councilor. These laws and rules are complicated and no one should be able to engage in discussion or vote on issues pertaining to either without knowing how they work. Council meetings on these subjects would be long, useless meetings without that knowledge. Councilors who engage with the public about these issues impart incomplete and erroneous information. Passing the buck to the legal department or staff is inappropriate for every discussion.
You honestly think that councilors should have no knowledge of what they are voting for. Saying it’s been done before is a ridiculous reason.
Concerning Cabot, please answer the questions you are being asked. Are you and other Councilors meeting with disgruntled neighbor’s privately up instead of at public meetings? The hold up proposal doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the acquisition of the new property rather it seems more to do with who can see the old building best. All of the stakeholders have voiced reasons why the present approved proposal is best for educational purposes.
Emily is getting criticized for all of the wrong reasons.
Emily deserves a lot of criticism for things like helping to orchestrate the ban on plastic bags (for non-dry cleaning establishment with more than 1,000 square feet of space, or whatever), and the new foray into drone regulation. Are UFOs going to be covered?
She is not required to take any special classes on special laws. If we think special training is important, maybe the council can give citizens a break from nanny state regulation and instead pass laws that require councilors to take specific classes. Imagine that! While we are at it, let’s throw in a CPR class, an economics class, an accounting class, and a finance class.
We have 24 councilors. I bet over half have law degrees. Emily’s time is better spent communicating with her constituents. If she wants information on “Fair” Housing, Ted will be able and willing to explain it to her.
Marti asks a question about whether Emily met privately with disgruntled neighbors. I am picking up a angry tone–J’accuse…! I want councilors to meet and learn from constituents. I am sure she has had private correspondence with constituents on all sides. She has office hours, right? Should she cancel her office hours? Throw away the cell phone? Cancel the email account?
Jeffrey, we disagree about the level of knowledge needed for Councilor’s to make informed decisions and vote on issues pertaining to special permits and fair housing laws.
Your senses are deceiving you. No angry tone was intended. I was simply asking the same questions that many concerned about the new Cabot school being delayed.
Jeffrey, after all these years, I cannot even get you to understand what HUD’s definition of “affordable” housing means. How do you think I will do explaining disparate impact and the duty to affirmatively further fair housing with 23 colleagues?
In all seriousness, relying upon our planning and legal staff is not the answer either. They received a seriously condensed, three hour training that covered the entire waterfront, where a multi-day seminar with continuing education is ideal. Councilors are required to receive training and/or take tests on ethics and open meeting laws as well. The latter tests are mandated by state law, even though the online tests themselves are virtually impossible to fail since they involve multiple choice and you are prompted to keep guessing until you get the right answer.
The scope of the training would be narrowed to include an overview of the law with a focus on disparate impact and the duty to affirmatively further fair housing, since those are the things that HUD is concentrating on with communities that receive federal funding to assist low to moderate income individuals and households. Newton receives almost $2 million a year and administers these funds for the thirteen communities in the WestMetro HOME Consortium (including Bedford, Belmont, Brookline, Concord, Framingham, Lexington, Natick, Needham, Newton, Sudbury, Waltham, Watertown and Wayland).
Fair Housing laws apply to all communities, not just those that receive federal funds. But communities receiving CDBG, HOME and ESG funds from HUD have a great deal at stake because they may be forced to forfeit funds or pay fines–or both–if they fail to fulfill their respective duties to affirmatively further fair housing. And that is why it is so important that public bodies like the City Council that make decisions about zoning and land use need to understand what that duty includes.
BTW, Jeffrey, there is no such thing as “private” correspondence between local elected officials and members of the public. Every written communication between a City Councilor and a constituent is a public record.
Jeffrey,
Marti is referring to a morning meeting with the Ward 2 Councilors, several residents, and members of a city committee that was advertised within the letter of the Open Meeting Law, but not in the spirit of the law.
By law, this group was required to post the meeting on the bulletin board outside David Olsen’s office 48 hours in advance. While they did that, they did not inform the Cabot community that this meeting was taking place. At that meeting, somehow the group decided to revisit the Design Review Committee decision to approve the Cabot School project design. One week before, the DRC had voted to approve the project design with just one person abstaining (everyone else voted to approve the design).
Thanks Ted. I was thinking more of conversations when I wrote “correspondence.”
Jane, I thought the Open Meeting Law requires a quorum. This is from recollection. When you say “the spirit” of the Open Meeting Law, are you saying so because 3 is nearly 12, or is there another nuance? If so, I disagree that 3 is nearly 12.
The OML places extensive legal limitations on elected officials, but it doesn’t cover everything. Posting a legal notice on the bulletin board outside David Olsen’s office satisfies the OML. But if you post the meeting and hold such a meeting without making an effort to communicate that information to the major stakeholders (in this case, the Cabot parents), then I believe that’s not in keeping with the I’d call the spirit of the OML, which is an effort to establish transparency in the public arena.
Greg:
Can we get a separate post regarding the large storage unit project in Newtonville? Another post on Cabot school might be appropriate for tonights meeting as well.
I can see no reason why the city should grant zoning variance to the storage unit project. None. Perhaps any of the city councilors or folks in the know can explain it? If I lived on Newtonville Ave I’d be protesting this far more than Austin Street.
As for Cabot, let’s see what comes out of the meeting tonight.
Echoing Fig’s comments.
There are literally hundreds of emails flying across Newtonville, concerned about the Cabot project. Given prior posts on key meetings, it seems appropriate to do the same for tonight’s Cabot School Building Committee meeting. Its newsworthy that there is a consideration to delay one of our major capital projects that will have knock-on effects for the next wave of schools.
Here is the link to the Cabot PTO’s flyer.
http://cabotpto.org/wp-content/uploads/CSBC-MEETING-FLYER.pdf
This is a pretty big deal, and merits greater attention here too.
If we really want to further affordable housing, there are a few items on the Zoning and Planning Committee docket that have been languishing… several that would make it easier to create accessory apartments, another that would make it easier to create rooming houses. These would both actually create affordable housing and to my mind would be an excellent use of the ZAP Committee Chair’s time, as a higher priority than say training requirements or notifications on documents few people read.
Emily-Can you explain why you avoid commenting on the Cabot School project? Are you leaning one way or the other? Undecided?
What Jane said.
Emily has been avoiding multiple discussions on Cabot and its unclear why. She never responded on the prior thread, despite promising to do so, and reasonable questions are being asked of her in this thread with no response.
There are a lot in the Cabot community concerned about the current process, and irrespective of the merits, the lack of communication and transparency has been disappointing.
@Emily, both are measures that I have proposed, that have long been controversial items, at least among members of the City Council. Amending the existing accessory apartment ordinance, which has been around for many years, to allow accessory apartments by right (and/or with administrative site plan review) will likely open the door for many seniors and others living on modest incomes who need the revenue to stay in Newton. Building consensus on the council and with the public will be key to getting them passed.
We learned from the housing strategy meetings that there appears to be broad public support for accessory apartments. Interim Planning Director James Freas and I have worked on an amendment that we will bring to neighborhood area councils and associations in order to gauge support and respond to any concerns. If you want to be helpful, you could put your money where your mouth is and actively advocate for accessory apartments when James and I meet with the Newtonville Area Council.
As far as the fair housing items, it is always the right time to work on eliminating housing discrimination and promoting equal housing opportunity. As chairman of ZAP, I chose to bring those items forward in April, which is Fair Housing month. It is truly sad that you find it so difficult to get behind the concept of fair housing.
My personal perspective, as a Cabot parent and someone who has attended many but not all of the CSBC/DRC meetings:
The Ward 2 City Councilors are holding the CSBC/DRC hostage with a threat that the full City Council will vote down the current approved plan. They are forcing the Committees to vote for a pause tonight (to consider a “new plan” submitted by a small group of residents no one has hired that is actually very similar to a plan considered and rejected over a year ago). Then they will turn around and use the “Pause vote” to convince the City Council that the current approved plan is not supported by the Committees or “the community.”
500 signatures and counting on a petition introduced three days ago should clarify what “the community” actually supports. The fact that tonight’s meeting is about reconsidering a design instead of a vote by the City Council to support the plan approved one month ago is outrageous.
I concur with the comments well stated above. In addition, any “new” design concept will be unacceptable for a group of stakeholders. If we extend this another four weeks to look at a new solution, we are setting ourselves up for a precedent whereby the next group impacted will request an addition four weeks to look at the most recent “improvements”. When will the cycle end? If we are going to open the doors of revisiting past decisions, should we revisit the idea of tearing down the building and building an entirely new building now that we have the Potter property. (This last point is sarcastic but makes a point).
From: Linda Swain – Cabot parent
Thanks to all who have been involved in the process thus far – certainly a challenge to incorporate all facets of a complicated issue as there will never be a perfect solution. That said, the groundswell of public support for the current design/plan – 520+ petition signatures in less than 3 days – certainly highlights where the community stands on this issue. Time to move forward with the project without any further delays.
Anyone else wishing to sign – here’s the link:
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/support-the-approved?source=c.em.cp&r_by=15662562