Tonight the City Council will take up a proposed re-write of the Accessory Apartments rules. Hearing is at 7:45 at City Hall. Here’s the draft of the proposed ordinance and here’s a list of Frequently Asked Questions.
In recent years, development projects have been among the contentious issues in the city. I’m hoping that liberalizing the rules for Accessory Apartments may be an issue that the otherwise warring pro/anti development folks can find some common ground on.
Accessory Apartments are separate apartments attached to owner-occupied single family homes. That “owner occupied” is a an especially important element. Often these sort of apartments get created for family members – elderly mother or father or young adult daughter or son. In other cases a homeowner may create one to rent, to help subsidize their own living expenses. In all cases, the homeowner is living in very close proximity which should allay neighbors fears that an accessory apartment won’t be rented to problem tenants that raise hell in the community.
Under our current rules Accessory Apartments are only allowed based on plot size. If you have a big house/plot you can create an apartment for your nanny but if you have a small house/plot you can’t create an apartment for your granny. In small plot neighborhoods like mine (Upper Falls) and others (Nonantum) this effectively rules out most legal accessory apartments. The keyword there is “legal”. There are already plenty of accessory apartments in those neighborhoods but they mostly fly under the radar and have no oversight. That’s a significant problem since there are various safety issues that should be addressed when adding a separate apartment – most importantly, an additional exit.
In a lot of the development fights in recent years, many of those who have been outspokenly against specific new developments have been keen to point out that they are sensitive to the issues of spiraling housing costs but they don’t want to lose the character of the Newton they love with big new apartment building. Accessory apartments are a great answer to that – no big new buildings, the layout and scale of our neighborhoods stays the same, while we can increase the supply of inexpensive housing – particularly for families who already live here and are dealing with their own family issues.
More importantly, accessory apartments provide a way for elderly residents to age in place, provide ways for our neighbors to look after their own aging relatives, and allow struggling homeowners a way to supplement their income.
My own house is a case in point. It’s a small (1200 square foot) house on a small Upper Falls sized plot. Two owners before us there was a young family that moved in. After a few years, the 40 year old husband died. His wife stayed close to her mother-in-law. When the mother-in-law was elderly, she set up a granny flat for her in our house and she lived there for many years after. We can still see various traces of that in the physical house today – the circuit breaker for our laundry room is labeled “ma’s kitchen”. Enabling this kind of housing is a great thing. Forcing homeowners to either forgo taking in their mother-in-law or skirt all rules to do so is not.
If you care about the issue, head on down to City Hall tonight for the public hearing.
I support this 100%. Making it easier for seniors to age in place or parents to provide for adult children who can’t afford to remain in the community is incredibly important.
Another vote of support!
Looks good. Wish I could be there – I can’t make the hearing on such short notice.
This is a really bad decision. Mother-in-laws result in more burden on city finances, more cars parked in the street, and more yards paved for car ports. Whose vision of Newton is this? When will we start judging proposals on whether they will make the city more or less beautiful?
One reason to have a mother-in-law is to run an Airbnb hotel. Does anyone want to live next to a residence where hotel patrons change nightly?
To make things worse, mother-in-laws have absolutely no affect on our stock of “affordable housing.” So, it won’t help free us from suffocating 40B requirements.
What’s not to like? I couldn’t make this meeting, but support the initiative.
I couldn’t make the hearing, but I wanted to share a story.
In 1994 my then fiance (now wife) and I moved to an accessory apartment in Newton Centre. It was an old apartment that had existed for at least a generation.
This was a place rented through Boston College to grad students, my wife was in the law school, and allowed her to be close to class but also in Newton. She previously lived with a roommate in Allston.
Earlier I wrote about the bake sale and feeling part of the community. But when we were in this apartment we were appropriately broke. I worked part-time at a few different radio stations, she was in school.
In 1995 we moved out and left the state. A year or so later we were back and looking for a place to live, by then Newton felt like home. So we bought a house here.
Had I rented that first apartment in another community it’s possible “home” would have been there. The point is, accessory apartments bring a lot of people to our community that add so much to our city. They are people who will grow through their careers and lives. They could be families looking to put down roots or singles whose lives will grow and change. They can also be retirees who want to downsize.
This is a way to bring more people in who can help us become a better city.
I think this is a no-brainer! Right now houses on bigger lots can have accessory apartments by right. This gives the same right to a new source of income or family accommodation to the Newton homeowner whose house is on a smaller lot and it does not allow the accessory apt to be too close to the neighbors. I don’t believe it burdens neighborhood parking, but I do admit to not understanding the language in the ordinance about curb cuts that supposedly explains that! As long as the homeowner is legally bound to live in either the main house or the accessory apt., common sense dictates that that fact will be a mitigation against “wild partying” or other disruptive behaviors!!! Count me as supportive of accessory apartments.
Did anyone make it to the hearing? If so, how did it go?
@mgwa – yes, I was there. IT was a packed room. I’d say roughly 2/3 to 3/4 of the public comments were in favor of expanded Accessory Apartments. Many of those comments were quite personal stories of why this,was an important issue for the folks,making the comments.
Among the negative comments were some objections,to specific details,as,well as,general opposition to the entiRe plan.
The committee made no decision last night and most likely will make a,recommendation at their next meeting.
From my reading of the night, i’d guess that Councillor Lyle,Baker is a likely opponent. His Chestnut Hill constuency appears to have significant opposition.
Thanks, Jerry.
I think we need these apartments. Makes it easier for grandparents and relatives and can help owners pay taxes and upkeep. Yes and this is a way to make more affordable housing which this city NEEDS.
The airbnb comment that someone mentioned I can see how that would be a problem though. Can’t the zoning or local law fix that?
@Anonymous – The City Council is separately taking up general regulations for Airbnb type rentals. Once in place those rules will cover all units in the city, including any Accessory Apartments.
@Jerry. The problem is that the city is incapable of enforcing anything other than moving violations. City Council can pass laws all day long, but if they are unenforced, it won’t matter. How many illegal mother-in-laws did the city go after last year? How often is the current noise ordnance enforced? How many households have received a ticket for not shoveling their sidewalk?
@Jeffrey Pontiff –
>>> How many illegal mother-in-laws did the city go after last year?
I don’t have the exact number but they did show a map last night with all of the illegal apartments that they have identified and have dealt with and it was a substantial number. A wild guess of how many dots were on that map – maybe 75-150. They are pretty certain that there are far more though.
Fair answer, I will try to snoop around and see what the repercussion was. I predict nothing happened.
Jeffrey – As a former NNHS neighbor, I used the noise ordinance as a my reason for calling the police on many a Friday and Saturday night for 25 years and they were very responsive. It’s not expected that the police will go skulking around seeking out noisy residents, but we have pockets of neighborhoods that need ordinances as a means of maintaining order.
Going after mother-in-laws? I know it’s getting rough out there but didn’t know anyone was specifically targeting mother-in-laws. I sware I am nice to my son-in-law. ;.) wink wink
I wholeheartedly support allowing accessory apartments.
There seems to be some difference in interpretation of some of the wording of the ordinance. James Freas is looking into those now. I was wondering about the limits on outside changes to homes, blending in with the rest of the house. Since the new apt needs two points of egress, I hope there is an exclusions for fire escapes.
Some comments from Chestnut Hill concerned BC students and adding cars as a complaint about traffic. Students may not have cars and if they do, only one. I’ve had students stay with me. They were great company. Keep you young.
I was amused when someone suggested a pilot program in one ward and someone else said, “Is ward 8 volunteering?” Don’t think that’s happening.
re: the concerns with AirBNB, it’s great that the city is taking steps to address this emerging market that has created some concerns for local government, but keep in mind that it is extremely likely that statewide regulation of AirBNB type rentals will happen in the next year and that such laws might pre-empt whatever solution we come up with locally.
In his latest press conference, President Obama made clear that Donald Trump won the presidency because too many Americans don’t believe that the rules of the game are fair. This accessory apartment issue is a big test for Newton’s current leadership: do we want to maintain the status quo, which says that you are entitled to special benefits because you are wealthy, or do we want to work hard to create an equitable system that all have access to?
Since President-elect Trump became a thing, I’ve seen a lot of talk about empowering local officials to address issues such as income inequality. Newton has a chance to put that sentiment into action. Let’s not miss a meaningful opportunity.
Right there with you Tom.
It’s time for Newton to embrace representing its entire constituency and those without the means to make their home here now. Accessory apartments are a tiny step in that direction. Next election, voters hopefully will elect an inclusive minded mayor and fill councilor’s seats with those who will look out for everyone.
The thing is we are diverse in economic terms now but we are quickly moving in the other direction. For those wishing Newton could stay the same, the changes in zoning providing more inclusiveness are a big step in that direction.
Fair housing laws were brought up at the acc apt hearing. While owner occupied dwellings are not required to follow all housing laws, it disturbs me that following them is considered a drawback.
@Tom: Glad to see we’re on the same side for a change. It is really important that we get this right.
As I said above, I favor accessory apartments, but can someone explain why accessory apartments are not all to be part of the main house, either within the current footprint or by an addition to the main house, and not a separate dwelling? (I’m not talking about carriage houses that have been grandfathered in.) It seems like the proposed ordinance is adding “tiny houses” in our backyards! That’s not what I think of when I think of accessory apartments. Is this new interpretation of accessory apartments driven by residents or builders? Which would you prefer in your neighborhood and why?
@Marti: Completely agree with you that it’s time for Newton’s leadership to start better representing all residents. For that to happen, however, we’ve got to elect more people who are capable of thinking differently and challenging the status quo. As one example of many, when you have 0 of Newton’s 24 City Councilors argue against increasing the disparate “winter” parking ban by an egregious 400%, it’s clear that the constituency I come from could use better representation. With that being said, I’m hopeful that we’ll have candidates come forward at both the Mayoral and Council level who bring something new to the table as that’s what it’s going to take to move Newton forward.
@Bryan: We don’t know each other well, so I’ll say this – anyone who is willing to fight inequality/injustice or to create a level playing field, I consider a friend.
Here is an article about the accessory apartments ordinance in the Boston Globe.