The full City Council will be taking a vote on the proposed Accessory Apartment ordinance at tonight’s meeting.
30 years ago the city first passed an Accessory Apartment ordinance to allow homeowners to legally reconfigure their owner-occupied houses to create apartments for family members or others. 30 years ago the motivations were the same – i.e. to allow residents to take care of family members, to provide additional smaller cheaper housing in the city, to allow elderly residents to have caregivers on site, or to provide supplemental income.
30 years ago, the originally proposed ordinance was effectively gutted with a long series of amendments and restrictions, largely at the behest of the Chestnut Hill constituency and Alderman Baker. The final ordinance that emerged back then was a failure. Over the last 30 years remarkably few legal accessory apartments were ever created. The crux of the problem was that all of the restrictions effectively limited Accessory Apartments to only the biggest pieces of property in the city,in a few neighborhoods -.i.e “nanny flats” not “granny flats”
Meanwhile the ordinance effectively ruled out accessory apartments in whole swatches of the city. The result was predictable. Large numbers of unregulated, illegal apartments were created instead.
Here we are thirty years later and it’s “deja vu all over again”. The Chestnut Hill neighborhood has been very actively speaking out against the ordinance once again. City Councilor Baker has once again been a vehement opponent and has been working at each step of the process to once again include a long list of amendments that would effectively gut the proposed law.
Tonight’s the final vote by the full board. As I understand it, Councilor Baker will once again be proposing and arguing for a series of amendments. It’s expected to be a long night.
I hope this time around the council can avoid the “death by 1000 cuts” fate for the ordinance and not repeat the same mistake again. It’s time to allow Accessory Apartments in all neighborhoods in the city. The need for them are not just limited to the biggest properties or the wealthiest property owners.
Read more in commentary by Mike Brown in the Tab.
@Jerry, I appreciate your enthusiasm and your support.
Councilor Baker and I spoke this afternoon, and my understanding is that he has 2 relatively minor technical amendments to offer (both of which are likely to be noncontroversial), and one substantive amendment to require a special permit for detached accessory apartments, except for historic carriage houses which can be converted by right to a detached accessory apartment.
If it passes, this will be the most comprehensive overhaul of the accessory apartment ordinance in a generation since the law first passed in 1989. It will help homeowners on modest income and seniors to stay in their homes and create relatively affordable rental opportunities for Millennials and others who cannot find affordable places to live in Newton.
Hopefully, we can reach consensus on the proposed amendments tonight and get this passed.
Ted,
Do you know if existing garages would need s special permit too? I imagine seniors would like like to have Independence in a separate unit. Only an existing 2 car garage could make this a possibility (or adding a story onto of an existing garage). Convert the garage into a living space with new sewer line and power.
If you need a special permit to live separate from the main house, does it really change anything?
@Bugek, the answer is not as simple as it may seem. The current draft ordinance would allow conversion of a garage to an accessory apartment by right, but a special permit may be required if it were closer to the property line or to add on to the height. But the main change in the ordinance would be to eliminate the dimensional limits that make it hard or impossible to create an accessory unit now unless you have a lot of land. The proposed ordinance would allow anyone owning a single or two family house to have an accessory apartment subject to some restrictions on size and setback. Most accessory apartments in the city are carved out of the existing house so this opens the doors for a lot of folks to have legal units.
I hope that helps.
Ted,
Thanks for your response. Hoping for the best, but getting this passed would be very surprising. Many seniors have lived decades in their home which they take with pride… senior housing is simply demeaning to them
An ordinance which loosens up restrictions on what a “homeowner can do on private property which they own”.. a shocking concept in Newton, as many people think they have a right to intervene in what their neighbor does with their own property.
Do it.
Do it.
@bugek, I have been working on this for over 14 years since before I was first elected to the Board of Aldermen. My patience has surely been tested, but I remain optimistic that a lot of hard work from a diverse group of councilors and planning staff will bring this one over the finish line.
Really hope this passes tonight!
Ted,
Wow, it looks like it passed, could not tell what the exact details are.
Does this mean that once I get old, I can choose to do the following:
– convert 2 car garage into a 1,200 sqft livable space with sewage line/power
– if my lot if large enough, build a separate 1,200 sqft unit within accepted heights/lot clearances
I get to live in my own place while my kids or grandkids can live in the other unit or rent out to supplement meager savings.
This is really great news if true!
Yes, bugek, it is true. But you will need a special permit for a detached accessory apartment. That’s politics. The only way to get 16 votes was to require special permits to create accessory apartments in new and existing structures. Still, this was the biggest advance in a generation in a comprehensive overhaul of a dysfunctional accessory apartment ordinance that did almost everything but create accessory apartments.
As I was leaving City Hall, it dawned on me that it only took me 14 years to fulfill a campaign promise I made in 2003. Not too bad.
@Ted: You did a terrific job, as Zoning and Planning Committee Chair, and as a committed housing advocate, in leading the effort to get this passed along with your co-docketers. I know that not everyone was happy with the vote, but what did pass – the by-right ability to have accessory apartments within an existing home, has the potential to produce a significant amount of much needed housing opportunities for a diverse population. Well done!
Great news indeed.
Many thanks to Ted Hess mahan, Deb Crossley and all the other folks,who worked like a dog with a bone for years to get this done.
Ted,
Thanks so much for your commitment to this, compromises are to be expected. Is there a link to the final details?
If a homeowner wanted to extend a garage or build a new structure, I’m guessing the special permit requires a full review and approval from neighbors. ie nothing has really changed from previous ordinance except the minimum lot size has been reduced or eliminated?
If a homeowner wanted to build an extension attached/protruding from the back of the house, is this a special permit too?
now on with the ‘by right’ filtration of accessory councilors..
@bugek, expanding an existing accessory structure like a garage or building a new accessory detached structure to create an accessory apartment would require a special permit. Neighbors are given notice and can comment at a public hearing, but the councilors have the final “say” (although I freely admit some of my colleagues have never fully understood that and may give a handful of neighbors or even one neighbor veto power).
At present, all of the other by right requirements such as floor-area-ratio (FAR), lot coverage, and setbacks remain in effect, so any addition to add an accessory apartment that exceeds those limits would need a special permit. There are also design standards for external alterations that may require ISD approval, with the advice of the Planning Department and the Urban Design Commission.
Awesome job Ted!!!
The ordinance as passed provides the majority of the relief we were seeking, and Ted deserves huge credit for managing the process so well in committee over the last year.
I regret we could not also pass a ‘by-right’ option for detached units – at least for the mere 805 existing accessory buildings that would have met the more stringent dimensional guidelines for an accessory apartment. We were especially hoping to provide a clear way forward for folks already inhabiting such units to achieve compliance. However, it is rare that we get everything we want at once.
What was accomplished was to repair an old ordinance originally designed to allow accessory units only on the largest properties and within the largest homes, by right. That is – the wealthiest among us.
Now accessory units are available by right to anyone whose home can be reconfigured or added to – to accommodate an apartment, as long as it meets building fire and safety codes. And you can still opt for the special permit process to convert your detached garage – or build a new structure, as removing those minimum lot and house sizes that formerly prohibited most of these – applies to this option as well.
Great news! Thanks to all those who put in so much hard work to accomplish this.
Municipal government is under the mistaken impression that it exists to lead –
when in actuality it exists to follow the private sector leadership; expecting to act when circumstances arise. – This ordinance revision being a prime example. Watch out for keyword oral presentations like: ‘I’ll be brief’, ‘I rise to associate my comments with the previous 23 speakers’, and my favorite phrase:
‘So’ (that being double speak for “I got nothing”. :>)
I’m curious, if you have a functional built out basement, with two exits (walk out exit and exit through the house), does that qualify as an accessory apartment space? Many homes in Newton have very tall basements. What would be the main stumbling block for basement apartments?
A basement apartment can be by right, as long as you meet building code requirements: two means of egress (doors directly to the outside or to a shared common area, like a stairwell) minimum ceiling height is 7 feet clear. Bedroom egress requires a window of proper dimension, no more than 42″ above the floor.
We have approved a number of basement apartments… they may be the easiest to configure.
Thank you to Ted and everyone else who worked to make this change happen. It’s great progress.
Another excellent example of why we don’t need to eliminate ward representation to achieve progress.
Tom,
It took 14 years to achieve half of the original proposal. Clearly, we can do better.
@Tom Davis – Curious perspective Tom. It was a ward alderman that undermined the original intent of the Accessory Apartment ordinance 30 years ago and the same ward (now) Councilor that fought it tooth and nail through this whole very lengthy process.
To be fair, he was doing exactly what a ward councilor is supposed to do – representing the interests of the constituents of his corner of the city. In this case though I would argue that those interests were in conflict with the city as a whole.
@Jerry – there were 2 no votes against the ordinance – one was a ward councilor, the other was an at-large councilor. As a ward councilor I strongly supported this change precisely because I am so familiar with the needs of my ward, and how many people need additional income to be able to afford to stay in Newton.
@Jerry
The accessory apartment ordinance was long overdue to be sure and one can certainly disagree with Councilor Baker’s campaign against it. I did. As you pointed out, he was indeed representing the interests of many in his ward. The folks in Chestnut Hill have different interests than those in, say, Upper Falls or the Lake or Newtonville, but those interests are legitimate and deserve to be represented on the City Council. Ultimately, the ordinance was approved by a landslide, the greater good was served… but those opposed were spoken for.
Isn’t that how local democracy is supposed to work?
@Andy – exactly
@Emily Norton – No I wasn’t suggesting this vote was a ward vs at-large vote.
I’m pretty agnostic when it comes down to the issue of ward councilors. I definitely see the virtues of ward councilors, particularly because I live in Ward 5 and John Rice is everything I like in a ward councilor. I was just pointing out that this accessory apartment issue shone a light on a downside of ward alderman.
@Andy Levin – Yes things worked out just fine with this vote. What’s worth noting though is that for the last 30 years we have not had an effective accessory apartment ordinance and that was largely down to Alderman Bakers’ ability back then to elevate the parochial interest of one neighborhood over the larger interests of the city (IMHO).
Yes, for the record I think Councilor Baker does an excellent and very effective job of representing his constituents. In this case though I think it was to the detriment of the city as a whole.
All’s well that ends well.
@Jerry, please keep in mind that Councilor Baker is one of 24 councilors. For 30 years he did not act alone to maintain barriers to more accessory apartments, a majority of his colleagues agreed with him. There is more support from our residents, and a different membership on the Council now, and those are the real reasons this passed with such overwhelming support.
I apologize in advance for a long post, but I want to set the record straight on a few things.
To be fair, although Lisle and I don’t always agree (particularly on the subject of accessory apartments), I have no doubt that he sincerely believes that he has been acting in the long term best interests of the city as a whole by limiting the opportunities to create accessory apartments. From his perspective, limiting accessory apartments to larger parcels (even larger in the overlay districts) minimized the impact on neighbors of adding an additional rental unit and the other associated impacts that come with it. From my perspective, of course, the very people who most need to able to create an accessory apartment are those who live on smaller parcels in more modest homes, getting by on fixed or modest incomes. While reasonable people may differ on these issues, they both represent a legitimate point of view.
I also want to note that Lisle was not only representing his own constituents. The old ordinance included overlay districts that made it even harder to have an accessory apartment not only in and around Boston College, but also West Newton Hill and Newton Corner, which a majority of residents in those neighborhoods wanted at the time. And Lisle has not been alone in his opposition to expanding the accessory apartment ordinance over the years, as my 14 years of experience on the BOA/City Council can attest. Every change to the ordinance, however minor, which I have been able to get passed as well as those which have failed, has been met with significant opposition from a substantial segment of my colleagues.
As in 1989, when Lisle and then Alderman Ruth Blaser–a strong supporter of accessory apartments–negotiated an ordinance that gained consensus on the BOA, the sponsors of the new ordinance worked with our colleagues to address the legitimate concerns that were raised by them and members of the public and the Planning Board. The fact that we held two public hearings and made some changes in response to what we heard, and that the Planning Board voted 5-0 against the original draft and then turned around and voted 5-0 in favor of the revised draft, speaks volumes about how hard we tried to get to yes. Moreover some of the amendments Lisle and others proposed improved the original draft (even though some I could have lived without), and I believe are the reason we got such overwhelming support for the final version.
The co-sponsors of the new accessory apartment ordinance included a diverse group of councilors and the Mayor, who do not always agree on housing policy (to say the least). But we got it done because we were able to get worked with our colleagues to build consensus. That would not have been possible, however, if we had not retained special permits for certain detached accessory apartments. Indeed, a number of councilors let me know they simply could not vote for the ordinance without special permit requirements for some or all detached units. As it turned out, 22 out of 24 councilors approved of the final ordinance, which I consider a major accomplishment, when just a few years ago there was way less than 2/3 support for opening up the opportunity to create accessory apartments to every owner occupied one and two family home in the city.
Sixteen votes on the City Council is the minimum required to amend our zoning code. We might have been able to squeak out enough votes with a slightly less restrictive special permit requirement. Or maybe not. Getting the support of 22 councilors for an ordinance that would not have been remotely possible just a few years ago, however, should reassure the public that this particular amendment has broad support because it successfully balances the competing needs and interests of homeowners all over the city. It hasn’t always been easy to play nice in the sandbox with my colleagues (not for me at least). But this is one time when I can honestly say that we could and we did. I hope now that we have the recipe for the secret sauce, the City Council can use it to get Zoning Reform passed, too.
Finally, I am pleased to announce that as part of its FY18 Annual Action Plan (which was drafted before the new ordinance passed), the city will consider expanding its Housing Rehabilitation Program to provide CDBG funding to qualified low to moderate income homeowners to bring their existing accessory apartments into compliance with the building code and rent them to low to moderate income renters. This would provide an added incentive to homeowners with existing illegal units to come in from the cold and get them legalized. The Mayor, the Planning Department and I are also going to put forward an amendment to the Inclusionary Zoning ordinance that would add a requirement that in addition to 15% of the units being made affordable to low to moderate income households, another 5 percent must be affordable to middle income households. These initiatives are all part of the city’s housing strategy to increase the diversity of housing options and help seniors and others living on fixed or modest incomes across the city to remain in their homes.
So, yay us.
Makes sense to me.
Yay us!