This is a guest blog post submitted by Newton resident Richard Rasala, a retired Professor and Associate Dean in the Khoury College of Computer and Information Science at Northeastern.
On February 7, members of the Newton Corner Neighborhood Association (NCNA) attended the Ward 1 presentation by the city zoning planners.
At that meeting, we already saw many problems with the draft Zoning Redesign document, especially, with regard to Residence 3 (R3) zoning that especially impacts Newton Corner.
Since that meeting, the NCNA has met many times and exchanged many emails in order to prepare a document stating our issues and concerns. It was our plan not only to describe problems but also to develop specific proposals to improve the draft zoning rules.
The full document with discussion and proposals is here
An extract of the document with proposals only is here.
For convenience, there is also a web site with these links and with links to the Newton official sites for Zoning Redesign and for the Washington Street Vision:
As should be clear from the full document, we see many problems not only with R3 zoning but also with the related zoning for R1 and R2 which are treated in a strikingly opposite manner. We also see problems with the rules for multi-use buildings in Village Districts.
One of our major concerns is the necessity for spreading density and diversity throughout Newton so that we all share both the benefits and the burdens of a more populated city.
We hope that our document and proposals promote good discussion in Newton.
We also hope that those with better ideas will write them up and make them known.
The flaw in the logic was for the planning and development department to re-zone based “on what’s already there”. A more forward looking approach might have been to base increased density along existing train stations. But the green line has stops in many wealthy single family neighborhoods and that would run into opposition with $$.
So the p&d department is in a bind. Put the higher density where it already is….makes dense areas more dense, while keeping the character of the single family R1 neighborhoods. This exacerbates income inequality reflected in housing. So they’re left in the bind as to who to make angry, because in the end we’re all NIMBYS.
And, Newton,like many coastal areas, is trying to solve a macro economic / national problem with micro economic solutions. Namely, middle and lower wage job pay has not kept up with the other costs of living. Building more “affordable ” housing unfortunately won’t make a dent in that problem. It’s too big.
IMHO there is concern as to what re-zoning for “density and diversity throughout Newton” means when some of Newton’s elected and other officials advance that the aim is for “social change”, “social justice”, and “social engineering”, coupled with what the above commenter notes, an aim which should be big enough to address macro economic problems of income inequality and affordability.
In this precise context, a previous poster directed an entire thread to the importance and applicability of a book by Richard Rothstein, “The Color of Law”, which, in light of the fact that the very least non-subsidized cost (rent) of new housing in Newton would still be substantially beyond affordability in terms or reaching diversity with its intended meaning, stemming in large due to past racial prejudice and lack of opportunity, the avenues moving forward would be as follows:
1. Fully desegregate Newton schools by combining with the City of Boston;
2. Government construct large or sufficient number of new public housing projects in Newton with priority occupancy for African Americans; and
3. Rezone Newton with the aim of more than substantially lowering existing houses/homes property values.
Per the Rothstein book, short of things like the above, any “social engineering” through rezoning will not realistically reach the objective of the intended “social justice” and “social change”, on either a micro (Newton) or macro (Regional/National) level.
It seems then, there needs to be preliminary discussion and consensus among our civic leaders exactly what is/are the true objectives and constraints of re-zoning which can be sold to the citizens.
The underlying premise of this post is that the burdens of density outweigh the benefits, and therefore we should distribute the burden more equally throughout the city.
It begs the question— if this level of density is burdensome, why are we doing it at all? Nobody is forcing us into doing any of this. We should choose what level of density makes the most sense for Newton and not just accept whatever the Mayor and planning department are pushing.
@Sarah,
That’s a good question. The answer is that developers seem to be responding to demand.
To maximize their profits they will increase the size of buildings, as much as practical, which increases density.
I think that’s already possible with the current zoning.
The question then becomes how to respond to the fact, for instance, that one developer has bought up washington street. And other developers are following suit in other areas. So it’s kind planning after-the-fact; responding to market forces. Like other cities, Boston is becoming popular for companies (i.e. it’s “hip” to be downtown where younger people can enjoy nightlife, etc. for a great book on this read Dan Lyons “Disrupted” about the local company HubSpot) and there’s a shortage of housing in Boston (as I understand it) and so there’s demand for housing within the 128 area.
So, developers have cheap money (low interest rates) and some demand. How the cities respond is the variable there’s some control over.
Sarah, precisely.
…but more than the question of mere density and its distribution, the question of that density’s distribution of a diversely poorer economic class (than otherwise live in or can afford Newton) — as an obligation and aim of Newton rezoning per apparently the Mayor, some members of City Council, and the Planning Department.
I don’t understand why (many) Newton City Council members and the Mayor (apparently) feel empowered to radically rezone Newton so that it starts to look like a completely new city.
A proposed zoning change this big should be put on the ballot.
I completely agree with the comment above that: “Newton is trying to solve a macro economic / national problem with micro economic solutions.” Also, I agree that: “Building more “affordable ” housing unfortunately won’t make a dent in that problem. It’s too big.”
Karen, I’m assuming you mean that the macro problem (economic inequality) is beyond local rezoning no matter what radical revision.
Hi @Jim,
Yes, you are right. I meant to say that the macro problem (economic inequality) is beyond local rezoning no mater how radical the zoning changes.
Thanks, Karen
@Jim That’s my point. Housing costs have risen much faster than wages. Lack of supply of housing is one factor in affordability. But it’s far from clear to me that building more supply will do much to “fix” the problem. When I moved to Boston in the late 70s, I had a rent controlled apartment in Brookline. Very nice appartment. It went condo a few years after rent control was lifted which was the year after I moved out. What happened to rent control as a social concept?
Here are things beyond the city’s control that are just as important (probably more important) as lack of housing stock.
* flat wages outside of a few specialties in high tech
* almost universal large college debt (except for wealthy families)
* the dumb move of getting rid of Glass-Steagal (thanks Bill Clinton) which lead to the
banking crisis which led to a lot of young people thinking “hmm home ownership isn’t so safe”
Of these I think the flat wages have contributed the most. I’m in the software industry, and engineering salaries
(except for some limited areas) have been relatively flat since 2000. The last tech bubble kept the average salaries low
and with the exception of google, facebook, apple, maybe amazon, the pay hasn’t increased that much over 20 years. People have misconceptions about this.
And, for the rest of the workforce, pay has hardly increased at all. Health Insurance eats up a large portion (if you get it from your employer at all) of what’s available for salary increases.
So, should the city do “nothing” to try to get more affordable housing.? It’s a good goal. I’m afraid that the attempt may not lead to the outcomes they want. And it may lead to more congestion and traffic in the North End of Newton where the density is already higher. Unintended consequences.
I get that there are benefits that would accrue to the region if we increase density, housing in all price points, commercial space, etc. If Newton is asked to help in that regional and state effort, then state assistance (such as MBTA service) should come with it. Otherwise, we are just taking on additional burdens to benefit people outside of Newton.
Richard, yes, so if the macro problem is beyond local zoning, perhaps rezoning (or radical rezoning), at least for the benefit of current residents, not only is a detriment, but is a solution in search of a problem.
Karen – the rezoning process has been going on for at least 3 years. People are just starting to pay attention. It was started because our zoning code was a jumble. Over 80% of our current houses wouldn’t be allowed to be built without a special permit. Special permitting requires a lot of time – elected officials and city staff – which costs us tax dollars.
This, I believe, is the reason the City is trying to get the zoning codes to match what is already built in an area. Whether the zoning codes should be designed to match what we want in an area, is, I believe, the whole ‘Hello Washington St’ process.
Hi @Lucia,
Thanks for the info. I am sure that there is a zoning code jumble that can be improved. I can understand the goal of reducing special permitting.
However, Hello Washington St and the proposed zoning reforms go far beyond that goal.
I may not have been paying close attention to this process 3 years ago, but the Newton City Councilors and Mayor certainly have my attention now.
I don’t believe I am alone in being very concerned.
Thank you, Karen
Adding on to Lucia’s comment – the way the planning department explained it to me is that it’s significantly easier to make an existing non-conforming structure more non-conforming than it is to make a conforming structure non-conforming. Under the current zoning ~85% of Newton falls under the existing non-conforming bucket which is part of the reason why we have all these tear downs of smaller capes being converted to huge two units, especially in the existing MR districts. One of the major goals is to bring that non-conforming percentage down so there’s less ambiguity around what can be built via special permits.
To Richard’s post – Good recommendations around tuning R1/2/3, I especially like the tweaking of the apartment building guidelines in R3 to set limits around the extent of what can be done via special permit. Not a fan of the way it’s worded currently, far too vague. The upzoning part is a giant hornet’s nest and I think Rick Frank hit the nail on the head with his first comment around this being a giant catch-22 around who gets pissed off. If we’re getting into an upzone discussion I think the best focus would be around the GL stops rather than the main streets, mainly because that would hopefully minimize the number of new cars that come with the density.
There is almost no transparency from the City on what they’re up to, or why. The whole topic deserves to be on a referendum.
As to affordability, we live on a block proposed to become R3. A developer recently bought a 1-2 family zoned home which he has filed to knock down – no plan has been submitted yet. To buy this house on a 14000 foot lot, which he is going to knock down, he paid $1.5M. No matter what he is – in the end – allowed to put up there, it will not be ‘affordable.’ In fact quite the opposite outcome – the more units he is allowed to build, the more money he will make, but no benefit will occur re affordability – the numbers just don’t work.
Those reading and posting here have to wake-up their neighbors and insist that the City brings complete transparency to this whole discussion. The problem in Newton, and we’ve seen this many times, is that those with a ‘social engineering’ agenda vilify as morally corrupt NIMBY’s those who’d just like to keep things as they were when they invested in property here. The draft on R3 states a goal of predictability, and then goes on to allow apartment building, apartment houses, civic buildings, and off street parking waivers by special permit. Predictable? I don’t think so.
Who gave Councilors and the Mayor a mandate to change the character of our neighborhoods? Do the elected officials really think they’ve been empowered in this way?
Re the Ward meetings, publicized only on the Planning website and a few random emails, in Ward 6 we had 100 people when there are 8000 registered voters in the Ward. No one knows what the City is up to. This has to change.
Hi @Robert,
I completely agree with you.
If someone is aware of an ongoing effort to push for a referendum question, could you please post info here?
I am very interested in joining that effort.
Thank you, Karen
Zoning by referendum is very bad public policy. It’s way too complex to explain via robo calls, post cards, lawn signs
and all the usual ways campaigns typically reach voters.
We elect city councilors to take the time to understand these issues and represent us.
If you don’t like their decisions, elect new councilors.
All councilor seats will be on this November’s ballot.
Greg, I think you’re right that a referendum has problems. My thought is to take some kind of action that will influence the Council to NOT vote on any proposed code before the Nov election, and let the Nov election serve as a vote for Councilors who share your point of view. I would bet that those voting for the current Councilors 2 years ago had no idea that they were voting on a ‘social engineering’ agenda.In fact, at least in the Highlands, a place where the proposed changes could have a huge impact, only about 35% of registered voters even voted. I suspect a well done information campaign would lead to a much more meaningful read on what is truly supported by residents.
@Greg
I would agree with you. But if that’s the case, why go through the all the “citizen input” process, hiring a consultant who has us pin sticky notes (for half million dollars, and, whose recommendations they may or may not even take) on pictures, and all that fol-de-rol. It’s everything but a referendum. And a referendum is the only thing that might be binding. Some of us (well me) feel that the “input” on Goodbye Washington Street is a feel good process which will have little real impact.
If it just gets down to (like the recent infamous video with Diane Feinstein that went viral) – “I know better than you,now, go away and don’t bother me” well there will be hopefully some turnover in the next election.
@Robert: As I understand it, the city council is extremely unlikely to vote on zoning reform before the November election.
So now’s your chance — everyone’s chance — to recruit candidates who might support your perspective.
I happen to believe that most Newton voters support the idea of making Newton more inclusive; support helping address our regional housing and hiring crisis; support denser, walkable village centers; want more affordable housing, want more housing for seniors and millennials, etc. And I beleive that if zoning reform was the key election issue, we’d see support for change very much in the direction before us (or as you call it, social engineering.)
But perhaps we’ll know more on Nov. 6.
@Richard: It’s is entirely appropriate to engage the public in a discussion about values and vision to help shape policy.
at the Mason Rice meeting we were told that while the City hired Susaki to create the pattern book and help with the proposed plan, they disengaged them quite some time ago and the City and Council Planning Comm are operating without assistance. It may be that the meeting you referenced was on Riverside? In speaking with friends at other planning firms, broad communication, engagement, mailings, etc are all common and considered best practices. Newton is doing what feels like the absolute minimum and is (per 2 council members I’ve spoken with) more interested in passing ‘something’ before Council turnover after the election than passing the ‘right’ thing that represents the majority of property owners. My guess is that if a prestigious planning firm were still involved they would be objecting to the City’s approach. Additionally, at the Mason Rice meeting City reps concurred that no (that means zero) economic analysis has been done, so those supporting the proposal are flying blind as to its potential impact.
There is a Ward 6 City Councilor who views that re-zoning should chiefly be an exercise in “social engineering” to achieve “social justice”. Clearly there needs to be an election in advance of enacting new zoning.
Yes Jim and if I lived in Ward 6 that would be one of the reasons I would enthusiastically support her reelection. And I suspect many Ward 6 residents will do just that.
Greg, when you say that “most Newton voters support the idea of making Newton more inclusive… and want more affordable housing,” as I’ve pointed out, “the very least non-subsidized cost (rent) of new housing in Newton would still be substantially beyond affordability in terms or reaching diversity with its intended meaning.” Therefore, I’d ask what type of “inclusiveness”?
Greg, then what would you propose in light of the fact that “the very least non-subsidized cost (rent) of new housing in Newton would still be substantially beyond affordability in terms or reaching diversity with its intended meaning”?
New public housing projects within Ward 6?
@Greg
It’s not appropriate to waste 1/2 million on principle group whose main claim to fame about form based zoning was not only rejected by the town in Maine they first presented as a success story but has also been rejected ( in favor of “context based zoning “) . As far as I’m concerned it’s a 1/2 million wasted.
Rick, …to say nothing of the cost of Newton’s heavily staffed “Department of Planning and Development”.
to clarify, ‘social engineering’ is not my phrase but rather the subject of the Ward 6 Councilor’s lengthy treatise that appears elsewhere on this website. While I appreciate this Councilor at least being visible on this topic, in her election she got 1700 of 8000 registered voters and won overall by a hundred or so votes. I’m pretty sure calling this a ‘mandate’ is fake news.
@Robert: Elections always work the same way: they only count the voters who vote.
I happen to believe Ward 6 voters knew exactly what they were getting by electing Councilor Noel and that they will happily reelect her not just because of this issue but for her overall commitment to constituent services.
But there’s only one way to be sure. Do you live in Ward 6? If so, send us your campaign announcement when it’s ready!
greg, btw, according to other planning firms it is usually the case that info is shared proactively via inserts with water, property, and real estate tax bills as well as by proactive articles in local papers. The City has done none of these things and – according the the Ward 6 meeting – would like to pass the new law by the late spring. Now this will likely slip, but there doesn’t seem to be any real attempt to relay any information, no less an information campaign. It would be extremely hard to make a case that the City genuinely wants the public involved in this. But you know who does know all about it? DEVELOPERS!
For those who want the proposed zoning amendment to be on the ballot, the state zoning law provides that a zoning ordinance may only be adopted, amended or repealed by a vote of the City Council. See MGL ch. 40A, sec. Chapter 43, section 42 of the General Laws, however, does permit a challenge to a newly enacted zoning ordinance through a citizen’s petition. See LaBranche v. A.J. Lane & Co., 404 Mass. 725, 729–30 (1989). If within twenty days after the passage of a zoning ordinance, at least 12 percent of a city’s registered voters submit a petition to the City Clerk, the ordinance is “suspended” from taking effect. The City Council then has twenty days to reconsider the zoning amendment. If the City Council does not rescind the zoning amendment, a referendum is placed on the ballot at the next regular election or at a special election called for that purpose.
@Jim
To be clear, I have no gripes about the people in the planning and development department. They aren’t paid all that much, have long hours because of all these meetings, and are getting an earful from the public that THE MAYOR should really be getting. They are just doing their jobs. So far, I have been to 3 zoning meetings and 3 Washington Street meetings and Mayor Fuller has not been been any of the one’s I’ve been at. She should be hearing the feedback, not the employees from the planning and development department who basically work for her. The buck should always stop at the top.
Richard, I was mainly referring to the size of the Department — 28! (in a city under 90,000 in population)
Ted H-M, I don’t believe the point is that the zoning ordinance be on the ballot, the point is that the next City Councilors election be on the ballot BEFORE any new zoning ordinance.
@Jim Epstein, I was responding to the posts by Karen and Richard Frank.
@Richard Frank, I moderated a community meeting at the Franklin School last week at which the planning department, Councilor Albright, who chairs the Zoning and Planning Committee of the City Council, and Mayor Fuller all listened and responded to concerns expressed by citizens regarding Zoning Redesign, Hello Washington Street, and the West Newton Square Enhancements project. The meeting was very well attended. The school gymnasium was full, and had “standing room only.”
Greg, I don’t believe you addressed my question — what would you propose in light of the fact that “the very least non-subsidized cost (rent) of new housing in Newton would still be substantially beyond affordability in terms or reaching diversity with its intended meaning”?
New public housing projects within Ward 6?
(And do you really feel that Ward 6 voters — if they were aware — would consider “constituent services” more important than the above.)
I think all these Council elections will be competitive. There is now a local issue that actually matters to many people. Looking at history, in elections with issues like the high school, overrides, marijuana legality, etc brought out many voters. Rezoning the City is of equal magnitude, it’s just been the victim of a campaign to be quiet about it. The real noise (if any, who knows, the final draft might address some of the most egregious elements) will begin when the Planning Comm sends a plan to the entire Council for review. The TAB has said that’s when they’ll jump into the fray. As to the current Ward 6 Councilor, I totally respect the Councilor for taking a stand in the public realm – that took courage. I just don’t think winning an election by a few votes constitutes a mandate for social engineering. We’ll see what happens as this unfolds, and no one should rule out additional candidates, at least not until May 1.
Ted thanks for the tutorial. I’ve been told by a Councilor who is on the Plng comm that many of the R3 and N issues we and our friends have been concerned about have been brought up in a number of Ward meetings and PC meetings. So hopefully this group will get it right, and make necessary adjustments before presenting a reco to the full Council. Let’s hope this unfolds well and that despite lack of communication to residents there is a level of reasonableness on the Council. You hear so many allegations of Councilors ‘being in the developers pockets’ that you never know, even on a local level. The other path you describe with a 12% petition threshold seems like a huge undertaking, and really should not be needed if the Council is listening.
The zoning current proposal would easily withstand after re-election.. simply because the zoning mainly affects Washington street area (north of pike)
Most councilors can tout their social engineering street creds because its simply not going to affect their constituents south of the pike… kind of like voting to raise taxes on “other people”
Change the proposal to include affordable high density in waban, newton centre where there is actually a frequent T service and the thing will be DOA
What about high density NO. WHERE. I’ll bet money I don’t have that most Newtonites (with the exception of developers and those in their pockets) want to keep the city true to it’s name: THE. GARDEN. CITY.
If we don’t change course, that sign on the berm near B.C. will have to read The Developer’s City. All this haggling about “smart growth” and “affordable housing” are an attempt to sneak Trojan horses in amongst an unsuspecting public. With a healthy dose of condescension, to add insult to injury!
Just got back from the ward 4 zoning presentation, the second draft due in May is going to have a significant amount of tuning based on feedback that’s been received so far. We did get a preview of the some of the larger changes:
-The proximity rule for small apartment buildings in R3 has been removed completely.
-R3 will be limited to single family and two unit, minimum frontage increased from 40 to 50ft.
-A new R4 district will be proposed that allows all the R3 types, three unit by right and 4-8 units by special permit. -R4 districts will be located where there are already 3+ unit buildings.
The big question mark is where R4 is going to be used but they do seem to be listening and making changes. The frontage change for R3 was one that they said was specifically due to feedback and concerns that 40ft was too small.
thanks Patrick – I’m not following something, perhaps you can expand on this. So it sounds like R3 no longer allows apartment buildings, apartment houses or civic buildings, it this right? If that’s the case, then why is waiving the proximity rule relevant as I thought that applied to special permits for apartments in R3?
The proximity rule for apartment houses/buildings was that if there were already three of them within 500ft then additional apartment buildings could be built -without- a special permit required in R3. Outside of that specific scenario a special permit would have been required for apartments in R3.
The upcoming change won’t allow those two types at all in R3 so the proximity rule also goes away. R4 would require a special permit for anything over three units up to a maximum of eight allowed for apartment type buildings. I’m actually not sure on Civic Building, the planning dept. focused on apartments specifically in the presentation so those may still be in R3.
As the author of the original thread, I am very concerned that many of us listed as R3 in the current version of the proposal will be listed as R4 once the revised proposal is published.
This will mean that we may be no better off since the openings to a substantial number of apartments will still exist in the R4 zone.
The constraints on rate of growth and the cap on apartment density as a percentage of area still need to be incorporated if an R4 zone is introduced.
Also, some consideration should be given to opening up R1 and R2 areas to growth.
Focusing only on Green Line T stops is not adequate. There are only 7 T stops westbound of Reservoir in Cleveland Circle. Newton Centre and Newton Highlands already have a significant density of R3 housing close to the T stops. Further, Riverside may end with with a very large housing complex. Thinking about this, led me to propose the idea that houses along the major through streets should be zoned R3. This will spread things out and will reduce the pressure to pack a lot of development into small areas.
Of course, if what is now called R3 becomes R4, I would amend the proposal to say that houses along the major through streets should be zoned R4.
If you do not agree with this idea, kindly suggest some idea that will spread development beyond the “already developed” areas of Newton.
The burden of development should not fall on the people who live in 10-15% of Newton’s residential land area.
Gee, who knew that solving income inequality, climate change, and housing affordability could be so hard?
Rick, yes, and who who knew that Newton’s elected officials had deemed that re-zoning primarily was to serve at “solving income inequality, climate change, and housing affordability.”
@Richard Rasala – The question around fairness and density did come up towards then end, I’ll try to summarize the planning dept’s response:
Basically the planning department works within guardrails set by the city council. For this specific redesign the guardrail was to come up with a zoning ordinance that reflects the existing built environment, before the tear down craze started around 2000. So while they did make some changes to maintain consistency, something like.. Zoning all of Waban R3 would be outside the guardrails they were given. They did acknowledge that the current built environment is heavily skewed in density and feel that it’s a conversation that should to be had, however, that’s a much broader discussion for the council and city as a whole. Ultimately the council has to drive that along with the overall direction.
Patrick, fine, please tell that to the Ward 6 City Councilor who views that re-zoning throughout Newton should chiefly be an exercise in “social engineering” to achieve “social change”, “social justice” and “diversity” throughout the entire city.
It’s a no win – people in Newton vilify those who suggest a social engineering agenda is even worth discussion. It’s really shameful. Hoping that the Councilor in question comes to the conclusion that she is out of touch with her constituents – many of whom – (in fact 79%) – did not go to the poll and vote for her. Our Councilors at large seem to have a much better handle on what the Ward wants.
From the other zoning thread, which I respectfully repeat here for its relevance:
“OK folks, now that we’ve come this far in the thread, I’d ask you to read this article — https://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/why-government-planning-always-fails — and then re-read it, and think, and then re-think.”
@Richard Rasala. Thank you for posting your thoughtful and well researched paper and for adding this followup conversation. I’ve read it three times and I seldom read things even twice. I’m a member of the Newton Highlands Neighborhood Area Council and shared your post with the other members at last night’s monthly meeting . Your concern about a descent into R4 status came thought pretty clearly in your main post even if you didn’t explicitly state it as you did in your followup comment. I thought it was important for people on this side of the City to understand the concerns and frustrations of people like you who are really on the front lines of this development and zoning tussle. Just adding a few additional thoughts.
1. Pressures for rapid change and development too often overwhelm sound planning and common sense. Examples include the West End of Boston, the canals and boarding houses of Lowell and the dismemberment of much of the fabric in village centers and neighborhoods on the North Side of Newton when the Mass Pike came through here in the 1960s. These are just a few of the irreplaceable treasures that have been threatened or destroyed during the last century.
2. How well is all this new development going to hold up over the next 50 to 100 years. I appreciated your comments about preserving historical and architectural treasures in Newton. We have an old village square in the Highlands that looks essentially the same as it did in pictures from the 1890s. It has drawn the people of the Highlands together throughout this very long period of time. It needs improvements and some sprucing up, but I don’t think there are many people in our village that would want to see it fundamentally changed.
3. I’d like a ball park figure on the number of units in new construction on the North Side of the City specifically set aside for affordable housing versus the number of affordable units that have been or will be destroyed as part of the various development and redevelopment projects going on in that part of Newton. And I’d like a clear definition of what monthly rental is determined to be “affordable”.
I forgot to add what I initially wrote back to you about. The Data Request questions are spot on. Everyone should read these if they read nothing else in your paper.
Thanks to all for great comments and an education! I too would like to understand what is considered affordable housing. We’re in a current 1-2 home area, and half of a 2 family home just sold for over $800,000+. We have, as previously mentioned, a historic 2 family that will be leveled this summer for condo were built (presumably with off street parking waived), I have to think the developer would be into this for over $3M, and if so, selling the units for over $1M each. Is this considered affordable? In any case, I am hopeful that those homes designated to be R3 will not be changed to R4, but if they are, doesn’t this start the clock on another set of Ward or City meetings? Or would the Council attempt to just shove something through?
@Richard, the only places that it makes sense to add the level of density that is being proposed is around public transportation nodes that are working well, which is essentially the green line. Riverside falls into that category but all the rest of the things we are discussing, do not. Your proposal to add more density onto roads that are already busy but have no public transportation is neither here nor there.
@Laurie
In parallel to this work on zoning, I also published proposals for additional MBTA routes in Newton. See:
https://web.northeastern.edu/rasala/MBTA/busproposals.html
I am well aware that we cannot easily distribute density or take care of the needs of people who do not have cars without a transportation network where everyone is within walking distance of at least one bus stop. The proposals on the above web site are a serious start on reaching the goal of a quality transportation network.
All sorts of ideas being discussed currently in Newton implicitly require public transportation but there has been scant detail about what should be provided or in what time frame.
The MBTA proposal site above has a partner site that collects the data about what MBTA service currently touches Newton and what the MBTA Better Bus Project proposes:
https://web.northeastern.edu/rasala/MBTA/
I hope these two sites provide both concrete proposals and hard data.
@Jim – I’m not in ward 6 so I’m going to.. defer on that one, maybe someone in her ward will want to give it a try :)
I did read through councilor Noel’s letter that was posted to v14 though and I’m a bit confused.. She talks a -lot- about historical contexts of zoning and social engineering but the only statement specifically around her intentions for zoning redesign I saw was “I have every intention of promoting and supporting a zoning policy that encourages diversity in our community. This means opening our doors to the less wealthy, the elderly, the disabled, younger families starting out, and folks of all different cultures and ethnicities.”. She does mention the need for smaller units and rentals but I didn’t see any specific proposal outside of a vague call to embrace that zoning is social engineering. If I were a constituent in her ward I guess my first question would be to clarify what exactly that means and second what’s her specific proposal (like what Richard and the NACA posted).
@Robert – I don’t think there’s a formal “clock” that would be reset for each draft, although my guess is there’s going to be another set of meetings after the second draft especially with the R4 introduction. At the presentation the planning dept said in a perfect scenario they want to have a final draft ready for public hearings in the fall with a council vote before the year ends. It sounded like that was an optimistic timeline and the impression I got is a vote this year is less likely. The council ultimately makes the call when they feel the final draft is complete and ready to move forward.
Great info Patrick thx. An at large councilor confided that they felt the council was highly motivated to pass new zoning law before eoy to avoid ‘starting over’ with new council members in January. My feeling is thT getting it right is more important than these types of constraints.
@ Robert Davis in particular, we need to not only have the councilors not vote before the election — we need need them to commit to not vote in the lame duck period between the election and January 1. That should be a commitment requested of all councilors during the campaign, along with whether or not they support whatever draft of the zoning code we are up to at that point.
The formal presentation part of the ward by ward zoning roadshow has evolved somewhat from the first one I was able to go to, W3, to W1 (where what I called cherry-picked examples of examples of new zoning allowing less big structures were eliminated), to W2 (by which time they were backing off on the ‘proximity’ rule, and looking at splitting R3 into 3 and 4) . I’m sorry I was not able to attend and livestream the earlier wards, but for anyone who’s interested in the public comments and responses, the following videos are on my YouTube channel:
Ward 2 zoning roadshow (Feb 28):
https://youtu.be/fCfUylqy3_Y
The last 14 minutes or so is people asking Barney Heath questions after the event.
West Newton update on Washington St, zoning, & WN Sq at Franklin School (Feb 27):
https://youtu.be/cUrlXPWmcxs
The last half hour or so is people asking the mayor questions after the event.
Ward 1 zoning roadshow (Feb 7)
https://youtu.be/o0a-TzOCrkc
Ward 3 zoning roadshow (Jan 24):
https://youtu.be/NOUSZ2-QvZM
@Robert – Part of that may be due to the overall length of the zoning redesign project. It’s actually been ongoing since fall of 2016 with the first pattern book open house in December of that year. So this project has already spanned an election cycle with the proposed zoning ordinance based on the pattern book which had more than a year’s worth of events/meetings/feedback. If I recall back in 2016 density and development was an issue that many of the candidates spoke to and campaigned on. I would agree that getting it right is more important than hitting a date but the impression I’m getting is the call to delay is a hope that there’s a wave of anti-density candidates this fall. I’m curious as to what would happen if we end up with the opposite – if we get an incoming council that wants to revisit the guardrails to upzone would people still want to delay?
Also keep in mind that the longer this goes on the more potential tear downs we have under the current FAR system which is what’s allowing all the McMansion type condos. We should take as much time as needed to get this right, if that means next year then so be it but we all did vote the current councilors as well so I’m not quite seeing the argument that they should not vote if it’s ready. If there does end up being a vote at the end of this year it would have been with a year’s worth of review on the zoning itself and another 1-1.5 years of review on the base pattern book.
@Richard Rasala – Regarding R4, if they follow the same guidelines as the other districts then it should be limited to streets that already have a majority of 3+ unit buildings. They actually go down to sides of a street, so if one side is mainly three units and the other 1-2 units then they would make just the one side R4 and the other R3. My educated guess would be R4 is going to be more limited than the proximity rule it’s replacing.
Thanks again Patrick, and Julia. On voting, when there’s a well publicized issue with lots of news coverage and debate and transparency, many more residents get involved, go to informational meetings, and choose candidates. I would suggest that this has never been the case with the topic of a new zoning code – there has been zero TAB coverage, and poorly publicized Ward meetings. For the Planning Department to say, ‘well it was on our website’, presumes that residents regularly go to their website to see what’s going on – and I would bet this is not a popular surfing destination for 99% of Newtonites.
There have been no mailings from the City, and the Mayor has apparently been MIA on this. So to me, to say that this has been out there in a broad way since 2016 seems to not resonate. As I wander the City I’ve asked dozens and dozens of people and none know that this work is underway – by contrast, I believe in past years there’s been broad knowledge of issue like marijuana, overrides, the high school, Riverside, Marshalls, Newtonville, etc and many people become knowledgable and do get involved and out to vote. Let’s see what they come up with as being proposed as R4, and some of these other modifications being discussed. Should be an interesting spring and summer. All of that said, I’m encouraged that the Planning Committee does seem to be listening and making changes.
Julia
Thanks for the video links. The feb 27th video just shows how frustrated residents are having this shoved down their throats.
The level of anger and opposition to this zoning proposal is simply not captured on this blog or other listserv. I encourage everyone to watch
To me, the presenters came off as condescending and not attuned to residents needs. They wanted this to help climate change (even though the commuter rail is horrible! And they want to create 3000 parking spaces???) And to prod the market to create cheaper housing (even though prices in Newton has always been relative to brookline/boston)
… i feel residents will have to “lawyer up” to have the city take their concerns seriously. People were frustrated and it showed
@ Patrick Butera commented about my recent remarks on R4.
Let me quote one key paragraph from my long document on zoning:
“In the strongest possible terms, we argue that a 3-unit residence must be its own building type: Three-Unit Residence. It will then be impossible to justify the development of larger apartment type buildings with 4 to 14 units based simply on the nearby location of several 3-unit residences.”
Those of us in Newton Corner who have been discussing zoning are utterly opposed to the idea that if an area has a number of 3-unit residences then these residences may be used as the lever to approve zoning for apartment building types of 4 or more units.
3-unit residences easily fit into the character of Newton Corner along with 1-unit and 2-unit residences. Permitting apartment building types of 4 or more units changes everything and if such structures are to be built it should done under strong constraints and with community involvement (i.e. not behind closed doors).
I do not have detailed knowledge of what will be in R4 but what has been said about R4 suggests that it will consider 3-unit residences as the lever for apartments and the constraints on apartments will not be strong enough. If this is so, it is unacceptable to us.
Also, there were some inaccuracy in Patrick’s comments about dividing lines for zones. The city plan is to divide zones between rear boundaries of lots and to zone both sides a street into the same zone.
@Richard Rasala – I thought it was by side but double checked and you’re correct, their goal is as much as possible to zone both sides of the street the same. It’s not a hard rule though – Woodbine, Central and Maple streets in Auburndale for example are split with R2 on one side of the street and R3 on the other. Woodbine also has examples of both MR -> R2 and SR -> R3 to get all of the lots on one side the same.
For R4 they said only three units are going to be allowed by right. Anything above that would require a special permit and the maximum would be eight. Slide 48 of the deck below has the details that they showed us at the ward 4 meeting:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/95647
@ Patrick Butera
Thanks so much for the follow up about R4 designation that appears on page 48 of the Ward 2 presentation.
R3 will be defined to have only 1-unit and 2-unit houses. This will imply that much of what was called R3 in the Newton Corner area will move up to R4 in the new definitions.
R4 will permit House B, House C, 2-unit, 3-unit, and by Special Permit 4-8 unit. This is an improvement over the current R3 which permitted up to 14 units. However …
R4 is “Mapped to locations where there is a pattern of 3-8 unit buildings”. This is where problems emerge.
The definition of R4 means that if you have ANY 3-unit buildings you will be mapped to R4 even if you have ZERO buildings with 4-8 units.
This is still a very serious concern for Newton Corner. The questions will be:
* Under what conditions can a Special Permit for a 4-8 unit building be granted?
* Is there any cap on the percentage of land within a small square (250 feet) that may be given over to apartment type buildings? Our Proposal 6 recommends a cap of 20%. We do not want entire “blocks” of our neighborhood to be given over to apartment type buildings.
* Will all decisions about any proposed 4-8 unit building be made in a public meeting that allows for community concerns to be heard?
As usual, details matter.
This is a follow up to my previous comment on R4.
There is a concern about R4 that I failed to realize.
The new R3 will include 1-unit and 2-unit houses only. Therefore the new R3 will join R1 and R2 (1-unit only) as relatively untouchable zones in Newton.
Therefore, the subset of the current R3 that becomes R4 will be the only residential zone in which there will be significant development.
Hence, the residential land area open to development will be even smaller than before.
In many ways, Newton Corner is worse off than we were under the original draft proposal.
One thing I just realized looking over the slides is that they also downsized the house footprints:
R3/R4:
House B footprint: 1600 -> 1400sqft and 2.5 stories
House C footprint: 1400 -> 1200sqft and 1.5 stories
Two-Unit: 2200 -> 1600sqft and 3 -> 2.5 stories
R4
Three Unit (New): 1600sqft and 2.5 stories
4-8 Unit (New): 2500sqft and 2.5 stories
Most of the tear downs I see create two 4000+ sqft units in the MR zones so that’s going to get cut in half in the proposed R3 and R4 districts if I’m reading that right. I think that’s going to be a wildcard in trying to predict development with McMansions out of the picture.
They also made it a point to emphasize that the footprint and story limits don’t change based on number of units. A four unit and eight unit building both have the same 2500sqft/2.5 story limit that has to be split between the units. Not sure if that alleviates some of the concern around R4, perhaps they’d be open to adjusting the SP down to 4-6?
Patrick and Richard:
The devil sure is in the details. :(
Patrick and Richard:
The devil sure is in the details.
Thank you all for your insights and concerns. There are two major issues that I have not heard talked of here. Newton has been a town which prides itself on its schools and its sense of community. The infrastructure of roads and public transportation are of great importance as we consider density. Also of great importance are our schools. The population increase inside the walls of our schools has exploded. The schools are struggling to keep up with the numbers and class sizes are larger. Interactions become more impersonal. In some schools parents are actually being dissuaded from getting as involved as they used to. Lack of home ownership will also impact the schools. I would propose more affordable home ownership, via condos instead of rentals, and subsidized if need be. I also support the home ownership via smaller condos for our aging population. People who have been long term home owners, but don’t want to age in their home look for options in the community where they have dedicated their lives and energy to the issues here. They are to be cherished and not moved on. Moving from a home to a rental is not a secure way for them to move on. It is also not what they search for. We are letting developers make our decisions. They do not have our community in mind. We need to pursue homeownership options so that those who live here stay engaged and active in our community.
While Googling R4 and Newton, I came across this thread from a year and a half ago. At the time, the new R4 designation was just beginning to be discussed. Now much of what was discussed is quite stale given the new zoning ideas that the Planning Department is pushing
First, it looks like R4 would have up to 4 units by right. And at least one Ward Six City Councilor is advocating for R4 within 1/4 mile of transit and/or village centers. Gone is any stipulation that the area would already have at least three units. The excerpt below is from Alicia Bowman’s letter of Sept 11th to the Planning Dept
“I disagree with the prioritization of goals by district. It is too restrictive. I feel that the goal of character and scale should never be a top priority given the importance of addressing housing and climate crisis. • If the prioritization of the goals stands, than what is defined currently as R3 vs R4 should be reviewed. There many sections of R1, R2 and R3 that are very close to transit and/or village centers. R4 should be ¼ mile from transit and/or village centers and R3 ½ mile. Is there a plan to update the map?
“Triple Deckers ought to be allowed by right in R3, especially if R3 will be closer to transit and/or village centers. Also does a 3 unit “need” to be a triple decker? • Same thing for small apartment houses in R4 and small multi-use buildings in N, allow these by right.
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/106109/09-11-20%20Councilor%20Bowman%20Comments%20#88-20.pdf