Amy Dain, a public policy researcher and consultant, has contributed this article to Commonwealth Magazine. I think it has some good ideas, but, beyond accessory apartments, I am not so knowledgeable about Newton’s actions in this regard to offer analysis and comment about their applicability to our local scene. Would any of you like to weigh in about her concepts? Quoting from the article:

There are ways for municipalities to allow more housing in residential districts while maintaining the current built character. For example, they could allow:

· Conversion of historic houses to multi-family housing, contingent on preservation of the historic house. New townhouses or cottages could be permitted in the rear of the main house. Such zoning avoids teardowns and promotes historic preservation.

· Accessory dwelling units in owner-occupied single family houses. Zoning for accessory dwelling units typically specifies that the house must continue looking like a single family house after addition of the secondary dwelling unit.

· Cottage courts, which are small single family houses arranged on a single lot. The regulations can specify that parking be situated in the rear of the lot, out of public sight.

· Open space residential design. Most municipalities do have provisions for flexible zoning for projects that involve more than a few dwelling units, but many of the provisions are written in ways that make their use rare. In some versions, all of the housing must be single family houses, but in others the housing can be in multi-family arrangements, as duplexes and townhouses. The flexibility can yield better site designs than strict dimensional requirements that relate to each dwelling unit.