Is it time to consider abolishing single family zoning within Newton? This is now actively discussed in the zoning re-design meetings and would be very interesting to discuss here. Sounds interesting and perhaps it finally time.
In summary, councilors are now giving serious consideration of abolishing single family zoning 0.25 miles from T stops as part of the rezoning. Even more generally, the idea of doing away with single family zoning across the board has also been raised.
Here’s the video from the June 29 Zoning and Planning Committee meeting discussing single family zoning
Here are the maps that show what the affected areas would be with those zoning changes:
Why should large, single family homes in Waban, Highlands and Chestnut Hill be exempt? If single family home zoning is to be abolished, it should be for all of Newton! Level the playing field. It’s fair and democratic. With that said, I will now watch the video. 😉
I think it’s an excellent idea.
@Matt Lai – why do you think the Highlands would be exempt? We already have multi-family dwellings within 1/2 mile of the T – I live in one, and am down the street from more.
I stand corrected Meredith. I am simply referring to the large (and very nice) homes en route of my morning run . That said, any objections on abolishing SFH zoning throughout all of Newton?
@Matt Lai – Two things. As you can see from the linked maps, this proposal would indeed change the zoning in the Highlands and Waban.
Also, removing Single Family Zoning does not mean that no big (or otherwise) single family housing won’t be built. It only means that multi-family houses could be built if the property owner wished – like in our neighborhood, in much of Upper Falls today
The term multi-family needs to be more precise. Two-family defines SO many of the homes near the T station in both NC and NH and has been a great solution to convert large old Victorians to housing options for more families at a more affordable price while retaining these beautiful architecurally interesting and important houses. Multi-family could mean 4-8 or more where a two family currently exists. If I understand it, they would require 1200 sq ft per unit unless is was designated as affordable in which case it would be 900 sq ft.
And let’s be clear, the proposal suggests either a 1/4 or 1/2 mile radius.
Let’s define the goal. Is it to build more affordable housing and reduce the number of cars? If so, do we know how many households that live within a 1/2 mile of the T actually depend upon the T as an alternative to a car?
Will the city require that any single or two family residence that is converted to multi-family be restricted in the # of cars? Restricted in the size of the units? What controls would be in place to prevent developers or home owners looking to cash out from exploiting this change
BTW Matt Large single family homes within 1/2 mile of Chestnut Hill or Waban station would not be except. A 6000 sq ft house could be converted to 5 units. a 10,000 sq ft house could become 8 units. What is unclear is if they would have to maintain any of the facade or could they just knock down the existing home
There is one exception (from the meeting) : historic districs remain historic .. ie will not be affected by any zoning change.
i dont know which areas around T stops are historic… but I expect a flurry of applications
Btw, the tone of the proposal seems very reasonable. The purpose of a T stop is for mass transit, makes no sense that only single family homes benefit from this luxury.
With height restrictions it won’t be such a shocking changes and would take decades anyway for properties to turn over
Everyone should share the privilege of contributing to the housing crisis right? Isn’t that what we spent 2 years debating about? Or was that all lip service?
No village, neighborhood or street should be exempt. No distance restriction from T stops should be applied. Who’s NIMBY now?
Matt,
Removing all SFH zoning would likely have very very little chance of support/passing.. too big a change and very hard to sell
Its difficult to make a case against multi residence 0.25mile from T stop, i could actually see this getting approved
@Bugek – IIRC the argument for removing SF zoning completely was that if you add up all the T stops most of the city ends up being within range of either a train or bus stop to the point where you’d just have a few pockets left. It was more about simplicity in the zoning than trying to go above and beyond what was proposed, although you are right that “remove all SFH” zoning would be a harder sell than “Remove SFH zoning within .25 miles of every T stop” even if there’s only a small difference in the actual impact.
This is a proposal that both the political left and right can support: on the left because it promotes affordable housing and green transportation, on the right because it fosters economic development, reduces regulation, and allows property owners more freedom.
@Jerry – Can I suggest a slight change in the headline to this article? The proposal under consideration is to open the door to the possibility of multi-family housing around transportation nodes. The language above has been leading some (including a few on the ZAP meeting last week) to erroneously think that only multi-family development will be permitted in those areas.
Another, more accurate way of stating the items would be to say that the City is discussing “Abolishing single family only zoning around T stops.”
@Chris Steele – Better?
@Jerry – Yes and thank you
Actually Chris there was significant discussion about eliminating all single family. And both a quarter mile and a half mile are reflected in the map.
In regards to the Green line the properties is the dark green are the former and the light green reflects extending it to a half mile. But at least in regards to the 1/4 mile radius of Newton Centre there are very few single family homes. They are predominantly two family properties. Most of the single family are in the light green area
Hi @Claire – yes, eliminating single family only zoning. Not eliminating single family housing or disallowing new single family housing. Just making it so multi family can go in as of right.
The rezoning has gone on for so long, its hard to get a handle on when it can finally be approved and signed in.
With this new proposal, are we looking at another 2 years for rounds of public review and comments? Its not a side note, its a huge change
The current review process kicked off in Jan. with the goal to have a completed ordinance adopted by the end of the current term (Dec 2021), removing SFH would be significant in a potential impact perspective but shouldn’t require much revision to the actual ordinance – it’s designed such that they should be able to add the multi-family housing types to R1 and R2 without needing to completely redo the districts.
If they just throw the MF housing types in R1/R2 then the main difference going from R1 -> R2 -> R3 -> R4 would be the dimensional requirements like frontage getting smaller as you go along until you get to R4 which is where they put the 3+ unit by SP option. R1 for example would still require significantly more frontage among other things even if 2 family was an option for the house itself, so those zones wouldn’t suddenly turn into small lots.
Why only 1/4 mile? Surely we can do better than that.
If the change is done by distance, it should be done by travel distance, not “as the crow flies” distance. It would also be nice if it tapers off somehow. Hard edges complicate things.
The different nature of transit stops also complicate things. Green line, commuter rail, express bus, and local bus all serve the community differently (different destinations at different times of day). It would be great if there was a developer incentive to contribute to improving mass transit, which would then open up a new level of service *and* new development potential.
Cities Start to Question an American Ideal: A House With a Yard on Every Lot [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html] Subhead: Townhomes, duplexes and apartments are effectively banned in many neighborhoods. Now some communities regret it.
I’ve been watching practically empty Green Line trains run through Newton pretty much every 10 minutes. Guess people are staying off them because of COVID-19, and I wonder when, or even if, mass transit ridership will pick up again. A recent NYT article casts doubt on any mass transit recovery without extensive Federal aid. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/opinion/coronavirus-mass-transit.html?searchResultPosition=1_) It seems to me that this uncertainty, might raise questions about the future (relatively near- or-even long-term), efficacy of ‘transit-oriented development’.
@ Jerry
“In summary, councilors are now giving serious consideration of abolishing single family zoning 0.25 miles from T stops as part of the rezoning. Even more generally, the idea of doing away with single family zoning across the board has also been raised’
After watching the meeting in it’s entirety, I don’t think that actually summarizes the discussion. Among those who voice a preference, there was far more support for the 1/2 mile (10 minute walk) vs the 1/4 mile walk. You only reference the 1/4 mile radius
Also it wasn’t just the Green Line T stops but also the commuter rail and bus stops and that ended up with the observation that would result in most of Newton.
Councillor Markowicz was the 1st, but not the only councilor to advocate for not tying it to radius from a transit stop and just allow for multi-family properties anywhere in Newton, including those areas currently designated as single family only. Councilors Kelley and Albright seemed open to that idea.
I loved when Susan Albright pointed out that people who are in need of affordable housing actually do own cars and when Julie Malackie asked if any data has been gathered as to how many residents who currently live within 1/4-1/2 miles of a transit stop actually use public transit on a regular basis.
Two members of the Planning and Development Board Peter Doeringer (Chairman) and Kelley Brown also advocated for just allowing multi-family through Newton without linking it to transit.
Mike to your point it was measured “as the crow flies” But most were looking at it as a 5-10 minute walk, although Auchencloss pointed out that maybe it should be a 5-10 minute bike or scooter ride
Lots more to report but these points are germain to Jerry’s characterization
The larger the radius, the less chance the idea will pass. Strategically they should target 0.25 mile now and allow increases as the T improves service
This is a very long term change, will takes decades for noticeable changes as developers have to wait for lots to come up. I assume there will have to be a minimum lot size for multi residence..
(Disclosure: I think my house lot would be in this new zone, and I would welcome the change for our neighborhood.)
I hope people, though, have some basis for their belief that this kind of change would reduce the cost of housing in Newton and allow people of more moderate incomes to move here. I see little likelihood that it would. The underlying reasons that people choose to live here (schools, proximity to Boston) would remain the same. Theoretically, a somewhat larger stock of housing could lower prices, but not in a market that is hungry for this location. In economist’s terms, we live in a remarkably price inelastic part of the metropolitan area. People are buying a site in a desirable community more than a certain number of square feet. (And, if you look at the cost of new construction, neither a new structure added to a site nor a teardown with two new units is consistent with “moderately” priced housing. Lisle Baker made this point well.)
So . . . that would suggest that there is a potential revenue gain to the city if this were to happen, as the tax base would grow compared to the status quo. Hard to predict, though, if net income to the city would grow, as it would depend on how many school-aged children moved in.
By the way, I don’t see the logic of restricting this to a certain distance from mass transit. Susan and Julie’s remark and question, respectively, get to that point. (And what if the bus routes change, likely in the next 50+ year lifetime of dwellings?)
That being said, I agree with Michael Singer about the political correctness of the proposal for both ends of the liberal-conservative spectrum, as it appeals to their biases and policy predilections, even if there is insufficient evidence to support their views.
“This is a proposal that both the political left and right can support: on the left because it promotes affordable housing and green transportation, on the right because it fosters economic development, reduces regulation, and allows property owners more freedom.”
I think Bugek makes a very important point. People think of multifamily zoning and the image in their mind is their neighborhoods being torn down next year and replaced with apartment buildings.
The reality is that very gradually, some single family homes would be replaced with duplexes and/or triple deckers (depending on the final ordinance). He’s right that this is a change that will be measured in decades, not something you can expect to happen overnight.
Furthermore, we don’t know that the economics in every neighborhood are going to actually lead to that many new multifamily properties. We’ve already seen a trend in neighborhoods like Newtonville (where multifamily is currently allowed) where just as many if not more 2 families are converted to single family as the other way around.
Finally, I would suggest that the most likely change you’ll notice quickly is more parents adding a detached dwelling unit (if that’s allowed) on the same property to accommodate their children moving home and/or aging in place.
“Hard sell”? Given the fervor of enthusiasm most of the Councilors and Mayor Fuller had in support of more housing and Northland, elimination of SFZ (regardless of distance) should sail thru City Hall. Anyone in opposition should be branded a hypocrite; to be tarred and feathered in the middle of Newton Centre.
@Bryan Barash As someone who tried to build a detached dwelling for my daughter and soon to be husband back in 2019, under the new ordinance, we found the process deliberately expensive, misleading and filled with land mines. The detached accessory apartment rules are part of accessory building rules, think a garage. The height limit is 22 ft, and the first floor cannot have more than 700 sq ft. So, under one reading of the rules, it would seem that a person could build a detached accessory apartment with up to 1500 sq ft, under a special permit. And the building must fit into the nature of the area and neighborhood. On the surface, that sounds fair. The reality of 700 sq ft first floor, with 800 ft second floor creates a flat roof bau haus design.Ask the planning department how many of these apartments have been built?
That being said, I will try again when I’m 70’ish, and I start to need everything on one floor. And I’m in favor of multi family housing all across Newton
Jack,
Regardless of the red tape, i assume to build a 2 story dettached was at least 200k+?
the biggest obstacle to new accessory units is cost…no amount of zoning will reduce this cost, its just crazy expensive. Not to mention the spike in property taxes!
We priced it out. $300k+.
@bugek and @paul levy, we priced it out and it was $250 to $300 a sq ft. Some of the cost was extending utilities, water, gas, sewer to the back yard. The other was labor, and building supplies which had moved up 70% that year. 3 contractors all came in within $15,000 of each other, not a big spread.
Paul, Jake
Yikes, no amount of liberal zoning will increase accessory units when it costs 300k to build one. Maybe one day a prefab could be done for 100k..
Given the expected height restrictions + lot restrictions + cost of land near T, the proposed zoning change is likely to just create more million dollar town homes… which is actually good for the city in terms of revenue
The city could use that revenue to increase social services
Proximity to transit is just one of the things that makes “car light-er” lifestyle more possible. In Newton, it’s currently difficult (but not impossible) to go car-free. As a result, we need to look for more ways to reduce more vehicle trips for more people. Besides perhaps the Green Line, transit in Newton doesn’t get people to many of the places where they want to go. Just because transit is the organizing zoning principle for other regions doesn’t mean it needs to be ours.
More housing near vibrant village centers is potentially at least as important. If people can walk or bike to a grocery store for small trips, that’s a win. Or coffee shops. Or multiple good restaurants. Or civic services. Or even (in moderation!) banks and salons. I’ve said so many times, a mini Target could become an anchor store for a village like Woolworth’s was in the past.
We do need to make more extensive use of something like a more comprehensive “walk score” to help with planning (see: https://www.walkscore.com/apartments/search/MA/Newton ). But it should be dynamic and bi-directional: we should be actively improving locations that have poor walk scores and encouraging density in places that have good ones. All that’s probably more dynamic than zoning allows.
For reference, 1921 zoning map of Newton:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/39228
Gee, you can get all the public transit, walkability, stores, coffee shops, restaurants, etc., etc. you want in Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan and the Bronx!
Alex said: “Gee, you can get all the public transit, walkability, stores, coffee shops, restaurants, etc., etc. you want in Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan and the Bronx!”.
OK. And? Are you against any of those things?
No, Mike, thank you. I had them all growing up in Queens and then living in Queens and Manhattan as an adult, before moving to Newton, which, to me, was paradise in comparison! But I guess that’s just me, or so it seems from this discussion.
And, what astounded me then and does even now, is that Newton did have all those things, that it still does, and that it was and still is, a paradise in comparison to where i came from.
This proposal makes sense only if the properties being subdivided offer units are priced at affordable rates. As I have pointed out in the past, subdividing a million-dollar property to create three smaller units priced at a million dollars apiece may make developers happy, but it only sustains the Newton housing market for the affluent. Such an unrestricted process does nothing to bring minority and lower-to-middle income families into the city.
It also puzzles me that the same councilors who cried “Foul” when Amy Sangiolo sought a halt to the destruction of modest Newton homes and their replacement by McMansions are so certain that this proposal will lead to greater economic and social diversity in Newton. Newton’s current hands-off policies have made the Garden City even wealthier on average.
Walk around your neighborhood, whichever village you call home, and note the expansion of properties. Developers are prospering even in the face of a recession and the pandemic. Let’s ensure that this proposal to subdivide properties near public transportation doesn’t result in more of the same. How about requiring two-thirds of the resultant housing to be priced at 50% the going rate, be it rent or condominium?
…and give preference to minorities, lower income families, and seniors!
Bob,
A typical multi family lot is probably 10000 sqft at a cost of at least 800k
The maximum you could squeeze is 4 units at 1000 sqft each
Assuming it costs 500k to build/renovate 4 units. The cost alone is 1.5M
With 0 profit, each unit could be offered at 375k.
Even if the developer is willing to make only 500k (spread across x employees of his company) they could offer the units at 500k each and buyers would instantly bid them up to 700k based on today’s market..
unless you want the city to own the properties and take a loss, there won’t be affordability unless you have several ‘korf sized’ developments where affordable units can be enforced
I dont believe there are any lots this big near any T stops unless you abandon height restrictions… and then we go down the hole of never getting this approved.
Also, i don’t think its legal to say ‘X’ races get preference for housing and not just income based.
Why aren’t all the apartments in the new Austin St. and Washington St. Newtonville buildings, and in the Riverside development, required to be affordable? Is it because the developers won’t make fortunes from them, if they are priced so folks of modest means can actually afford to live in Newton?
Alex,
for ALL apartments to be affordable, i think the developer would have to operate at a loss or the risk/reward would be pointless
An extended recession or spike in interest rate could bankrupt any developer. They need to be compensated for the risk. This is the real world.
You should be asking yourself this question instead:
“Why dont Newton residents pay much more property taxes so the city can buy and develop more apartments to operate at a loss.”
Bugek, Thank you. Reminds me of way back when, even as a cab driver, I could afford an apartment in Cambridge, because they were rent-controlled.
Just an observation, before the pandemic at least 5 of the 10 houses on Owatonna street, had one adult taking the commuter in to work daily. So, anecdotally, about 25%…?
I know this because it was me and my neighbors.
We’re wishing the 1/2 mile radius, at a weird point from the stairs to the platform, but it was still only a 9-12 min walk depending on how you hit the light at Melrose and Comm ave and it you cut diagonally though the parking lot.
/Personal statement.
//I miss taking the train.
As Councilor Laredo discussed at the June 29th ZAP meeting, the vast majority of Newton residents are totally unaware that zoning reform has taken the turn it has taken (ie, leaning towards by-right multifamily zoning within 1/4 to 1/2 mile from a train line).
The last time the community was engaged in discussion, the reform plan was basically to locate the density in the village centers and follow the “pattern” of what already exists in each neighborhood. If you live in a single family R2 zone, your lot would more than likely remain a single family R2.
No comment on whether the latest strategy is good or bad, but it should be aired more broadly before the ZAP committee goes to far. As Councilor Laredo mentioned, the average Newtonian has no idea what’s in the works.
As a way to elicit engagement and see where Newton residents stand, I would propose a series of (clearly worded!) nonbinding, zoning-related opinion questions on the ballot for the November 2020 election. We’ll get great turnout, it would foster discussion, and we’s see where Newton residents are leaning on what could be a seismic shift in the zoning reform strategy (good or bad, right or wrong).
Excellent point, NewtonResident. I wonder, for example, whether those who supported the city’s Climate Plan saw through to this conclusion; and yet, based on my listening of the meeting, that was a prime force for this recommendation.
It was my impression that the zoning redesign was to standardize building types and buildable lots such that special permits would be reduced drastically
This new proposal is certainly not that. Its still a good idea but definitely needs to be communicated widely for resident feedback.
I don’t view it as a “social justice” cause (environmental, affordable housing) but rather “common sense”. A T stop is created for “mass” transit, it simply doesn’t make sense to have only single family homes within walking distance.
If there was ever a time to get the true pulse of Newton voters, now is the time! With mail in voting now allowed, cram the ballot with everything under the sun!
https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/covid-19/covid-19.htm