The Newton Planning Department published a new proposed draft zoning ordinance and, if you care about the environment and want to create more housing choices in Newton, it’s a big step forward. Among other things, the new draft language allows the conversion of most homes in Newton to multiple units. It’s the opposite of a McMansion: same size, more people.
The Planning Department published a memo explaining the changes, which appends some of the new draft language and includes links to other helpful resources.
Some folks who oppose adding more housing and who oppose adding more alternatives to single-family, detached homes have mixed a few of the new concepts, perhaps to generate concern about the new proposal. For instance, here’s language in the latest newsletter from Councilor Marc Laredo (at-large, Ward 7):
Key changes to our zoning code in the Planning Department’s proposal include:
- Allowing most existing single family houses (all but bungalow or cape-style houses) throughout Newton to be converted “by right” into buildings which can have up to six residential units […].
Under the current proposal […], two-family housing would be allowed anywhere in the City, including areas that right now are zoned single family. Existing single family homes could be converted to up to six units “by-right”, which means without a vote from the City Council. […] To be clear, single family homes wouldn’t be banned, but rather a developer would be able to convert an existing home to up to 6 units, or knock down a home and build 2 units “by right.”
Fact: it will not be possible under the new draft language to convert most existing single-family homes into six-unit buildings by right.
Councilor Laredo seems to suggest that, under the proposed multi-unit conversion provision, “houses” can be “converted” into something different (“buildings”) that could have lots and lots of units. Councilor Norton seems to suggest something similar, though, to her credit, she explicitly distinguishes between conversion of an existing home and a teardown.
The actual provision is much more constrained than either councilor suggests. With some modest exceptions, multi-unit conversions would be limited to the envelope of the existing house. Basically, it’s an opportunity to use the inside of house differently, without changing the exterior. And, dimensional requirements — the minimum size of the units you create — limit the number of units per conversion.
This provision won’t allow you or your neighbor to tear down any house and create a 6-unit apartment building. (There’s a separate provision for building new 2-family homes.) For most existing homes, the maximum possible units is two, maybe three.
The provision works like this. You start with the existing home. It may be possible to add a few hundred sq. ft. of what are called “building components” — mud room, dormer, bump-out. Within that existing space (plus components), you can create multiple units, but each unit created must be at least 1200 sq. ft. (900 sq. ft. if the units meet sustainability or affordability standards). So, just to get to 3 standard units is going to require a house that is already at at least 3,200 sq. ft. (Three sustainable or affordable units probably requires at least 2,500 sq. ft. to start.)
Would it be possible to create a six-unit building from a single-family home? Sure, if the single-family home is at least 5,400 sq. ft. now and all the new units are either affordable or meet sustainability standards — 7.200 sq. ft. if they are not. But, 5,400 sq. ft. is not “most” homes, even in Newton. Not even close. The average single-family home in Newton has just under 2,500 sq. ft. of livable space.
Hope Councilors Laredo and Norton follow up with clarification.
Well said, Sean.
City Councilor, Emily Norton has also just sent around a survey as a result of the revised zoning draft and I wanted to clear up some language used in it. The survey solicits input from citizens on what they think about the proposal for “Eliminating single-family zoning”, this is a misnomer, this phrase is code for “Adding multi-family housing.
In the Newton-Highlands Area Council Meeting the other night Pam Wright backed me up, said: ”Lisa is right” when I said that people who use the phrases ”eliminating single-family housing” or ”abolishing single-family housing” are trying to scare people into believing that they are losing something. Pam went on to say that “multi-family zoning just adds opportunity, it does not take anything away”.
Meanwhile, Emily is looking for as many people to take her survey as possible, so please do – just remember:
Substitute “Adding multi-family housing” wherever you see the phrase “Eliminate single-family housing”. You can copy and paste this website to get to the survey – and share it with your friends, per Emily’s request.
https://app.involved.mobi/question/1180/?referrer_id=8347
I think that allowing existing homes to be subdivided by right with the restrictions listed above is an excellent idea, speaking as someone who lives on a street where that has been done. If my place were large enough, I’d love to be able to create a second unit to allow me to afford to retire in place or provide a separate apartment for my son if he moved back here. Allowing this is a great way to increase capacity and affordability without changing the visual character of neighborhoods.
Sean is correct on many items but I would like to clarify some areas and support that 6 units would be allowed on more lots than Sean suggests. From my reading of version 3 of the proposed 8-7 zoning (and supposedly a new one is coming out today) it’s correct, one cannot tear down a house and build a 6 unit building anywhere . The 8-7 proposed zoning ordinance allows one to tear down a house and build a 4-8 unit building by special permit in R4 or by right in N district.
The multi-unit conversion, section 3.5.2, allows one to convert an existing house into multi units up to 6 by right. One can make even more units but then it’s a special permit. The conversion is allowed in house type A, B and D and civic buildings. If the house is per Sean’s statement – 2500 sf then only 2 units would “fit”. If the units are affordable or sustainable they need to be a minimum 900 sf, otherwise 1200 sf.
Now let’s game the system which some builders will do. If the house is below the maximum footprint for each house type, my understanding one can add on to meet the new maximum footprint. On top of that one can add a side wing and rear addition for a 25% bump up in the size of the house (3.3.2 plus definitions of each house type). Multiple Unit Conversions would also allow alterations of the structure to “those necessary to comply with applicable Health, Building and Fire Codes”. Let’s say that’s another 10% so that you have 2 means of egress for each unit.
Now the math part. In R2, the biggest district in Newton, the largest house allowed is House B, a colonial or Victorian, 2.5 story 1400 sf footprint home. If one has a 2500 sf house (1000 sf footprint and 2.5 stories) per my reading of the ordinance, one can increase the footprint to 1400 sf. If you multiple that out (1400 x 2.5), it would be a 3500 sf house plus basement. With a 25% increase for side wing and rear addition (building components 3.3.2), the house can now be 4375 sf. Add the allowed alterations for “those necessary to comply with applicable Health, Building and Fire Codes” with my estimate of 10%, the maximum house size would now be 4812 sf. If the finished basement is allowed to be used for some part of the units (not clear in the ordinance but a question I have and it’s done all over Boston) – let’s add half of the basement or 700 sf. Now the building would have 5512 sf usable space for apartments. This would allow 6 affordable/sustainable units at 900 sf each by right. Of course the house would have to meet lot coverage and setbacks but special permits are allowed for an increase of lot coverage. My understanding is that the new building would require parking for 6 cars and parking area is counted in the lot coverage so this conversion would need a bigger lot. I haven’t completed the calculations to see the cut off of lot size, but will do later.
Personally, I don’t think this will happen every time, but it can happen. Instead of opening the flood gates to the whole city, I would like some variation of this in house type A, the biggest house but I’m open to suggestions.
Pam Wright
Ward 3 Councilor at Large
Councilor Wright,
Thanks for walking through the use case. You’ve done us a service by illustrating the basic mechanics.
I’m assuming that you consider that a developer “gaming” the system is a bad outcome. Can you specify which part is the bad outcome? Is it that the new provision makes it possible to make a home bigger than the existing home? Or, is it that there will be more than just 2 (or 3) units?
This is interesting. Does the existing zoning code, or any part of this draft ordinance, provide additional constraints on setbacks etc? Otherwise, could I take my 2500 sq ft home, add a 2500 sq ft addition, and create a 4-unit building, all by right?
Curious if this would actually result in fewer teardowns. Otherwise, I think I support this draft ordinance in principle.
Thanks for sharing the survey Lisa. I’ve gotten more responses to this one than any of my previous ones, including 400+ comments. For the record I’m not opposed to multi-family zoning, in fact I live in an MR zone. I also rent to a boarder in order to be able to pay my mortgage, so it’s affordable housing for my boarder, and helps me out too. I think all options should be on the table for consideration for actual affordable housing.
I would point out to Councilor Norton and others that there are many such conversions that already exist in our neighborhood, including right on my block and on hers.
If it is good enough for Newtonville, why wouldn’t it be good enough for Chestnut Hill or anywhere else?
About that online survey – it has no way to make sure you are a real person or that you actually live in Newton. It would be very simple to skew the results of an internet survey.
Even if the results were from real Newtonians, they would be skewed by who received the poll and who was interested enough in the subject to fill it out.
Online polls are notoriously unreliable and should not be used in any way as a gauge of public interest or support.
Respectfully, there are draft plans in circulation that convert an abutting property to mine from one large single family to 15 units in five separate buildings – all within the rights of this new ordinance. Adding five enormous structures and a parking lot for 30 overwhelming the adjacent neighborhood. I am all for the proposed use – adding a unit or two to an existing large structure, but once you open the floodgates you can’t close them to the monstrous development this allows.
This conversation has been going on for years. Here is a thread for over a year ago with some useful info. i would like to hear from that author of the post
https://village14.com/2019/03/06/zoning-thoughts-from-newton-corner/
Given the last 6 months, i wonder what general sentiment is.
Many folks living in apartments are now craving for more space plus private yard
Folks in suburbs are realizing how much they enjoy the space, outdoor and low density.
Work at home is starting to go mainstream, why not live in the suburbs. Even just working one day a week at home makes a huge difference.
Anecdotally, 80% of apartments dwellers we know are actively looking to move to suburbs for a single family home.
@Bugek – Allowing someone to convert a Victorian into multiple units preserves space and greenery and low building density.
Meredith,
The cost to convert(and preserve) a historic Victorian into multiple units will be outrageously high. Unless a developer can get a million+ each unit they will just tear down an existing home and put up the ‘cheapest quality’ building possible but with a nice kitchen for a quick flip
My point is, the near term market seems to shifting back towards single family homes.
If I’m reading this all correctly, it appears the “1/4 mile from transit” condition has been removed and this now applies to all of Newton. If so, kudos!
@ Matt Lai 1/4 or 1/2 mile. I agree that removing that condition is a step in the right direction.
The issue is that they are suggesting scenarios that developers aren’t going to build. Would a developer take an existing 6000 sq ft house and preserve the structure and carve it into 4-6 units? No!
West Newton where I lived on Putnam Street went from being an expensive neighborhood to a cheaper neighborhood with the addition of the Mass Pike. It went back to being an expensive neighborhood. The houses there are huge and families are small. It costs a lot of money to have kids, so to afford a house there and to have children in this economy would reduce the number of families who can live there.
Adding a rental unit would allow more middle class people to live there. It can be impractical to have such a huge house with so few people to use it. Though there could be room for abuse in the new system, some tried to start rooming houses in that area previously.
I see this as a practical step in preserving the neighborhood.