NewtonRezoning.org is nongovernmental website that supplies reference links, data analysis, and fact-checking of the current Newton government rezoning process that began in 2018. NewtonRezoning.org does not supply legal advice.
The NewtonRezoning.org link was sent to a few people for review on 12/9/20 and 12/10/20, but it’s official public notification and release date is today, 12/13/20. If you inadvertently visited the site between 12/9/20 and 12/12/20, we hope that you will revisit the site now. Also please tell others about NewtonRezoning.org.
The website is currently divided into six chapters from Chapter 1: Newton Rezoning and Newton’s Current Land Use and Taxation to Chapter 6: Newton Rezoning and Actions You Can Take. The third chapter, Newton Rezoning and YOUR Home, contains an interactive calculator that allows users to select a street and to view the current and proposed zoning districts, proposed house types, Sasaki, Inc. measured side/rear setbacks, and nonconformity status of most (non-condo) single-family and two-family homes on the street. This interactive calculator also shows the problematic nature of some of the Sasaki measured footprint and setback data – where Sasaki was the Pattern-Book consultant for Newton. NewtonRezoning.Org is also currently working on additional chapters.
While people are probably most interested in their own homes, it is hoped that users will go through the chapters in order and not just skip to Chapter 3 to see how their own home is affected. An effort was made to show how the proposed new rezoning will affect all aspects of Newton, especially the change in the balance of power from the City Council to the Mayor that would occur if the proposed zoning were passed.
NewtonRezoning.org is fairly critical of the Newton Rezoning process as practiced by the Mayor’s Planning staff and the Zoning and Planning Committee leadership, primarily because the process is so unstructured and insular to resident opinion, professional opinion, and, most importantly, City Councilor opinion. As a reminder, zoning ordinances are legislation, not designs, and the Newton City Charter specifically states on its very first page that “The executive branch shall never exercise any legislative power, and the legislative branch shall never exercise any executive power.” This separation of powers should be respected.
Furthermore, there is much in the Newton’s current code that can be adjusted to achieve the stated goals of the rezoning process. If Newton residents would like Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR) adjusted downwards to decrease monster houses and teardowns, then they should ask for that. Or if Newton residents would like smaller new lot sizes, allowing for the creation of more and smaller lots than the post-1953 lot creation minimums allow, then they should ask for these post-1953 minimums to be adjusted downwards. Or if Newton residents would like more multi-unit conversions of single and two-family homes, they should know that the current zoning ordinance allows that NOW, with a Special Permit, in sections 3.1.11 and 3.2.13, under lot size constraints, where these lot size constraints could also be adjusted downwards. There is no need to throw out a set of laws, and a system of government, that has created a city where everyone likes to live, when adjusting the current zoning ordinance can make the city more equitable in a transparent and rational manner.
All of the data in NewtonRezoning.org comes from publicly funded government sources and was obtained from government websites or from public record requests. The data entry and data presentations have been checked multiple times, but if any errors are identified, these will be fixed, and the fix listed in the Release Documentation. If data comes from government links, those government links are provided by NewtonRezoning.org, whenever possible, so that users can download the data themselves. Please visit NewtonRezoning.org when you can and use its contact form to send questions, suggestions for future content, and to report any errors.
Just to be clear, this website is your personal work, right, not the work of some other organization?
Thanks for your efforts. Much to look at here, but I’m skeptical after reading the first few lines of the site, starting with 94% of all properties being non-conforming, since the new zoning regulations as promoted had exactly the opposite goal. If that’s true, that would seem to be a very big disconnect with what the planning department has been openly promoting.
By making more lots conforming, special permits should be less necessary. I do think there’s something to be said for streamlining the special permitting process and taking it out of the political realm.
Also, as far as driveway setbacks go, when remodeling 10 years ago, I was told that designs with parking in the setback are not allowed by-right, so there’s some disconnect there, too.
“Private golf courses would be rezoned from residential to recreational”
Must be some golfers on the rezoning committee! Or more likely, golfers make healthy campaign contributions!
New Jersey is the Garden State, Newton is the Garden City; really, we’ve got to stop the 1984 DoubleSpeak here. Newton is the golfing city, apparently. At least golf uses grass fields, supports coyotes, geese, and other wildlife. It’s our last open space.
Of course 90 percent ( or at least a high percentage) of housing will be in violation; changing rules mid game will do this.
Rick, how much goes into maintaining these golf courses? Water? Lawn care chemicals? Lawn mowing? Let’s not pretend they’re good for the environment just because some Canada geese hang out there.
Right. And then there’s land use. We’re in a housing crisis, yet we have several golf courses, in some cases surrounding our best mass transit. That’s exactly where we should have housing, not huge environmentally-unfriendly green lawns. Again, perhaps the zoning change is to reflect reality and bring more properties into compliance. Eliminating golf courses may be a project for another day?
Reading the newtonrezoning website a bit more last night I couldn’t help but feel it was an attack on the motives and intentions of public officials rather than an objective view of the data. It would be helpful to start with the goals of the city’s plan and work from there. The planning department was extremely transparent and held public workshops with clear documentation on their plans. Not sure how many attended. I confess, 2020 has been a bit distracting and I could use a refresher before restarting this conversation. newtonrezoning.org does not fill that need.
I have to admit–notwithstanding a masters degree in city planning–that I find the website cited here and this conversation, and so many other conversations about the proposed zoning changes–to be really opaque. I end up confused about what is being done for land-use purposes and what is being done to pursue public policy objectives. And in both cases, I fear a lack of rigorous analysis in support of the changes–even where I might agree with them.
Perhaps that’s my fault in not diving in deeply enough. Can someone point us to a straightforward summary of the major provisions that are being proposed, along with an accompanying rationale for them?
very nice website. Unfortunately its almost impossible for the average resident to decipher it. It seems like an analysis you would present in a court-case or lawsuit.
I think residents just want to type in their address then see the ‘worst’ case scenario. How many more neighbors to expect, how many more kids in schools and how their property taxes might skyrocket
“I think residents just want to type in their address then see the ‘worst’ case scenario. How many more neighbors to expect, how many more kids in schools and how their property taxes might skyrocket”
My god that’s negative. It’s no wonder that people keep running for office on platforms based on fear. How about something like: residents want to click on their address and see how their walkability score may increase, how many new opportunities they’ll have to meet new people and make new friends, or how the schools will become far more diverse and interesting, creating a far better learning environment for everyone.
The City Council just blinked big time. They have no interest in taking on the monied interests of “suburban” Newton. City’s Planning Department was thrown under the bus
At last night’s ZAP meeting Lisle Baker clearly pointed out the weaknesses of the zoning reform goals. He asked that the new ordinance package pushed by the administration be halted or delayed for now. Chairman Crossley basically ignored his request. Myself, I would support needed amendments to the existing zoning regulations. I do not support the wholesale elimination of the existing regulations.
Hi Everyone –
The work on the site is my own, not the work of a group, and I was uncompensated.
The 94% nonconformity rate is completely true. Although the Planning Department has heavily promoted the proposed new ordinance as decreasing nonconformity, the data shows that the exact opposite is true and nonconformity increases dramatically under the proposed new ordinance. The Planning Department and ZAP leadership then pulled an Animal-Farm-Style reversal by saying than nonconformity is not important at all.
I’m sorry that my site was so complicated, but there would be less need for the site if the Planning Department just released clean, complete, and unambiguous copies of the proposed new ordinance to the public. That’s what Somerville did in their rezoning process.
A simple summary of the Newton rezoning is:
The Mayor’s staff has written a proposed zoning code that A) intentionally makes almost all single and two-family residences non-conforming, B) gives the ISD Commissioner power to make subjective lot-specific House Type assignments in violation of M.G.L. 40A, §4 (Uniform Districts), C) moves the Special Permit Granting Authority (SPGA) from the City Council to the Mayor’s appointees for single and two-family residences. These things have nothing to do with affordability and everything to do with concentration of power under the Mayor.
Last night, the Zoning and Planning Committee pulled back on A) voting on the Rezoning this year, B) by right conversions up to six units on most house types, C) by right two-families citywide. But the high nonconformity, increased ISD Commissioner power, and SPGA change are all still in the proposed new ordinance.
Chuck,
Those who want more density, more neighbors, more noise and larger class sizes can choose (if they want to) to move to such a location
Those who simply moved to newton to have more space and privacy should have density forced upon them?
Supporters of density should first add an accessory unit to their home(or move into a condo/townhouse) AND then tell other residents how they should live their lives.. otherwise, they are just hypocrites
With such a high degree of non-conforming; and
With the present degree of erroneous descriptive data on the property record cards that Inspectional Services Department provides to the Assessors, and on which tax assessments rely; and
With a set of day-to-day operating procedures and methods that are essentially unchanged in half a century; and
With (to Paul Levy’s point) the absence of analyses examining both alternatives and anticipated consequences; therefore
We the residents and taxpayers of Newton should call for the Mayor to replace the Commissioner of Inspectional Services and the Director of Planning so to allow a new pair of competent professionals opportunity to shape a Zoning regimen that can carry the City’s interests through the coming century.
I really don’t believe the middle of a historic pandemic is the time to be making these sorts of consequential zoning changes. Consider this:
(1) Most people have a lot going on now – and little time to focus on the intricacies of zoning. I’m personally still confused about what exactly is being proposed. And sorry, I don’t have 2 hours in the middle of the day to login to a zoning zoom meeting.
(2) I’d like to go to an in-person town hall meeting one evening and have a conversation face-to-face. A good old fashioned give and take. Not possible now.
(3) We have an election in a few months – let candidates run on contrasting positions, and then let the voters decide.This is not the sort of thing you decide in the last few months of a legislative body’s time in office.
(4) I am laser focused on the impact on schools. Chuck’s take on what will happen to schools is an optimistic and best-case scenario. I’ve been incredibly underwhelmed by NPS and the SC’s management abilities these past 9 months – they have under performed nearly every peer district. So now we’re asking these same folks to prepare for more potential students on top of everything else?
How about we wait until the schools re-open… and the students get caught up after a 1+ years of partial or full remote learning…and then have an accurate gauge of what the steady-state number of students in the schools are (enrollment dropped a lot this year, and may drop again next year..or it may not..)… and then make these sorts of long-lasting zoning decisions
Again, it doesn’t matter what residents think. Many on the council have already made up their minds(progressive agenda).
This will pass and the only way out will be an “overturn” by the next council
In my opinion, they should have stuck to the original plan of having consistent zoning rules without this “last minute” progressive “add on” of eliminating single family zoning…
Residents are way too occupied during the pandemic to process this huge shift in zoning.
Last night the Zoning & Planning Committee bailed on Mutli-Family throughout the city, citing mis-information.
See Vimeo Starts at https://vimeo.com/490959819#t=2h12m12s
A very interesting exchange starts https://vimeo.com/490959819#t=2h49m15s
Basically Councilor Danberg reads out the Mis-Information, and Councilor Laredo counters
Simon
Thank for the video. Just watched it and the summary is:
Multiple family by right everywhere is taken off table this term.. however, we’re still going to allow much higher density to the poor saps living “north of pike” (washington st area)
@Bugek
Completely agree. Multi-Family is easy for people to comprehend. Playing around with lot minimums, lot frontage, house types – that is not see easy for people to discern.
And let’s face it, they are only taking Multi-Family off the table for now.
The planning department kicked zoning redesign off by stating the city is 87% non conforming. That has been dropped now. When I looked a the newtonrezoning website I was shocked. I looked a my property and my neighbors and found the the setbacks measurements were incorrect, in 3 out 4 properties. It made 2 of them non conforming where in reality they are not. So no wonder the city has some many non conforming lots!
Bugek,
I fell like we’ve had this go-around before, but I’d like to reiterate that if you want more urban amenities and “Top” schools, you’re going to be priced out.
Last I checked, homes and and condos in Brookline were a third again as expensive as Newton per sq. ft. (Waltham was a third again cheaper, but only if you don’t want to live in walking distance of the city center/commuter rail stop). Somerville (v. Urban) and Lexington (similarly suburban, but with ~40% more taxes and the highest rated schools in MA) are very different towns with similar housing costs to newton … excluding taxes.
So I would have liked to live in Brookline, or Arlington within walking distance of Alewife, or Cambridge within the 1-mile lottery priority zone for certain elementary schools, but you know what? I couldn’t afford it. I can’t afford it.
I think this remains a “nobody goes there, it too crowded” issue.
I hope when the kids are grown and settled we can downsize to something within a 10 minute walk of both rapid transit and a grocery store. Probably in Boston. But that’s a long way away.
/as always, this is a purely personal statement.
//my tablet is fritz-y and it’s hard to post, so probably won’t follow up
///re an earlier post … my entire work history is public on Linked In.
Ann,
Your statement
” if you want more urban amenities and “Top” schools, you’re going to be priced out.”
Isn’t this the whole issue? Proponents of density want to add more units so we get “urban amenities ” around the city… and everyone is going to be priced out if schools remain excellent.
How is this justified in the name of “affordable housing”
Your statement is clarifying the fact:
Close to boston
+
Low crime
+
Top schools = expensive
+ urban amenities = priced out
@Mary Mary Quite Contrary
Golf courses are probably better for the environment as open spaces than if they’re covered with houses and pavement. Don’t forget the coyotes. They eat the goose eggs.
I’m not a golfer, either.