I met Debra Waller, candidate for Ward 5 City Council for the first time yesterday at Upper Falls Village Day.
Her pitch and her flyer (below) were totally focused on parking regulations in proposed new zoning regulations – “Vote Debra Waller for Ward 5 City Councilor to Keep Your PARKING”.
This is the first I’ve heard about any hubbub about parking regulations so I was interested to hear about it. We talked for 5 or 10 minutes and she was kind enough to give me a printout of the draft regulations she was taking about. I’m not a lawyer so I wouldn’t necessarily trust my reading of those regulations but it all looked pretty un-controversial to this layman’s eyes. The regs would indeed tighten up some zoning details of residential parking (setbacks, max width of driveway at the exit, etc). More significantly it would drop the 2 parking space minimum per residential unit.
What seemed to be her biggest concern though didn’t fit with my reading of the proposed regulations she showed me. It looked to be pretty standard zoning approach – i.e. set regulations for new construction, and “grandfather” in pre-existing properties that don’t comply with those regulations. If you later applied for a zoning variance, at that point you could be required to bring the property in compliance with the new regulations.
Ms. Waller was adamant that under these rules the city at any time could require all property owners to comply with the new rules for their pre-existing non-conforming parking. In particular the word “discretionary” in 10.5.3 rang her alarm bells.
Are there any zoning-nerds out there who are familiar with all of this and can shed some light on whether this is a sea change or a tweak to parking rules? Paragraphs 10.5.1 and 10.5.3 (below) seemed to be the problematic clauses according to Ms Waller.
I honestly have heard no one advocate for this result in zoning reform. I mean, I’ve heard some folks want to do away with the parking ban in winter ( all for that) and some folks want to change parking requirements for new construction but nothing like this. Every smaller house and smaller lot on the North side wouldn’t meet those requirements and I can’t imagine anyone in the city leadership making this the hill they want to die on. The side lot one would be especially difficult even for some larger homes in my neighborhood. And many homes share driveways…
Maybe someone who supports the candidate can give us some more information.
The greater concern is that she appears to be a one issue candidate and the one issue isn’t a particularly high priority for most people. I’m sure parking regs could be tweaked, but…
I have no idea what this is about, but I wonder what she thinks about taking away public parking in favor of bike lanes.
I think it’s about the lack of common sense in the planning department. For instance, that weird thing in front of sweet tomatoes in west Newton.
@Frank Rich – No it’s much more concrete than that. Her message to Ward 5 voters is that the Planning Dept is trying to take away the parking on your property. That’s either true or it isn’t. As far as I can see, it isn’t.
I believe the only changes that were being proposed were for new houses being built.
Hi Everyone: This is Debra Waller. I spoke to Jerry Reilly at the NUF Village Day. Mr. Reilly did not identify himself. however. Mr. Reilly has also grossly misquoted what I told him verbally If you are interested in all of my positions, then please visit my website at WallerForNewton.org. I also have an entire website about the rezoning at NewtonRezoning.org.
I have many issues about the rezoning, but I emphasized the parking issue at NUF Village Day, because parking is so tight in NUF. I am following up with a newsletter about the proposed parking in the next few days. This newsletter will be available at the WallerForNewton.org. If you would like to get the newsletter directly, please email me at [email protected].
Everything I quoted about the proposed severe parking regulations is in Section 3.7 of last 4/26/21 draft of the proposed zoning code about Residence Districts. Many in the public and on the City Council do not know these severe parking restrictions even exist, which is another reason I am publicizing them.
Village14 is not a legitimate news source because there is no fact-checking and no attempt to get all sides of a story. And, again, Mr. Reilly did not identify himself as a “reporter” when talking to me and he also grossly misquoted what I said verbally. Mr. Reilly did email me last night to tell me that he had already published the story, which is why I am responding this morning. Village14 seems to be a highly biased opinion blog that people respond to as if it was a news source, but, again, it is not a legitimate news source.
Thanks Debra. I read your site and found the priorities that you outlined quite compelling.
In particular, when you stated,
“The proposed dimensional standards would make most single/two-family homes in Newton nonconforming, thus requiring more, not fewer, special permits. And, not surprisingly, after requiring more special permits, the proposed rezoning then also changes the Special Permit Granting Authority to Mayor-appointed boards, rather than the City Council. These proposed rezoning changes do nothing to address the need for truly affordable housing in Newton but instead focus on the reallocation of power from the City Council to the Mayor. My opponent supports the Planning Department’s proposed rezoning. I do not.”
If I lived in Ward 5 you would have my vote!
@Debra Waller – Yes, you are correct. Village14 is not a news site and I am not a reporter. I did the best I could to accurately relay our conversation though.
If I misquoted you, I apologize and please correct the record of what I got wrong.
You did tell me clearly and repeatedly that these new zoning rules, if enacted, would allow the city to take away or severely limit existing properties’ parking. As far as I can see, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Yikes. Debra could have clarified herself without attacking Jerry. That comment is not a good look for someone running for office.
I do love this from the NewtonRezoning.org web site. It kinda reminds me of my (sometimes) V14 avatar
Rick Frank said: “For instance, that weird thing in front of sweet tomatoes in west Newton.”
Can you elaborate? And could you say what is the connection to residential zoning?
For the record, “the planning department” does not have “proposed zoning” for a Councilor to support or not. They give us options to look at on the City Council and we debate them and pick and choose what we do or do not want to pursue or how to tweak it. (Or that’s how it works in theory, but often we don’t even get to the debate phase before something has to be taken off the table because of inaccurate claims floating around that we’ve already approved some terrible new thing.)
It’s also worth noting that the Planning Department staff has been incredibly responsive to and receptive to the suggestion that any zoning reforms should be tailored to the specific, unusual needs of Newton Upper Falls. I assume they would do the same for other villages with unusual needs, but I can only speak to what I’ve worked with them on and what the Newton Upper Falls Area Council has worked with them on. So, readers living there should be at ease that we have no intention of trying to inappropriately apply to Upper Falls proposed changes meant for other parts of the city with different circumstances. (And of course it probably goes without saying that the purported changes under specific discussion due to this post and the recent Village Day are, self-evidently, not accurately represented by the campaign, which is unfortunate.)
@Rick Frank, that “weird thing” in front of Sweet Tomatoes is there to prevent the recurrence of a tragic event when a car travelling at speed failed to make the left-hand turn from Chestnut onto Washington Street and ended up in the actual premises of Sweet Tomatoes. https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/sweet-tomatoes-crash-driver-brad-casler-sentencing/57040/
There’s several things about this thread that I don’t understand but one thing stands out above all others:
How can anyone be running for any office in Ward 5 and not know who Jerry Reilly is?
This is the proposed wording from https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/31073/637272128063830000
Section 3-7-1
2. No parking stall may be located within any
required setback area, with the exception that
up to 2 parking stalls may be located in a side
setback area. No parking stall may be located
between the building front elevation and the
street.
Thank you for running, Debra!
I like what I read on your website. Newton would be lucky to have you as a city councilor.
Looking forward to voting for you. 🙂
I looked at little more into the parking, and the Mayors Planning Department would appear to be at war with Cars. Section 3.7.3 limits each dwelling unit to 2 cars.
According to https://datausa.io/profile/geo/newton-ma#num_vehicles
8,500 households in Newton have 3 or more cars.
Individuals would be allowed to appeal it, interestingly enough to the Planning Board. Not sure how successful individuals would be though, as the planning board would have to find
4. That parking provided in excess of any maximum permitted does not result in the increase in impervious lot area.
Seems Debra Waller has been doing her homework!
I for one will not be voting for any candidate who thinks that the #1 problem with our city is a lack of parking. In Upper Falls area alone there are at least 3 parking lots I know of which lie empty or mostly empty all day every day because of minimum parking regulations. These empty parking lots are a visual blight and create runoff that worsens water quality and flooding.
The notion that the city will take away parking that homeowners already have is not supported by any evidence I have seen.
I don’t think that Debra Waller stated that her #1 priority will be parking, and perhaps Jerry’s use of language was misleading. Whether or not you agree with her views, she states her priorities plainly and clearly on her web page. Those assuming parking is her most important or only priority are unfairly labeling her. Given this post, I think in all fairness people should look at her web page before commenting about her as a candidate.
Simon:
3.7.1. General Standards
A. Required Accessory Parking Spaces
Vehicular and bicycle parking must be provided as specified in Sec. 3.7.3, except as follows:
1. 1- and 2-unit residential buildings are exempt from the requirements of Sec. 3.7.3.
Doesn’t the beginning section exempt one and two unit residential from these requirements?
Still not understanding the fuss. How is this different than what we already have? It seems to me to just impact three families and above. This was a quick read though so please correct if you disagree.
@Bruce C – I did look at her web site today and yes she does indeed have information there about a variety of non-parking issues.
Until Sunday I knew nothing about Debra Waller. What I wrote about was meeting her at Upper Falls Village Day. I met her at random on the street and she gave me one of the flyers (above) that only talked about parking and we talked for 5 or 10 minutes about nothing except parking … so I don’t think there was anything misleading in what I wrote about our conversation.
It appears that she made a choice to make Sunday strictly about parking in Upper Falls, which is fine. In retrospect though what bothered me is that the headline and content of the flyer and the message of some of what she said seemed to be “Upper Falls they’re coming to take your parking away”. I don’t see any evidence that’s true and it struck me as misleading and alarmist.
Considering that 1 and 2 unit residences seem exempt from the provisions she is raising the alarm about (at least when she posts above), and section 10 on non-conforming uses in my initial read will only be relevant for most folks if they go to ask for a material change to their property, I’m still struggling to see how this is a big problem for the vast majority of folks.
I am glad that Debra is raising awareness of the zoning issues, and she certainly has put a lot of time into this issue. I’m no expert, but I can’t get to her level of concern based on what I’m reading, and I think in part she is raising alarm about some non-issues in my view. At least on the parking issue, I’m sure I’d have more issues with zoning reform if I had the time to read the changes in full. Maybe next week!
Hi Everyone: I am still working on my newsletter about the parking, but wanted to clarify some basic information in this thread.
Proposed section 3.7.1 on parking DOES APPLY to single/two-family homes. This is the section that prohibits parking in YOUR OWN DRIVEWAY in front of your home. There is also no surface parking in the rear setback, which is also being increased to 30′ to 40′ from the rear property line for most homes. In addition, there is no paving for 3′ from the side property line and driveway entrances must also be narrowed to 12’.
Proposed section 3.7.3 DOES NOT APPLY to single/two-family homes. This is the section with the parking minimums and maximums – but these minimums and maximums do NOT apply to single/two-family homes. I NEVER said that 3.7.3 applied to single/two-family homes.
I will send the link to my newsletter when completed, hopefully today, and also the specifics on what Jerry omitted from our 10/3/21 conversation in his post. This omission was about the enforcement of 3.7.1 on existing parking, something that my newsletter also explains in more detail. I hope that people will take the time to read the newsletter when I post the link.
Deb reminds of why the attempted charter change to remove ward Councilors failed. We NEED Ward councilors like Deb who will put the needs of her ward FIRST…not simply mirror the other voices of the City Council and Mayor.
The level of thought and research on parking she’s spent thus far, shows the level of detail and dedication she will bring in defending the citizens of Ward 5.
On the topic of parking and Upper Falls, while many of our incumbent Councilors are falling all over themselves on Northland, I for one would love to see some sort of parking permit requirements in the surrounding neighborhoods. One or less parking spots per unit may sound rosy to virtue signaling ears, but the inevitable outcome is tenant and visitor parking spilling into Upper Falls’ street. Unlike many incumbent councilors, I can easily see Deb fighting for Ward 5 vs catering to Northland.
The proposed parking changes specify rules for new construction. They don’t retroactively outlaw Upper Falls existing parking – i.e. they don’t “prohibit parking IN YOUR OWN DRIVEWAY in front of you home”. That’s a good thing too since my only parking is in front of my home 😉
The proposed parking rules would not outlaw Upper Falls existing oddball parking arrangements any more than zoning changes from earlier eras (setbacks, min plot size, etc) didn’t outlaw Upper Falls existing oddball plot sizes and parcel layouts. In both cases, existing housing is “grandfathered” into new more stringent rules.
The only time any of this comes into play for existing houses if a grandfathered property later wants to expand parking (see 10.5.2 above) or make major changes to the property (e.g. special permit, etc)
Hi Debra:
My point about 3.7.3 was in response to Simon. I’m glad you agree. I’ll certainly read your newsletter although I’m not in your ward and can’t vote for you either way. Can you post a link to it here? Still don’t think I agree with your view but more than willing to read more about it!
Cheers, Figgy
Jerry’s comment above about this being a fear-based campaign is worth a bit more discussion. The language I’m reading in this comment thread is very concerning. When people start throwing around phrases like “Newton First” or “ward first” I get really bad feelings. We’ve heard this language before, and it never ends well.
In Simon’s comment he goes even further, linking the fear-based idea (they’re coming to take something away from you!) directly to calling the Newton Planning Department “The Mayors (SIC) Planning Department” is a clear attempt to portray her as some kind of supreme overload. The Planning Department works for the city. People’s employment there is not tied to whoever is currently in office.
This keeps coming up. Marc Laredo used this language when he sent out an email claiming that the city was trying to “eliminate single family zoning.” It was a complete distortion of what was happening at the time, yet that tone remains the dominant narrative. It’s as untrue now as it was then, but we’ve been unable to have a real discussion because the fear took hold.
This kind of language runs counter to a healthy democracy.
One of the many definitions of democracy includes, “an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights.”
Newton first, or ward first should be treated as dirty words. We have governors, congress people, senators and a president. Insinusating that it’s negative to focusing on issues here at home is unhealty, and exactly why we have such a divide in this city. Calling people NIMBY and racist simply because they do not believe in a few hundred apartments on a single lot is why RSN was created, and why folks like Simon, myself and others post here.
In a true democracy, people embrace, not discount views that they may not personally agree with.
Hi Everyone – I have published a 10/10/21 newsletter “Spotlight on the Proposed Rezoning’s Severe Parking Restrictions.” You can view this newsletter at https://wallerfornewton.org/newsletters/
Since V14 is going to be archived, I wanted to add a comment to two posts involving me personally (10/02/21: “Candidate Debra Waller and parking” and 10/14/21: “Debra Waller parking redux”).
On 10/19/18, ten months after Mayor Ruthanne Fuller took office, her Planning Department submitted a 232-page “Draft Zoning Ordinance” to the City Council’s Zoning and Planning Committee, ZAP. This was a comprehensive rezoning document, containing hundreds of huge zoning changes for Newton.
One of the biggest zoning changes was in “Section 3.7: Parking Requirements in the
Residence Districts.” This section removed all parking requirements for single and two-family residences and imposed new, and uniquely severe, restrictions on the allowable parking for single and two-family residences with the specification that “No parking stall may be located within any required setback area, with the exception that up to 2 parking stalls may be located in a side setback area. No parking stall may be located between the building front elevation and the street.” [Exact Quote.] To be clear, these new restrictions mean that no surface parking would be allowed in the front of a home, even though most Newton residents park in front of their homes. This is a severe restriction compared to the current zoning which allows parking one vehicle in the front setback, as long as that vehicle is 5’ from the street. Similarly, the new restrictions mean that no surface parking would be allowed in the rear of a home, to a depth of 30’ to 40’ from the rear lot line for most single/two-families in Newton. Note that these new front/rear/side setback restrictions are only against surface-parking. Residents can still have driveways, but the proposed new zoning means they are no longer free to park on all driveway locations. Inexplicably, the proposed new zoning also allows detached garages in rear setbacks, just no surface parking in the rear setbacks. Furthermore, a review of the zoning codes of the 60 densest Massachusetts municipalities shows that only 6 extremely dense municipalities also forbid front setback parking, while NO municipality forbids rear setback parking, making Section 3.7’s proposed parking restrictions UNIQUELY severe to Newton.
The potential impact of these proposed parking restrictions on CURRENT Newton residents is increased by another new, and uniquely severe, section of the draft document, “Section 10.5: Nonconforming Site Characteristics.” This section first defines a nonconforming site characteristic as “an improvement on a given lot such, such as parking, landscaping, paving, etc. that is not a building or structure, that was lawfully established but no longer complies with applicable standards because of the adoption or amendment of this ordinance.” This section then specifically allows Newton to REQUIRE nonconforming site characteristics, which include parking, to “be brought into partial or full conformance with the provisions of this Ordinance as a condition applied to the grant of a discretionary or administrative approval.” [Exact Quote.] Importantly, this power to REQUIRE conformance of site characteristics, including parking, does NOT appear in the other proposed code sections “Section 10.3: Nonconforming Buildings and Structures” and “Section 10.4: Nonconforming Uses.” Because of Section 10.5, I believed that parking, and other sited characteristics, were not protected as an existing nonconformity. In 2022, I obtained access to the Westlaw database, where I found NO MENTION of “nonconforming site characteristics,” however, only to nonconforming structures and uses. To me, this means that the legality of Section 10.5 is unclear, as it was to some readers of this original 2021 post. The Newton Law Department should issue a written opinion on Section 10.5, before Section 3.7 is considered again. However, even if 10.5 is removed, it will be almost impossible for any resident to prove that they had been parking in a particular place on their property before the ordinance was passed, and to prove this in perpetuity, meaning that 3.7 can still be used to restrict current resident parking.
Unfortunately, I have personally found that Newton Government should often be mistrusted, because it is so completely subservient to the wealthy interests that run Newton, especially Newton’s nontaxpaying nonprofits. It would be catastrophic for our family to lose one of our home’s two parking spaces, which would be entirely possible if Sections 3.7 and 10.5 were passed. I could easily see this new government power being used against me, or anybody else, who opposes Newton’s wealthy interests. This is one reason that I was so vehement about this parking issue.
The comprehensive rezoning draft, including sections 3.7 and 10.5, was temporarily set aside in 2021, but it will be taken up again after the Village Center Overlay District (VCOD) rezoning process is complete. When this happens, I hope residents pay closer attention to proposed rezoning restrictions that can be used AGAINST them, such as Sections 3.7 and 10.5. I also hope voters in the upcoming City Council Election pay close attention to how Councilors Downs and Crossley repeatedly misrepresent the proposed written code.
Link to 10/19/18 Comprehensive Rezoning Draft, including Sections 3.7 (pg. 54/232) and 10.5 (pg. 209/232).
http://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/18995/637241652176270000