Newton officials have been working for the last few years on the first significant overhaul of the city’s zoning regulations since the 1987,
Beginning this evening, Sept 1, the Newton Free Library will host an exhibition in Room C on the second floor that will present an outline of the proposed zoning updates for the village centers for the public. For those who can’t get to the library, you can view some of the same material here. The public is invited to give their input via three open ended questions on this survey. The public is also invited to join a Zoom info session on Thursday Sept 8 at 6 PM – register here.
At this point the city has developed a general outline of the type of zoning changes in the village centers they are envisioning and the issues they intend to address. Once the public has weighed in on this general outline, the city will move forward on the nitty gritty detailed changes to the actual zoning regulations.
The Zoning Reform Group are hoping to address these issues with the proposed zoning overhaul.
Better organize the Ordinance for ease of use.
Simplify and streamline the permitting and review processes.Recognize that each village center and commercial corridor is unique.
Encourage mixed-use residential redevelopment in village centers.
Create “soft transitions” between village centers and residential neighborhoods.
Allow moderate, flexible growth on commercial corridors.
Rationalize and streamline parking regulations.
Protect neighborhood character and scale.
Create more diverse housing opportunities.
Institute a better process for managing change of religious and educational institutions.
Improve natural resource conservation and sustainability.
For more info visit the city’s zoning redesign web site here
“Protect neighborhood character and scale.” = not Waban, not Chestnut Hill, not any historic district, shove all the density North of the Pike
Chestnut Hill and Oak Hill Park are exempt. The rationale provided was that they don’t have sizable commercial centers. Seriously, isn’t the Street the commercial center in Chestnut Hill? And using that rationale, how is Thompsonville included?
Waban has in scope and has been classified as a medium size village
Hmm. I thought “neighborhood character” was a forbidden phrase.
Could we get a new thread in regards to the updating of the accessory apartment ordinance? Thx!
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/23/metro/newton-may-update-accessory-apartment-ordinance-help-spur-housing-creation/
The changes for accessory units seem very reasonable, given the extremely low adoption since the ordinance passed.
The main issue simply cost of construction in metro boston. At least 250k+ to build a 900sqft independent ADU. After foundation, electric,plumbing even a prefab is similar
The exhibit was well done and I learned a lot (Note to self: Next time follow the numbers on an exhibit rather than going counter clockwise, it will make more sense.).
I hope folks take the time to check it out.
And while you’re there, check out the new children’s room (my first time there in decades), expansive and impressive.
Who is the Zoning Reform Group?
Chestnut Hill along Route 9 headed east has more apartment buildings than anywhere in the city. It’s not close, even with the new buildings in Newtonville.
Am I wrong?
Almost all the new density in Newtonville are rental units. AKA piggy banks for developers and private equity investment firms.
Not to mention the sneaky strategy of buying land priced with zoning X and then lobbying the city for special permits to “instantly” profit from the land appreciation without ANY construction even starting
Andy, not following your point. Are you saying that because there are a lot of apts along route 9 it should be exempt or they should be in scope?
There is a myth that Chestnut Hill is exempt from development. I checked about 5 years ago and my recollection is that it was the city leader in 40B units.
On top of this, there are a lot of illegal mother-in-laws that get rented to BC students. Has anyone ever heard of the city enforcing this? Hmmm. I didn’t think so. File with leaf blower and side walk shoveling ordinance.
Jeffrey, no one said that Chestnut Hill was exempt from development. But the Planning Department most definitely is excluding Chestnut Hill And Oak Hill, from either the Village Center Zoning Redesign plans nor the plans related to MBTA Communities Zoning.
Their explanation in the survey reads “the lack of a central commercial area means that they are not necessarily the best candidates for some of the changes proposed here”.
Now I can agree that Oak Hill doesn’t really have a central commercial area, but neither does Thompsonville which they are including. And certainly, Chestnut Hill does have a central commercial area, with the Street and all of the businesses along Route 9. And since it has an MBTA stop and bus service, there is no reasonable explanation to exclude it other than politics.
Hi – is it all of Oak Hill that is exempt or just Oak Hill Park? OHP is just a part of Oak Hill. Can someone please point me to where this exemption is? Thanks!
@Pat – I’m pretty certain neither Oak Hill or Oak Hill Park will have a new Village Center Zoning plan since neither have a significant commercial village center,
@Pat and Jerry, per the survey and the library exhibit, Chestnut Hill, Oak Hill and Oak Hill Park are not in scope for the zoning redesign.
I quoted the reference above and agree that Oak Hill and Oak Hill Park don’t really have village centers. But neither does Thompsonville and yet it is in scope.
There is no believable rationale for excluding Chestnut Hill and including Thompsonville
I only had a glance at the exhibit since I could not find parking (the lot is being redone) but this is what Deb Crossley (who was there) said to me when I pointed out that Chestnut Hill was omitted: ‘it is already built out and anyone could walk from the T to the Star Market”. I had no time to argue and maybe I misunderstood.
FYI the link for the PDF version of what’s at the library is now live: https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/90302/637982246643546329
Thanks for posting this. It makes it easier to see how awful Newton will be, if the Mayor gets her way by getting the zoning passed.
I wish Newton residents worried more about losing their community and their rights. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to care.
Thanks for posting this. It makes it easier to see how much better Newton will be if the Mayor gets her way by getting the zoning passed.
I wish Newton residents worried more about stuff that matters like the quality of the schools rather than how a building will look as they drive past on their way to work. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to care.
Debra Waller says, “I wish Newton residents worried more about losing their community and their rights.”
What rights are residents losing?
As for losing community, I think community is what we make of it. And it’s hard. It takes effort. It holds parts of Newton together, but I have become to realize that tight community is hardly as pervasive or inclusive in the city as people make it out to be. There are significant generational, social, economic and cultural gaps that we’d all benefit from bridging. But bridging them is a huge challenge in today’s world, where many of us retreat behind screens during the few short gaps in our hectic lives. Many people in Newton have the means to forgo community altogether, and COVID made it worse. Conversely, the lack of community hurts the people without those means the most.
I don’t buy that trying to preserve Newton in the amber of yesterday somehow makes us immune to those problems. And it isn’t amber anyway. Doing nothing makes Newton more exclusive, less affordable, and less like the place of the past where it was still possible for a middle class family to live comfortably. Given that’s the case, I don’t believe that more exclusive communities are necessarily stronger communities.
Community are what we make of it. Owners, renters, established, newcomers, young, old, blue-, white-, or no-collar, north or south of the pike, apartment dweller or mansion owner, family or single. We all have a part to play, a piece to contribute, a bridge to build.
The shape of the boxes we live in is just one factor in building and maintaining community, and one far less important than other “people factors” that have been and could be sources of great communal strength and resiliency for Newton. I would argue that an over-emphasis and concern about it allows us an easy out, when many other factors are eroding our sense of community day by day. I truly hope we are made of stronger and more meaningful stuff than that.
The trend currently appears to be:
“Create 10000 high end unaffordable luxury rentals units at $4000 for 2Br so 1000 units of affordable units are fought over via lottery”
Real nice. Creates a nice monthly piggy bank for deveopers, private equity and hedge funds.
The rest of us get crowded schools, roads and higher property taxes
Bugek, some thoughts…
* Newton is a funny place to live if you’re allergic to people making money, or simply having money. Not sure why specific development or real estate investment is held to some radically different standard.
* 1000 > 0, unless you have a better idea.
* $4000 a month tenants are subsidizing the affordable tenants because that’s the only way we seem to reliably produce affordable units. Seems funny to call out the rents at the same time as saying there aren’t enough affordable units that they are subsidizing.
* I grew up in a family of seven in a 2000 sq. ft. house paid for by my father’s very modest salary. I get the need for affordable housing. At this point, we are building very few units for anybody, not even enough to keep up with population growth. People need to live somewhere. $4000 or whatever it is for a month for a 2BR may not be affordable for for a fair number of people, but it is within the range of many of the kind of two income families in Newton. If it weren’t, they wouldn’t rent.
* When I and my family moved here, no one means tested us to see if we were too much of a burden on the community or our schools. The door shouldn’t slam shut just because we’re inside.
Developers, private equity and hedge funds thank you for your activism.
@ Mike Halle…
“People need to live somewhere.” This is very true, but they dont have to live in Newton. Or Wellesley, or Weston, or {insert other expensive town}.
The idea that some people (not saying you) have on this site that people have a right to live in whichever town they choose is insane and bordering on communism. Why should everyone have to be able to afford Newton? That literally makes no sense. When I was younger I lived in Braintree. Eventually I made my way here through hard work, savings, etc. There is no birthright to be able to live in any town one chooses. So, if Newton doesnt build more housing, so what? They can live in Waltham, Dedham, Watertown, etc etc etc. I guarantee Dover is not changing its zoning laws from 1 acre to .25 to encourage more housing! this is similar to people wanting to eliminate single family housing in favor of multi. It has to stop.
@Frank D – I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anyone suggest that everybody should be able to live anywhere regardless of $$$.
For me, the most significant housing issue is that the city of Newton in one generation has been transformed because of housing. One generation ago there were neighborhoods of Newton with modest houses for relatively modest prices. Even then Newton prices were typically somewhat higher than many other towns.
In my neighborhood in Upper Falls there were a fair number of city workers (DPW, etc) that lived here. They could swing a small house in certain neighborhoods (e.g. Upper Falls, Nonantum) on their relatively modest salary. Today that’s no longer true.
There are plenty of folks that are 100% AOK with that – i.e. too bad, you lose. I think though that the city loses something valuable as it becomes more and more a homogeneous population of only the wealthiest.
Frank,
Sure, there’s no given right to live in Newton. But I think some of our more cherished qualities as a community, symbolically and in practice, come when children of residents have a shot at living in the same communities as their parents. For decades it has preserved intergenerational ties. It benefits older residents who are “aging in place”. It holds together neighborhoods. And it makes a statement that the our best days aren’t behind us, that opportunities lie ahead.
A development market where the number of units is basically unchanged and modest units are being replaced by larger homes owned by relatively more affluent people isn’t preserving community, opportunity, OR neighborhood character. It’s either passively or actively accelerating a shift to a community that is exclusive beyond even Newton’s historical standards. I don’t know how many people on any side of the housing and density debate want that.
OK, back to your point. Why Newton? Why not Waltham or Watertown or Dedham or even further out? The problem is that there are few opportunities for housing anywhere in the state, as this Commonwealth Magazine article explains:
https://commonwealthmagazine.org/housing/report-massachusetts-needs-another-108000-homes/
Pushing people further out has negative impacts on Newton. The jobs are primarily in the metro core. That means more miles traveled. Whether it’s climate change or too much traffic congestion, more cars traveling further through the Newton area is bad news. The T may be an almost literal dumpster fire right now, but functioning public transit serving lots of people is really one of our only ways out of this problem.
The other is “distributed density” where people work closer to home, either by work from home or by traditional offices. Newton should be great for that with its village model. Villages can also offer a win for residents: more useful, interesting stuff near your house so you can choose to travel less and quicker. All that stuff works better if there are more people closer to restaurants, convenience stores, and other quick trips.
More resilient businesses with local clientele, serving people who want quick local options in addition to the longer trips they may already have, all while avoiding the congestion that our traditional 1960’s “two cars per family” zoning laws believe we should have. Maybe some of those people and businesses are in Newton. Or some are in Watertown. Or Waltham. Closer is better, but there are people saying the same things you are in those communities as well.
It’s kind of up to all of us to figure out what we really want to preserve about Newton and surrounding communities, meaning their real strengths and not just their buildings.
Jerry – putting housing density to the side for a moment, kindly suggest you walk by an elementary school drop off one morning if you think Newton is homogeneous these days.
@Adam B – I think we’re talking about different things. I wasn’t referring to ethnic or racial homogeneity. I said “homogeneous population of only the wealthiest” – i.e. uniformly wealthier people.
@Jerry – you are saying Newton is becoming wealthier. OK, so what is your point? Couple things to consider.
A) you cannot control supply and demand. If richer and richer people want to live here and drive up cost, how can zoning reform stop that? Instead of rich people buying 3.5 million dollar single family homes, you will attract a different subset of rich people who want 2 million dollar townhomes. Zoning reform will not result in affordable housing, simply less expensive smaller units. The per sq/foot cost isnt going to decline because people wish it so.
B) So what? I think it is wonderful that my largest asset, my house, has skyrocketed. Why is that bad?? Im not greedy and I care about humanity, but I want to make sure my family is secure.
C) @Mike – why should my kids “get to” live in Newton simply because their parents lived there? If my kids have different jobs at different income levels, then perhaps they can or cannot afford newton. That is reality. Higher salary, better town. Its pretty simple.
We as a society need to realize that living in Natick isnt bad. At one point there were no cities in the middle. Now there are vibrant, large population centers in the middle of the country, due to the cost of living being lower and people choosing to move. This is not a new trend, is normal, and in most ways is very healthy. Especially now with hybrid work, less reliance on cities, etc…people have a more viable choice to “work” in Boston but live in Charlton, especially if they only have to go to Boston 1-2 days a week. The world is changing.
By pushing “rich people” out of Newton through zoning reform, our schools will get worse, our roads will get worse, our senior center wouldnt have funding, etc etc. Taxes are based on property value and income. We want the highest property values and highest income levels possible to have the highest tax base so we can then provide top notch services for our community. Mark my words, transitioning to Somerville would be horrible in every way. And if you disagree, there are over 150 units for sale in Somervile right now for you to consider.
@Frank D – LOL! This is definitely the first I’ve heard about “pushing rich people out of Newton”
@Jerry – not suggesting that is something directly mentioned…just cautioning that the elimination of single family zoning and the encouragement of smaller 1 and 2 bedroom condos will push wealthier families out of Newton.
Or families in general. I wouldnt live in Newton if I couldnt have a single family home with a small yard.
@Frank D – Just to be clear, eliminating single family zoning in an area doesn’t mean eliminating single family houses in that area. It just means that property owners have an option of building either single family or multi-family in the future. But yes, over time it would likely slowly decrease the fraction of single family houses in that area.
For example, I live in an area of Upper Falls that has long since been zoned for multi-family housing. That said, even after many years of multi-family zoning there’s no shortage of single family houses in the neighborhood
Frank,
Addressing a few of your points.
“you cannot control supply and demand”. You can’t control demand, but changing zoning can certainly change supply, incrementally at least.
“Zoning reform will not result in affordable housing, simply less expensive smaller units.” That’s why I personally don’t think of “affordable” as some binary thing. Just because Newton priced homes will remain out of reach of many working class people doesn’t mean we throw up our hands and say we can’t build more units because it will destroy Newton.
“I think it is wonderful that my largest asset, my house, has skyrocketed. Why is that bad?” It isn’t bad. Houses are investments for owners, and a community with falling home values is a liability for property owning residents. However, that doesn’t mean that municipal housing policy should be designed to maximize individual real estate profits. There are other factors at play as well. We are so far from house prices falling in Newton that I see that as a non-issue. If prices fall, it’s a bubble, not Newton zoning policy.
“We as a society need to realize that living in Natick isnt bad.” Natick isn’t bad. Except there are no houses there either to deal with a growing residential and workforce population. See:
https://www.mass.gov/doc/natick-plan/download#page=23
Ownership vacancy rate is 0.4%, only 4% of the housing stock is from 2010 or later (and a fair amount of those, I bet, are teardowns not new net housing). The other problem with Natick is that Natick’s Boston-bound traffic cuts through Newton. Pushing people out from the core doesn’t help us as much as it would seem.
“Taxes are based on property value and income. We want the highest property values and highest income levels possible to have the highest tax base so we can then provide top notch services for our community.”
Although understandable to say this, property taxes don’t really work that way. The city’s overall tax levy is limited in growth by Proposition 2.5 to 2.5% increase per year without override. Residential property value is used to divide up that levy across households. While a homeowner’s taxes will go up if their property value increases relative to other homes in Newton, across-the-board increases in property value have no impact on the city’s total income from taxes.
Newton is getting close to 40B limits.. is this a final push for the council to give developers free reign over Newton once the 40B threat is eliminated?
Jerry – I understood your point, and I don’t disagree that a city with nothing but multi-millionaires loses some flavor. But a corollary to Don’t judge a book by its cover is Don’t judge someone’s tax returns by their Zillow.
The teardown movement hasn’t lost much momentum even in the face of the Pandemic. Today an empty, fenced-off modest colonial up the block from me came tumbling down. Behind the house stood two tree stumps, soon to be pulled up so that the contractor can expand the footprint of the McMansion about to rise on the property.
As Jerry points out, city employees and working-class people still living in Newton must have moved in quite a while ago. Some retirees like me love the Garden City and intend to stick around. Others will sell their increasingly valuable homes and use the capital to move to places whose real estate is far less expensive. I can’t imagine that anything in the elaborate zoning plans addresses these shifts. Newton will become home almost exclusively for the wealthy and privileged save for the limited supply of set-asides in large developments. So it goes.
The funny thing is, with the thousands of new LUXURY rental units the average rental price has likely spiked crazy in the area.
Ie. Its making rentals in general much less affordable for EVERYONE.
As a landlord, if I see 2Br renting for $4000 in trio then i’m going to renovate and try for $3000 – $3200 (from $2500 unrenovated)
Unintended consequences…
Looking at the past as a justification for affordability doesn’t work, because:
– 25 years ago, to get a very high income to had to be either Doctor, Lawyer or graduate from Ivy league.
– Now with tech and biotech, an engineering degree from any ‘decent’ college now gets you a 6 figure starting salary
– Throw in stock options and now you have a surplus of young, affluent workers compared to 25 years ago.
2 tech income gets you at least 300k income in your early 30’s. At the classic 3x income rule that is 900k which can get you a tolerable starter house in Newton.
For families that value safety and good schools, Newton is possible to these people. Metro Boston job market has created tremendous wealth and if you want to go back to the “good old days” then wish for prolonged recession
If the Boston had a decent fast commuter rail, everyone wouldn’t try to all cram into the inner suburbs.
I wanted to live in Brookline but settled for what I could afford. No different to the person who cannot afford Newton and now has to look into Natick.
There is a home for every budget. I don’t complain that I can’t afford Beacon Hill and force that town to build more units for ME.
There is not a home for every budget. There’s a huge and basic lack of homes in the state and across the country. Location isn’t fungible. And that’s not even just “affordable” homes. That’s just homes.
there are over 500 homes within 50miles of Boston listed for 300k to 500k. There is a house for every budget, else they would have been snapped up immediately.
There is certainly not a house for every budget in a safe,good school and close to boston location. But last time I checked, that is not a god given right.
listings:
https://www.redfin.com/city/11619/MA/Newton/filter/property-type=house+townhouse,min-price=300k,max-price=500k,viewport=42.66365:41.97521:-70.56755:-71.85982,no-outline
@Mike – This statement is incorrect
Although understandable to say this, property taxes don’t really work that way. The city’s overall tax levy is limited in growth by Proposition 2.5 to 2.5% increase per year without override. Residential property value is used to divide up that levy across households. While a homeowner’s taxes will go up if their property value increases relative to other homes in Newton, across-the-board increases in property value have no impact on the city’s total income from taxes.
If that was the case then everyone’s taxes would go down as new construction adds more units to the tax rolls.
I believe that as the city eagerly welcomes new McMansions, that actually increases the cities total revenues adding another incentive for bureaucrats to work with developers.
Jackson joe, I believe my statements are correct. This FAQ on assessments and taxes may be helpful. See points 15 and 24.
https://www.newtonma.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=8
“If that was the case then everyone’s taxes would go down as new construction adds more units to the tax rolls.”
That doesn’t happen because Prop 2.5 includes a “new growth” factor that allows a municipality’s tax levy ceiling to increase when new growth in assessed value is added to the tax rolls due to new construction and a few other factors. See these helpful videos for more information (they helped me!):
https://www.mass.gov/service-details/proposition-2-12-and-tax-rate-process
@Mike You are wrong. Those examples leave out the new revenues created from new construction and your quotes have no mention of that. Those passages only refer to increased valuations on existing unaltered properties
Jackson Joe, the passage I was responding to is this one by Frank: “Taxes are based on property value and income. We want the highest property values and highest income levels possible to have the highest tax base so we can then provide top notch services for our community.”
My points, and the Newton tax FAQ I referred to, address exactly this common misunderstanding. Higher property values and high income levels do not by themselves increase the tax base or provide extra revenue for “top notch services”. If assessments go up (without things like new additions or other value add improvements), all that happens is that the tax rate per thousand dollars goes down, assuming the city budget remains constant (and it is capped to a 2.5% per year increase).
New development can increase the levy ceiling under “new growth”, but Frank isn’t here (correct me if I’m wrong) advocating for new development.
Status quo is not an option. But neither are behemoth developments (ie Northlands and McMansions) that do little more than pad the pockets of developers, investors and hedge funds.
I watched the ADU portion of the recorded Zoning Committee meeting last night and it appears to be a very reasonable compromise. So too would zoning that would allow more multi-family lots; more units by capping living space sq ft,
to create housing stock that people can realistically afford to buy.
Hope our City leaders resist the temptation to swing for the fences. Lasting change often come at a metered pace. Remember, the turtle won the race, not the hare.
These discussions of zoning and dvelopment always devolve into conflicting visions of what we want Newton to be. Some residents are pure, wishing the system to evolve as it will with minimum intervention by city government. “Let the market do its thing” might be their cry. Others like me would like both to preserve mixed incomes in town and to promote the presence of a more diverse population, ethnically and racially. Our critics view this position as pie-in-the-sky naive and downright impossible. Others call it social engineering doomed to fail.
An influential group promotes the emergence of large developments not only as a means to generate more income for the city but also as a way to contribute to the solution of the housing crisis in greater Boston. Though most of the units in these developments will be pricey, the “affordable” set-asides provide some political cover for the developers carrying this torch. Opponents of development want to preserve the town-like quality of the “Garden City”: a supposedly quieter and less trafficky place. All these perspectives have their merits and problems, supporters and detractors.
From what I see, Newton will inevitably grow wealthier and its population larger. It remains to be seen which supposed qualities of the “old” Newton will survive these changes.