30 years ago, the city enacted zoning rules allowing Accessory Apartments – i.e. a separate apartment in an existing single family, owner occupied home. Back then the biggest opposition came from Chestnut Hill neighbors who worried that if the rules were carelessly drawn it could usher in BC student occupied housing that might become a neighborhood problem. Due to the very active involvement of Alderman Lisle Baker back then, on behalf of his Chestnut Hills constituents, a number of major changes were made to the original proposal to make it much more difficult to create Accessory Apartments. The good news: rowdy student filling Accessory Apartments never materialized in Chestnut Hill under those rules. The bad news: for the last 30 years remarkably few legal accessory apartments were created anywhere in the city, though plenty of illegal ones were.
The problem was that under those rules the only folks who could build them “by right” were people with large properties, a majority of houses that were eligible could only do it via the Special Permit process, and a large fraction of the houses in the city couldn’t do it all. i.e. “nanny flats” not “granny flats”.
For the last three, maybe four years, the City Council has been working on overhauling and loosening those rules. Once again, on the City Council, Lisle Baker on behalf of his constituents, has been the most vociferous opponent of loosening those rules.
In November the Zoning and Planning Committee held a public meeting in which a sizable number of speakers gave very personal testimony of why an accessory apartment was extremely important to them (everything from elderly parents, disabled children, needing income to stay in their home, to elderly citizens who wanted someone in the house to feel safe). Also at that meeting were some folks questioning details of the proposed rules as well as a few Newton Village Alliance folks who were against the entire proposal.
In November I understood that the Zoning & Planning Committee was about to vote it out of committee and the full board would be voting on it soon. Next some complication happened that reset the clock, rewound the process, and this week it was back all over again for another public meeting with the Zoning & Planning Committee. Someone more familiar than me with the rules of the council can probably explain that.
This past Monday they held a well attended meeting. Once again there were a number of proponents, once again many with personal stories and a number of Newton Village Alliance members (and others) in opposition. The gist of the proposed new rules are that most homes would be able to create an Accessory Apartment within their existing home”by right” and in some cases would require a Special Permit. The other half of the rules covered creating an accessory apartment in a new structure on the property. This was definitely the more controversial aspect of the new rules.
A very notable, and very heartening thing occurred. Newton Village Alliance folks got up and clearly said they supported allowing Accessory Apartments by right but strongly objected to the rules allowing separate structures “by right”. It really struck me as a milestone, in that the NVA up to now has nearly always been unalterably opposed to any new housing, in any form. To hear the NVA say they are FOR something rather than just AGAINST was a breath of fresh air. As a result, I paid a lot more attention to the specifics of the rule they were adamantly against (separate structure).
After the public comment section of the meeting, Councilor Baker then proposed a series of amendments. All of the amendments involved tightening things up and making it more difficult to create Accessory Apartments. Some of the amendments were minor tweaking, one of them dealt with the issue the NVA folks had strenuously objected to (allowing separate structures) but one rather benign sounding amendment about requiring parking would have the effect of nearly gutting the entire proposal and introducing all the same problems of the 30 year old rules.
In a nut shell, here’s the problem. There are sections of the city that were mostly built before there were zoning laws. I live in one – Upper Falls. Nonantum is another and there other areas all around the city. In these neighborhoods large numbers of existing houses have never met the current zoning rules for parking, because large fractions of the neighborhood were “grandfathered in” to zoning. This benign sounding “parking” amendment would in effect ban Accessory Apartments in most of those neighborhoods and make sections of the city second class citizens under the zoning rules. This despite the fact that no more people can live on the property if you add an Accessory Apartment.
This was the problem with the 30 year old rules. This is why we have a large number of illegal, uninspected accessory apartments in those neighborhoods now, and this is exactly one of the major issues that the new rules are intended to address. This amendment would once more change the new rules from “granny flats” back to “nanny flats”.
The new rules already address the Chestnut Hill’centric issue of unruly student housing since the owner must live on site. It’s absolutely unreasonable to once again allow those real, but minor, and readily addressable concerns in Chestnut Hill, to trump the incredible value of Accessory Apartments to those who need them elsewhere all over the city.
I have given up with “hoping” this to pass, I’ll believe it when I see it…
Too many NIMBYs want to restrict what a private land owner can do on their own property…
Thank you, Jerry. I have been working on this issue since before I got on the Board of Aldermen, back in 2003, and was able to push through a number of iterative changes over the years. But broader changes always remained elusive. Expanding eligibility to create accessory apartments citywide (and not just to owners of large lots) would allow many more homeowners to stay in their homes and provide housing opportunities that are more naturally affordable (and not just for nannies or grannies). It is also an integral part of the Mayor’s housing strategy.
You are absolutely correct that the parking requirement will thwart homeowners in neighborhoods like yours, in Upper Falls, Nonantum, Newton Corner, and other areas where lots are small and offstreet parking is limited. As you note, many “undocumented” accessory apartments exist now in those areas of the city, and homeowners and their tenants manage without the need for additional parking. Significantly, the proposed ordinance still requires that dwellings with accessory apartments be owner occupied and that on-street overnight parking is banned throughout the city in winter. So I am concerned that the parking requirement, which can be onerous where little or no off-street parking is available, would deter homeowners from creating legal accessory apartments.
Fortunately, many prospective tenants use public transportation, Zipcars, Uber, Lyft, bicycles, or their feet as alternatives to owning a car. And we should encourage that anyway to reduce traffic and parking woes in our community. On March 27, Zoning and Planning will meet to vote, again, whether to approve the proposed accessory apartment ordinance and send it to the floor of the City Council for a long-delayed vote.
Thank you to everyone who came out for these meetings. This is the closest we have ever gotten, and I am confident we will get the job done this time.
Jerry,
Could you outline what the proposed restriction on the ‘new’ separate structure are?
I could not find the exact details on:
http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/aldermen/committees/zoning/2017.asp
@bugek – Under the currently proposed new rules they would be allowed by right, though they would have to be further away from the property line than other structures you can now build on your property (garage, utility building, etc). Under Councilor Baker’s amendment they would all need a Special Permit.
In order to understand better the dynamics, we have ‘Blue Newton’ which is composed of primarily blue-collar working class citizenry. Blue collars, as Jerry so aptly noted, are found more in certain wards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8. Blue Newton is the hard working class which will turn out in numbers when threatened, as we saw with leaf blowerism. Pre-existing non conforming (deemed illegal but not unlawful) resident units were a natural way of family life; the essence of family root structure transitioning from one generation to another.
White collar property stability was threatened in the 1970-80’s by the proliferation, esp. ward 7, by the cramming of students into BC off campus housing. Leon & Shirley Jaffe were notable property owners at the time, daring to challenge the BOA in its’ constrictive prescriptive zoning ordinances.
These decades of socio-economic legislative unrest served to further divide class amiability; to the point today where an ingrained class cynicism prevails.
Accessory apartment configuration is an attempt to create performance standards of residency, beyond health & safety, into the realm of government intrusion incumbent with a prescribed closed society.
The ‘Hall’ composes ordinances which ‘Blue Newton’ is forced to accept, interpreting, and exploring the loopholes which are modified to best serve their parochial residency requirements. The proof is there, the numbers don’t lie, modifications to a failed program continues. The Hall prescribes to further an ill conceived concept that citizens will flock to, permitted under false assumptions. Amnesty to enroll in a conceptualization inherently flawed (on purpose?) And this goes on as ‘Blue Newton’ continues to provide needed city services from the trenches.
Executive leadership to this point has not recognized the dynamics.
I’d like to answer some of Jerry’s observations with some of my own. First of all, I am not a member of any group, but a stand-alone voice advocating for awakening residents to change where it may affect their lives.
I stood up at the Zoning and Planning Committee’s Public Hearing in favor of accessory apartments within the walls of a single family or 2 family residence and would support removing the parking restriction that unevenly impacts closely developed parts of the City. I think the on-street parking ban in winter carefully addresses this issue up front.
The City Council must separate the issue of Accessory Apartments into two areas for their consideration. The requirements for internal accessory apartments being proposed can satisfy the economic needs of the aging Newton population who have cried out for reform. The requirement that an owner must have lived at the property for a certain number of years before an accessory apartment is allowed reduces the chance of a developer buying a property, demolishing it and replacing it with a new house already equipped with an accessory apartment (That circumstance certainly doesn’t help our present Newton Seniors who are crying out for help to stay in their present homes.)
Accessory Buildings are another matter and must be considered separately from Accessory Apartments. The right to purchase a home in any neighborhood should include a sense of stability in the neighborhood. Houses (even though small, with 750 square foot footprints, rising to several stories) being built in neighbors’ backyards should be allowed if, and only if, the abutters do not visualize any harm to their enjoyment of their property. That is, they should be notified of what is about to happen before it happens. That means Special Permitting. Otherwise neighbors will be surprised when the enjoyment of their own properties may be threatened. They are brought to the table and given a voice in the process that may bring to light negative impacts not forseen, for example, on the placement of a proposed building. The Special Permitting process serves all of us well for Accessory Buildings.
I believe, however, that Accessory Apartments can and should be regulated and allowed by right.
Now let me address what I believe will happen with regard to Accessory Apartments that now exist and are illegal… Nothing! Why? Because the safety regulations are expensive and most apartments don’t rise to the level of regulation required to become legal. The greatest impediment is that there are very often not two external means of egress and meeting this requirement is extremely expensive.
I would also ask the City Council to consider that external staircases might become the new manner to attempt to meet safety codes and they would need to be very carefully regulated to minimize negative impact.
By the way: I have heard, as broad estimates, the figures $30,000 to create a conforming internal Accessory Apartment and $130,000 to create a detached Accessory Building, so our disadvantaged Seniors will surely be more likely to want an internal reconfiguration.
@Sally – I think the issue of external accessory apartments should be separated into those requiring new building versus using an existing structure. I don’t see any reason that turning an old carriage house/detached garage into an accessory apartment should be seen as infringing on neighbors.
@Sallee. Somebody from the West Newton local historic district study group has told me of a study which suggests strongly that accessory apartments attached to existing homes work particularly well in local historic districts (LHD) because of their stability and clear rules. Nothing about those that aren’t attached. I’ll share it when I get it.
@mgwa: Historic carriage houses should definitely be given a strong argument for preservation through occupancy. However, remember that some are very near lot lines and expanding them upward to create an apartment could invade the privacy and quietude of a nearby neighbor whose bedroom window is near the building. I’m not saying “no accessory buildings,” I am saying think about the ramifications.
New builds of accessory buildings should be vigorously debated by our 24 City Councilors before being allowed by right as the ZAP proposal suggests, eliminating the Special Permit that protects and ensures the abutters’ notice of such builds and eliminating any insights they might bring to the process.
I still think (as I said at ZAP the other night) that Accessory Apartments and Accessory Buildings are apples and oranges and shouldn’t be in the same proposed change.
Sallee, you do know that homeowners can presently build accessory structures with living space in them, such as a guest house, by right? And that those structures can be within as little as 5 feet of the property line? And that such structures are limited to a 700 square foot footprint and 1-1/2 stories, without a special permit? And that the city does not receive a whole lot of complaints about any of them?
I do recognize that an accessory apartment is a little different from a guest house, since it is occupied all the time, which is why the proposed ordinance requires that they be set back on the lot as far as the main house must be. As with any other accessory structure, the footprint of detached structures containing accessory apartments is limited to 700 square feet and the height is limited to 1-1/2 stories. And the accessory apartment cannot be larger than 40% of the size of the main dwelling unit. So, if the main house were 2000 square feet, the accessory apartment could be no larger than 800 square feet on 1-1/2 floors with a footprint no larger than what is allowed by right for any accessory structure, only farther from the lot line so as to protect privacy of the occupants and neighbors.