The Board of Aldermen July 9 voted to let a petitioner build a new single-family house on Crystal Lake that will exceed the allotted Floor Area Ratio for the neighborhood, Wicked Local reports.
“I spent some time talking to the aldermen of the area. I walked the area, and I know people who live in the area,” alderman Marcia Johnson said. “I think it’s too big for what sits there today and I uphold the FAR we adopted unanimously.”
And yet the board approved the petition in a 17-7. Patch has more here.
It’s rather discouraging that the B of A can’t enforce an objective standard they set themselves, and basically gave the developer an A for effort and said it’s close enough. Mitchell Fischman said:
Great. So we can look forward to more projects that don’t actually meet the standard, but manage to get close enough for government work by looking good by a subjective standard.
This is disappointing that the BOA, which only established the new FAR rules recently, could so quickly send the message that such rules matter not a whit.
During debate on this special permit application, I read from the following prepared remarks:
Notably, the Chair of the Zoning and Planning Committee, Ald. Marcia Johnson, who oversaw the FAR Working Group and chaired the committee during its lengthy deliberations over the amendments to the FAR ordinance, also voted against this special permit for the reasons stated in the TAB article. In the interest of full disclosure, I would have voted for somewhat more generous FAR limits than ZAP and the Board of Aldermen ultimately adopted. As Chairman of the Land Use Committee, however, I am obligated to ensure that the committee and the board apply the law as written, and not as I might prefer it to be.
That said, I must accept responsibility for ensuring and maintaining the integrity of the process in the future, and improving it where I can. To that end, I have docketed a discussion item regarding the types of information that should be required from petitioners applying for a special permit to exceed FAR in order to meet their burden of proof to show that the “proposed structure is consistent with and not in derogation of the size, scale and design of other structures in the neighborhood.” My hope is that it will lead to the approval of amendments to the rules for filing requirements in connection with such special permit applications that are consistent with the zoning ordinances adopted by the Board of Aldermen and will aid us in implementing those provisions.
Ridiculous. Must be nice to have friends on the BOA…
So let’s be clear. The rules do not prohibit someone from coming in for a special permit to exceed an as-of-right limit. Homeowners do it all the time – especially with the new FAR rules that have been put into place. The new rules ended up providing a fair amount of as-of-right relief they previously didn’t have because of their lot size, and a fair amount of homes – non-conforming requiring a special permit.
The Board has had a fair amount of special permit applications that have come in since the adoption of the FAR rules and I don’t recall turning any of those requests down – in fact – I’ll go through the past year’s docket tonight to check how many special permits we have approved that have exceeded the FAR. HOWEVER, this special permit was different and the difference was that it was brand new construction and not just an addition to an existing structure. This was one of the main reasons given as an argument for turning this petition down – because it could be precedent setting.
Of course, the FAR change was studied by a Task Force and of course, issues were raised about all of the potential impacts a change in the rules could have. There was never any discussion about prohibiting the ability to request a special permit to exceed the FAR rules for new construction. Therefore there was really no reason to turn this petition down unless it didn’t meet the criteria listed in Chapter 30-24(d):
30-24(d) The board of aldermen may grant a special permit when, in its judgment, the public convenience and welfare will be served, and subject to such conditions, safeguards and limitations as it may impose. The board of aldermen shall not approve any application for a special permit unless it finds, in its judgment, that the use of the site will be in harmony with the conditions, safeguards and limitations herein set forth, and that the application meets all the following criteria (except that uses accessory to activities permitted as a matter of right and which activities are necessary in connection with scientific research or scientific development or related production may be permitted provided the board of aldermen finds that the proposed accessory use does not substantially derogate from the public good):
(1) The specific site is an appropriate location for such use, structure;
(2) The use as developed and operated will not adversely affect the neighborhood;
(3) There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians;
(4) Access to the site over streets is appropriate for the type(s) and number(s) of vehicles involved;
(5) In cases involving construction of building(s) and/or structure(s) or additions to existing building(s) and/or structure(s), if those proposed building(s) and/or structure(s) or additions contain individually or in the aggregate 20,000 or more square feet in gross floor area, the site planning, building design, construction, maintenance or long-term operation of the premises will contribute significantly to the efficient use and conservation of natural resources and energy.
I have no personal or professional relationship with the petitioner. As far as I am concerned,the petitioner played by the rules that we have in place. If we want there never to be a request for a special permit to exceed the as of right limits we recently created, then we should remove that provision.
Ald. Sangiolo, two important points:
First, besides being the first petition to exceed the FAR for new construction, this is a special permit that the Planning Department specifically recommended that the Board of Aldermen deny. That hardly ever happens, and when it does, the petitioner usually withdraws their application without prejudice to refiling at a future date with a modified project or doesn’t even file for a special permit in the first place. The latter, in particular, will not show up in an analysis of special permits that have come before the board. In this case, from the very first meeting that the petitioners had with the Design Review Team, they were advised by the planning department that they should come back with a design that complied with the FAR. As you know, the petitioners easily could have done so either by eliminating the third floor or reducing the footprint of the building. They chose to go ahead with a project that exceeded FAR anyway.
Second, since the FAR was amended, this is the first time that a petitioner has come in for a special permit to exceed FAR with a proposed structure that was two to three times the size of the existing building, exceeded the median sized structures in the neighborhood by almost 50%, and exceeded the average size structure by more than one-third in size. It was also one of the few which had a fully finished third floor as well as a fully finished basement. That was why some of our colleagues and I were unable to make the required finding that this particular house was “consistent” with the size and scale of other houses in the neighborhood. Some who supported this project focused on how the design of the house mitigated its overall size and scale. But that is putting the cart before the horse; you need to be able to find that it is consistent with the size and scale of other houses in the neighborhood before you can consider whether the design mitigates the mass of the proposed structure in a way that is in keeping with the size, scale and design of neighboring houses, i.e., is not in derogation of the size, scale and design of other houses in the neighborhood.
The whole reason for the original FAR ordinance was that the city received numerous complaints that builders, designers and owners were building additions and new houses that were far larger than most of the other existing houses in the neighborhood. Originally, an exemption was allowed where less than 50% of the existing house was demolished so that owners could build modest additions which would cause their houses to exceed the FAR or their houses already exceed FAR because they had been built before it went into effect. But because of various other exemptions, as a practical matter people were building additions that, as in this case, doubled or tripled the size of the existing house and were far larger than most if not all of the other houses in the neighborhood.
One of the reasons for allowing someone to exceed FAR by special permit is when that person has a fairly small lot and the houses on similar lots surrounding it all exceed the FAR. This happens particularly in older neighborhoods where there are a number of Victorian houses with many rooms on fairly small lots. It would be unfair not to allow someone the opportunity to obtain a special permit to build a similar size house on a similar size lot just because they came along later and it would not be unfair to the neighbors, since most or all of the houses in the neighborhood are of the same size and scale. But these special permits should be granted sparingly, only when they meet all of the criteria in the ordinance, and when they are preferable to the by right alternative.
The practical effect of allowing people to build houses that exceed FAR and are larger than most of the other houses in the neighborhood, however, is that when the next person in that neighborhood comes along and wants to demolish a modest house and build a large house that exceeds FAR, the baseline for the neighborhood has gone up so it is harder to deny a special permit, unless we require that petitioners show that the proposed house is in keeping with other houses in the neighrborhood, rather than at the high end of the range. Each additional special permit is based on an ever-increasing baseline until eventually every house in the neighborhood exceeds FAR. It permanently and irreversibly changes the nature and fabric and “feel” of the neighborhood.
We are going to increasingly see these kinds of special permit applications, given the high cost of property and the limited number of undeveloped lots left in Newton. Indeed, Land Use will be considering a special permit to exceed FAR for another new house that would be, by far, the largest house in the neighborhood. There is going to be a race to the top to have the biggest house in the neighborhood every time someone comes in for a special permit to exceed FAR, and we are going to end up right back where we were before the FAR ordinance was first passed and before we repealed the 50% demo provision.
The current ordinance already gives a “bump” up to owners of properties that are smaller than 10,000 square feet, which is the minimum size required for constructing a house on a previously undeveloped lot. The FAR is calculated using a sliding scale that allows a successively greater FAR for successively smaller lots. And I disagree that we need to eliminate the special permit provision. Instead, we should apply it as written and if need be tweak the FAR to accommodate reasonably sized additions and new construction. We have FAR for a reason. We should require people to comply with FAR unless they satisfy each and every criteria for a special permit.
Forgive my double post, but I forgot the single most important point: the specific criteria for granting a special permit to exceed FAR is found in 30-15(u)(2):
“An increased FAR may be allowed by special permit if the proposed structure is consistent with and not in derogation of the size, scale and design of other structures in the neighborhood.”
Section 30-24(d) lists the general criteria for every special permit which comes before the board. But when there are also specific critiria, those specific criteria must be applied.
I think the new construction aspect is key. There should be the ability for reasonable additions, but teardowns with new construction should be held to a higher standard.
More importantly, what did the neighbors/neighborhood think?
Fignewtonville: I do not believe there were any neighbors who objected to this petition.
oops – now I’m double posting. Also – 2 of the Ward 6 Aldermen voted in favor of this petition.
Was there any discussion about what happens when this massive structure must be sold, eventually? Any forward thinking? Logically if you got a massive property paying high taxes, the city will then do whatever is necessary — including changing it to commercial, or multi-family, or multiple other uses.
(Would be nice if the Tab wrote a story with details on who applied and what building was proposed…)
Hoss- it’s a single family house that is being built.
amysangiolo — I can’t find the source but what I read was the building was three levels and 6000sf, no?
Here’s the link to the original proposal: http://www.newtonma.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=43896
Seems to me after pruning away the filigree, the issue is: should builders be allowed to take advantage of a loophole to build significantly larger houses than previously allowed regardless of the contextual architecture of the neighborhood. If you have been living in Newton, then you have seen this and you don’t need 10 pages to explain it and you should not need 10 pages or 10 months to figure out what to do about it. Other historic communities have figured out how to restrain unbridled and tasteless building to preserve the quality and value of their towns but alas, perhaps our leadership is not up to the task.
Besides Crystal Lake, next to the Waban Library is another perfect example where the builder put in 3 homes on a site that was sold to him by an owner believing it was zoned for only two. Never mind the city/engineering shenanigans that allows for this to happen which, from a certain point of view, makes me wonder if somebody is getting greased. Besides the money the owner missed out on, we are now going to see these monstrosities which have none of the detailing that graces most of the 100 year old homes surrounding them. You know, the contractor’s favorite; no shutters, no dentalwork, no beautiful windows, etc. So what do you think the effect of this will be repeated over and over?