City Council - Regular Meeting

you Amen. Thank you. Thank you.

All righty, folks, can we perhaps take our seats, please, while I put on my coat? recording in progress all right folks how are we doing out there we're looking pretty close pretty close all right so all right so tonight i think everyone is aware uh we have a bit of a uh a different agenda tonight one i hope uh we're all looking forward to i know i am uh so the order is going to be a little bit different tonight uh i intend to uh open the meeting which i'm officially doing right now uh because this is a regularly scheduled or irregularly scheduled depending on how you look at it uh meeting of the full city council and i should say that uh online we are joined by counselors krinsman irish block And I believe that's it online. Oh, I'm sorry, yes, and Vice President Kalis, thank you for that. I don't see anyone else here on my list, but I'll come back to this. Oh, and there's Councilor Roach, fantastic, thank you. Oh, and now I see Councilor Bixby. All right, this is fun, but not terribly. All right, so we're gonna get on to the next item. on to this evening. So the first thing I would like to do is invite Councillor Albright up to the podium. And I'd also like to suspend our rules or take a vote to suspend our rules to invite our dignitaries as well as our chorus inside the rail. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Fantastic. Can we get everybody inside the rail? And Susan, Councillor Albright, want to join me up here? Yeah, anywhere that makes sense for you is fine. All right, I'm handing this over to Councillor Albright for the fun portion of our discussion this evening.

Thank you, President Oliver. So we have a very special thing happening tonight. I had planned to do a commendation for Hubie Jones, who happens to be my next door neighbor, and it turned out that when Councilor Dommabed found out about it, he said, I was a member of the Boston Children's Choir, which is going to be mentioned in this commendation, and i would love to have them come and sing a couple of songs in honor of hubie jones so i think we'll start with one song from them and then we'll share in the comment reading the commendation and then we'll have a closing song from them so please go ahead and sing for us

Let our rejoicing rise high as the glistening skies. Let it resound high as the rolling sea.

Sing a song full of the great and the dark past has brought us.

Sing a song full of the hope and the present has brought us. We sing a voicing song. Let us march on till victory is won. Stand with the road we trod. Enter the chasing rod. The horn that died, that with a steady beat, that caught our weary feet, brought to the place for which our fathers swore. We stand at last. Thank you.

Victory is ours.

So before we read the commendation, we have some wonderful guests here tonight. Hubie is not here. He's having some health issues. He's right across the street. But we've talked, and he will be watching the YouTube video of this meeting. So he will get to see it. So we have here Tanya Jones, Tanya Clark Jones, who is Hubie's youngest daughter. And there were eight of them, eight children. My next door neighbor was always a busy place. We have Charlaine Morel-Smith, who is also a co-founder of the Boston Children's Choir. We have Claudia Mathis, is that right? Mathis, who is the co-chair, the current co-chair of the Boston Children's Choir. And Jessica Chen, who's the Director of Advancement. And thank you so much for coming. So this, as I said, this is for Hubert Eugene Hubie Jones on the occasion of his being awarded an honorary doctorate in humane letters from Boston University.

Whereas Huber Jones served as one of the most influential scholars and activists for the underrepresented communities in Massachusetts throughout his long career in public service, and whereas Huber Jones served as the director of the Roxbury Multiservice Center, a national model for neighborhood-based social services, and

Whereas Hubert Jones worked to investigate the exclusion of thousands of physically and mentally disabled students from attendance at Boston public schools led to the passage of the Massachusetts special education and bilingual education laws. And whereas Hubert Jones was the first African-American appointed to a deanship at Boston University and

Whereas, Hubert Jones was a pivotal founding board member of City Year, an educational nonprofit organization designed to bridge the gap in under-resourced public schools while developing the next generation of civic leaders. And whereas, Hubert Jones founded the Boston Children's Chorus, which since 2003 has served thousands of young people from the Boston area and many from Newton, based on the idea that young people making music together across ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds can be a force for social good and social justice. And...

Whereas Hubert Jones and his wife Kathy, also a member of the Newton School Committee at one point, have lived in and raised their family in Newton since 1961, now therefore be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Newton honor and congratulate Hubert Jones on the occasion of his receipt of an Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters from Boston University and wishes Hubie and his family continued good health and happiness for years to come. This resolution offered on the 10th day of August, 2026 by Councilors Albright, Lucas, Mickley, and Domabed on behalf of the entire City Council. So thank you very much. And we have a final song from the choir.

Have courage, my soul, and let us journey on.

Though the night is dark and I am far from home, Thanks be to God, the morning might appear. The storm is passing on.

Hallelujah.

Courage, my soul, and let us journey on.

The storm is passing over The storm is passing over The storm is passing over Hallelujah Alleluia. Thank you.

Thank you for joining us, Mr. Mayor. It's going to be a hard act to follow, but we'll give it a shot.

We'll give it a shot. Thank you.

All right, folks, so just as a recap, I think I've got a different list online, counselors joining us online. I see counselors, Krinsman, Block, Irish, roach kalis and now farrell and with that i believe we have a full city council is that correct fantastic so uh just a couple of uh our housekeeping items uh we are being both audio and video recorded um i've talked about the folks who are online those of you who are using uh computers or other devices from inside the chamber please make sure you're muted to avoid feedback As the clerk mentioned in his email to everyone earlier today We're going to keep we're going to keep pushing on this one but in September both of our council meetings have been shifted off of the Monday to the to the day following so we have meetings on Tuesday September the 8th as well as Tuesday September the 22nd that i think we've mentioned that eight times we'll see how many of us get that right small challenge for us there all right still louder all right i'll keep going sorry if i get too quiet i i'm trying to avoid the explosive p sound here um all right with that said let's get right into uh first call i believe we have We're not going to do Pledge Allegiance this evening because we've already had some entertainment going our way. Thank you, though. So jumping into first call, I'm going to start with land use. Councillor Kelly.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Land Use Committee report starts on your page 156. On July 21st, the Land Use Committee met. The first item, it was gonna be on second call tonight. Second item was held. Third item was approved as item number 228-26. Request to exceed FAR at 33 Aspen Ave. And that was approved seven to one. I would though also like to ask to set some public hearings.

Please proceed.

Thank you. I would like to set these all for August 25th. Item 257-26, which is a request to exceed FAR and further extend nonconforming facade ratio stories and front setback at 99 Oakdale Road. Item 258-26, which is a request to change from an existing nonconforming residential use to another to allow four residential units on e-building with the City Council determining appropriate density and dimensional controls to allow reduced maneuvering aisle and driveway width, and to allow parking within the setback at 395 Lexington Ave. And finally, also for August 25th, item 259-26, which is a request to allow a combination of retaining walls exceeding four feet in height at 83 Commonwealth Park West. Thank you.

Thank you. For zoning and planning, Councilor Baker.

Apologies, Mr. President. I think there was one more item from land use. On page 158 at the bottom of the next meeting, 226-26.

That is correct. Newell Road.

Oh, I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.

Sorry, item 226-26 on page 158. I don't think we got that into the record.

Oh, in fact, I didn't do anything on page 157. Sorry, Councillor Krinsman, which one exactly are you asking about?

Item 226-26. Okay. Right yeah, that was just you know 225 26 was help.

Yeah, sorry. I do see that it was not in my other notes Sorry, I'm requesting public hearing for 226 dash 26 requests to exceed fa are at 43 Newell Road All set Actually the way I read it I think land use approved the item I I see that. It was approved 6-0. I'm just, sorry, confused about a few other things on this page, but we're done with that part. Thank you.

Anything we need to address right now?

No, I see that they've been held in or referred for later. I just didn't see that on my notes, so sorry.

It happens. Y'all set? Yeah. All right, thank you. Councilor Baker for zoning and planning.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Zoning and Planning Committee report actually begins on page 158, but the three items to report for action tonight on first call is 193.26, the reappointment of Michael Alperin to the Newton Affordable Housing Trust, and 194.26, reappointment of Judy Weber to the Newton Affordable Housing Trust. And then finally, 244.26, the appointment of Catherine M. Ferrick as Director of Planning, And if I could just spend a minute to indicate we're very grateful to her for taking on this responsibility. There's an extensive conversation with her that is part of the zoning and planning committee report and attached to the agenda for that meeting is her resume. And I hope that members of the council have not yet had a chance to meet her, that you will have that opportunity very soon. And I want to welcome her as chair of the committee that works with her very closely to the city and hope that all of the opportunities that she has are fulfilled. And with that, I move the report.

Thank you. For programs and services, Councillor Krintzman.

Thank you, Mr. President. The report begins on page 159. The programs and services committee met on July 15th. The first few items are held. But item 192-26, the appointment of Cynthia Wayne to the Human Rights Commission was approved by a vote of seven to zero. Item 245-26, a request to set early voting hours for the September 1st, 2026 state and federal primary election was approved, but with a change on Tuesday, August 25th by extending the hours to 8 p.m. That was approved by a vote of seven to zero. And item 246-26, a request to set early voting hours for the November 3rd state and federal general election was approved with a similar change by amending the Tuesday, October 20th hours rather than ending at 5 p.m. to end at 8 p.m. And similarly, Wednesday, October 28th, by extending those hours instead of ending at 5 p.m., ending at 8 p.m. Want to quickly mention that in September, when programs and services committee takes up charter reform again we expect to be looking at the article dealing with the composition of the city council if folks are interested so that will likely be during one of our september meetings uh with that i would move the report thank you mr president thank you for uh public safety and transportation counselor lucas

Thank you, President Oliver. The report begins on page 161. The committee met on July 23rd. We had one item that was held. We met again on July 29th. Only thing to report out is 223-26, Farid Isaviev requesting a new public auto license that was withdrawn without prejudice in a vote of 7-0. We met again on, we've been busy. We met again on August 5th, and again, that item was held. That concludes the report. I do have one announcement to make, and that is the committee is going to meet again on Wednesday, August 26th, and that will be our last and only remaining meeting in the month of August, and the only item on the agenda for that day as of right now is the overnight parking ban. Thank you, and that concludes the report.

Thank you. For public facilities, Councillor Gatz.

Thank you, Mr. President. The public facilities report begins on page 163, and we met on August, on July 22nd, with one item to report out from that evening, docket item number 222-26. We approved or granted location 60 with one abstention. On Prescott Street, the item number is 222-26, as I mentioned. I'd like to ask for a suspension of the rules to be able to report out one item that was discussed this evening. It's the item that we found.

I assume there's no written report for this item.

Correct. It's item number 221-26, the CPC recommendation to approve $232,000 for the cupolas and windows at City Hall.

We needed a suspension of the rules. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Please proceed.

Okay, so we met this evening and I'd like to report out that we approved the item five with two opposed and with one absence. And it's to be approved as amended in the sense of we had to switch the account number that it's getting pulled from. And with that, I move the report.

Great, thank you very much. For finance, Councillor Grossman.

Thank you, Mr. President. The report begins on page 164. Our first item, 209-26, the appointment of Ryan McLaughlin to the Financial Audit Advisory Committee was approved six to zero. Item 220-26, the reappointment of Alexander B. Jeblon to the Financial Audit Advisory Committee was approved six to zero. For the next item, I do need to request to poll my committee. This is item 221-26, the CPC recommendation to appropriate $232,000 for the cupolas and windows at City Hall. At the time of our meeting, it was approved with the account number as written here in the docket as 4 to 0 to 1. but tonight at public facilities that account number was amended so that the funds would come from the historical preservation account within the CPA bucket and not the unrestricted reserve funds. So if I could please pull my committee, Mr. President.

I think that just requires a simple suspension of the rules, correct? I believe.

Probably so. May I have a suspension of the rules to pull my committee?

We need a quick suspension of the rules so that we may poll the Finance Committee. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Fantastic, please proceed.

Okay, thank you. Finance Committee members present, if you are in favor of changing the account designation so that these funds come from the historical section of our CPA funds as opposed to the unrestricted bucket of CPA funds, please raise your hand.

Yes.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven.

Okay, I think that's eight to zero. Thank you very much. Then we have a couple other items. Number 237-26, the appointment of Christopher Breske to the John C. Chafin Educational Fund was approved six to zero. Item 240-26, a request to accept a grant of $19,500 from AARP was approved. Five in favor, none opposed, and one abstention. And finally, item 243-26 was a request to accept and expend a grant of $218,708 for the city's fiber optic network, and that was approved six to zero. With that, I move the report.

Thank you. For real property reuse, Councilor Malachy. There is no report. Super. Can we do a roll call vote for the first call items, please?

Councillor Albright. Aye. Councillor Baker.

Aye.

Councillor Bixby. Aye. Councillor Block. Aye. Councillor Charm. Aye. Councillor Damabud.

Aye, except for number 221-26 on which I vote no.

Councilor Farrell? Aye. Councilor Goetz?

Aye.

Councilor Golden? Aye. Councilor Gordon? Aye. Councilor Greenberg? Aye. Councilor Grossman? Aye. Councilor Irish? Aye. Councilor Kalis?

Aye.

Councilor Kelly? Aye. Councilor Krintzman?

Aye.

Councilor Leary? Aye. Councillor Lucas.

Aye.

Councillor Malachy. Aye. Councillor Mickley.

Aye.

Councillor Roach.

Aye, with the exception of 228-26, for which I vote no for the reasons I stated in committee, and 221-26, for which I vote no.

Councillor Silber. Aye. Councillor Wright.

Aye.

President Oliver.

Aye.

On this vote, the ayes are 24, the nays are zero. There are exceptions noted. There are two exceptions to 221-26 and one exception to 228-26. The votes there are 22 to 2 on 221-26 and 23 to 1 on 228-26. Motion carries.

Thank you, sir.

All right, we're gonna move along to second call. We have two items on second call. Those are items 104-26 and item 130-26. Simply so that I can participate in the conversation for 104.26, I've asked President, or sorry, Councilor Baker to come on up and join us to take over the gavel for this item. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. So, colleagues, we have an item that was reported at the last meeting and then chartered, but I think the custom is that when the item is chartered, that the counselor who had chartered the item, I would recognize first and then go to the chair of the committee. I can't see behind me.

Yeah, that's Councillor Block. Councillor Block. Thank you, Councillor Baker. Can you hear me all right? Yeah. 60 Brookside is a 3,272-square-foot two-family house, which was sold 10 months ago for $1,616,000. $1,616,000. The special permit before us proposes to build four residential units with a total of 9,138 square feet. I asked a real estate appraiser to assess what these four units will sell for. His answer is between 1.4 and $1.6 million. What is proposed at 60 Brookside is that two housing units of 1,600 square feet that are worth about 800,000 each are to be replaced with four housing units of 2,300 square feet that will each sell for about $1.5 million. These numbers tell an interesting story. This plan will not make Newton more affordable. In fact, it does the opposite. It will make the housing at 60 Brookside more expensive than it is now. And consequently, it will make Newton less diverse, not more so. I've heard several city councilors and some abutters express concern that if this plan is not approved, that a larger and more expensive houses will be built by right. I agree that is a possibility. It's also possible that a three-unit development will be proposed. It's even possible that the developer will sell the house as is and move on to other projects that are more lucrative. In short, the future is unpredictable. However, what is absolutely clear to me is that demolishing the current two-family house at 60 Brookside and replacing it with four somewhat larger units runs counter to Newton's housing goals. On policy grounds, I cannot support this plan. However, as I said in committee, as the special permit granting authority, we are required to make certain determinations, including whether this plan will have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Every parcel on this street has a one or two family home. 60 Brookside would be the first parcel to have four housing units. This increased density by itself will have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Further, this will certainly not be the last such proposal. If you are looking for another adverse impact, look no farther than the parking layout in the basement. The current structure at 60 Brookside has easily accessible off-street parking. The proposed basement parking is so congested that people will, in my opinion, avoid using it whenever possible. Thus, up to eight more vehicles will park on the street, making it more congested and more hazardous than it is now. To my mind, this proposal just does not add up. It's bad housing policy. and it's bad for the neighborhood, I will be voting against this. Thank you, Mr. Acting President.

Thank you. Well, let's hear from, at this point, the customer, the chair of land use who reported.

Is there any other hand up? I want to make sure I don't miss someone.

When this first came on second call I read everybody the whole report.

I think we've been I'm sorry Can you speak a little closer to the mic? I just couldn't yes. Thank you

When this was first on second call, I read the full report, and I think most of us have been through it all. I'm just going to highlight a few of the details from the land use committee process. This proposal has gone through several site plan and building configuration changes since it first came to us in October 2025 in response to neighborhood and land use committee input. Most, perhaps all committee members and neighbors thought that the design is attractive. It fits with the character of the neighborhood. It gives the appearance of a single or two family home. It's set back quite far from the street, similar to most of the other homes on the street. Resident parking for two cars per unit in the building is below grade. Councilor Block referred to them as basement. I would just say they're in garages. After moving the location and reducing the square footage of the structures a waiver for side setbacks is still required It's a long narrow site But the structure itself the house is set back over 55 feet from the street This passed well and land use and I I still support it I think it's an excellent project of all the many I've seen in my nine years on the land use committee. I Will still be voting in favor

Thank you. Who else? Councillor Wright, I recognize.

Unless someone convinces me otherwise, I'm voting no on 60 Brookside. There are four reasons. First, the people most directly affected by this project are opposed to it. We received a lot of emails, some supporting the project, some opposing it, some residents who changed their minds, then they changed their minds again. Last week I mapped out the emails from the residents who opposed the project. What was striking was that the people who live next to the project or directly across from it were opposed. The support was generally from people further down the street or on other streets who would not experience the immediate impact. That matters to me and the biggest issue for me is the setbacks. Second, this is a new construction project. There is a clean slate. When you're building from scratch, I think we should expect the building to be designed within the setback requirements. Hence, the applicant, here the applicant is asking to reduce the setbacks with the entire left side of the building approximately 15 feet into the setback and the right side approximately 10 feet into the setback. That is significant. Look at 157 Langley, which is now two to six knolls. It's a very similar sized lot, about 14,600 square feet compared with 15,385 square feet at Brookside. Yet they were able to build three units and keep the entire project within the 25 foot setback. If they could do that on a similar size lot, I think we should be asking why four units at Brookside cannot be designed to respect the setback. Third, we have already made decisions about where we want density in Newtonville and West Newton. Newton has rezoned much of nearby Washington Street and its major arteries for higher density. there are already more than a thousand units built in process or in the planning stages along a little over a mile on Washington Street and the major arteries. This is where I believe we should be putting our additional density in Newtonville and West Newton, on the major corridors, not on residential side streets. I support housing, I support additional density, but I don't believe that means every residential side street should double or more increase their density. Fourth, I'm uncomfortable with the buy right argument being used as a leverage against the council. We've heard the argument that if we don't approve this special permit, the developer can build the buy right project. We all know that. The applicant showed us what that Buy Right project could look like. It pushes the limits on setbacks, FAR, and other zoning constraints, and it's a modern building which is very different from the 1865 home surrounded by other older homes which is being proposed. I've been analyzing more than 400 teardowns since 2021. Take two to six knolls as an example. That property was initially purchased for 1.475 million. The three resulting condos sold for a combined 7.12 million. I don't think two units here would be as profitable on this lot versus three or four. Is all this additional relief necessary to make this project financially viable or does the special permit primarily make the project more profitable? When we're talking about a clean slate development on a residential side street on a large lot, large enough to accommodate three units, I think we should expect the developer to design the building to respect the setbacks. I would also like to see workforce housing, but that's something I cannot require. So unless I hear something that changes my mind, particularly about why this much setback relief is necessary and what alternatives were considered, I intend to vote no on 60 Brookside.

Thank you. Others wish to be recognized? Councillor Gordon and Councillor Albright.

Thank you, Chair. I'm really torn on this because I think that the design is exactly what we would like to see in Newton. I think it's beautifully done. I don't have a problem with there being four units, but I do have an issue with them going into the setback, and I would have preferred that they...

I'm sorry. Just hold up. What did you say? I just couldn't hear that. You have an issue with what?

With them going into the setback. I would just echo what Pam has just said. Can people not hear me?

Yeah.

Sorry, the little fuzzy thing is gone.

Yeah, just hold it up a little closer to...

Okay. So I'm torn because I like the design. I live around the corner from Knowles, which is what Pam was just referring to, and it's a really beautifully well-done project, and I would like to see more of those in our neighborhoods and fewer of the giant white and black two-family houses, which also exist in my neighborhood and are, you know, I call them on steroids. However, the units that are being put in that the setback allows them to do are all really big units. They range from 2,000 to 2,300 to 2,400 to, I think I was told, 2,600 square feet. And I think we need smaller units. I think we should be sending a message. And when I think about the people who voted for me and I think about the residents who live there, I think that we need to keep those neighbors in mind. I don't know if I have to state here whether I'm voting yes or no yet. I'm struggling with this.

Just to clarify, the rules indicate that if you intend to vote no, you should state your reasons so that if the item does not prevail, the clerk can prepare a board order or a council order that reflects the adverse concerns. But you now have to declare yourself at this point. That's all.

should i vote no it's it's because i think the units are too big and i would have preferred them not to go into the setback thank you okay uh counselor albright is next i believe

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, Mr. Acting President. So, probably should have read this first, but that's okay. As I've gotten to know all of you, my colleagues on the council, and some of you I've known for a long time, and some of you I've known for only six months, I've learned that this is a body of smart people, and that we care about the people in Newton. We care about our constituents, and we care about their families, and I appreciate all of you. When we discuss an item like Brookside, I know that we all have in our minds, the housing issue, is that's being addressed in a very small way.

I'm sorry, can you just get a little closer to the mic? Yes. Thank you.

The housing issue, it feels very loud when I do that, but okay, is a problem that we have in our state and across our country. I hope that when push comes to shove, or perhaps when push comes to vote, that we will pass this project because we know that it alone won't solve the crisis. It alone won't make Newton more affordable, but it will be serving as a model for how we can make housing in Newton more affordable. When Councillor Block talked about the houses selling for 1.5 million, that sounds like a lot of money, and I agree, it is a lot of money, but all the new houses in Newton these days are selling for four, five, six, and seven million dollars. So that is the context of these units. These are not big units. 2,000 square feet is considered a small unit for the new houses that are being built in Newton now. We have a developer who created a building that fits with the neighborhood. He created four more units that are more affordable than the 3,000 or 4,000 square foot units that will come by right, most likely, if we don't approve this. The developer was responsive to the land use committee. They said the first project was too big. He made it smaller by 1,000 square feet. He also took one unit out of the main building and put it as a carriage house. And the main building and carriage house is a model of kinds of buildings that we have in Newton all over the city. The setbacks are better for the neighbors. We've had a lot of talk about setbacks. I want to be clear. The developer took the advantage of having a single family attached kind of building type. That type of building requires a 25 foot setback on all sides. The MR1 setback, where this unit is, requires a seven and a half foot setback. For them to have a 25 foot setback on the sides of this building would be ridiculous. It's not possible. It makes no sense. And frankly, we should probably change that ordinance.

All right, I think you've run out of time at least as the counter appears.

Can I have another two minutes?

All right has asked for an additional two minutes.

Let's suspend the rules all those in favor say aye aye aye

I want to be sure that everybody understands this setback issue is a red herring because the setback issue of the by right house is seven and a half feet. And this new building is set back 15 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. Yes, it went into the setback, but it's the setback of 25 feet of a single family attached building type. And it would make no sense that the building would look ridiculous if it had 25 feet. I feel like we are a smart enough group to pass this project, to make Newton a model city to be copied by other cities in the state. Over the last several years, our legislature and legislatures all over the country have taken away local control of zoning from cities like ours. I think we can show people, I think Newton can show people that we don't need them to take our control away. We can do this. We can provide, we can create housing, smaller units, 2,000 square feet, a million and a half dollars, a lot of money, I guarantee you that, I understand that, but it's not five, seven, and 10 million dollars. I hope that this council will act as the smart people that I know we are, the caring people that I know we are. And please don't use the setback as an issue. It's not an issue. This is an MR zone. The new house that's built by Wright, whatever it looks like, will most likely be closer than the current building that's proposed. And I really hope that we'll pass this project. It's a great project and it looks wonderful in the neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you.

I have I think councillor Lucas next to councillor Maliki and then councillor Leary Thank You mr. Acton president Baker I voted no in committee I'm gonna vote no again tonight Setbacks do matter they matter when the people who live directly next to this project are are saying we want the 25 foot setback. It's a trade off. If you want the extra density of three or more units and single family attached, there is a trade off. One of those trade offs is the setbacks. And they're telling us, we got another email today from another side abutter saying I oppose the setbacks. We work for our residents. The other thing I wanna say is four units is too many for this project. As I said during the two public hearings, three would be perfect for this site. We get an extra housing unit, we abide by the setbacks, Heck, if the developer would have proposed three units from the very beginning, the project would have already been under construction. I guarantee you that. This would have passed easily in one meeting at land use. The developer, in my opinion, made a mistake. They got greedy. They're going for four. They're building into the setbacks. When I said at both public hearings, you need to bring the units down to three and not build in the setbacks. Plain and simple. And this would have already been well on its way. That didn't happen. Four units is too many. One of the reliefs that they are seeking is lot area per unit. That is part of our zoning. It is listed as relief being sought. And a question I always ask myself, whenever someone seeks relief on lot coverage or lot area per unit, why does this particular developer or any petitioner deserve a density bonus? They're knocking down a house. There's no affordability component at all. We did approve Thurston Road. I think all of us voted for it, perhaps. That was at our last meeting. There was a waiver for lot area per unit and for lot coverage, but there was an affordability component. So in my opinion, that was fine. This one, not so much. So I am voting no. I urge everyone who was on the fence to vote no and send a message to this particular petitioner and to our residents who live here in Newtonville that we will abide by our rules and our setbacks and not grant this type of relief. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Next have Councilor Maliki.

Thank you. So I don't want to be too repetitive, but I agree with many of the comments that have been made, particularly starting with Councillor Block, the issue about parking and the awkwardness of the underground parking spaces leading to people tending to park outside on the street in probably any decent weather, excepting snowy weather in winter and very hot weather in summer. Secondly, Councillor Wright's comment about it being a clean, you know, tearing everything down, clean slate, new construction, I see no reason not to be able to adhere to the setbacks. To me, I would disagree that 2,000 square foot units are small units. They may sound small in relation to what we see getting built as some of the larger units of townhouses and certainly single family houses, but it's bigger than my 1,700 or so square foot house. It's bigger than... the smaller 800, 900, 1,200 square foot houses that people live in. So I don't see that it's impossible to build either smaller units or three units, as has been suggested, and create a smaller structure that complies with the setback. And I would just like to add, I guess, that I'm really disturbed at what I felt like we were getting like hostage letters you know please approve this because get closer to the mic for just a second what I felt were like hostage letters. Please approve this. It's gonna be so much better than what they say they will build if you don't approve it. And I don't think we should be susceptible to that pressure. It's not a good practice. It will just lead to more of the same type of threatening type proposals. So I will be voting against this.

Thank you. Councillor Leary is next.

Thank you, Mr. Acting President. I am on the Land Use Committee and this project came before us several times. There was a lot of work that went into it. I am gonna be voting for this project as I did in Land Use Committee and Some of the comments have already been made. The 25 foot set pack does not make any sense with this project. It is beautiful. It fits into the neighborhood. Four units is not excessive. We do have a housing crisis. We need housing. And housing in Newton is very, very expensive as we know and continues to grow. We need to develop more units. Mean I and I'll also say it's just there's never a perfect project I mean if this was more units five or six small, you know smaller units more affordable. There'd be more of them And I think this is a good compromise and I think this actually will be will fit into the neighborhood and Will not cause disruption so I will be supporting it.

Thank you Thank you. I have president Oliver I Excuse me, Councillor Grossman next, sorry.

Great, thank you, President Emeritus Baker. As I mentioned in land use when I joined that meeting, I will be voting no on this project, not because it has four units, not because I have a problem with the underground parking, I believe this project represents what I consider to be a problem with our zoning. I don't know how many people in this room have already issued complaints about our existing zoning. I've heard a few already. This is a solution to the problem that is our zoning. I cannot vote for a project that I think is at least equally as bad as what could be built under our zoning, simply because that means I supported a project I can't stand for. I don't like this project. I think it will do adverse harm or will cause adversity in this neighborhood. It doesn't make sense to me. If this developer wants four units, I'm all for it. Make them 1,500 to 1,800 square foot units, things start to get a lot more palatable in terms of overall massing. The simple fact of the matter is this isn't about the number of units for me. I intend to make a very smart decision on my own tonight and vote against this project. If we have a housing crisis, great, let's solve it. Let's go get the four units. You know the other problem we have in this city? Diversity of housing units. We've got plenty of 2,300, 2,200 square foot units. What we don't have a ton of or enough of are the 18 to 2,000 square foot units or even smaller that are available for purchase on streets like Brookside. So if we continue to vote for projects like this, special permits by the way, what we're basically saying is this is an acceptable end around to our zoning. I think what I'm hearing tonight is we'd rather fix our zoning than improve projects like this one. Again, I have no problem with four units here. I have a problem with 4,2300 or whatever the average number is that lead to this kind of project. What did I hear? It was like 9,600 square feet of building. It's a little large for this lot. Otherwise, I have no strong opinions about it. Thank you.

Thank you. I have Councillor Grossman next.

Thank you, Mr. Acting President. I just wanted to rise briefly to say that I am going to support this project. I went and I visited the street and the neighborhood and took in the context in the surrounding area and spent some time there. I think the design is really beautiful. I think in many years of debating our housing needs in the city among the council, one of the comments I've made a lot that we haven't really had a tool to address through our zoning is that to me, design is really important. I've never had a problem with density of units but I want it to fit in and be beautiful and have a welcoming feel and sometimes we have projects that come before us and I still think the density is okay, but the design might not be that nice. And in this case, I think the design is really beautiful. And I really do think that it fits in. I respectfully disagree that we have enough units that are 2,300 square feet. I actually think it's a really nice size for a family. that could live really happily in one of these kinds of units and can't afford one of those six, $7 million houses, because I mean, our prices really are climbing in that region. So for those reasons, I am gonna support this, thanks.

Thank you. I have Councilor Goetz followed by Councilor Mickley and then Councilor Farrell.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Acting President and our President Emeritus. I'd like to associate my comments with those that have spoken before me, Councilors Wright, Block, Gordon, Lucas, and Malachy. And I'm glad with this item having been chartered that everybody had an opportunity to visit this property, to go by Brookside Ave., and to appreciate the value of this street, and to appreciate the historic assets that are on this street. This, no one has mentioned this, this property is a circa 1888 Queen Anne, okay? And if you stood in front of it, you would appreciate the amount of detail that's on this house. It's incredible. We've approved many single-family attached special permit processed houses through keeping the original and then building to the back, building all the attached units. We've seen this again and again and again. And I actually want to go through this and sort of figure out how many kept the original structure, because that's what's of value on this street. And you look next door and you see the same circa, the same era, renovated property with the same setback. It's just gorgeous. But what's important to me here is, and people are speaking to what is wrong with our zoning. I sort of see this as single family attached is required to go through a special permit in all residential districts. all the SRs and all the MRs. It's a special permit process. What controls the massing? It's the setbacks because there's no FAR. FAR is not part of the equation. This is over FAR by 25 percent in terms of the actual construct that's being proposed. But that's not part of this equation. So what I consider is the respect for the rules that are in play when it is being permitted. If you require relief for the setback, you violated the rule. You need to stay in that lane when you're getting a single family attached permitted process. And the only other thing that I would suggest is that, you know, I listen to the abutters. The abutters that are going to be directly impacted, the immediate, the direct abutters and those that live on the street. And I weigh their concerns highly because they're the ones that are going to be living through the construction and the redevelopment of these four units with these eight, you know, potentially 10 parking spaces on that lot. But the main piece for me is that I feel as if we need to revisit our zoning because these single family attached units that are being permitted need to respect the historic assets on the lots. Thank you.

Thank you. I now have Councillor Mickley, I believe.

And also I have several councillors online whose hands are up and the clerk has alerted me, so I'll get to you.

So apologies. Thank you, Mr. Acting President. so whether this project is beautifully designed the right number of units two three four five whatever the right number is whether the setbacks are too far too little um What I think of those issues to me is secondary to what the residents in the ward think of those issues. I view the job of the ward councillor as representing the viewpoints of the residents of the ward as best as possible. And that isn't always possible. Sometimes it's hard to know what residents think about an issue. Sometimes there's a clear split. On this issue, there seems to be a pretty strong consensus that the residents of the neighborhood, the residents of the ward that I represent are not in support of this project. They think it goes one unit too far and they have a right to that opinion. And my job here is to represent that viewpoint here at city hall. So for that reason, I'm gonna vote to represent the viewpoint of the residents that I'm here to represent and not support this project. Thank you.

Okay, I believe now I can go to Councillor Ferrell, then Councillor Kalis, and then Councillor Roach.

And then Councillor Charm.

I don't want to miss you, but I want to take some of the online people.

Thank you, Acting President. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I'll try to make it brief. I have spoken with many residents on this street. I was invited to coffee a couple of months ago to meet with maybe a dozen of the residents, and I heard them express their concerns. And I shared my thoughts with them at that morning meeting, as I did during the very first hearing about this. And we are somewhat in disagreement about it. I mean, not about their opinion. Their opinion is legitimate, but about whether this should move forward. I believe the developer listened and in fact reduced the size and that we have four smaller units that while they might not be as low priced as we would like them to be, are in fact a very moderate price, relatively speaking. The design, I think the design is extraordinary. I can think of only one other building that came before a special permit that was more in keeping with the neighborhood where it was proposed and with the environment within which it will live. And I think this is absolutely spectacular. I hope that if we approve this, that we'll encourage developers all over to in fact consider the neighborhood and the environment as well as the opinions of residents, but consider the environment that the building will be in. Too often, we get buildings that are absolutely out of bounds with the rest of the neighbors on the street architecturally. I think this will allow for families, hopefully younger families, maybe they'll have some kids and go to school. They certainly will be able to access the village center nearby. Hopefully all of the things that many people keep talking about, reducing car traffic and so forth. So I'm in favor of this project, but what really I want to speak to at the moment is that when I hear Ranking members of this council talk about a problem with zoning and talk to us about processes that they know are a problem. and i want to know with all due respect where those voices were during the special project process even if it extended a bit even if we had to stay later at night but to help educate us about what the process is that you think is bad and how we're going to fix it not only for for residents and in developing the city but for developers developers want to know what is the process What are the problems with zoning? And we need to start listening to them and stop changing the rules. Special permit exists to, in fact, allow differences from the zoning regulations, as I understand it. This project appealed for some special project exceptions, and I think... that given that's what they were they were uh we talked about and uh they we asked for changes they made changes uh i think we've got to stop denying stuff once we've gone through a process we got to make our processes work Um, anyhow, going on longer than I should, I'm going to vote in favor of this and I would love to work with all of the counselors who I don't think participated in this special permit process. For this, uh, project who didn't help educate those of us who would like to have heard from you months ago about what your specific concerns were and. I'd like to know from the zoning committee when you are going to start listening to these issues and making, getting resolutions to the problems that some of your members have just addressed. And yeah, thank you acting president. I'm voting in favor of this.

Thank you. Um, let me just reset the timer. Um, I now have counselor Kalis followed by counselor Roach.

Thank you, Mr. Acting President. So I do realize this is a special permit, but at the same time, I am very frustrated by developers going way beyond the boundaries of our zoning. I mean, to me, asking for some relief is totally acceptable. Working with the community, I think, is very important. But what I'm hearing here is that They've gone way beyond the boundaries of zoning. It sounds like many of my colleagues are putting design as a standard over zoning, which to me is a big problem. And there's no affordability. I mean, to argue that 1.5 to 1.7 million is, is a good price. I just, I mean, that's, that's a, that's, that's an expensive house. Uh, we need to be encouraging these developers to be putting more units on these properties and helping them shape that. So they're smaller, smaller than, I mean, 2300 is bigger than my house too. That's it's, it's huge. We don't need that much, we need smaller units. And this is what we've been arguing for for years. And I just can't believe that we're, what I'm hearing is people, colleagues wanna approve this, where I think we just, we're encouraging the wrong behavior from developers. I THINK THIS WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE STREET, THE COMMUNITY. I'M NOT FOR IT.

THANK YOU. COUNSELOR ROACH? YOU'RE MUTED, COUNSELOR ROACH.

CAN YOU UNMUTE? GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU, PRESIDENT BAKER. the there are a lot of interesting issues and um whether how we can encourage the generation of smaller homes is i think critical but it's just not germane today and i think counselor gordon really got to the heart of this issue which is we don't have the choice between the developer making smaller units, smaller four homes. And we don't have the choice of three homes. The choice is between and it always is a choice between what is available by right and what is what the requested relief is under the special permit. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, The con with the with the by right development options does by by by making that explicit it provides context for this project and for the decision we have PB, Harmon Zuckerman, And the question is whether the developer who has made concessions in terms of design to fit in with the visual character of the neighborhood. has done enough with the design with the changes to make the overall size of the building smaller to make the home smaller whether that is enough to persuade us that this is a better project for the neighborhood than the buy right alternative. Change is coming to Brookside Avenue. And the change is either going to come in the form of a building that looks like other homes on the street or a building that looks like all of the homes that have been built, the teardowns, the white sides with the black windows. And I am convinced that on this street, the four homes in a building that fits in with the visual character of the neighborhood is a better option. We'd like to have smaller homes. These will be smaller than the alternative. We'd like to have larger setbacks given the rights that the developer has by right. there's some leverage there and so as much as we might like something else the choices are this or the buy right alternative and i think this is better for the better for the street better for the neighborhood and better for the city overall i am going to vote yes as i did in committee and i hope that more of my colleagues will thank you very much

Thank you. Councillor Charm, I think, is up next.

Anyone else? I'm just wondering.

Thank you, Acting President Baker. This project really makes me scratch my head in so many ways because when we talk about housing, there are so many things that we say we want. We say we want the developers to be listening to the community. This is one where the developer has made many revisions and has made many concessions in response to the neighborhood. We say that we want smaller units. As we have established, these units are smaller than they would be by right. Yes, they're not 1,500 square feet, but they're a much more manageable size for the price per square foot that new homes in Newton are making today. That makes them another thing that we want, which is starter homes for young families who have kids and If we were to just be letting these homes and these designs be by right, they would be larger, that price would be higher, and that would be even less accessible to many of the neighbors that we are hoping to welcome in and into our schools and our community. We say we want off-street parking with two spots per unit. This is one that the developer, I think, got very creative to hide eight parking spots. I mean, it's astonishing from the street. You would never think that there would be eight parking spots underneath. I think that's a huge benefit. And then we also say that we want people to be keeping in mind setbacks and massing. And so I was a little concerned about the setbacks and massing. And like many of my colleagues, I drove over to Brookside, took a look at the street, and one of the things that really struck me was that there is a building that just went up that is a direct abutter and I looked it up, it has a five foot setback against this property line from one of the direct abutters and it went up two years ago. So, and the massing is, very similar to the neighbors on the other side of the street. So it feels to me like those are hollow arguments. And when I think about all the things that we do want, the smaller size, the off-street parking, the starter homes, the lower price, those are things that make me want, and yes, the design. I think it would help to maintain this as a beautiful street. I think those are the things that we want. I support this project. And I urge my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you.

Thank you. At this point, I'm going to yield the chair back to the president. I think he's finished speaking. So the order I have so far, Mr. President, are Councilor Silver, Councilor Golden, and then let's see who else, including yours truly.

Yep. Thank you. And this is the clerk's timer.

Great.

Thank you, President Emeritus Baker. You know, there are some words you just have a problem enunciating.

There you go.

All right. I believe I'm on to Councillor Silber. Is that correct?

Thank you, President. So I just want to say briefly the whole process of this has really been one where I've heard a lot of confusion. from residents and reacting in fear. And that doesn't always make me feel super encouraged about a project. It makes me feel like there's a lot of things going on in the background that I may not appreciate and I may not feel comfortable with if it were my neighborhood. And I respect what the neighbors have to say because ultimately when we decide to allow a change in our zoning for a special permit, we're effectively placing that cost on the neighbors. That's what we're doing. I mean, there's really no other way around it. I also don't hear very much from my constituents about wanting more density. I just don't hear it. Maybe I'm not talking to the right constituents, but I don't hear a cry all the time for more, more, more, more. What I hear is we're going to choke on all the development that's coming our way. And for that reason, and I guess the final reason being that I don't love, I don't love to be scared into approving something. Especially when the alternative is actually less concerning and less impactful on the direct abutters. So for that reason, I'm gonna be voting no.

Thank you. Councillor Golden.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to be voting yes to advance the project. And I want to say that in the context of being very respectful and appreciative of the arguments on both sides tonight, there isn't one pro and one con that I did not agree with here. So there's a little bit of a creative tension going on in my head. But there are a lot of subjective calls. We assign our own subjective determinations to each one of these pros and cons and weight things differently. And when I look at the things that I really care about, I'm weighting things like design, I'm weighting things like the number of units more heavily. It is impossible for me to lose sight of how important it is to grow the number of units, not just in Newton, but in the Commonwealth as a whole. Some estimates are we're 200,000 units behind where we need to be. Some believe it's more closer to 400,000. For me, both of those are big numbers, and both of them deserve consideration and need to be addressed, no matter where in the spectrum you think we are with regard to the requirement to build for human beings. This is, at the end of the day, we talk a lot about sticks and stones and they are important. The sticks and stones are the buildings but I'm really focused on the human beings who need housing, not just here but throughout the Commonwealth. The setback incursion is a concern, and that brings me to your point, Mr. President, on the need to address zoning. I take that very seriously, but where you and I differ is I do not want to forego opportunities that are here right now in the hope that we will get a more comprehensive zoning solution further down the road, because I don't know when that's going to be. I want to take advantage of opportunities that are here, opportunities that are reasonable, opportunities that will yield quality housing for people who desperately need it here, as well as 351 cities and towns throughout the Commonwealth. And finally, IDP units, inclusionary development units, whether it's deed restricted affordability or income restricted affordability on rentals, I would like to see a lot more of those units sort of populate our agenda than we are currently seeing. And that's true in so many places. whether or not there is an income-restricted unit being offered by the developer, that does not undercut or obviate the need for the sheer numbers of units. All along the socioeconomic spectrum, we need more units. And if I can get four quality units, well-designed units that I think fit in with the neighbourhood, the character of the neighbourhood, and by even permitting an incursion into the setback, I do not see this particular situation as presenting a profoundly harmful or deleterious impact when it comes to abutters on the subject of setbacks. So, when I weigh the variety of factors, I come down pretty firmly on this particular project in favour of creating the units in this environment, in this type of quality that I think will ultimately benefit the city and the neighbourhood. So, thanks very much.

Thank you. I think that is your first time speaking, sir. Thank you. Surprised you with that one, didn't we? You thought we forgot.

Uh-huh.

I see. We see you.

Okay.

Councillor Baker.

So this is a very difficult project, as you all heard, because of so many issues being raised and persuasive arguments on both sides. I just want to address several, and if I end up not supporting the item, I will tell you the reason why, but I still want to think about it. The special permit process requires us to weigh the public benefit against certain criteria, and the key one for me here are two of them. The specific site is an appropriate location for such use or structure, and the use as developed and operated will not adversely affect the neighborhood. Ordinance goes on to say, the City Council shall not approve any application for a special permit unless it finds that said application complies in all respects with the requirements of this chapter. So it, I think, puts a burden of persuasion on the applicant to satisfy all of the standards as well as to satisfy public benefit. Now, obviously, many members of the Council articulated important public benefits that the project can serve. but other members of the council have articulated some of the problems with the use as the site has developed. There's one other aspect that I think is important. Nowhere in ordinance does it speak to what the buy-write alternative is by comparison. Certainly that's in the background, I suspect, of some of the public benefit conversation, but it is not an explicit standard. So I have to weigh it against the criteria, and I have heard concerns raised and I think legitimate about setbacks and some of the access, and therefore, if I end up not supporting it because of those issues articulated by colleagues. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. I have Councillor Wright next. And I don't, I haven't seen any other hands, so as of right now, Councillor Wright is our last, is somebody online with their hand up? No, I don't see any other hands. Thank you.

Thank you. I just want to point out that these units are four or five bedroom, two and a half or three and a half baths. I don't consider that a starter home. I had my starter home was 1,200 square feet, two and a half bedrooms, one bathroom. That's a starter home, not something this size. And also, I'll stop there. Thanks.

Fantastic. All right, I believe that brings us to the conclusion of our conversation around item 104-26. I think it behooves us to take a roll call vote here. And just for the record, those of you who have not stated why you're voting no, if you're voting no, please do so when you vote. Thank you.

Councilor Albright.

Aye.

Councilor Baker. No. Councilor Baker, do you want to offer a reason for the no?

In my comments.

And I do mean for those, just to be very clear, the law department needs to be able to review the record and the recording tonight. Anyone who does vote no, should this item not be approved or rejected, they have to be able to explain all of our individual reasons why we voted no. So if you've already explained it, there's no need to go into further detail. But I have heard a couple of folks who may vote no who were less than clear as to why they were voting no.

Councillor Bixby. Aye. Councillor Block. No. Councilor Charm? Aye. Councilor Domobot? Aye. Councilor Farrell? You're on mute, sir. Councilor Farrell, you're muted.

He's trying to trick us. You're still muted, right?

Councillor Farrell, we can live with a thumbs up or a thumbs down here.

Aye.

Thank you, sir. Councillor Goetz.

No.

Councillor Golden. Aye. Councillor Gordon.

No.

Councillor Greenberg.

Aye.

Councillor Grossman. Aye. Councillor Irish.

Aye.

Councillor Kalis.

No. I think it sets a bad precedent for the street.

Councillor Kelly. Aye. Councillor Krintzman.

Aye.

Councillor Leary. Aye. Councillor Lucas.

No.

Councillor Malachy. No. Councillor Mickley.

No.

Councillor Roach? Aye. Councillor Silber?

No.

Councillor Wright?

No.

President Oliver?

No.

On this vote, the ayes are 13, the nays are 11. This motion is subject to a 16 vote affirmative threshold. Motion fails.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. All right, our next and final item for this evening is item 130-26. This is 1100 to 1102 Beacon. I believe this was put on second call, but I'm not sure I know who put it on second. Councillor Malachy. I believe we've already read this project into the record, so I don't think we need to go back to that. however if we do please have that handy councilman maliki if you wouldn't mind uh talking to leaving us kicking us off on this item sure and um try i'll try to keep it to the three minutes um right into that microphone please let's

Let's try to get it at the right height and I will try not to pop any peas. So I guess I want to start off with some of the arguments for it that I've heard that do not resonate with me. I've heard at least one person say this property is an eyesore the way it is. I don't want to factor that in. To me, that's rewarding, neglecting a property, rewarding, leaving properties, leaving buildings empty. I've heard the owner is unable to get a reasonable offer as a commercial property. To me, if you have a property in Newton and you can't sell it, the price is too high, reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. I don't feel it is our job to sort of be the, you know, wish fulfillment people, making a property worth more than, making a property worth what somebody thinks it should be worth instead of what it is in current market. I've also heard many people say it's more housing, it's four units, but we could make that argument about any of the properties on this stretch of Beacon Street that are currently zoned commercial. Everything we do tends to be cited as a precedent for the next thing that comes along that's similar. We've already heard in the most recent meeting, the petitioner referenced 1114 beacon as a precedent for 100% residential with 1.25 parking spaces per unit. If we approve this, We'll not only be losing a potential space for a business, we'll be kind of signalling to all the other property owners on the properties next door, the properties down the block, and I can list them if people are interested, that are currently business use but could potentially want to do the same thing. That is depleting what the 2018 pattern book itself called then both a business center and a village center. It's not a village center as we think of our 13 villages, but it's got a critical mass of currently zoned commercial property and a variety of small businesses. Even during the discussion of this item, I heard people saying, what a shame, we're losing commercial property. I hear that a lot, but as I've said before, we can't keep bemoaning the loss of commercial property and voting to give it up. I think we ought to be incentivizing the retention of commercial property. I regret that 1114 Beacon, we did not hold out for mixed use on that much for lodger property.

Are you all set, Councillor? You're at three minutes.

I'm pretty close. I think I've made my point and I will be voting against it. Thank you.

No, thank you. I have Councillor Lucas followed by Councillor Wright.

It's already turned on. Thank you, President Oliver. Yes, again, I think we've seen this movie before. I voted against this in committee. I'm gonna vote against it again tonight. It's simple. As Councilor Maliki just said, this is a village center, not one of the official 13 village centers, but it is still a village center. This is an ideal location right in four corners for either mixed use development or commercial development. We need to protect our business use zones and we have to make sure that they have a commercial enterprise or a mixed use development. That's why I voted against this. Nothing more, nothing less. I would have been happy to work with the petitioner if they were doing the Live-work use that they initially presented earlier this term But they withdrew that and they're going for all housing I think it's very short-sighted to go to all housing in this location Literally next to a gas station and another commercial enterprise That's all I got to say.

Thank you Counselor right followed by councillor Kelly

I dislike the idea of using commercial property for housing. Non-housing projects help more with the city finances than residential projects, but this is a unique situation. This is a very small lot, 5,331 square feet, and no street parking on either side. It is a difficult place for a business. It abuts a gas station and a small business, and then large housing projects across the street and two-door downs. I think it's not out of context. Four Corners is not one of their 13 village centers where I probably would have had a different answer where we need to protect our retail commercial so much more. It meets the setback requirements. It's asking for a special permit for 35.4 feet of height where 48 feet is allowed by special permit. Residential is typically 36 feet. The houses behind this lot are on a small hill above the lot and the added height on this project should not be an issue. I will support this project.

Councillor Kelly. Followed by Councillor Leary.

Thank you, Mr. President. Because I haven't given like a little recap of the project, this is the first time on second call, I'm gonna do a little bit of that before I give you my opinion and how I'm gonna vote on it. After coming before the city three times in 2025 with owners stating that they had been unable to sell the site for commercial use despite trying for five to six years, after which they withdrew the petition in December 2025. In 2026, the proposal for four three story, three bedroom units came to land use four times in attempts to get a successful residential or combined residential commercial development. That's seven visits to LANDU so far for this project, in case you're not doing the math at your seats. The site is surrounded by mixed uses of an office building, a Whole Foods supermarket, Walgreens, a small-scale retail strip, a gas station, single and multi-family unit residential buildings, all at four corners in walking distance to Cold Spring Park and Mason Rice School. Based on suggestions by some councillors, including Councillor Lucas, the petitioner changed the originally proposed use from residential to live work units with residential on the upper floors and commercial on the first floor. This was actually an exciting idea for us to consider, and we did look into it. It's something that all of us should be thinking about. But in this case, after analysis, the committee felt that Majority of the counselors felt that commercial on the first floor at this site as counselor Right set to very limited parking only one space per of the four units Was not going to be tenable for the goal of increasing foot traffic Sidewalk vitality and increasing commercial development in any significant way it also posed parking problems So on July 21st, the land use voted six to two in favor, and I believe, which is so unusual here, we all should applaud this, I believe all three Ward 6 Councilors are in agreement with that decision, and I will be voting in favor of it.

Thank you. I have Councilors Leary, Gordon, followed by Block.

Thank you, Mr. President. I will be brief. I associate my comments with Councillor Wright and Councillor Kelly. This has been a frustrating project for me. As has been noted, it's been before land use multiple times on different iterations. It is not a viable commercial space. That's just a dead stop. It's not gonna happen. I don't wanna see that vacant for another six or seven years. That's how long it's been vacant so far. And actually I think it's an ideal location for residential has been mentioned with being near a beautiful park, Cold Spring Park and the service school down the street and a grocery store and walking to two village centers. So I will be supporting this and I hope never to see it again.

Fabulous. Thank you. Councillor Gordon followed by Councillor Block.

Thank you, Mr. President. This site was the site of one of my first jobs. It was a veterinary clinic when I was growing up and I've watched it turn into other things since then. I'm speaking because generally speaking I do not support converting commercial to residential. I didn't agree with the decision when they decided to put housing at the corner of Jackson and Boylston that had a Sushi Man and a Chinese restaurant. I wanted that to be mixed use. It's housing. I wouldn't have supported Northland when they said, oh, poor me, I can't build commercial. I wasn't a big fan of the Opchugung project either, which is the big housing complex that's one space over from this. However, I do think it is a unique area, and I think someone living there, I'm sure, will appreciate the amenities that are nearby. I think it enhances that area, actually, and so I am supporting this. Thank you.

Great. Councilor Block, followed by Councilor Goetz. And those are the only hands I've seen.

Thank you, Mr. President. I will be brief. I definitely want to associate myself with remarks from Councilor Leary that we never see this again after this vote. I share that. In committee, I voted against this project. I'll be voting against this project tonight. this is a very complicated um parcel as counselor kelly said it came before the land use committee seven times that should tell you how complicated it is um i draw the line on the parking whether this is residential, whether this is commercial, they need to solve a parking problem. There's no parking on Beacon Street. There's no parking on Walnut Street. Any visitor, I'm not sure where they're going to park in a reasonable distance to get to this location. um it it it just does not feel right to me i'm i i regret that i i wish there were a more obvious use for this property but it may take um merging with some adjacent property in order to make use of this parcel but i i can't support this proposal as presented thank you very much counselor gets followed by counselor silver then roach

Hi. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to give everybody a sense of the location of this parcel. It's one off of the intersection of Beacon and Walnut. So it's right next to the gas station so that people understand the proximity to that very dense and busy intersection. We've seen quite a bit of residential redevelopment in Four Corners with two BU lots being converted. The one at 114 Beacon Street, the one that's been mentioned, as well as the BU one lot on the other side of Whole Foods at 1062 Beacon being converted from BU to 100% residential. I believe that this parcel should be an opportunity for mixed use if not left at 100% commercial. The lot that surrounds it, behind it, has a significant amount of available parking in that. So as Councillor Block is suggesting, there needs to be some sort of symbiosis or some sort of worked out relationship for parking for that parcel. I actually supported the VCOD that was being considered for Four Corners. This parcel was designated as one of five on a priority street. This section of Beacon Street was considered a priority street, and with that, it means it needs to be kept as commercial on the first floor with the potential for residential above.

so i will not be supporting this petition because i believe that some commercial needs to be presented as viable in this area for corners counselor silver followed by counselor roach um i just want to say this this i've only really seen this i think once and i found it a confusing proposition but at the same point um I think commercial is struggling along that piece, and I think the city would end up making more money with that as residential than with it sitting unused, and I just don't really see what else we can do with it. I just don't see where it would get merged into. So I'm puzzled as to whom will live here and how they will get places, but I guess that's not really our problem, so I will be in favor of this.

Interesting twist of logic there at the end, I like that.

Councilor Roach.

And I don't see any other hands in the room or online. So I think this might be our last speaker on this item. Oh, I'm sorry, Councillor Malachy.

I wish to associate myself with the comments of Councillors Wright, Gordon, and Silver. I will be voting yes.

I didn't even get a chance to start my timer. You're done?

I'd like to an additional five minutes.

I'm done. Fantastic. Assuming you are kidding. Councillor Malachy.

Yes, I'd just like to take issue with the idea that it's not viable for commercial. It was commercial for decades. I think since approximately, I'm guessing 2004 or so, as the dry cleaners and also a tailor, I recall getting my first suits when I first ran, getting taken up there. Dry cleaners may have gone out of fashion, but tailors have not. And there are other businesses, as I mentioned, that are... surviving on that stretch, and I just would like to list them. Next door at 1106 to 1108, that's another small building, that's the one with the parking behind it, but also with parking in front. There's a nail studio, there's a Pilates and gyrotechnic studio, there's the owner's Marilyn Bizzuto's electrolysis laser skin rejuvenation, another skin care business. an acupuncture and nourishment counseling person and a licensed social worker all have apparently offices in that building. We've got, I'll skip the Citizens Bank because that's sort of a one thing with their decent sized parking lot, but down the street at 1134, 1136, There's, actually that's on the other side, Scafidi Brothers Market and Deli and Boston Vegan. There are two buildings that appear to be contiguous, but they're actually two different addresses. 1138 to 1142 has Mano Tai, Four Corners Pizza, Newton Wine and Spirits. 1144 to 1152 has Hans Dry Cleaners, a Salon Descencio, a Dunkin', and the Newton Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, which is a rather bigger space. So those are some of the businesses that are there now. And these are the types of small spaces that will be at risk if we follow the pattern that we're likely to do tonight and allow a teardown with replacement with no commercial in it. that sort of cascading effect of loss of business one after another, that's going to diminish the choices for the people who do live there and the choices for the people who work in the office buildings. There's the one kitty corner across the street on the northeast corner. There's the office building somewhat to the west of these. So it's not just residents, it's people who work in those businesses who are going to have less businesses to go to. So I would urge that we not set the pattern of losing small business spaces and defaulting to a situation where all that's left is national businesses.

Councillor Bixby.

I wasn't going to speak because it's really hot in here and it's getting late. But very quickly as the ward councillor, you know, unfortunately in that list I do know at least one that has gone out of business. And as ward councillor, I did just want to offer my support for welcoming a few new folks to the neighbourhood to support all of those businesses, the businesses in the Newton Highlands. and Newton Centre that are a quick walk, bus ride, or bike ride away, and so I will be voting in favour. Thank you.

Mayor Paterson All right, I believe now I don't see any further hands. All right, there we go. We go to, and by the way, I should also just mention this item also is two-thirds. It requires 16 votes to pass. Mayor Paterson Roll call vote, please, sir.

Councilor Albright.

Aye.

Councilor Baker.

Aye.

Councilor Bixby. Aye. Councilor Block.

No.

Councilor Charm. Aye. Councilor Damabud.

Aye.

Councilor Farrell. Aye. Councilor Goetz.

No.

Councilor Golden.

Aye.

Councilor Gordon.

Aye.

Councilor Greenberg.

Aye.

Councillor Grossman. Aye. Councillor Irish. Aye. Councillor Kalis.

Aye.

Councillor Kelly. Aye. Councillor Krinsman. Aye. Councillor Leary. Aye. Councillor Lucas. No. Councillor Malachy. No. Councillor Mickley.

Aye.

Councillor Roach.

Aye.

Councillor Silber.

Aye.

Councillor Wright.

Aye.

President Oliver.

No. And by the way, just for the record, even though this item is going to pass, I'm going to be looking at the first condition. I believe this would adversely impact the neighborhood.

On this vote, the ayes are 19, the nays are five. Motion carries.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, everyone, for sticking through the sticky evening. But thank you again to Councilors Albright, Dommelbed, Lucas, and Mickley for the entertainment kicking us off this evening. Thoroughly enjoyed that. Thanks, everyone. Have a lovely night.

Recording stopped.

Yes, yes. I mean that's something that.