Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Looks like everything. four

[snorts]

Okay, good evening everyone. Um, this is the zoning and planning committee meeting for February 9th, 2026. I'm Ly Baker, the chair. I'm joined tonight by several members of the committee and also the council's wonderful planning staff and online by Mr. three and during the outset of the meeting by vice chair council right three council vice president of council as well eight from w five council president council from ward one council alight from w two and also councel roach from w six attending and please feel free to pull up and sit at the table if you would and our clerk and we're also joined by Katie people who are going to help us out this all out. Let me explain the process tonight. We have discussion items only and we were trying to lay a foundation for work later in the term. Um and consistent with the president's request, councelor Wright has agreed to chair the committee discussion for the last item. so [snorts] she can get some time in the chair and so we'll we'll I'll relinquish the chair to her and when we get to that item the three items on the agenda tonight 226 pre-budget planning discussion uh 5726 discussion of ordinance amendments to dimensional controls aligning use and zoning and then and then 4626 periodic updates on BCOD All of these are designed to sort of provide background information for members of the committee, especially those who are new to the council so that

when we get to the items again later in the term, uh we'll have a better understanding of what they're all about. So, uh the planning department is graciously agreed to try and help us through that process on the budget one which I'll read into the record in a moment. We don't expect to do any uh serious questions tonight to the uh council I mean to the planning staff in preparation but just to lay the foundation for questions that may come because we would like to follow the president's injunction to get our issues out on the table before budget comes uh to us in April. So the first item is 2226 by counselors Baker, Wright, Ferrell, and Gats requesting a preliminary discussion with the planning department, inspectional services department, and CPA program manager to prepare for the committee's fiscal year 26 budget review of those departments and programs. And actually, I think that should be probably fiscal 27, right? Just to be accurate because we [clears throat] always talk about the the fiscal year uh after the one we're in. Okay. Um, yes, we will. Are you prepared to brief us? Do you want to come to the table and

maybe councelor gets might swing around or or council Oliver or somehow we make somewhere

Thanks for being so in here. Uh also we joined online by councelor M councel Ferrell 8 any other counc for joining us he's a member of the committee and joining us remotely anyone else [clears throat] you got okay all right we will

thank you um so yes my name is Katie we will the acting director for planning. I've been here seven and a half years almost but acting director for a month. So uh like you I'm also learning um everything. So for tonight we were tasked with a pre-budget discussion which is intended to be a very high level overview of the planning department. So I think a common question that comes up is what is planning? Um so planning is the process that local government regulates, manages and guides the physical development, land use and infrastructure of a city, town or municipality. So each planning department across the state and country will look a little bit different uh based on characteristics of the municipality. So for example, communities near transit will plan differently than maybe a coastal community on the Cape who u may have more considerations with coastal issues, climate change or impacts and patterns of seasonal residents. Um so the focus of this slide is how is planning implemented in Newton? Um so in general planning in Newton is very multiddisciplinary um responsible for guiding growth. planners also administer local and state regulations uh to land in the city and we are also very cross collaborative due to the interdisciplinary nature of the work. So one of the roles planning fulfills is staff assistance provided to the city council as well as boards and commissions. So there are approximately 25 bodies that the planners on staff provide support for. They're all listed here. So, as stated earlier, planning is a

multid-disciplinary field. As such, much of our budget is dedicated to staff. In the planning department, there are about seven different divisions. Current planning, long range planning, historic preservation, conservation, transportation planning, housing and community development, and the community preservation program. I think on this slide if you see the two um ladder categories [snorts] their different colors are meant to indicate their funding sources come from uh the federal state or local fun not fully funded by city budget. Um, and these divisions can have staff ranging from one person uh to 10 people. And we have 31 staff members total, a mix of full and part-time staff on the uh planning department. So on the following slides, I'd like to give an overview of each division and what they are responsible for, the role they fill when interacting with the council public uh and our colleagues in the administration. So current planning the main function of current planning is development review. So when somebody is interested in further developing land or changing the use, the planners in this division consult the zoning ordinance as well as being aware of any state processes to determine the path uh forward. So should a project be approved uh the planners also review applications for building permit as well as occupancy to ensure compliance with the decision that governs the land and overall generally just responsible for implementation of the zoning ordinance. So next we have long range planning. Um, these planners work with the

administration and the city council on zoning updates and long-term legislation for the city. So, whereas current planning is implementing the zoning ordinance, the long range team is tasked with the research and analysis that informs any zoning updates as well as comprehensive planning. Uh we also have staff who fall into this division who are tasked with the communications piece of planning via website updates uh the planning newsletter, social media and further goals are making information easier to find, more accessible as well as developing ongoing relationships with stakeholders and community groups. So the historic preservation team reviews applications for demolition delay and work within the jurisdiction of the local historic district commissions. Planners in this division communicate with applicants on materials submitted scheduling and projects on uh relevant agendas. Our conservation planners are tasked with wetland protection and permitting. uh managing 300 plus acres of conservation land uh serving as a general resource for natural resource management including trail creation, native and invasive species, climate adaptation, etc. So the transportation planning um the objective here is to support people of all ages and abilities moving around the city by foot, bike, subway, train, bus, vehicle or other modes of travel. And they also oversee city transportation programs such as go-go, Newton, and blue

bikes uh including budgeting, data review, contract oversight, and coordination with those partners. community preservation um program is the division or person responsible for administering community preservation act funds. So um you heard a little bit from the staff member at the prior meeting Molly about a proposal using CPA funds. So this program [snorts] is funded solely with um community preservation act funds which is mainly local but like some I think the state matches some of those funds as well. Um and they've seen approximately a hundred projects over 25 years completed. Um and they are focused on the areas of expanding community housing, historic resources, open space and recreation opportunities. And lastly, we have our housing and community development team, which their um objective is supporting the production and preservation of affordable housing and housing rehabilitation, human services for low and moderate income residents, homelessness prevention, support services, and the removal of architectural barriers for people with disabilities. Um, this division is largely funded by the federal government and they administer those grants that the city receives such as the federal community development block grant, CDBG, home investment partnerships program, home uh emergency solutions grant uh and from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. We like to joke they're the acronym department. Um there's a lot of grants with different uh letters and acronyms. So that um

concludes kind of this highle overview. I'm happy to answer any questions or note anything to follow up on when the time comes for a more in-depth budget discussion. I got a bunch of answers. So let me start order. [clears throat] So you said there you have right now 31 full of parttime staff. What's your normal size department? You're not fully staffed. Oh, that's Well, those are reflects all the positions. So, it's But they're not all filled right now. Correct. How many are not filled? Um, two or three. Three. Yeah.

Senior planner. Um, chief planner for current planning. And then the director. What's the last? Well, I would say the planning director. But there's several people in acting roles as well. Yes. But in terms of of truly you're under strength by three people in the sense right in the sense of the table of organization gives you more than you have now. Yes. I think

all right. Um councelor Albbright then counselor gets and then I think counelors then counselor. So, I was going to ask a similar question about how many vacancies you have, but so right now Nora is the only person serving the the zoning and planning committee and we used to have Jen and Zach and Laura. So, what's happening there? Yeah, so we're hoping to post for the senior planner. So, Nora has also been promoted to chief of long range planning. Her first day is today. So condolences

and I'm [snorts] not sure you know I'm certainly kind of planning to help and you know take on the task of long range. Um so while I'm acting director my permanent role is deputy director. So I was moved into Jen Cairo's role and then placed in the acting director role. So I do kind of see that as a okay a responsibility of mine as well. Sorry. And and is uh so when her job is vacant, is that already posted?

The chief planner is uh posted since we just um Nora's first day is today. The senior planner, we will have to I think review that job description and then post it. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. I'm going to put myself on. Uh counselor get next, I think. So, you know, thank you for the high the high level. Um, I actually am more curious about going into budget where you see the needs and where you would like to sort of consider if you were going to have, you know, free cash where you would want to put it. I mean, have you even thought that through? Is that something that you've been in that sort of

but more from like a personnel management perspective? So I think things like trainings, maybe being able to go to more conferences, kind of doing more professional development opportunities, but that's sort of just mainly kind of reflective of my leadership priorities, but something I'm interested in looking at. Yeah. And if you had to So I mean, in terms of your wish list, that's your wish list, right? So I would say right now, yeah, I'd like to spend more time and think about it and Okay. as I learn more about the process.

Yeah. All right. And then um you know if you had to sort of divvy up the the pots in terms of like you know the amount of staff time that is being spent on specific arenas and in specific arenas. Is that something you've thought about? you know, like I I just sort of like I want to value attribute each slot, you know, so that then I sort of see where the shifts might be able to happen or, you know, just have a better understanding of, you know, because you talk about legislative support. You know, you talk about specifically

the amount of content that you have to generate for each of the committees and I see that as a vital role and a required role. So I don't know if half of the planning department staff time is used on that. You know that kind of that sort of picture is where I'm thinking about I can definitely kind of look into that more. I don't have I think it it also varies on the volume you know I know

my background is mainly in current and there's no sort of lever to be like no stop applying. So you just have to kind of manage and work with the applications that come in and the attention they warrant and when they go through the comprehensive permit process, special permit process. So yeah, I'd like to it. I think in that division it kind of varies based on what comes in whereas [clears throat] maybe the other divisions are more not self-sufficient but you know kind of rely more internally on the city's projects versus outside development.

Okay. And just you know my last thought that you guys are so underststaffed right now that you can't think about efficiencies you know you can't sort of sorry can you just speak up just a little bit? Yeah. Yeah. Sorry, I'm talking directly now. [laughter] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, so that's the way that you should really be talking but just deficiencies within the department. But, you know, that's the kind of thing where I think you're so under staff right now that you can't even think that way.

Yeah. I mean, I think a lot of time is spent on, you know, preparing for meetings, but also like the administrative work that comes with it, the agendas, the meeting minutes, things like that. So I think we're also looking at ways to make that easier on staff whether it's you know AI or you know kind of transcription services. So um but yeah just trying to balance the number of uh regulatory bodies we serve with all of that comes on the back end too. So, okay. Um, I now have counselor Kais.

Go ahead.

Um, so thank you for this overview. I really wish that somebody did this for me many years ago. Um, so my question or questions are really similar to a counselor gets in that I want to hear from you and it doesn't have to be now but how you think about the planning department strategically like what do you um if you're trying to build something you know you've been you've been here seven six or seven years you've been able to observe and I'm sure like I do at work I always think, oh, they should be doing this, we should be doing that. I want to hear what what you're thinking about and um whether or not you implement, but what ideas you might have, whether it's to streamline or to heavy up in certain areas because you know the city of Newton needs X, Y, and Z or um what changes you might be thinking of. You know, I look just at this uh staff assistance of the boards and commissions and there's so many boards and commissions. Is that a good use of time? I don't know.

Um, but I want to hear that you're thinking about these things because and and and it doesn't have to be everything, but I'm just wondering if you have anything that you um can share about like if it's um you know, I criticisms that might you might have not of people that were here, but of how maybe things were operated, what you want to build on or what you want to change, things like that. Yeah. I think one thing I've spent some time thinking about is kind of being proactive versus reactive. So that's somewhere I'd kind of like to spend a little bit more time and energy thinking about. Um

you have like an example or like what type of situation? I think just in general planning, you know, how can we sort of achieve what we want through uh best practices and guidelines and maybe just looking bigger picture at things instead of uh maybe kind of you know I think reacting to an issue. So maybe just thinking what aren't we doing that we could do more of instead of you know something that had happened and um kind of figuring out how to solve that but more what are we trying to do instead of prevent or if that makes sense.

No it does because that's often what we ask for is well what are other other communities doing? Are they similar or different? How do we build on that or or how do we learn from those? So, I think that's really helpful that but um in general, you know, as we get into budget season, I'd love to hear more about what you're thinking. Okay, great. Okay, [clears throat] on the work chart, I was just wondering to how many, and I don't know if this is how it works, but how many people are in each of these serving each of these? Um, you want to describe what you're pointing at?

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I'm looking I'm looking at the I'm looking at the word chart on page four. So, I think I can give an overview. Just sometimes there's like admin staff who swing between different ones. So it may not

Yeah, I think current we have four to five um staff members and that's the division that kind of responds to development. Um long range I think we're supposed to have two or three I think right now you probably have like one and a half Noran probably half of me. [laughter] Um, historic preservation is two, conservation is two, transportation planning is one, uh, housing and community development, I counted 10 earlier, and CPA is one. And then there's also people who kind of float between like our urban design person kind of splits between long range and current. Um, so then there's other admin staff and our um, communications or outreach person also is kind of has more of an overview of taking information from each division and trying to get it out there and make it more accessible.

So what did you say for current planning? I'm missing the five or five that are supposed to be. So following along on David and I'm guessing yeah, I thought that was sort of what I was thinking about would be are these staffed you know, correctly as well. Um, for what we might want to be doing in the future with transportation being one just something to sort of think about.

Yeah, I think with this particularly with transportation, there's kind of transportation planning, but then there's the uh div department of public works who also has a transportation division. I know, you know, we work very closely with them, but it's sort of where does one pick up, where does one And historically, if I recall, councus, who's been here a long time, has been in public works or planning back and forth. I'm not sure, you know, he's he's still here, but his department changes. So, physical location, you had a question.

No, but you [clears throat] Okay. So, another question I had um kind of related to the way you think about things. I was just listening to councelor Gordon and I I started thinking about uh the budget and I kind of want to challenge you to not look at the budget and say, "Okay, we're just going to keep it flat or we're but to to look at the different buckets and say, you know what, I don't think we need this. Maybe that's consultants line or I want to take this money, move it here." you know, based on what you're hearing from us and what we want to accomplish this term, but to think about it creatively because you have an opportunity

to kind of put your stamp on things. I'm not saying blow it up, but I'm just saying um don't just take it for what it is and accept it. Just think about it. And um I think that's really important. I don't think we challenge, you know, a lot of us have talked about do we need all these consultants and um and sometimes we do, sometimes we don't, but it's hard to know. Um I just get the feeling we're moving away from that. Um and then there are many other line I mean line items I actually can't remember all the line items but maybe um I just I just encourage you to look at different

Yeah. Um I'll come back to me at the end. No, no. I So, the housing people, they're they're all on federal money, aren't they? Not all of them. I think I'm still kind of learning who is and who isn't, but it's a mix. Some are fully funded, some aren't by the federal government. I look Well, we'll find this. We'll look at it when the budget actually comes to see how many of them are actually on our payroll because we never I don't think we see any of those people at this table. Very very

and and if we are interested in housing maybe we should see them more often or see them at least occasionally. Um, and I maybe I'm jaded, but knowing I mean I feel like we're we're barely getting by in all of the areas that we work on. Conservation is two people. I don't know how we could do it less. Yeah.

And um transportation is one person. I don't know how we could do it less. But like I'm thankful that we have someone now. We didn't used to have anybody there. So, um, and you know, if we really, like the other night, I brought up a master plan for Newton Center, there's no way we have the staff to handle it going into depth in in an activity like that with and still handle the stuff that this committee is dealing with from day to day. So, um, there's a lot of stuff I think that we can't do. And I mean you can't really get rid of current planning and say well let's do a master plan for a new center. Yeah, I think maybe that's where consultants are helpful in terms of and I think where consultants do come in is when we are tasked with something like the overlay district or we had to update our inclusionary zoning ordinance and they're kind of able to really dig in and focus all of their time whereas then that frees us up to be more responsive I think to the public to people interested in the new zoning um things like that. But but yeah, I think that's also where I thought to be more proactive. It's just the how and what resources have to do that.

Do you still have consulting money in the budget? I think in this fiscal year, yes, I think so. And and I would hope that you'll keep some of that because I mean it it's just impossible to go into new areas and new big areas without more help.

Yeah. So on [clears throat] the point about um I understand that there may [snorts] be times when the the native planning department internal planning department doesn't have expertise in a particular area and it's good to get a consultant but also [clears throat] I think it would probably be better to staff appropriately. it's cheaper to staff where we could do things and also develop talent or work with um uh consultants but pay less. So I'd be mindful of of not [clears throat] of maybe airing on the side of permanent staff as opposed to consultants.

Right. Um one thing um the consultants and hasn't been in the past [clears throat] transparent about the amount of money that's being used for consultants and things like that and even and I went through with some people and it still didn't make sense. So it would be good for this budget and starting new and new people to have it be transparent.

So u I have a couple of thoughts. I think that the question that councelor [clears throat] Roach raised about whether to rent or buy effectively is what he was asking and I mean we have we have dollars spent on consensus is a better spend on additional people but one of the dimensions that's a little hard to do but it's a long range again is this is called the planning department not the reacting department but it often is the reacting department is counc myself and uh but I think that um consistent with the website redesign and all of that that there may be some information that can get into the the website to inform people. There are a lot of questions you all answer over and over again that are relatively uh straightforward. Now I think having a human face on government is one of the great things about this. So I'm not advocating turning an AI assistant in, you know, turning the public over to the AI assistant, but I think that there's an opportunity as you think ahead about whether there are are things that are being asked over and over again on the on the website. And then the other part is with all the board commissions. You and I have [clears throat] talked in the past about the importance of the regulatory uh commissions because they have actual decision- making authority that's binding as opposed to advisory. So you have to think about where your resources go. Those are ones I think are vital to take care of. But um but I appreciate very much you're taking the time to give us this overview. And I hope members of the committee will um think about other questions that can be posed when we revisit this because again I want to follow the president's request to have a conversation before we get to the budget so that by the time you get to the budget, the budget conversation is really uh responsive to concerns that have been raised already. council real

quick. Um I I understand that um Superintendent Nolan has in her budgets done kind of a thrive survive kind of um progression there three levels of budgeting. I think it would be really interesting to um to have that sort of thing at a department department level. So, how can we meet the needs like um councelor Albright is saying talking about some of the long range planning that we know we want to do? How can we speed up the development approval process? What would that look like to really thrive in terms of of numbers of of people on staff versus what is a survive mode and and be able to see that as opposed to here's what we're proposing. And one other dimension that I don't want to forget. We talked in the past about the fees that are charged and you know some of them are you know that's a longer conversation but it's been a while since some of those fees have been updated and again they're not major but they are revenue sources that can help support the work of the department and the various ISD is not here for example right now but uh they are again in the business of providing assistance to people have that conversation with the commissioner at some So other counc Thank you very much. Thank you. That's great. Now don't go away stay for the next item unless you want more. Okay, the next item is request uh for

discussion on ordinance amendments to dimensional controls aligning use and so this is councilors Oliver Wright Deets Roach Maliki Kas requested discussion to determine alignment of dimensional controls setbacks f etc for residential [snorts] developments with within DU lots to focus consideration of lots in and adjacent to residential neighborhoods. And u so uh council Oliver, you were the lead doctor on this one. You wanted to say a word about where this item came from because it was a item we had before which has been revived for the new term.

Yeah, happy to. Um so and I apologize for talking loudly. for their benefit, not necessarily yours. But um so where this originated was uh and and um no pun intended here whatsoever, but it originated in W one um with a few projects that were going on that were uh easiest way to say it business. I think they were all BU1 lots that were being utilized for 100% residential. They were also utilizing the benefits of the commercial uh controls in particular F uh and and uh setbacks. And what was happening was, you know, I don't think it's any secret here. Uh 20 Clinton Street uh came about and drove people bonkers once we really started to see what that meant on the ground. And I think the item that's in front of us now is tackling a part of the challenge. The way it's currently worded kind of focuses it a little bit differently than it was originally intended. But there are also lots where I would that are not adjacent to residential that if used for residential, I still believe I'd like to have the conversation at least about the simple fact that if you're using a lot for 100% residential,

residential controls should be required. Anyway, that's the quick overview of it. um you know without getting into the tear down item that I think is a little bit adjacent to this one. Um but that's the the general gist. So now congratulations as well as condolences. Welcome. Thank you. Do you want to take us through this?

Yes. And at the risk of stopping the momentum, I was just wondering if it would be okay to introduce myself a little bit since, uh, it is technically my first day in this role. Um, for those I haven't had the pleasure of working closely with, um, my name is Nora Master Colo. Um, I have called New England home since moving east for college, but I am originally from Seattle. Don't hold it against me. Oh, wait. Before we just skip over that, [laughter] who were you rooting for last? Don't answer. Just say yes. I'm married to the biggest Pats fan, so I have my loyalties have changed. All right, then [laughter] proceed.

Um, I first started working with Zap about two years ago. Um, the first kind of project um, I supported with were the zoning amendments to expand opportunities for local businesses. Um and what resulted from that project were um if those of you who voted on it recall um the expansion of uses for shared maker spaces and business incubators. Um and then since then um like the work of the committee my work has focused on um preservation and shaping residential redevelopment. Um so I may have been a little bit more behind the scenes conducting some of the the analysis on tearowns. Um, and then, you know, working on the the recent facade ratio regulation. Um, but yeah, I'm excited to work with you all and keep improving Newton's zoning. I will share my screen. Um, so similarly in the in the vein of introductions um this evening since I know we have it's a new term, we've got some new counselors. Um, I will just be adding context to um what counselor Council President, excuse me, um Oliver has um started to kind of walk through in terms of what um the concern around the residential uses in business zones are. So there we go. See? Um so here's the docket item 5726. Um and I just wanted to kind of hone in on the language of the docket item. Um we're really looking at alignment of dimensional controls. So setbacks, height, F um for residential developments in BEu lots um with that focus on adjacent residential

neighborhoods. Um I wanted to kind of walk it's it's a bit of a a web how this happens. So I just wanted to be super clear about what exact scenarios we're talking about. Um this is when a residential use is pre-existing um in a business zone. Um and so if that property owner applies for a special permit to redevelop fully residential um that special permit's either granted or um granted with specific conditions. Um and as council president Oliver mentioned that residential development occurs using those business dimensional controls, business zone dimensional controls. Um so here you can see kind of zoomed in um again going back to um why that adjacent to residential zoning um is particularly relevant. You can see the side setback um and that is based off of the adjacent abuing district where this is occurring in Newton. Um there's clusters throughout um but it's really a majority in their mantum um 94 of the 133 parcels um that are residential in a business zone um are in W one. Um, and here you can see, um, kind of visually what we're talking about. Um, this is Adam Street. Um, and you see that many of the parcels, um, almost all along this stretch of Adam Street are zoned business. Um, including some of the, um, side streets. And here you can see the land cover map from 2016. Um

it's changed slightly but but not significantly since then. Um and you can see in the yellow that's all the residential uses um with just some some smatterings of um commercial. Um and so how that kind of looks on the ground. Um here you can see the business on the corner of Adam Street. That's what you see kind of in that that pinkish shade right there. um with a sequence of you know residential buildings um going down Murphy Court and you can see all of those um Murphy Court um homes are zoned business and with that I open so [clears throat]

um this is just a quick question so these houses I mean, I don't know. Are they look to me like they're typical residential properties that would meet the residential they're typical houses in that area and they they're not gigantic things like Clint. Am I right about that? Yes, definitely. Um kind of a similar scale to other parts of of the area for So, if one of those let's let's take the example of council, right? one of them gets bought, they want to tear it down and put something else up and it goes for special permits.

So, does the land use committee have the ability to say you're in a business zone, but we want you to meet the residential standards? I believe so, but I would prefer to No,

the land use could request that though. Discretion, I think. I think it would law department might have a guidance on Yep. Did you hear the question? The question was, does the land use committee have the authority to impose a residential setback or dimensional control incident to a special permit if there is a building that is residential in a business zone being torn down and replaced with a larger residential structure? Am I correct? Yes. Yes.

The special permit um granting authority could put those conditions. They would have to, you know, squarely put it in the rationale for why they're making those determinations. And as long as they do that, generally speaking, of course, we have to look at each project project uh each project on a case-by case basis, but generally speaking, that would be permissible. So, it feels like and and you know, if that if something like that were to happen and and while we're considering what to do about this particular dog item, the land use committee should be informed

that they can apply residential standards. they don't have to do what is asked of them. They could they could apply your residential standards. So I think that would be an important thing to pass on to them. Just add that as part of the pre-development review process. That's the kind of information you want to have passed back to the applicant real early in the process rather than wait till the land use committee discussion and say, [clears throat] "Oh, surprise." Yeah. All right. Okay. Councelor.

Yeah. Sorry. Um, interesting question. I want to phrase the same question just slightly differently. If a project got like this got to land use and the requests were put in, hey, we know you only have to go use setbacks of, and I'm going to make this up, five side setbacks of five feet, but we're going to ask you to make it 10 feet because you're doing residential. Does the property owner have to do that or can they just say no because the zoning allows for it? And that's actually the challenge that I'm trying to or hoping to solve for. Not necessarily. And I think this is a really important part of this conversation at least. No, even more so for the utters than for that property owner. That's the point. at least that I'm after because it wasn't the 20 Clinton Street property owners that I was more concerned about after we saw the structure going up. It was six it was uh 12 and 24 that really currently bear the burden of the property that was built on 16-20. So, it does seem to me that the question I'm trying to solve for isn't can we ask for it, but do they have to actually follow that request? And my like I don't see how that's at all possible because we're basically giving land use now the ability to say the zoning now I want it to be as I want it to be smaller. Well,

I I don't think that that's of per in under the purview of land use on a regular basis. If it's written into a condition that the applicant would be required to comply,

I think there's a few play out. It could be the applicant say no, we don't want to make that change and then it's up to the land use committee to yeah decide using the criteria this is appropriate and that um you could go through the process and the can you know say one of the standards that's more generous in a business zone is F. So say the lane, this happens in single residence zones too. They'll say that your F is a little high. Can you come down? And then I think you know we give or the committee gives them a chance to revise their plan to come back but they don't always. So it's really kind of if if this then what happens? But I think the land use committee also has the discretion uh to deny a project as well. So I think the tr the tricky thing with land use is everything is case by case. You know what neighborhood is it? How big is the lot? What is the neighborhood look like? Do other projects have uh nonconformities or are larger for the small nature of the law. And I think attorney Lee, jump in if I'm misspeaking anywhere, but I think it's a very I don't want to say choose your own adventure, but it almost sounds like that. Um let me just point out historically if I recognize this just for that purpose there was council I remember about 20 years ago we did do some uh reszoning of different areas we did something over 46 which were residential properties were single family and they were zoned for multif family we said the zoning and the should be consistent with each other rather than have them be at variance this is certain in a sense what's a little different flavor of what you're asking We've done this in the past. Let me go now. Wait a minute. I want to make sure I recognize people. Councelor Gat, I'll come back.

Oh, and I see councelor Black has got Okay. I'm, you know, I'm just jumping on the the database here. And um Attorney Lee, please confirm that these houses are like from the 1880s. So, they predate zoning. Um and they're on 1500 square foot lots. So that they're, you know, it's a it's a it's a pre-existing non-conforming use. So one would assume that they would have the right to build up to what is on the lot right now, irrespective of, you know, [snorts] any sort of controls. Am I wrong in that?

It would all depend on what it is that they're asking for. If they're just tearing down and they want to build something new pursuant to the current zoning, then they they can do that. if they're looking simply to retain their non-conforming status, we would have to look at exactly what they're they're building. Um, or if they're just going to keep part of it and then extend their non-conforming status, but generally speaking, they can retain their non-conforming status if it's an existing building. Yeah. And these these are like maxed out, you know, just looking at this, they're like, you know, postage stamps with all building, you know, they're on the lot lines. So, I think this is

if if that house was to burn down, could you ask attorney Lee, could they build it back the same way? I would think so. If it didn't burn down, they would be able to build it back the exact same way. Someone told me last week, ISD told us that interested as long as they they build on top of their footprint where they are now, they can't add anymore. But if they kept, you know, the same footprint, they can build on top of that. So, I'm gonna recognize councelor Black, then I'll come back. So glad to have you here, Council Black.

Well, thank you, Chair. Glad to be here. Um, this is um I guess a suggestion for the planning department. this fascinating conversation. By the way, um I think it would help the land use committee if we're going to be kind of sensitive to this dilemma about um residential development in a business use zone. If if we were informed just as a matter of course, what modifications would be necessary on the part of the petitioner to um to meet to comply with the residential uh zone requirements. So I if if that were just laid before us as part of that standard memo, uh first of all that would sensitize us to this question which which is really I think appropriately being discussed in zap as opposed to in land use. Um, so we would be reminded if we needed reminding, and I think sometimes we do, um, about this tension, I guess we'll just say, um, and then it would be the the specifics. Um, councelor Oliver gave gave an example of five feet side setback versus 10. Um, and at least that would be laid in front of us. uh whether what we do with it in land use, how the petitioner would respond to um urgings um to move in one direction or another

that that's going to depend on the situation. Um I I thought um Miss Weewell's comment about it's frequent that someone comes in with a high F and we say, "Well, that's that's a stretch. Can you reduce the F?" And we hold it and they go away and they come back. And most of the time there's some adjustment. Some of the time there isn't. Um and and and it's It's a quasi negotiation process. So, um, and I don't I don't know that that really changes um because we have these determinations and we've got to always come back to the determinations that are necessary as we decide whether to approve or reject a special permit petition. So that's just a comment and a request I guess of planning to consider

come to you in the committee. Right. Please go.

Okay. [clears throat] So first of all I I deeply resent the fact that you raised that issue about W six because that was my first time making public comments and I wish I could [laughter] take that. Um I do remember that hearing on public hearing on um uh the the changing to single residents uh near Bowen School. Um so it strikes me here that the situation that we had was you know uh whenever this was there were buildings built residential and and mixed residential and business. there was zoning that reflects what the city wanted to have happen in this area. And we'll just look at this the the the slide seven, right? And that that desire to to create a business zone did not kind of overcome the built environment and it remained residential. And I think what we should be doing is asking the same question which is what do we want to have here rather than tinkering with the the dimensional controls and I I don't know that there's a clear answer right because um you know uh as a council that the the prior council many members have made it clear that they they do not wish to give up commercial um uh commercially zoned parcels because that's potentially higher tax revenue. On the other hand, the odds that this has turned into a commercial zone is very low. Um this is not residential to kind of modern zoning standards in terms of setbacks and height. Possibly this is an opportunity for denser um you know slightly uh taller but but you know less in in these smaller setbacks and more in the multif family. Maybe this is an opportunity to say this is actually closer to um uh you know stuff that's

not a great development opportunity because if you if you tore it down to rebuild it, you'd have to actually build smaller. So maybe just leaving it as it is makes sense. But I think the question that we need to ask is what do we want this to look like in the next 10 15 years? From there, determine is this the right zoning and we need to tweak it. Do we need to just make this a single or multi-resident zone? Does this require an entirely different uh zone? Because one of the things that's really unique about this area is in fact the fact that commercial is sprinkled in among the residential which is not something that our current zoning allows in terms of lot by lot. There's some you know residential above commercial. So, it's a very interesting conversation, but I think we need to ask that fundamental question.

Thank you, Council Oliver and Council Right. Great. Um, actually, it does allow it. Um, BU1 BU2 without a special permit. Correct me if I'm about to step on myself here, but BU1 BU2 does allow by right residential above commercial. one story. So, it is allowable. What I'm actually looking to investigate here and and uh Jen, Zack, I think you were there as well that day. We walked up and down, right?

Yeah. uh Adams in particular, there are instances where and councelor Roach just brought this up. There are places where we're talking about bots that are well down a residential street where option or solution A might make more sense, i.e. perhaps even just changing the zoning to residential, moving on. Um, but I also agree that, you know, I'm definitely one of the voices from last term who has been calling out for like, hey, let's stop giving away the commercial properties, the lots. So the thinking that I had actually proposed and I think we have that presentation that I hope we still have a chance to kind of bring to the table kind of just spin through again did say I'm actually more interested in making this change when a lot is redeveloped. If for example, you know, one of the properties along uh Clinton or even I don't know about court that's a little bit of of an anom anomaly itself given the small size of the lots, but that's what I think we need to take a look at because it does seem to me that if somebody comes along and says, I want to take down a residential house, one or two family, I'm not quite sure if it matters to me or if there would be a difference in how I might want to treat it more to the point if they're going to take down residential structure and put up sorry I want to make sure I'm saying this right if they want to put up a 100% residential structure on a business lot

in the middle of that community 100% you nothing you shouldn't have we don't need to rely on land use to make a determination to say you need to use the residential controls here. Why? You're building 100% residential. You don't have to, but if you choose to, residential controls. And that's kind of the that's why I think [clears throat] uh last term Mac and Jen were very focused on kind of breaking this up into a couple of different solutions, which it took me a while to finally land on why they were looking to do it that way, but I got it and I think that's still the right way to roll.

Oh, so I'm thinking about how Sorry. Go ahead.

Um, there's something about the dependability of zoning that people can know what the future is going to bring in my lot, in my neighborhood. And um, if you do it on a case-byase basis, you lose that dependability. You don't know what will happen because sometimes depending on who's sitting around the table. You could have one outcome or another outcome and you'd rather rather know I'm going to live in a residential area and it's going to stay this way instead of having what happened and you know we don't know what happened. So, um I kind of resonate very strongly with what councelor Roach just said about why don't we figure out what we want this to be and and and zone it that way. And um I mean I kind of think that Murphy Court, is that the name of that street? That's not going to be it's not going to ever be a business district.

So we can look closely at all that the areas and um and and reszone, but I do like the fact that you can have a coffee shop within walking distance of your house and we don't often allow that. So, if we can figure out how to do that at the same time to to make some of this commercial be okay and make the rest of it be residential, it feels like that that's a good way to go for everybody that's living there now. I agree. You're right. I know. I I think everything I've just heard is Yeah. that.

So, but I I didn't understand then what you meant by the case byase basis. I would love to understand that better. I think what I was saying is I don't want to leave it to land to make case by Okay. So no I and I suggest okay councelor R and C.

Okay. So um according to numbers 90% of these lots are in. And what we've been talking about like Adam Street has has a mix and stuff. We wouldn't touch that because that is a commercial corridor. But if you go down Clinton and Murphy, two cars can't go find each other. You know, when cars parked, I mean, someone to put a business there, um, I don't think would work very well at all. There's no parking. It's hard to get. There's no things like that. So, we're talking more those side streets which are now all residential, you know. And the thing is with the BU lot your F is two to three times greater which is the volume your house that you can build um on those lots and and the setbacks too and like they don't even need setbacks or you know because they're a bing other um BU lots. So I mean I could see and we were talking a little bit about it. It's, you know, maybe one or two lots in from Adam Street and then the rest of those lots would be zoned reszone residential because someone may take a lot on Adams and take the next lot behind it which is on that side street and create a bigger building or whatever that would be okay but once you get into those side streets I think

I think that reinforces both of the notions that I heard here which I completely agree. There's a zoning also has an aspect of it that I consider to be a social contract between the city and the homeowner. And what you see there, what you buy your lot and you're in a residential neighborhood, that's really what you expect to see moving forward is residential. Say,

sorry, let me just add one thing to this again. I'm not sure your marching order should be clear even if the department has the staff time to do it. But um what I'm hearing from several people is that part of the difficulty is not that the commercial use is taking over. It's that the residential use using commercial dimensionals has happened. And uh to the extent that there can be some clarification in the ordinance to indicate that if you're in a residential neighborhood, which is the point that's been made, um that you should be expected to use residential dimensionals as a matter of zoning rather than wait for the land use committee. So if that's the sense of the meeting, I think if you can take that back to what might be specific responses because again [clears throat] we are delighted to discuss these ideas but uh we also want to make progress and avoid a Clinton Street return. I just if I can make one comment about the tradeoffs. Um I'm I'm open to exploring all the possibilities and and um continuing with this work. I think to the point about the social contract, um if there were to be a reasonzoning, um my only um priority would be ensuring that there was significant engagement because while the social contract applies to the neighbors and ensuring that those setbacks are are respected, um we also have to consider the property owners and by reducing the potential potential development capacity on their lot, we would be reducing their potential property value. And so, um, before making a change like that, I would just want to ensure that we were doing adequate, um, engagement with with

the impacted.

I understand that. I just want to say though that it's important to understand that the value is a construct of the zoning. It's not there's nothing inherent in the house of a size of that size that says that except that the city has made a judgment that is a business use rather than a residential use. If the city had made the residential use, we wouldn't have this conversation to begin with. They would use residential side. So I think there ought to be a distinction made between a value shift that is a function of of something inherent in property versus what amounts to really kind of an artificial construct. the city has created. So we don't need to I think those are different kinds of values and we have not shrunk in the past from making decisions that change property values because it was an important thing to do. The F construct itself was one we passed many years ago because we were [clears throat] concerned that people were tearing down properties and building immense structures in their place and there wasn't anything to stop them from doing that. And so we said that's not what we think is of the public interest. So, I just want to make sure that we don't misunderstand ourselves that we we want to make sure people who are affected understand what they're doing, but we also want to understand that our zoning should be rational. This council right that it reflects an underlying policy that the city feels wise.

Okay. Councelor Kos. So, I need some clarification. Councelor Ro suggested um sign zoning based on what we want to be built there. Um, but wasn't that done a 100 years ago or whenever this Sony was created and then it's become a jumble of residential and business? And is that because of land use, the way that we operate the city? And what's to say that if we do assign that we won't end up in the same place? You're asking me.

I'm asking I'm not sure. Is this a rhetorical question that if it's a direct question? I'm looking for an answer because I'm confused. Well, all right. [laughter] There's been a question posed. Is there someone who thinks the man councelor Wright thinks I want to recognize? I'll come back to council.

So, what we're looking at is these side streets that are all residential. There are no businesses there. So, it was zoned and they were built before the zoning, but when they zoned it, they did give it a BU. No idea why they did be you going down these side roads where there's all residential. So, it's all residential now. It's been that way for 100 125 years, and I don't expect it to change. Now, the only thing that might change from a business standpoint is a a personal business office, but you can do that in residential if you're a CPA or something like that, and that is allowed in residential. But if it was, you know, fully a BEu, um like a 7-Eleven or something like that could go in there, but if you take you should take a drive down the street.

So, we would touch low hanging fruit. We wouldn't touch. Oh, no, no, no, not at all. Okay. Yeah. At least that's not my certainly my intentions. Okay. And we talked about it last time is we maybe we'll touch the first lot in um and keep that as BEu in case you know whoever owns it street buys the next lot and we're expanding it or whatever. But then the rest of it would all be residential.

Yeah. None of the main streets we would be touching but really residential neighborhoods. They have been residential the whole time. I'd say that the city's pattern has not been to necessarily extend the business use all the way deep as it occurs here. It's been to be on the margin of the commercial corridor at residential behind councelor Roach.

Hi, Councelor Wright basically said what I was going to say just to recap pre-existing zoning zoning is going to change. is a reflection of what we want and we see that in both good ways and bad ways. Um and if the current land use is what we think is optimal there and single family best captures or or best corresponds to that um then we should make it single family or or multif family or we should think you know as people redevelop what do we want to see here right because I think the key here is that these homes are not only nonconforming ing to BEu. They're non-conforming to SR1, SR2, MR1, MR2. Right? So, what do we do? We want to discourage tearowns. None of these seemed historically significant to me. Do we want to encourage a certain kind of redevelopment? Speaking for some of us, that would probably be more smaller units rather than fewer larger units. So, what does that look like? But these I think are the questions to ask and I and I agree wholeheartedly with um councelor Wright and I believe uh President Oliver as well. Adam Street is a potential commercial corridor and it's and it's deeper down the side streets. So, I

already [laughter] I wouldn't I wouldn't um ignore Adam Street because I know that over the past number of years, we've had a lot of land use projects on Adam Street that that have been all residential. So, I think we need to look at Adam Street and see what what it what it has been, what it is becoming, and what do we want it to be? And if we want it to be business, then what can we do to encourage business? Because right now it's turning very residential. So I think we need to focus on Adam Street and say what do we want here? And if we want something else, how do we make it happen? Okay. Um council right now let off.

I think that's a second thing. I think our our major thing is getting the side streets, but I think that's a Adam Street and wanting commercial there. Um, and how to get commercial there. I think that's a second question because it's also like at Riverside at Northland, you know, those were big commercial sites and it's going mostly residential. Yeah,

I I I agree. Like there's no reason to just ignore Adam Street. I think I think it goes without saying though that I would have completely different objectives. I want something different on Adam Street than I do down. That's really it. So I I think Council Wright just said it. It's like what we're really after here is preventing, you know, residential use on BEu lots that can have BU controls. Not I didn't dockate this to modify street. So it's kind of a different topic almost but

well no I think part of the question that I'm hearing it is and the department may need to reflect on this and come back with all the ample staff time you have this [laughter] um is is councelor Oliver has made the the simple point that a property that is going to be used for solely residential should be bearing uh should these using residential dimensions. Now, what kind of change that would require in our zoning in a sense is table change as opposed to what [clears throat] we've been talking about is really a map changes. That's a difference thing to do. Uh but it seems to me that at least the genesis of this idea was that there was an anomaly that someone who was going to be wholly residential because it happened to be in a business zone got to play with a different set of rules and I think the sense of the committee is I hear it is that the committee would like to change those rules so that they play with the same rules that the residents. So if there's a a response as aside from reasonzoning different making map changes, I think that would be a question for you and the law department to examine whether there is a relatively simple modification to our zoning that says if it's the use entirely is residential, it should use reset. I mean I don't know if that's any more venture than that, but that's what I hear the sense of the committee would like to do. Now how we what happens to nonatanim and other various pieces that you've discussed there are a whole lot of map changes and things but I hope that we could move this item forward in another conversation maybe get to the point of even getting an amendment that we can consider you know is that sense possible for for you guys to give the wards that are involved with this I saw

there was some W two there was some W three could you just let us know what the areas are in our awards because we might want to do something similar. Yeah, you haven't been quiet, I think. I don't I don't have to say a lot of the time. I'm not required to speak. Well, ju just on councelor Albright's point. I think we said at some point I heard 90% are in, but it's actually about twothirds. It's 94 out of 133 parcels. So,

I thought it was okay. So, yeah. So it's it's what's that two three quarters or so. And so it seems like if because we've considered this tonight so carefully kind of looking at the maps in nantumm if we are going to be considering a table change of a map change then it seems like we should at least take a look at the other neighborhoods where there's a certain amount of this and understand what the context is there and what the impact would be there. Yes. And I think it's also boards five and six have a quick look at the map a good amount. [clears throat] Thank you.

We were last time looking at which I think we need to do and it's a bunch of second

I'm going to suggest that this is not a lot by lot. I think that there's you can look at the various areas but I think what we're talking about is a dimensional requirement shift. Um, now it will have lot by line impacts, but um, anyone know what those impacts are and where they are, but um, I don't hear anyone uh, desiring that we want to see buildings oversized just because they happen to be in a business zone as opposed to being in a residential zone. That's I think that's an anomaly of our zoning that we would like to have remedied as I hear it. So that part I hope that the planning department would take take home and say okay if you if you want to do that what does that look like that our summary okay thank you entertain a motion to hold on this item hold all those in favor say I

opposed [clears throat] okay the eyes have it now it's my great pleasure to relinquish [clears throat] the chair in favor of the vice chair who's going to run the next conversation I can take my cookies. I'll You want to stay there? Come on, sit up here. Yeah. Yeah. These are these are for those of you who are new to this committee. This committee uh is very highly intellectually engaged, but we won on fuel. Yeah. You know,

[clears throat] for the public interest.

Okay. Our um our next item um I'll read the chair's note. The discussion on the following item will be designed to help explain the village center overlay district which we refer to as VCOD and its relationship with other zoning ordinances to allow for future updates from planning instructional services in law. So the item is 46-26 periodic updates on BCOD proposals. Councelor Albbright requesting updates twice per year on potential projects brought to the planning department under the new village center overlay district. The updates should include indications of interest and actual permits filed for which villages and under which zoning districts, number of stories and units as well as a type of entity requested BC2, BC3, MRT with suggestions for change made about any of these any of these. So this is just a discussion item on this and it's not the specific data. The intent was just to have everybody in the room [clears throat] understand what the BC district is. We talked about it, but there are several of us who live through an entire word term. And we began to throw these terms around like we knew them, you know, by heart. But in fact, the general public, if you said we're talking about BCOD, they have no idea what this means. Surprise.

[clears throat] So, um, on the theory that we should know what we're doing, at least pretend to, uh, that's why we want to have a conversation. So, who's going to do this one? And again, try that again with more enthusiasm. You have a gun to my head. [laughter]

This is great. Um, so yes, this is this is a an overview of, you know, you all one way or another, whether you were a resident at the time or a city councelor, worked to pass um this zoning and and what came of it. Um, so there's that docket item. Um, as I'm sure you all know, um, all zoning consists of a map and, um, zoning language. Um and so here you can see the map of VCOD. Um and then chapter 9 is what dictates the regulations within it. Um it applies to Newton Center, Newton Highlands, Elliot, Wavin, Auburnale, West Newton, Newtonville. Oh, excuse me. Before I um proceed, I just want to introduce um Jane, who is here tonight. She um

she didn't have a last name. You want to pronounce it? Yes.

Our state official. So you probably

chief zoning code official. Say your last name one more time.

[laughter]

like that. Um, sort of sort of I asked Jane to come tonight mostly for the Q&A portion of this discussion because she knows everything backwards and forwards and I always go to her with my questions. So, I figured I'd just bring her to you. [snorts] Um, all right. So, the um BCOD is consists of three subd districts. Um, multi-residents transit or MRT um is kind of an infill residential um district intended for the residential areas um near villages and transit and it includes a provision for um adaptive reuse that um we've seen quite a bit of um projects utilizing um in the past six months or so. Um we've got village center 2 um which um provides moderate development potential to um the parcel zoned within it. Um it looks a little purple when it's faded, but it's that that blue section you can see. Um, and here we have Newton Center as an example because it it really um I think well shows kind of the ringed structure of um the farthest out from the village center being those um MRT district um kind of the next ring being that VC2 um and that is intended for smaller village centers and main streets um with emphasis on ground flooror activity. Um and then we've got BC3 um which provides out of the three um the highest development potential um and that applies to um major corridors and um allows taller buildings um and also includes um controls for building sign and that street level appearance to really um shape the most central areas

of the villages in which it applies. Um so diving a little deeper into MRT. Um this is specifically focusing on the new construction pathway. So um if you have um a uh empty parcel or you have um demolished the existing structure and you're building completely new um the footprint maximum is um 1,500 square feet. Um the building height is two and a half stories or 40 feet um with a pitch roof or or two stories and 24 feet um with a flat and the building setback is um 20 feet or average. I will defer to Jane on how to fully articulate the average calculation um if you're interested. Um the side setback is 10 feet and the rear is 15 feet. Um and that average um definition is in section 1.5.3. Um this is also MRT. Um and this is the adaptive reuse pathway. Um so the image here is an actual project that just recently got approved um through the site plan review process with the planning board. Um this requires the preservation of the existing principal building. Um in this project's case that was this home here. Um and it allows for increased unit maximum up to six um within that preserved structure. Um as well as additional 50% um square feet of the existing building footprint. Um it exempts the applicant from the open space requirement. Um and you can have multiple buildings on the lot provided they of course meet the setback and other requirements. Um but then it is subject to site plan review um in front of the planning board.

I just want to jump in on the MRT when you build new has to be either three or four units. Yeah, four up to four. Minimum. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Can I just I think that the six units they do not all have to be in the same building. They can be in this over the two buildings.

Yeah. So it's um sorry I should have put the minimum. It's a maximum of six units in the existing principal structure. Um so if let's say you had a very large Victorian you wanted to preserve and you could fit six units in that home, you could go up to six. There's a minimum um of three units per structure. So, what we've been seeing um it seems like kind of the market sweet spot for these projects is three units in the existing principal building um and then three units in the additional building. So, in this case, it's it's this building here. Um and that's why many of these are triggering site plan review um because they are adding um an additional um building on the site.

I just clarify question. Oh, yeah. So, so that I understand. So, you can have six units in the existing building and build [clears throat] no additional building. Yes. Or you can have three and three. Yep. Or but but you couldn't do two and four. No. No. Or four and two or one and five. Correct. But you can do six and four. You can't do six and four. So, there's no total. Yes, there is. The maximum maximum of the main house is six. Yeah. And the second building, the maximum is four. You could have a third building there, but then I think that's a special permit. Yeah.

No. Or is it site plan review only for the third building? You can have more than one multi. Yeah, you can have multiple buildings. Um but that would be site plan review. That would be fair. It it definitely is possible, but um most of the lots wouldn't um allow for that based off of the setback requirements and there's a 20 foot between each building requirement. Um so you'd have to have but a very big block in a scenario in which you had a very large farm or something. You kept the farmhouse, you turn that into six units, you could then just do infinite number as 24 unit buildings as you can fit. Yeah. Within 24 the setbacks and everything else. Yes.

Okay. So there's there's not a maximum total unit as long as it needs. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for bringing that up because um that also just just something that we've run into as a challenge is um and Jane has been the one at the counter talking through this with folks. But um some people are having trouble preserving carriage houses because of that three unit minimum. Um, so sometimes an existing carriage house, they'd like to put in, you know, two units into that. Um, but since there's a minimum of three, um, then they typically have been opting to, um, remove any existing structures on the site. Last question and then we're going to wait until the answer. Okay,

go ahead. Yes, I'm just putting in a plug because I did docket an item which would allow the two and four. So, it's going to come before us at some point. Great. So, we'll wait to the

Yeah, happy to come back to this. Um, did I get to all of that? Yep. Um, so then we have BC2 or village center 2. Um, the maximum footprint is 10,000 square feet. Maximum stories is three and a half or 58 feet for a pitched roof. Flat roof three and a half or 56 feet. um zero front sat back, zero side unless you're abing a residential or public use district. Um and then five feet in the rear no matter what or 20 if you're abing a residential or public use. Um and then BC3 um footprint is 15,000. Um there are uh you can have a special permit between um 15,000 Oh no, I'm confusing lot sizes. Um pitched roof 4 and a half stories or 71 ft. Flat roof 4 and a half or 69 um and or 50 um from a residential district. um side zero same side setbacks um same setbacks as BCT. Um in addition to the kind of standard building um dimensional requirements, there is an affordable housing bonus. Um, so that allows for an additional story, um, increasing that max height, um, an additional 2,500 square feet of footprint. Um, and the requirement for BC3 is 50% affordable um, at 50% 50 to 80% AMI. For BC2, it's 25%. Um, and that's also 50 to 80% AMI unless it is ownership in the

VC2, in which case it's 80%. Um, there's also regulations around um what we call mixeduse priority streets. Um, the goal of this was to um promote commercial activity in those village centers. Um so that requires um in the entire width of the ground floor has to be an active use. Um residential dwelling units are not permitted in the active use area. Um but there is allowances for residential um lobbies, you know, just allowing for an entrance to get into the building, but it has to be um limited and and secondary. Um and that these streets are are mapped. So, um there's specific streets um on the the zoning map. Um there's also fenestration and facade articulation requirements. Um you know, this is really just to um enhance the design of these structures. Um and again to make um that that village commercial feel. Um so you can see the the fenestration requirement um here. that's you know how much is that sort of um classic business window. Um and then the facade articulation are dimensions where an sort of um job in the building is required. So you can't have um a long just very flat um block like building. Um there's also um a pedestrian ground requirement. So, um it's intended to to ensure that um any redevelopment under the VC2 or VC3 does create um ample pedestrian space for sidewalks and trees. Um and there's specific kind of defined outdoor activity that that's

allowed as well. And then quickly, I I won't go into detail on on all of these um but happy to answer any questions on them, especially with Jane's help. Um there's additional regulations for uses um vehicle parking design standards, bicycle parking standards, um and standards for building entrances, um among other kind of laws in it. So before we start um I just want to a little bit more history for some people. So [clears throat] we started as um reszoning all the village centers. So this was only a few of them. But then as we were going through that, then the MBTA Communities Act came in. So then we kind of morphed those two together and some of the other village centers dropped out. Um they wouldn't have counted anyways towards the NBTA communities act. And also that's why you see that big connection of Newton Center and the Highlands and to Elliot because part of the NBTA communities act 50% had to be contiguous. So but we first started as um reszoning the village centers and we did have a BC1 but that went away as part of part of um when we went to the NBTA communities act. Okay. So, councelor Albbright, your first question.

Oh, I lost track. My question was um wasn't

No, yeah, it was defin Oh, I know what it was. So, um, this has to do with the original reason for docketing is not not just to hear about the definitions, which I'm glad that you're giving us, but also to hear about, um, how are we doing in getting people to do what we've asked them to do. I'm [clears throat] particularly interested in BC2. I know we're getting a lot of MRTs and I and I know in my ward I I know of two VC3s, but how are we doing on BC2s? Um, based off of my tracking, which picked up from from Jen's tracking, um, we only have had one BC2 that um, requested a DRT um, and we haven't heard um, how that project is progressing since

Valley building. So, I think we actually have to the one we talked about today [clears throat] that applied for engineering. Oh yeah. Say that again. Yeah. So, sorry. Go ahead.

So, I think Dora was talking about one where we just had a preliminary meeting with them, but then there's another one where we did have a couple meetings with them and they've applied for their engineering site interview. So, that's to ensure compliance with storm water ordinance. We kind of get pinged on it just to make sure they can opt into the overlay so they don't get too far with checking that. But, um, that's cylinder review by engineering. What about BC3? Because beyond the two that I know about, are there many of those? You say which ones? I don't know any of these. So, can [clears throat] you can you tell us which ones you know about in in my ward? The ones that are

the only ones I know about are in my ward and it's the one there's a 100% affordable on Washington Street where Rice Valley is and there is another one coming the church on Highland. that's been going through the historic commission and I think they're just about done with that. That's BC3. Yeah, those are two BC3s. There's a couple in West Newton. They're These guys probably haven't heard about it either, but And that's BC2 and BC3 and they'll be coming in [snorts] West Newton. They're not quite there yet to come forward. I I know some of them have DRT, but um yeah, VC3

and one would be a VC2 and two would be VC3. institutes. Have they had Well, the one the the Loma a while ago, they had a 6,000 square foot lot and they had a DRT for 27 units on the 6,000. Yes, that's the one that's engineering. By the way, that was 6,000 square feet and 27 units.

Yes. Okay. Um Okay. So, here's what we I'll I'll add I think it's just missing that one. Um kind of the threshold for when I I started tracking and I just updated um this today to to make sure I had it ready for this meeting. Um this is so that there's one um BC 2 missing it sounds like that received a DRT. Um but other than that, these are the the BC2 and BC3. Um and then the rest of these are um MRT.

So is there any way that you can keep that page in a place where we can see it as it develops? Yeah. Um Katie and I were just discussing this um potentially um being able to update maybe monthly um with with the new projects that and then the the other projects I'm talking about they haven't sold the properties yet. So so until that happens they're not approaching but they're already forming plans. So right

okay so now I have um yes counselor [clears throat] So uh thank you for this. I have two questions uh related to the what you said about carriage houses. So [clears throat] you correct me if I'm wrong. You said that people want to preserve their carriage houses but they have a trouble they have trouble meeting the requirement that they have three units in them. Exactly.

If they were only trying to preserve it and use it as one unit then it would be an ADU. It could be an INDU. Is that correct? Provided that it were under the the various other like size of dimensional and setback requirements and or that it had received a historic designation, right? Yes. Can it I think it still could be an ADU even if it had received historic designation even as long as they're only making Sorry. What I what I meant was that if it was if it broke the other rules about then it would need to get a historic designation in order to become Oh, sorry. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So, so it's act the issue it sounds like is that the that there's a gap around two units. Yeah.

So, if it's if someone wants to make it two units, uh it can't be an ADU, but if they want to make it three, that's actually they can't fit three into the building. Is that right? So, that seems like a kind of funny need. We should fix that. We should fix that. Yeah. [laughter] Um, uh, and how does that relate to the preservation of a carriage house and a and a main house? Like, is are we talking about do those get counted as two separate buildings that can then both be three units? Uhhuh. Okay. So, that is that what's kind of what's happening? Someone wants to preserve both, but then they have to meet three in both. Yeah. And they say, "Oh, I can't do three in the carriage house, so I'm going to tear it down and do nothing or build something new."

Yep. Okay. That's helpful to understand. But they I'm I'm assuming that they would be able to in the carriage house make one unit. So that then they would at least be able to keep that house and make it something. But the challenge for making only one unit is that if an existing carriage house doesn't meet dimensional if it's too big. So if it's over 1,200 if it's a if it's deemed historically significant that it can exceed If it's not deemed historically significant, then it can't exceed the dimension of requirements. So if your house, what's that? Most are most it'll be easy to get.

Yeah. I don't I would be surprised. We went through all of this in excruciating detail just recently, right? As well. And I think we correct me if I'm wrong, but we didn't leave many stones unturned when it came to carriage houses and allowing them to be preserved in multiple different ways. Yeah. as is basically as an ADU. But the I guess what I'm saying is like the cost if you you might need you might need the rent of two units in order to make make it affordable to have such a large carriage house be converted and usable as space. I'm just trying to understand why why this gap would occur where people say, "Well, I can't do it so tear down."

Yeah. Jay, do you want to speak to what they're hearing at the counter at all? So projects like this where [clears throat] multiple owners it's less desirable to have an 80 has to be associated with one of the units at least. So there has to be an order of one of the units of structure has to that one as well and those configurations that's a little less desirable all of the MRT projects that come in thus far. So typically you don't see that kind of configuration coming up that typically you see you know I want my mom to work with me or I want to stay here and live in the ADU and rent out the big house or I want to titer For example, I think it was um I we had 40 Hartford and 50 Hartford come through. It was 50 most recently.

40 most recently. I always um but they had a it wasn't a carriage house. It wasn't historic, but they had an existing um type garage type building um and they um didn't they didn't want to make it a unit for the resale. And so they they turned it into an office so that it was kind of easier to associate um you know uh selling a unit with an additional office space than saying hey want to buy a unit and also another unit at the same time. Okay. But and the result was someone purchased that and it proposed this what you showed us earlier which was a whole building. The result

down the garage. No the result for that was a um I showed a different one. The result was um they kept the the garage, but they didn't turn it into a unit. They just kept it as an office and then deeded it to one of the um units that so they they had room to build an additional building. Um so they had the three units in the main building, the three units in an additional building, and then one of those three units in the additional building was deeded this extra office space that was in the garage. Next is councelor Baker.

So to pick up on councelor Albright's request when you have the table if you can just have the lots or map you know where they are. I think that's maybe incorrect but it's just you know be nice to be able to click on it and go see where it is. Oh lit or maybe just link to the assessor. I just think the more more visual you can make this, the easier it's going to be. I'm so proud. [laughter] Okay. Um, are you counselor? I just want the table. [laughter]

I'll [clears throat] the no. Okay. I want the table. [laughter] We all want the table. Okay. Um, I just wanted to clarify some for viewing for people who aren't familiar with BCOD. There are also no parking requirements in any [clears throat] BCOD or MRT. I think that's very important. There are there are parking requirements in the MIT in there are in MRT but not in DC.

No. DC3 if the lot is over 20,000 square feet and um yeah between 20 and 30,000 square feet they need I think a half of a space per unit um that's not a lot of lots yeah three is in a lot between 20 and 30,000 square feet I think if I recall 15 and then MRT um you can explain It's [laughter] no parking requirements.

Great. Yeah. And in MRT it's one half per unit in the existing structure and then one per unit in the new structure. Um and so what that has resulted in in the most recent projects are a requirement of five um because they've got three and three and then um they have um you have to round up um and they um have typically been providing six so one for each. Yeah, typically. Okay. and counselor gets

um you know I actually really appreciate getting the table you know in terms of of being able to like sort of see what we have but you know I also think that I really like the idea of getting it in on the housing data page or someplace where then we have the ability to go straight to new gov see all the documents see all you know that's that's really helpful and it you know I'm always wondering what word it is and we have so Q now that it would be kind of nice to even understand where they are because you've got the listing the status but we've already gone round ramen and we're talking about you know five other projects that are potentially coming and I'd even like to know those addresses you know that they're hovering they're hovering you know they're so that would be inclusive on this table and one nice thing I was just made aware of Malik the assessive database now very exciting they have a direct link to all the um different drawings and documents from ISD so you don't have to go through the ISD you can just click on it and get right directly to the documents

yeah one thing that I was grappling with just to the point about the the kind of hovering projects and what what to include on the list is just sort of when to at what point do you add them just because you know projects can someone can buy something and then sell it. Um I think the changing of well that's that's that's enough for me. I don't think we really track that and I don't know if updated as quickly. I will say that Nor's point I think we've had

I don't know J however many discussions about one property with several different people. So there's a lot of interest when they know a parcel is up for sale. So sometimes thereation sometimes you may go a little further. It's hard to capture. Okay. But definitely at the point that they opt in, but I I'll I'll keep noodling if you have thoughts on what that threshold should be. And generally um they may not know about it more the counselors talking to the property owners. They'll give the heads up before some of these other ones. Um, and I have first counselor Roach and then

I saw a question for the group. Did we get to a point where we have a strategy for addressing the gap on the on the carriage houses? Like does that require a docket item? It's a docket. I've got a docket to do it. So I don't Is there a discussion? Is there a discussion item or No, it's an ordinance change. I think what you would do is have a discussion in possible amendment and we can get some feedback about what it is because the the gap is a gap but it also may have collateral impacts that you want to understand. So that's why just go straight to but it's been doc you know that it's been doc

that piece has been Okay. So, I have another clarifying question. Um, are you talked about I think you mentioned some dimensional requirements. Are there elevational requirements for the and I'm asking these questions because I'm quite keen on preservation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings and so are there elevation or at least their character and context. Are there elevational requirements for Florida floors uh in BC 3 and two for first and second for Yeah, for the first and second floor in BC 3 and two. [clears throat] So what are the floor to floor requirements?

Someone spewed them out 15 on the first floor.

Yeah. 13. So my sense of it as an architect is that that creates a challenge to adaptive reuse because if you had an existing building that was not 15 feet someone else speak [laughter] that actually is something that just came to my attention with a project where they were hoping to um it was a VC3 um project the one on Washington Street that's coming through um they haven't had a formal DRT, but they've been um I think speaking with with some counselors um and they had hoped to preserve the facade of that ground floor because it was, you know, in great condition and and wellliked. Um and that dimension actually was the um obstacle that led them to um decide to construct fully. Do you know what what how high that first floor was?

I think it was pretty close, but I'd have to double check. Pretty close to the to the requirement, but just not not quite there. I think [clears throat] that Well, the one you can do a couple of different things. You can actually keep the facade and then you can, you know, literally it's the face, but you can actually increase right behind it. You know, and some places have done this and there's there mixed feelings about whether or not this is really back to historic preservation, but remember we opted out of using the adaptive reuse for PC23. So, it's not even an option. I think I think he's saying he'd like to make it an option, right? It would be nice to be able to preserve that.

I would love to wanted that. fenistration and facade misalignment and floor mis floor to floor misalignment becomes a real challenge when you're trying to build a a new building behind an existing facade that's code compliant and try to line up the windows and that kind of thing. So if my sense is that if buildings in BC3 and BC2 were allowed to use the Florida floors of the existing building at least for their first floor or two then you would have more preservation or you would encourage or enable more preservation. That's another problem. Got it.

Just out of curiosity, was the problem in that structure that the first floor was too tall or too short? I would have to double check. I believe too short. Too short. Yes.

Wait, if existing is too short because we don't have a minimum for the first floor. You have a maximum for the first floor. So it sounds like that the building was too tall and they're an year and a half away from doing anything. They first have to get rid of the tenants and that's still another year and then demo and stuff. So this is something you know we want to do something to dock it. We want to you know keep that facade of the existing building because that would be done before they would you know demo the building. But now

Oh, okay. Yeah.

One of the reasons for this discussion was we still have backgrounds [laughter] action items at some point. I guess the the the the question to the department is can as you work through these if you're running up against something that does seem not consistent with the objective of the ordinance and could be a relatively simple fix and let's understand what that is but I would rather people not just something without understanding what the index are part of the the balancing act that we did in all of this was to say we want to provide additional opportunity for the property owner but there are other people who live next door make sure that they're interested at the same time that's always challenge but that's so I would before something

we have a a running spreadsheet of ranging you know cleanup type things and you may and you may come in three or four at the way. Yeah, I'd like to see the one where we allow business in the upper floors. I hope to see that sooner than later. [clears throat]

Council, I was just going to say that that was the end of the last term when when Mr. Rel gave us a summary of the things that you'd like to see change in was it I think was it just MRT I think it was yeah I think most have come up to MRT just because that's how that's the project. So those there were five things I think and I docked not all of them. The only thing I don't think I do was the was the commercial on the upper floors but we could do that. That was part of the list that they gave us back in J in December. So those are the documents. Yeah. And they came from the planning department.

When you when you're at the desk and you hear all these things, right, I guess they they win their way into their list of things for clean up. That's good. You have such valuable information. I'm great. Thank you. [laughter]

So, um, council question. Okay. All those in favor of hold say I. I. Any oppose? Any? No. So, the motion passes withhold. Ho. Thank you. [laughter] Oh, and this meeting is adjourned at 8:58. Yeah. Okay. We will be counting you out. We were like, "No, we're already at the table." He's always sad. No, we started getting [clears throat] other things. I was like, "All right, that's that's one

to tangents." Yes, I was actually and it just got me thinking like started