Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Let's try this. Can you hear that?

Oh, yeah, I think you can. Good evening i'm lyle Baker chair of the zoning and planning committee, and this is a meeting of the zoning and planning committee at the Newton city Council on June 8. Before I recognize colleagues in the Chamber and give you a sense of how we're going to proceed, I just want to pause for a moment to remember great member of our. congressional delegation for which there was a remembrance today and a celebration. It was supposed to be for only an hour and went on for two. But it was really remarkable about some of the memories for Barney Frank. And I think a moment of silence would not be really what he'd want. He'd want something said about him. And I will say some of the things that were said about him briefly. One was that he was a champion of the people who were left out and left behind. And I thought that was a wonderful kind of epitaph. His brother indicated that towards the end of his life, when his health was failing, he was talking to a number of people. And someone asked him, he said, Congressman Frank, how does it feel to be an icon? And he said, well, it's better than being an emoji. So there you are. He was the same to the very end. Anyway, blessed be his memory, and we honor his memory here tonight. So tonight, let me explain what is going to happen here. We're going to have a public hearing on an item before the council relating to the raised beds of plants and flowers and so forth in the setback. And once the public hearing concludes, we'll take a short intermission while we move to the committee room where we can have a discussion about that and other items. My intention City Council Chambers, To the extent that the committee is able to do it is to move the raised beds discussion through the committee tonight. City Council Chambers, The reason is that if we can I would like it to come to the full Council for consideration before the summer break, we will have one Council meeting in July and one Council meeting in August. We have another Council meeting coming up before the end of this month. And if possible, I'd like to have an assurance of a full complement. Whatever we do with this item will still require 16 affirmative votes, as I understand it. But that aside, I think as a matter of process, I'd like to move it along. So when we get to the public hearing portion, I would just encourage all of you City Council Chambers, who have comments to keep that in mind, because the more brief the public hearing, the more time we have to spend on the substantive item and maybe advance it, if not we'll hold it to the next meeting. City Council Chambers, What we're going to do as a matter of processes i'm going to read the item and then give a little explanation of how that we're going to proceed. City Council Chambers, And then carry forward from there, this item is number 4226 ordinance change in Chapter 32 allows raised beds in the front and rear setback under certain conditions. Councilors Albright and Kelly requesting a discussion and amendments to Chapter 30 zoning to exempt raised beds four feet or less from the definition of a structure and allow them to be placed within the setback. So that's the item that is going to be heard. Before we hear it, I want to just recognize members of the committee and then say a word more about process. We're joined tonight by the Vice Chair, Councilor Wright, by the President of the Council, member of the committee, Councilor Oliver, Councilor Goetz from Ward 5, a member of the committee, Councilor Albright from Ward 2, a member of the committee, Councilor Gordon from Ward 6, a member of the committee, and Councilor Donovan from Ward 4, a member of the committee, and others, members of the council. I think Councilor Roach is online. Any other? Councilor Block is joining us online. And also, we're joined by members of the planning board. And I would just ask the planning board, if you would do that, to introduce your colleagues, please. OK. Kevin, have we got him visible? There he is. No? We're trying to get Mr. McCormick, who's chair of the planning board, to be visible. There he is. Mr. Chairman, do you want to introduce the members of your planning board who are either here virtually or in person?

Yes. Thank you, Chair. Sorry about that. I'm Tim McLaughlin. I'm the planning board. Also, it's Kate Bailey, Vice Chair.

You're breaking up there for a second. You're breaking up, Mr. Chairman.

How's that?

I think that's OK.

Thank you very much.

And so we're going to be hearing at the beginning of this conversation a presentation from the Planning Department about this item. The reason they didn't see it in the packet is because there was a City Council Chambers, conversation, I was trying to sort out, there is some material the planning department is prepared, which is responsive to a request for remember the committee which committee had not had a chance to digest and and work on on the same time. City Council Chambers, I was persuaded by miss coelho that it was important to put all of these pieces together at one place. So i'm going to indicate that the planning department will give you the background, but also some suggestions. which the full committee has not yet had a chance to discuss, but we will have a chance to discuss at the conclusion of the conversation. As far as the public comment goes there's a sign up sheet that encourage those in the Chamber to use. And we have a three minute limit is by tradition, again, I would encourage you not to use all the time if you don't feel that you need to and if there's something that's been said that you think. Other people have said, and you just want to associate yourself with those comments, please feel free to do that, and then I will try and recognize. People in the Chamber on the ratio of two to one on the theory that if you've come all the way in town, you deserve to get a little preference in the priority of being heard. And at the conclusion of the testimony, we'll close the public hearing and then take a recess and move to the other room. So any questions on process? If not, I would like to invite the Planning Department to present the background for this item so that everyone will be on the same page about what we're talking about. Ms. Colello, are you going to do that now?

Is this on? Oh. I will skip this section as the chair has already read the docket item. The overview of this presentation is the current ordinance language, the possible redlined language based off of the committee's discussion and vote, and various case studies showing where currently raised garden beds are allowed. The raised bed setback allowance in option one, which was shown in the April 28 meeting and the raised beds with the setback allowance option two, which was discussed in the April 28 meeting. To ensure that everyone listening today has proper context, I will start with the current ordinance language and interpretation. The raised beds are currently not allowed in the setback. It really comes down to the definition of a structure, which includes raised beds. Given that structures are not allowed in the setback, a raised garden bed is a structure. Raised beds are similarly not allowed in the setback. It's kind of a all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares situation. For those who are newer to land use policy, a setback is a buffer space required by zoning between a structure and the edges of a lot, determining how close a building can be to the street, side property lines, and rear property lines. Setbacks generally exist to maintain light, air, and privacy between buildings, ensure fire safety and emergency access, and protect streetscapes and utilities. This language here is exactly the same as was shown in the materials for the April 28 meeting with the addition of the language that ensures that. raised beds would still be required to sit at least five feet back from the sidewalk in the rare cases that lot lines go over the sidewalk. As was discussed by the committee and. This section option includes the additional text regarding the sidewalk as well as a proposed five foot side and rear setback rather than the three foot based off of the request of the committee to see various options for the side and rear setback number. For additional context, single family detached old lot SR2, SR3, MR1, MR2, and MR3 setbacks are seven and a half feet. Questions were also raised about how this would work with fences. So this option also shows language that would allow raised beds behind fences. Depending on the committee discussion, these options could be mixed and matched. For example, the portion about sidewalks could be removed while keeping the five foot setback distance. And to ensure the regulation covers raised garden beds only and could not be used to install other features if it is passed, like pavilions or hockey rinks, we have this definition, which is unchanged from the April 28th meeting. Now I'll quickly go through some case studies.

Before you do, can you just pause for a second?

The definition, I think, might be just to let people read that a little slower.

Okay, thank you.

So here you can see a property in Newton 47 or 74 Lowell Ave in Newtonville. This is in the MR1 district. So the Yellow dotted line on the outside shows where this properties property lines are the thicker yellow line shows the areas that are. outside of the setback so. If I were the owner of this property today. This is where the area within the inner rectangle is where I could currently put raised garden beds. If the committee were to pass option one a five foot front setback and three foot side and rear setback for raised garden beds specifically. The area within the light blue square is where I could put a raised garden bed. And I could have this shows the maximum build out scenario. And if the raised garden bed setback were five feet on all sides. This shows where the raised garden beds would be allowed, given that the structure, the principal home on this parcel. has non conforming. lot lines, the there would not be allowed to put any raised garden beds on the sides. Here's an MR1 property, 22 George. This is the kind of same structure. You see the current allowance. So they could put the raised garden beds within the yellow square. If option one were passed, they could put them within the blue square. So they'd be able to put one or two raised garden beds on the south side, but none on the north side. And then, here is the five foot setback option similarly they would. not be able to put any on the north side, but they could still put those two on the south side of the side setback, as well as the. front and the rear. Here we have 11 George it's a little bit hard to tell because of the the color of the lot line, but this lot line is about the sidewalk so with that sidewalk language, ensuring that at least five feet setback is required. This is where the raised garden beds could be located in option one, and this is where they could be located in option two. Here is 76 Elgin street. This is where raise garden beds could currently be placed. here's where there could be placed an option one they wouldn't be able to. go out to the edge of the West side, but they could go on the East. And similarly here is option two. I also was enlisting a few counselors to try and help me. We were looking for examples that would also not cause somebody to have to remove their raised garden bed by showing them in a public hearing so luckily i was on a walk just outside of city hall trying to think through all of this and i saw these planters which are technically allowed because they are not raised beds but i included them just to see if they could give an idea of scale and so here you can see them from above They are currently outside of the SR2 setback, which is the district for this property. So if these were raised beds, they would not currently be allowed, but since they're planters, this property is okay. Here is where they could be actually moved closer to the road based off of option one and similarly in option two. And then here is a property in Needham that has a raised garden bed in the setback. And I was hoping to show in this image various examples of different district setbacks since this is a need them there is no newton zoning district, so this first line here, this is the five foot setback from the sidewalk so. These raised beds would be if we could determine them. It was pointed out very aptly that these are a bit low, so we're not sure if these would be determined as raised garden beds, but suspending belief if these were raised garden beds, they would be allowed based off of both option one and option two. The front two wouldn't be allowed in the MR3 setback, and none of them would be allowed in um any of the other newton residential zoning district setbacks um and this again similar to um the april 28th meeting here is the scale reference for the height of what would be allowed in the front setback if the language were passed and the rear end side thank you thank you mr lillo

We'll have a chance to hear from the public in a moment. But do any members of the committee have any questions for Ms. Gallello? We want to save discussion, but just for clarification, is anyone? Councillor Albright.

Actually, my question is not so much for Ms. Colillo, or maybe it is for Ms. Colillo. I'm wondering why none of, it would have been nice to have all those changes, proposed changes in the packet. So I could have had a moment to think about them in advance and prepare myself as we often like to have stuff in advance in this committee. Why weren't they in the packet?

Because I made the judgment they were discussing things that were not yet considered by the committee. And I want to make sure that we had an opportunity to discuss them first. But I was persuaded by Ms. Colillo that it would be useful to have them before we discussed the heard from the public and then rather than after, rather than have a bifurcated. So that's the reason.

OK, well, so I agree with Ms. Colillo. Just having a moment to think about it would have been great. Thank you for that answer.

All right. Anyone else okay so let's entertain public comment again the ground rule is three minutes, but you're under no obligation to use the entire time. recognize people in the Chamber first and or do we have sign up lead sheet. Okay who's who signed up first. hang on a second until we get you clearly audible all right and wait a minute excuse me ma'am just say your name again one more time and where do you live thank you

You can pave the side setback, you can pave the front setback up to the property line, and then you can park a car, you can park a Tesla truck right up to the property line. And I don't understand how that's allowed and you don't want to allow raised garden beds. And now I see from the description that even raised garden beds can't go to the property line, but somebody can, park a truck against the property line, can pave the front setback, park a car in the front setback, that's okay, but a raised garden bed in the Garden City is not okay? Makes no sense to me.

Thank you very much, and thank you for being concise. Good evening.

Hi, my name is Mark Bridger, Maxine's husband.

Say again, just a little slower. What's your name?

Mark Bridger. Maxine's husband lived on 31 Champ Street in Newton, lived in Newton in his house for 50 years. It was a garden in the back of our house, but not raised, and it was very large. And now that we've gotten older, we have raised beds, which, in fact, I think are illegal because they're far from a setback. I'm concerned about this kind of homeowners association mentality. If you know what a homeowners association is, it's a group of homeowners. They're usually set up by the real estate people who bought the land and parceled it and built the houses and set up an association that tells people what they can or can't do. Sometimes what color shutters they can install, how high their grass can be without mowing it, you know, and stuff like that. I'm sort of against these restrictions on what people can do in their own property. I think garden beds are particularly attractive, mostly. I mean, obviously, there are ones that are ugly, same way there are ugly sheds that house all sorts of Equipment that are allowed and setbacks now where garden beds aren't allowed. And so I, I'm not sure I understand the logic of this is some people telling them telling us what the aesthetic should be for our own property. I'm against that concept. If something is dangerous, yes, that certainly makes sense that we should forbid it. But one person saying this is unattractive to me and another person saying, yeah, well, that's unattractive to me. I think it's not the way that Newton should be going.

Thank you very much. And now go to the online speakers and we'll have one speaker and then come back into the chamber. City Council Chambers, I know, but i'm going offline i'm going in the Chamber to speakers and then going one online and then i'm coming back to in the Chamber and then went online. City Council Chambers, So i'm trying to prefer the Chamber people folks because you showed up no disrespect online but they're here so who's our first person to recognize. City Council Chambers, Who is it Catherine Howard. City Council Chambers, Miss Howard you're up.

City Council Chambers, Okay, thank you i'm. thank you very much we appreciate the opportunity to comment we're the city's uh newton conservatories is the city's land trust we're committed to community and biodiversity connecting people to nature including all people in the appreciation and conservation of nature in open spaces our board also works to encourage private property owners to add native plants and more biodiversity to their gardens thus improving the environment of newton Gardeners use raised beds, as you know, to create areas of improved soil, to grow healthy vegetables and plants, to allow better access to their garden beds or to take advantage of sunlight. newton's residential setbacks are generous and they already allow structures in the setbacks many different types of structures, vegetable and flower beds are innocuous compared to the permitted. Other types of things retaining walls walls of our variety that sort of thing we believe raise garden beds, no higher than four feet should be allowed and encouraged. We also think that they should already be deemed legal under the current language that prohibits retaining quote retaining walls or systems of walls who's about great height exceeds four feet unquote if it is deemed necessary to change the current language. perhaps it would suffice to simply add raised garden beds to that clause. So it's retaining walls or systems of walls or raised garden beds whose above grade height exceeds four feet, et cetera. So if that's not acceptable, we support the ordinance changes, but we do prefer that the wording be less restrictive than what is currently proposed because we do feel that people should be free to do their gardening as they like. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much. OK, coming back into the chamber, we have the next speaker.

Good evening, and my name is Weedy Young. I'm a resident of Newton at 11 Nonantum Street and a longtime gardener. And I want to echo the two comments that have been made by the prior speakers. First, remember that what's in these beds are plants, and the plants can go by right in the ground if they just aren't in a raised bed. And they're also, as Ms. Howard pointed out, many structures which are already permitted in the Newton zoning ordinance that are much more intrusive and are much more inclined to prevent visibility if that's what you want to do in a setback. than a raised garden bed. And in particular, you can have accessory buildings that can be garages within five feet of the rear setback or within your sidelines as well. Those are already permitted within setbacks. and you can have fences. There's been comment about the large arborvitae, which are being put all over the city in addition to fences. So I think there needs to be some perspective about what you want to favor here. If you're already permitting various structures and plants to go in by right, But you won't let them in a raised garden bed. I think you ought to think seriously about what the objections are to those raised garden beds. And I'd also note, as has been pointed out, that there are many reasons why you might have a raised garden bed because of a disability or because you want to improve the soil. There is lead often found in soils here in an urban area. So those are considerations as to why you might have a garden bed. And I would point out that these things are not inexpensive. They take a great deal of effort both to install properly and also the amount of cubic yards of soil which have to go in is significant. So I would encourage you to allow anything that gets Newton residents into their yards closer to nature to encourage them, including the permission to have raised garden beds. I also think the definition that has been proposed right now by the planning department as to the size is actually appropriate. And I would note that the inclusion of allowing fences within a foot of the front setback is also appropriate because otherwise your internal non-perimeter fences under the zoning ordinance have to be set back five feet. So you want to look at that fence section carefully because I think it's appropriate as it's been drafted. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So we have one other speaker inside the chamber.

Hello.

Please give us your name and address.

Yes, just in the mic. Hi, my name is Mari Ramirez. We're at 14 Summer Street in Upper Falls. We are very lucky and very happy to be part of the community. Love Upper Falls and, you know, our neighbors have been nothing but supportive, nice, really, almost every single neighbor has been terrific. Everyone that I've talked to about this has been very surprised that we have this issue that garden beds are somehow restricted, where much larger structures, much more, you know, as everyone has pointed out, much more obstructive structures are allowed and somehow our garden beds are somehow a problem. There are many reasons why we have garden beds. Some of the reasons are for our children. As you can see, I'm here with my family. For our children to have more access to learn where food comes from and how to grow healthy food. One of the reasons is our soil can be very polluted. We have a long history here in Newton. So there can be a lot of lead in the soil. And so we want to make things safe for our families and for our children, especially. So garden beds are a way to make sure that we can grow nutritious, healthy, superior vegetables. without the worry about lead contamination in the soil and without the worry about lead poisoning to our children. So yeah, I'm just, you know, I and then many, many people seem, you know, I'm very confused about why we need to advocate for this very common sense issue. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We now go back online and I've noticed we've been joined by Councilor Irish online. Welcome. So who's the next speaker?

Kathy Goldberg?

Kathy Pillsbury, sorry. So Ms. Pillsbury, you know the ground rules three minutes, and we take one online, and then we come back into the chamber. Please go ahead.

Yes, I know I couldn't unmute and get my video on until just a second ago. I wasn't allowed to. I want to agree with everything that's been said so far. I'm an avid gardener. When I moved here, we put in a garden the first year. This is about 30 years ago. But I tested our soil and it was head lead in it because our house was built in 1900 a lot of lead paint over the years and um so we had to use a garden bed i felt because i wanted my kids to have good food um it began with like one and a half feet in height now it's uh you know i put new beds in it it's now three feet tall uh it's in our side setback we've had it there for 30 years our neighbors don't aren't at all concerned um about the garden beds so given everything else that can be put in the setback particularly hearing a person talk about the cars and setback which happens all the time uh relative to a garden saving a garden uh next to your the property line is like I can't imagine why you would not want a garden in a garden bed next to your property line if you're going to allow a huge car always parked there. What really struck me, though, was how much time has been put into this. I think it should have been just a simple change in saying that garden beds were not structures. And therefore, it didn't have to be covered under the structure, not allowing structures and a side setback. But there have been so many meetings. You've brought in people from the law department, from ISD. um planning departments had to do multiple presentations write detailed zoning ordinance about this and there's just so many other more important things that the zoning and planning committee should be should be doing um what kind of zoning would help commercial development what kind of zoning would help reduce teardowns or uh allow more housing uh review the climate action plan because that's one of the responsibilities of zoning planning so um i just want to make that point that i think there's it's really time to do more work that the city really needs to get done rather than being concerned about garden beds thank you would you mind telling us your address sure it's 34 carver road thank you very much okay uh back in the chamber please

identify yourself hi everyone, my name is Ben soul tough I live at 14 summer street in Newton upper falls I am marries partner was the last in person person to speak here. live in the same property we face the same issues, including with our with our garden beds, but I have a different perspective here similar point of view, I grew up in Newton. i went through the newton public schools from k to 12. i learned in the newton public schools that the world is full of opportunity you can go out and do things make things i took those lessons i studied environmental science i now work on building and supporting solutions in the climate space and i was very fortunate in the last couple years to be able to move back to newton and be here to raise my family a short distance from where my mom lives. But the message that I've gotten as a homeowner has been very different than I got as a student in K through 12. It's not the world is full of opportunity. It's, you know, you can't do this. You can't do that. You know, your wood chips are a problem. Your garden beds are a problem. Small things. We wanted to raise our family in a historic home, did not want to make big changes to our home. These should all be things that the city of Newton wants to happen, and the city of Newton has made this incredibly difficult. You've heard already how much rigmarole there's been just around this garden bed issue. Gardeners are not developers. I very much doubt that anyone is going and checking all of the zoning and standards before they go out and plant a garden. This is not the same as building a big new additional house in the back, a shed, a garage, a huge project. We built our garden beds in the back in an afternoon and then we planted in those garden beds and now they're an ecosystem in themselves. And it's an ecosystem that's grown over years. But the project to get started was very simple. Didn't occur to us to think, are these set back enough? You know, what is the annals of Newton policy say about these sort of things? And so I think this all speaks to a bigger issue. It's not just about garden beds. It's is Newton a place where people can raise families, build things and grow things? Or is Newton a place where people are going to be constantly pushed back upon when they try to do any of those things? Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, another speaker in the Chamber at all we've done everybody that's it okay well let's go back online.

Sherry golden.

we're going to make you a co host so you can be heard.

Okay, finally, good.

Thank you. Just say your name and address again.

I'm Sherry Golden. I live at 472 Waltham Street. I'm in West Newton. And I sent a letter earlier today to city councilor members. I hope you've all had a chance to read it. I put a lot of effort into it. Like the previous two speakers, I have also been surprised that this has been a topic that has come up in Newton. And I have two different, I have other sides to look at this at this topic. First of all, I don't have a problem with raised flower beds. I think they're great. I think it's great for gardens to exist in backyards. I think there's great to be to exist in the front yard. But the reason I've come to this topic is because I live on a street and I actually live in a two family and I have It's complicated, but there are neighborly issues because there have been gardens planted on the front lawn that are raised by retaining wall. And this is very much like a flower bed or a raised flower bed or raised plants because it gets in the way. And in my case, it's getting in the way of a safety concern on a very busy street. And the plants are in such a way that I cannot see through the plants. to get safely onto the street. And it's very dangerous. So I do think that there needs to be guidelines, unfortunately, because we can't self-center ourselves. it's getting to be a problem where even amongst neighbors are disagreeing. So here's what I, I'm just gonna give you my summaries from my letter is that I would really hope that we talk about that the planting, we talk about raised flower beds is also about this retaining wall and that it functions like a raised flower bed and that the concern is not only the structure used to create the planting area, but the combined effect of elevation, excuse me, plant height and density. Two, the impact is not just the height of the bed or the wall, the mature growth, setbacks, location, and maintaining a clear sight line all matter. um third setbacks invisibility standards are especially important near driveways curves hills and busier streets if you cannot see in my case i need to see there had been a tree there i could see the street now i can't see the street because there are plants actually in the way um okay and the front yard garden should maintain visual openness for visibility effects safety residents and drivers should not have to rely on seeing through vegetation to determine whether it's safe There should be enforcement of these guidelines, whatever they are. And if this is the case, you know, I don't know exactly what those guidelines are. It's not clear. I've heard 3 different responses, but the information about these guidelines need to be shared easily with new residents, like, through flyers and emails much of the way is we have recycling documents. It should be saying have a garden, but follow these directions and work with your neighbors. And so, finally, I'm not asking Newton to discourage front yard gardens or raised gardens. I am asking that regulations recognize the placement, density, and sight lines matter, and that Newton can support gardening while also making sure landscape choices do not compromise safety, visibility, and neighbor relationships. So we need to all get along. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now back into the chamber, if someone joined us from the chamber, please come to the podium. We're operating between online and in the chamber.

Hello.

Please tell me your name and address, if you would, please.

My name is Henry Finch. My address is 153 Windsor Road in Waban. I've been a Newton resident since we moved here in 1950. uh and as a hobby the last few years i have bicycled every last street in newton I want to say that just to start off, I'm speaking just for myself, not in any groups I'm with. But there are hundreds and hundreds of houses around Newton who have which all have very different personal interpretations of how they want to do their own gardening or keep or do their landscaping. Just in general, I feel this. having a regulation calling retaining walls, creating raised gardens structures is inconsistent with the stated definition and is totally unnecessary in concept. And that these are just personal decisions of each household and to regulate and tell what one family can do or one can't do is very, very unnecessary. I think that really covers what I wanted to say, if you have any questions. But again, I see this as very much personal decisions that people make of how they want to keep their yard. And what one person likes is going to be different from the next person. And we already, it's just an unnecessary, totally unnecessary regulation calling, again, raised beds structures.

Thank you very much.

Okay. Anyone else in the chamber? I think that takes care of the chamber. Anybody else online? Peter Harrington.

Thank you. I listened to your last meeting.

Mr. Harrington, would you just give your full name and address?

Well, I'm sorry. My name is Peter Harrington. I reside at 157 Lowell Avenue in Newtonville. I listened to your last meeting where you discussed this. And I didn't hear any sound reasoning for raising the subject or enacting the ordinance. I find it rather authoritarian. And I don't particularly have a liking for raised beds or a couple in our neighborhood. I don't. I wouldn't have one in my yard. looking at what you've presented i can easily see two or three ways around the problem by not having a fence i could come and dump a load of dirt in my front yard and raise it up to up to three feet maybe put some rip rap around it that wouldn't be a structure at least is my understanding it's not a structure according to law i could plant grass on it or put sod on the sides and slope it a little bit and that would hold a garden in people who have raised gardens i understand have it for reason drainage or various other gardening reasons i don't think that they put them there particularly to enhance the view but maybe they do so i i i'm not sure that i would support something like this without some solid reason why it would be helpful to the neighbors or beneficial to the neighborhood or the city And I encourage you to think about the use of personal opinion and imposing it on your fellow citizens because you don't like Ray's Gardens or you've had a bad experience with it. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in the chamber? No? Anyone else online? I think that's it. Seeing none, I would ask for a motion to close the public hearing. So moved by Councillor Getz. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstention? The ayes have it. The public hearing is closed. We're going to take a 10 minute recess to move to the other room and take up items on the agenda. So we'll have this item as the last item and able to Talk it without having into pressure of other things in front of it. The others will be relatively brief, I hope. So we will see you in room, Mr. Clerk. Which room are we going to, 207? 204. The clerk will send out the link. It's the same way.

Recording stopped.

I thought so. Okay. Yeah. Okay.

Okay.

Bye.

Can you folks hear me?

Yes, we can.

Good. So we're sitting in here.

Pardon me? I didn't catch what you said again.

Are we going to get a new look for the next one? Hi. So after the public hearing, they are moving to one of the conference rooms. So they'll probably restart this Zoom. So I'm not sure if you wanted to take the appropriate motion or discuss how it usually plays out.

I think we can just hold.

You don't know if they got a vote on it, right?

Just a motion to hold.

I think you can take a motion to hold, and then it can go back to planning board. And then the planning board can work and deliberate and make a recommendation and call city council.

Sounds good to me. I'm going to entertain a motion to hold. i got a second from peter right away all in favor say aye any opposed any sanction are you staying kitty or she's abstaining okay good all right see you all the next meeting this should be more interesting

We're out of here.

I don't know.

I think planning board, you can sign off now. I think the expectation is this Zoom will be restarted in the smaller conference room while the committee takes up the other items on the agenda, which are not subject to public. They're not subject to public hearing, but the public may observe and watch.

Reconstructed, where it's needed, and this one was a 1911 home that they were just putting back together.

That's pretty cool. This is like a decade ago. Harvard moved a couple huge, giant Victorians, like 5,000 square feet, down the road.

For the new law school.

And they had to take the overhead wires off and everything else, and the trucks.

When I was in school, it was like a whole thing. Everyone stood outside and watched. It was crazy. A house rolling down the street.

A huge house, not a little house.

My house was moved down the street in 1909. Oh, was it? Went down from Hammond Street down Lawrence Road, where the team of horses were rolling. This was Lawrence, too, wasn't it? I think it was a giant flashback.

That's not good.

Uh-oh. All right, where is someone when you need them? OK, go ahead. You know, like, they used to do it on logs, right? Yeah. They would roll them, literally roll them. They do.

Well, can I tell you my other Barney Frank story? Yes. I couldn't say it. Nobody loved to hear it. Somebody asked Barney something that wasn't quite clear what the VDOT was. Asked him if he had a bucket. And he said, no, but I have something that rhymes with it.

Oh, he was witty. Oh, yeah.

Did you go this morning? Yeah. an opportunity to hear from people.

Oh, I'm going to see you in office.

36 years. Well, I'll put some shame, though. Wendell Bachman's got 55. I've got to chase a long way.

because you can put out all the different things that you want to be remembered for instead of stressing your loved ones No, I know. It's going to keep going. Are we stitching out the outline?

What are you doing? My mom planned her entire funeral 15 years ago. And I have to say it. I have to catch her the whole mass. She was like, this is a requirement of my death, is that you catch her the mass.

I have insurance to pay for my funeral. Well, that's a different thing. It's a different thing than writing your obit.

I used to assign that to my students. And I had a student complain because it was Yeah, I guess if you are in college, you haven't yet dealt with mortality. It could be tough.

things in your life that you want others to remember yeah and there's different people in different times of your life and whoever's going to be writing it doesn't know all of that can we

I think he has to call Zoom, I'm assuming. Uh-oh.

Uh-oh. Well, somebody else has to sign in. That's what he has to do right now, put it together. Who else is here that can sign in? Is there another clerk? Well, at least there was. Somebody's in finance. Yeah, but Lisa can do it. She can step out of finance.

So we're trying to figure out how to get zoom on both because he's without losing.

his sort of status running the meeting. So I'm going to log into my account, and we'll see how it goes.

Let's hear it for technical skill.

Are there any good snacks in there? You know, there's good stuff. Like what? Crunchy stuff. I'm going to go get some crunchy stuff.

The one other Barney Frank story I can tell you is that, apparently, there was one point in the debate where one person came up and said, Mr. Frank, you're talking so fast, I can't follow you. Will you please slow down? And he said, no, I won't slow down. You'll have to speed up. And if you can't keep track of it, I'm going to send you a large print transcript of what I have to say.

Oh, my gosh. in our pride display that we did at the library. The bottom shelf is mostly him and Holly, which is, and has a photo of them together and stuff, which is really nice.

I have a story. Yeah, I interned for his last campaign when I was in college and I was sitting in the office on Washington Street and I bought a Snapple, which was expensive at the time for me. So I leave and I come back, he's putting out his cigar in my Snapple.

The sacrifices you make for public service. Did you ask him to get you another one?

No, I liked it in no way.

I debated Barney on public television in 1979. Really? What were you debating? There was a TV show called The Advocates that I was on a year ago. And I had the distinction of having gotten Michael Katakos' first public television appearance, which turned into The Advocates moderator job. recommended Bill Will for the bar, neither of whom appointed me to anything. But Barney and I argued about deregulating the trucking industry. And guess who was in favor of deregulation? You? No. I had to cross-examine Ted Kennedy. I mean, goodness gracious.

I'm going to find that video.

You can see it. It's on the GBH. It was on the GBH vault in 1979. Wow. The Advocates. The Advocates. It was a public affairs debate program.

And Cockish was the moderator.

He was the moderator. The first year, he wasn't. It was a guy named Victor Palmiere from California. But the way that they set it up is that I was a year out of law school, and I got picked as sort of a compliment to a very colorful Austrian criminal lawyer named Joe Carey. alternate every Sunday night at 10 o'clock, live TV, no tape delay, on public issues. And we debated whether to build a supersonic transport, you know, whether it's gambling and professional football. This was in 69, 70. This was a long time ago, far, far away. That would be fun to watch. so welcome back to the zoning and planning committee we're now relocated into another room but where we can hear and see each other a little more easily than in the chamber where the sound is not as good but in order to have as much time for the raised bed discussion, I'm trying to dispose of the other two items relatively quickly. And we have the next item on the agenda. This is item number 117.26, request for information on expiring deed restrictions and opting to maintain them some of that Gordon gets in the right requesting at least annual presentations from the planning department, housing law and staff regarding the expiring date restrictions on affordable units with suggested options to maintain these affordable units. The purpose of this discussion is to learn early enough to make a difference on the laws, which units are at risk of becoming unaffordable and what actions are possible to maintain them. Thank you. For some reason, I've got to go through this again. Great. Thank you. Please identify yourself again for the audience and the record and then we'll get right to it.

Hi everyone. Sorry, it took me a second to unmute myself. My name is Shaylin Davis-Ayanako and I am the Housing Program Manager for the City of Newton working within the Planning Department.

Thank you for being here. So can you tell us what's happening with the need restrictions? We have a spreadsheet and we can explain the documents, but I think in summary would be helpful to get us started.

Yeah, of course. I think it's probably best done through a conversation anyway, less of a presentation, more of a conversation. That's kind of what I envisioned for tonight. um essentially what you have is a brief memo explaining what the excel spreadsheet is trying to say so the excel spreadsheet is essentially the subsidized housing inventory list or the shi list and it includes all of the projects currently listed on the shi as well as when their affordability expires So to kind of back up a brief moment, essentially, when you are receiving your special permit or your comprehensive permit, when you are building your development within the city of Newton, the inclusionary zoning ordinance requires you to enter into an agreement with, in some cases, the city of Newton, in some cases, the city of Newton and the state of Massachusetts. In other cases, you enter into an agreement with Mass Housing or another subsidizing agency, and that agreement restricts the affordability on your units for a certain period of time. In the last 10 to 15 years, The state and the city of Massachusetts, or excuse me, the state of Massachusetts and the city of Newton have really been focused on restricting units in perpetuity, meaning that the restriction does not end. It runs with the land. If you sell the property, the restrictions remain with the property. In those scenarios, there are very few ways where the units wouldn't be affordable anymore unless the city and the state agreed to, you know, limiting the affordability on those units, which is a rare circumstance and one I don't know that we've seen before. However, prior to 10 to 15 years ago, largely, I think, with 40Bs that were financed through Mass Housing or another subsidizing agency, your affordability restriction was tied to your loan, which is about 30 years, give or take. That tends to be what we see most often. And I should say Mass Housing continues and other subsidizing agencies like Mass Housing continue to have that 30 year affordability requirement, essentially your affordability expires when your loan is paid off. What the City of Newton has been able to do in probably the last 10 years or so, particularly with comprehensive permits, is we require a secondary agreement to be put into place after your first agreement expires, which effectively restricts your units, your affordable units, excuse me, in perpetuity. So we have begun doing that kind of in response to, you know, units coming off of the SHI and expiring. Now, to kind of combat that as well, because we don't want to lose these units, what the planning department does and specifically the housing division of the planning department, it's kind of been the practice to reach out to these developments one to two years before they expire. I think that we've learned since I started with the planning department that we need a little bit more time. So, you know, starting a little earlier, five or so years before is actually much more helpful. We start having conversations with developments whose units are going to expire to see if there is any interest on their part in continuing or extending affordability. Now, we're not always successful if the city doesn't really have something to offer them in return. So, for example, if they don't need money for a substantial rehabilitation on their property or something like that, that can be a more difficult conversation because often they're losing money in that scenario because they're continuing to restrict their units without, you know, something offered in return. And sometimes people just aren't interested. They signed the deal that they signed, you know, 30, 35 years ago, and they want to just follow through on that deal. We have had success in the past as well. One that comes to mind, I think, is the Avon. They agreed to extend their affordability on their units, which was really great. They were required to, for one of their properties, I think the Avalon, and then the Avon, you know, willingly extended affordability on their units over there. So it's just a conversation really between the planning department and the development to see if there is any leverage that the planning department has in trying to extend affordability on these units. But you'll see, for the most part, I think it's about 63% of our units at this point are restricted in perpetuity. And the vast majority of the units, you know, in the last 30 or so, or excuse me, 10 or so years are restricted in perpetuity as well. The only one in recent years that wasn't restricted in perpetuity is Newton Gardens. Um, and they were financed through Mass Housing and the Newton Affordable Housing Trust was very specific and not restricting that property in upward in perpetuity. Excuse me. So, you know, there's a seat at the table in the future when they go to refinance their property. Now, I said 63% of the units are restricted in perpetuity. What about the other 37%? I'm sure you're wondering. The vast majority of those that aren't restricted in perpetuity are actually owned by mission-driven affordable housing providers. I think it is... Of the units that are expiring, I think it is... about 23% or so are owned by, oh, excuse me, 49% or so are owned by the Newton Housing Authority and other local nonprofits whose mission it is to provide affordable housing to people in the city of Newton. So often those deals are structured where they will need substantial rehabilitation at the end of their loan. So they go to refinance with Mass Housing or whoever is subsidizing their refinancing strategy, and that will ultimately be extended. So we don't expect, you know, the, I think it is a total of 646 units. We don't expect that those units will expire in the next, you know, century. That's not an expectation that we have. They certainly could if, you know, The housing authority decides not to extend or, you know, rehabilitate that property. But that is not generally what we see with those. So we will still have the conversation with them to ensure that affordability is being extended. And, you know, it's a conversation too. Do you want to apply for trust funding to help? you know, support your refinancing strategy. Do you want to apply for CDBG funding, home funding, you know, all of these affordable housing funding sources that we have within the city, if that would be helpful. So the ones that are at risk are these, let's see, it's about 242 units over the next, beginning in the 2020s, ending in the 2060s. So in the next 35-ish years, there's about 242 units at risk. And again, the planning department will have conversations. I think we're going to start planning to have conversations with the units that are expiring in the early 2030s, just because when the good thing happens where they do want to extend affordability on their property, it does take a long time to get the regulatory agreement in place, that secondary agreement. It could take up to a year or two sometimes. So only notifying them a year in advance is really not helpful in that scenario because then those units are in limbo for a little while. So I think we're going to start reaching out to the properties where units are expiring in the early 2030s this summer. and hopefully begin those conversations that can take, you know, a little while and hopefully, you know, further restrict some of those units that are expiring. I think it's 144 units that will expire by 2039. And I'll pause there.

All right. Thank you very much for that introduction. So, Councilor Albright.

So, I'm wondering, Shaylin, do you, when you get them to extend, do you get them to extend for a period of time Or are you able to get them to extend in perpetuity?

We generally push for perpetuity. With the Avon, the one that keeps coming to mind, they extended in perpetuity.

So did you have to give them anything to get that?

The Avon, no, that was a gesture of goodwill, really. They wanted to keep their units affordable is my memory.

Okay, that's good to know. Thanks for that.

So questions, we answer again.

Just a couple of questions. In what you provided in the memo, you talked about 100 units expiring in 2020. And so I'm assuming we're going to get into a total of 144 by the end of 2030. So you must be in process in terms of trying to capture those units now, correct?

Yes. Those 100 units are at Cabot Park Village. We have not heard much from them. Those 100 units are expiring in 2026. I should mention, too, it's not 100 affordable units that are expiring because that was a 40B, I believe. So it would probably be 25 affordable units technically expiring, but 100 total units coming off of the SHI.

Okay. So then you're in a situation where, um, is there anything that you can offer back? You know, you guys, we talked a little bit about this and it was about the finances.

So we did, I'm not sure that they are because we haven't really heard back from them. We don't entirely know if they are refinancing, if they do need, you know, substantial rehab within their main property. We know of course that they are, building an addition right now um i think it's 18 units are being built in addition to the 100 already there, or it's 16 new being built, two being rebuilt at the moment. So the three units I think that they are required to provide under IZ, those three units at least will be restricted in perpetuity. But the, unless we can get a hold of them and really, you know, talk to them about what their future plans are with this property, and if there's anything we can, you know, offer them.

uh those 100 units will most likely come off this year well just i just wanted to follow up with that so originally it was permitted through 40b so now this new addition how is it coming through is it coming through is another it's is it another 40b or is it another how are they or is it now a special permit i don't know i believe it's a special permit um that's coming through now katie might know more though

it's down on center street you know it's like yeah i'm really positive that it's a special permit um because the it's three units and that would be the iv requirement yeah it is a special permit but i'm not aware of any new filing from them this is an old filing i think it's 2020 yeah or something like that it's just not been built yet

they had an addition approved I think recently I'm not sure what the status of it's complete or not I can look into it so just because I'm on the on the database in terms of the listing of the SHI so and we don't have the expiration dates on here So I don't know if there's any way that we can sort of, as counselors, or in some way help with this situation. I just don't know. I mean, you need to let us know. Because I've got a whole list of a column that says date project set to use its SHI eligibility, and they're all blank. So it would be good to be more current there in terms of just being up to date.

Just to clarify, the SHI eligibility really refers to the time period for a comprehensive permit in between when they receive their comp permit and their building permit, and then when they receive their building permit and their CFO. The state has really regulated when those units specifically are allowed to be on the SHI before they're fully built and occupied for comprehensive permits specifically. So affordability exploration is kind of a different ballgame, but I do agree we can most likely add that to the website as a separate column, I would say.

All right. All right. Because it's where I go, you know, in terms of looking at, you know, the units that we have and where we are, you know, in terms of the tabulation. So that's a data source, I think, that would be really good, that it were current for everybody?

Yeah. OK. So any other questions? I take it that the first of the inquiry, the lead doctors here had asked about this, Councillor Albright, you were the lead doctor. Is there any particular strategy that you're asking for, or just a report, really?

Well, we would like a report, but we would love to hear how things are going from time to time. So maybe you could go and visit them at Cabot Park Village. If they're not answering your letters and phone calls, maybe you could just go there and knock on the office door and talk to them. So let us know how that one in particular is pretty important. So let us know how it's going. I'll go with you. It's in my ward.

I think that the locations actually do matter because members of the council, as it pointed out, may be able to assist you in some way, even if it's moral support, if nothing else, for those difficult conversations. So to the extent that the data can be shared with the members of the council who are

I think my next steps are updating the website with the team here and planning just to make it a little bit clearer and then updating maybe ward counselors as these come through or just an annual report to ZAP. Here's the planning department's efforts so far this year. Here are the units we expect to come up. I don't think we have any units coming off after 2026 until 2030 or 2031, but I'm still happy to provide that annual report and just show what we have been looking on and doing.

Okay. Any other questions or comments?

I had questions all the time from constituents. So they're looking at that website and want to know that information, especially when things are falling off.

Okay, this is an item that, as you indicated, you'd like to have a periodic update, so a motion to hold, I think, is appropriate, don't you think? Yes, that would be great.

Would you like to make that motion? I'll move hold.

Okay, Councilor Albright has moved hold. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstention? Your ayes have it. Okay, thank you very much. I think the, when you do get the website updated, would you just send a note to the clerk to circulate among us so that we all know that it's happened? right i'm absolutely happy to do that yep thank you very much thank you thank you so um uh one of the things i'm trying to do is is bring forward items we haven't discussed at all so that we can have some sense of what they are and do some scoping work we have item 4926 which is to amend mr zones to incur preservation of existing buildings counselor Alderite, Diamondbed, Roach, Bixby, Kalis, and Wright seeking a discussion with the Planning Department to consider ordinance amendments that would revise the metrics in multi-residence MR1, 2, and 3 zones to amend factors regulating MR building including wide area per unit to enable a wide range of housing options and better incentivize preservation and renovation of existing housing stock. We don't expect a discussion of this item so much as just an explanation of what the ideas beyond what's said on the paper might be so we can do some planning that are coming. So if you have anything that you want to share with us as the lead doctor or as your college assistant, what would you say? Thank you.

So having spoken to you this morning and knowing that you were wanting us to get through things quickly, I took the liberty of writing something so that I could say it quickly.

You can speak slowly as long as you've written it down. That's great. That doesn't matter.

So I'll try and summarize it. Pardon me that I'm reading something. So I think we're all sharing the same concern that Newton is changing in ways that many residents find unsettling. We are watching overhauling disappear. I'm just going to read it. We're watching older homes disappear in a place we often get very large, expensive homes, both one and two family, that add cost and scale, but not necessarily the kind of housing diversity we're looking for or need. The question before us is whether our zoning unintentionally encourages that outcome. Right now, our rules often make it easier and more profitable to demolish a house and maximize the site than to preserve a structure and sensitively add smaller homes within it or alongside it. In other words, we're incentivizing replacement rather than adaptation. And I believe we can and should change that. If a developer can make roughly the same return by preserving an existing building and creating several modestly sized units instead of tearing down the structure for oversized luxury condos, then our zoning could clearly favor the preservation and addition approach, preservation and addition. This would allow us to accomplish several of the goals that we all talk about, adding housing without dramatically changing the neighborhood character, preserving older homes and embodied carbon rather than sending materials to a landfill, creating smaller, potentially more attainable homes for downsizers, young families, and single professionals, and encouraging incremental growth instead of speculative clear-down economics. None of this is new to us. I'm just trying to summarize it. So this is really not an anti- or pro-development position. we shape with rules, we shape the financial incentives that developers respond to. If we want different outcomes, we need different incentives. And I think we have the opportunity to create a model where preservation, adaptation, and gentle density are not the harder path, but the preferred one. And if we do this well, we can add homes, preserve neighborhood fabric, and reduce opposition at the same time. There are several models that I've read about and learned about. The Portland, Oregon has what they call a sliding FAR scale, where you get more units if the units are small and you preserve the existing house. They also have an approach that doesn't allow you to tear down a one family house and put down one family. You have to put more units back if you tear it down. So there's lots to study in that model. There are other approaches where they address the square foot per unit. The lot coverage, the open space. When a developer preserves the existing house, they get additional units. So it's another preservation attack. So what I'd love to do is look at all of these possible ways that we can adapt our zoning and create the kind of starter homes we desperately need while preserving existing homes in the process. So I've done a lot of research, but I'm not even gonna discuss it tonight because I know you're in a hurry to get past this to something else, but I've sort of outlined what I'd love us to work on is what are the approaches that other communities have used? Maybe there's something special that Newton could look at, but there are other approaches that we can learn from and then maybe develop something for us.

Okay, thank you very much. And I appreciate you doing the preparation on it. I should mention, you know, we've talked about the whole question of demolitions and we're working, we're trying to get some ideas back to bring back to the committee that probably will click through in the summer and bring back in the fall because we need the kind of homework that you're talking about. Some of them have different strategies, but we're trying to get some of these starter home problems solved if we can. Any comments on this, Councillor Oliver?

Yeah. Love it. That for single families. same kind of that's what we've been talking about trying to scope the idea that we put forward in in november and brought back right that i think the same idea will theoretically anyway give us a good foundation to kind of build off of so i think that's a great summary thanks for saying that so would you just mind providing that to the clerk

Thank you, thank you. I would add that we don't only need to look outside the city, but we can look inside the city because we have a number of tools across different zoning definitions. We have the MR by right. We have a single family. In other words, the single family detached or single family attached, of examples of how things develop and we can look even within the city at what our different levers result in. So I think this will be a very exciting conversation and potentially get those outcomes that we want. Smaller homes, preservation, and provide the starter homes that we want to provide. So I'm very excited about this. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, so we'll carry on with that. Thank you very much. You want to move to hold on this? Okay, motion to hold by Councilor Albright. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstention? Okay, thank you very much. The last item is just an update before we go back to the raised beds, is 9926. This is basically what's happened with Route 9 and Brookline. And the short of it is I've got copies of the words, and I would ask the indulgence of the committee suspension rules to provide them to you, but they would be attached to the agenda as backup rather than take your time to read them. But the net of it is that the mayor has written expressing his concern to the town about the traffic particulars of the rezoning because there's not a rezoning traffic plan per se but the town of Brookline was presented as you heard earlier in the term with the idea of some sort of special rotary cut at Route 9 which would bar traffic north south on Hammond Street the FedEx building turn around and then go back to go north, and the same would go to Dunster Road and flip around. There's no cut there at the moment. At the request of the mayor, the town of Brookline has agreed to have a point of kind of a working group on the traffic issues, with Newton being represented as part of that conversation along with this is a state highway, so everything that has to be done has to be done by the National Department of Transportation. So that correspondence basically is his concerns about the particular traffic issues that are incidentally rezoning, a response from the town administrator after the past saying that they're agreeable to have a conversation and then the mayor responding saying I want to set it up and let's go. So rather than take your time, it's part of the documents that we'll have available for everybody so that you will know what is up and they'll keep you up to date as we find out more. Any questions on that? The rezoning passed in Brookline, overwhelmingly, without any changes. So I just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of that. Because it's a big... WS Development actually wrote a letter to the developers in the street opposing the whole rezoning because of their concerns about the lack of sufficient parking and the impact on their property from what was going to happen across the street. But that didn't sway that post. Okay, motion to hold on that? I'll move that myself. All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. So thank you very much. I hope that we can now go back, if you are agreeable, to the question of the raised beds. And we were joined, I think, by Commissioner. Is the commissioner still online? He was. Councilor Black is joining us online still. And who else? I can't imagine. Chancellor Irish. Chancellor Irish is here. Thank you. So. Andrew Lee is here. Andrew Lee from the law department. Good. All right.

So.

And the planning board is still.

I think there was some confusion with the room switching. So I think the planning board did take a motion to hold. I think some of them are still. online with us. I don't have it pulled up, but I think I saw Peter Dorringer. He's still on. If planning board members could raise their hands, we can identify you. She's not on the board.

She's not on the board. Peter, I'm not seeing any other members.

He's the only one. Okay.

So, we've discussed this a number of times and the question I think is ultimately because you don't have to decide this tonight, but as I indicated last night, it would be my preference to have the committee come to some resolution so that the full council can deal with it before the summer break. I just want to mention, as a matter of planning for the summer, we're looking at maybe the possibility of one meeting in July and one meeting in August. Specifically, I think the 20th of July, which is a Monday, and then the 16th of August, when I have to come back from vacation. But I'm trying to avoid getting into major decisions over the summer. held this item or any action item until the 22nd, it wouldn't come up until the July meeting, which is the second in July and August for new people. July and Council meeting meets once. And it's the second Monday in the month. So we would meet on the third Monday of the month of July and August after that meeting. questions that we've got on the agenda. We have a lot of things in the background we haven't reached yet that we'd like to get started on.

Are you sure it's on the second Monday? Because there was something strange about that. I asked Lisa what the date was and it was not the second Monday.

I have a 13th now.

The second Monday of July is the council meeting, the 13th. And then the second Monday of August is the So we can vote it out on the 15th of July. Yeah, I mean, if we had to hold it to the 22nd, we could do it the 13th. Yeah, I'm just playing. And then our meeting would be on the 18th.

You said the 16th, but it's the 18th.

The 18th, sorry, not the 16th.

So is the second meeting, we're having a meeting on the 13th of July?

No, not our meeting. No, no, the council. The council, yeah.

Oh, that's good news for me. And then when is, is that meeting?

It would be the week after, the 20th.

The 20th, not the 22nd, Monday.

Yeah, Monday. I'm trying to make it Monday. OK. Sorry about that, but I want to just get that timing clear. So let me just say one thing in background. There's a we have to decide as a committee what you want to do about the raised bed item. I do want to mention that there's a there's a certain tension here between the rights of the property owner, which we all understand. We asked about what people would like to do with what they want. The challenge with setbacks, as we've all known, is that it's something that is part of the community benefit. In other words, the ability to have your neighbor's property set back is a benefit to the person who lives in the house next door, just like your ability to have, excuse me, their ability to look at your setback. So it's a situation where it's one of these mutually shared restrictions that produces community benefit over time. And the question is, do we want to change the rules in order to enable this sort of thing to occur within the setback, and if so, in what degree. And we have the commissioner here for advice as we get into the details. But we have various items that are various versions that were prepared by the planning department. And Councillor Albright, since this is, you're the lead doctor on this, do you have a preference for how we want to proceed, and we still need to have a mindful 16-vote decision on this because it's not a housing-related item.

That's right. So I think we have to see how the discussion goes. I think it would be great to get it done tonight, but if it's not ready, people aren't ready to vote, of course we shouldn't.

Okay. In the interest of trying to make sure we had a full council, whenever we take it up, I want to make sure, because some people might be gone in July and August. So let's just see where we are. Let me just ask if members of the committee would like to indicate where they are on Adam currently, just so we can get a sense of the committee. So do you want to start with the Vice Chair?

there's well there's a new thing that was added up saying if you have a fence you can have the raised garden right behind it um i was generally pretty open until i saw the other where it was a retaining wall but if you think a little bit outside of it um it was a little smaller it's a raised bed in the setback and It's on a curb. The cars are going fast. It's on a main street. And they just have flowers in it. But it's, you know, eight feet tall or six feet tall. And from your car, you can't see. It's very, very dangerous. So if we're going to, in the front setback, I'd like to push it back a bit.

Could we clarify with the commissioner? Because I asked him, you've heard of if a bed, flower bed or bed of any kind in a retaining wall counted as a raised bed. And he said, no, it doesn't. It counts as a retaining wall.

Yeah, yeah. But visually, if it was smaller, you could count it. So one of the things that Nora asked for is show me some examples out there. And it's hard to find examples that are in the setback right up against the sidewalk. kind of like I said, but it's not a retaining wall, I understand, but it's raised, and then they had flowers above it, and I do have some pictures on it, and you can't see the cars. You know, it's dangerous.

And so,

Whatever we do, I'd like to make sure we have a big enough setback at the front. Now, people say, well, they want the raised beds because of the lead. The lead is generally right around the house because that's where they scraped the lead paint and it fell down. And that's right next to the house. That's not against the sidewalk. But on the second picture there, there's a car coming around the curb. Until it gets closer, you can't see it. And they're speeding. They're speeding up at that point.

But that's totally legal.

I know it is legal. But I'm just saying, if it was, that's a different situation. She's going to do a 3-1-1 and try to get enforcement because there is a safety problem here. But if those were raised beds instead of a retaining wall, and those are raised beds that would be right along the sidewalk, there's a safety issue there.

It has to be two feet back in front of them, right? You know, I'm not sure if I think is the right number.

I guess it needs to be back. And again, you know, this is a curb road, so this is not going to pertain versus a straight street and stuff. And I mean, this person is working with their neighbors to, you know, this is a safety issue. Can you, you know, bring your flower beds back? Can you make it a little not as tall? And they just plant more flowers.

Going down the table on the other side. Dr. Gordon.

I'm a little more open to this in the backyard. The examples, and I think everyone here knows how I feel about high density neighborhoods, the presentation that showed where they're allowed in MR1. There was nothing that convinced me in MR1 that we should change anything. So in the presentation, when you showed what would be allowed with both option one and two, they both felt really too close to their neighbors with not enough space in between. So I think it needs some work on the side yards and high density neighborhoods. So I haven't changed my position on that.

Councillor Alder.

I still net out in the place where I've kind of been talking about this whole time. It does seem to me that even the word setback tells you what a setback is for. It's white space. It's designed to be the space between structures on two adjacent properties that above each other. I'm all for raised beds. I'm all for gardening. I'm all for producing your own food. Like all of the speakers the idea of parking and setbacks, like the one gentleman was talking about. I think that's always a non-starter for me. I think that's a bad idea. There are side setbacks and front setbacks. I'll be more specific about the parking. But it does seem to me that, and I think, Councillor Baker, you said this earlier, if we start allowing taller structures and if I recall correctly, we're talking about a two foot tall bed with four feet of growth on top of plants, right? Is that right? Or is it five?

The trellis is five.

Total of five, right? Five from the ground or something like that? Sorry, four.

Four from the ground. No, no, you have here five feet in height from the ground. Was this in your options? Yeah, five, sorry.

OK, so five foot tall. I know it's not a structure, but I'm just going to use that term as kind of, I think, the way we're rolling with this in terms of what it will look like in zoning. It just seems to me that there's another party involved here. And we're taking their option way. As we, if we grant one to homeowner A and homeowner B, we've just taken the option away from home homeowner B. I guess it's fair for me to say I'm just not okay with that. It doesn't sound right to me. And at the end of the day, the reason we're here is because we had a couple of neighbors or a couple of sets of neighbors, I think is a fair way to put it. Maybe there are two, three, five, I'm not sure. who couldn't figure out, I want it, I don't want it, it's okay, it's not okay, it's okay with me, it's not okay with me. To me, I'd rather actually, believe it or not, force those two neighbors to work it out. And if one person, like literally the setbacks were there when they bought their properties, it seems to me we kind of made a deal with them to say, look, this is kind of what the neighborhood character is like. There's setback of varying distances. And that's kind of what I think we should be maintaining. If you want raised beds, talk to your neighbor. See where it makes sense. Work something out. Or put it someplace where it's not going to be controversial so that it's not going to raise a stink. Because at the end of the day, I don't think it's fair to put ISD in the middle of this either. But that's a long-winded way of saying, I don't like this idea much.

You would prefer to leave raised beds within the setbacks, not in the setback. In other words, inside, like Ms. Cololo showed. Correct.

Outside the setbacks.

Outside. I'm not sure if my other picture is right.

I think that's a fair way to say it, right? Yeah.

Between the setback and the building. Between the building and the setback line. Sure. There you go. Right. Outside the setback. As they can do now. Right. Councilor Giddens.

OK. We're getting closer in terms of what you put into the version 2 or the option 2 that you put in. I am a little concerned for the safety issues that were raised by one of the people that spoke to me. And I don't know if there's a way that we can actually put some sort of provisos in the ordinance that talks about safety or sight lines or just some sort of standard so that then, if in fact there's impact to what was expressed in terms of a curb or some sort of person trying to exit a driveway, that their sight lines are obstructed. I don't know if that's a possibility. So that's where I default to law and the commissioner in terms of, because I knew there used to be a fence viewer that would go to your property and look to see whether or not the fence actually obstructed a sight line.

Well, there's a, I think the fences are on a, On the front of a lot, you can't have a fence higher than four feet without, I think you have to get approval from the Urban Design Commission, right?

Four feet at the sidewalk. And then you are allowed an inch higher for every inch you're back from the sidewalk. So you can go two feet in and six feet. And then everything above four feet has to have an open lattice. So you can, in fact, within two feet of the sidewalk, a six foot fence which is open at the top but that's not like a full view it's not a window it's just a lattice so already the fence ordinance allows something that would be much more of a safety concern than the raised beds as well as and there are all sorts of examples of this in my neighborhood there's no um there's nothing from you know almost fully opaque bushes um allowed on the right on the lot line and so this might have a a marginal increase in blocked sight lines but we already allow it okay all righty we've got somebody here

So I thought there was a limit on the front fence, but anyway.

It says right here. One foot for each foot. Okay. All right. Right, well, the equivalency here, you know, just even in terms of, and yours is seasonal, that one that, you know, the flower beds, you can see that in the wintertime you'd be able to see, you know, with some help. But I also feel that it's an issue if, in fact, you've got a non-conforming setback, you know, side setback, and then you're trying to put a structure in there. I think that's a real problem, you know, and it's a real problem in the MR results. That's an issue for me. You're already tight to begin with, and then you start adding structure there. It's really problematic where the property line is. And in fact, you may be two feet of your space, and then someone else's property line is right up against your house. It's a huge problem in the MRs. And then the other issue that I have is mostly just about the density of these beds, because there's nothing restricting the total amount of square footage. I know that people are not going build wall to wall. There's separation. But a perimeter of raised beds, it just gets into the lunacy of there are going to be people that are going to have perimeter raised beds. But that's the only other piece that was somewhat problematic from the beginning, that I thought that there was some sort of upper limit that needed to be set. If, in fact, we're going to go ahead with this. I can speak to that. The upper limit is the 80 square feet. Right. But you could have them separated, right? You could have them, you know, you could have a bunch of them. You could have one and then you could have another one.

The total of 80 square feet.

For a lot? Per setback.

So the, here I think it's easier to see. Where's the language? Diagram. So this is the maximum amount you could have.

Any combined area of raised beds within one setback may not exceed 80 square feet. Okay. So you could have, you could have, okay. So this is the maximum amount. All right. Well, that's an upper limit and that's good.

But it's 80 feet per side. Per setback, yep. Per setback. So if you, assuming you're not a four-sided lot, you have 420 square feet.

Yes, you could have two, four, six, eight total garden beds of 10 by 4 feet each. That's the maximum on that.

320 square feet.

Right. But it would have to be divvied up that way, because they can only be up to 10 feet, and they can only be as wide as 4 feet. Eight beds, total of 320 square feet.

That's good to know, because I was sort of thinking that you were going to have a perimeter of raised beds, and I was like, no, no, no. For some people, that would be a real problem.

It's OK. The Council has raised the issue of the nonconformity. Can we ask Ms. ,, if she's thought about, can you think of a solution that would deal with the nonconformity of the side setback? Or any setback. Anybody that's in a nonconforming situation, could there be a rule that deals with that? Do you have a rule that deals with that? Yeah. OK, never mind. Maybe . I'm done. I'm done.

Go ahead.

OK. Do you want me to?

Well, I'm just going to, just for general information, if you are trying to extend something into a nonconformity, you have to get a finding in Section 6, and it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. So there is some protection if you were dealing with the structure itself. The question is, in that context, would you want to have something like a Section 6 finding? I mean, you could go with it, but that's, you know, I'm not sure we want to send people to the committee. But that's just as important.

Councillor Donovan, you're up.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I mean, I think that in terms of your original question of where people have kind of a test or a straw vote, I think it's fair to say that there are meaningful concerns expressed. And so if I had to vote right now on If we had no opportunity to tweak things, if I had to vote on yes, five feet or not at all, I think I would vote to support allowing them within the setback with one of the options proposed. But I actually do think that being said, I think there's actually more work to be done here. And we should probably work through that. And there are real issues. I think the sight lines are a fair discussion to have. And the setbacks, especially in MR zones and in dense neighborhoods, are a fair discussion to have. I mean, I struggle with the sight line question a little bit in terms of, I don't know that this is the thing that breaks the camel's back. You could have a 200-year-old oak tree that's 60 inches wide or 40 inches wide or whatever it is. don't think we would tell ISD to tell you to cut down your oak tree. And I think those- Pre-existing. Well, that's true, pre-existing. But you could also have a six-foot pile of snow in the winter, which is not pre-existing. And I don't know, would ISD come tell you to shovel snow off your lawn? Maybe. I don't know. So I think rules should be applied fairly and equally there. I guess I have, I've spent a good amount of time thinking about this because I think the current service that Councillor Gordon expressed are fair ones, especially when we're talking about those side setbacks in the tighter residential district. So I don't know if, Chair Baker, if you'd like to go all the way around and hear Councillor Albright's thoughts on this, or if I can, if you'd like, I can share kind of what I've put together about that.

Well, let's say that everybody can't see me. at least say one or two, but. Councilor, do you want to say anything more?

Well, I mean, I think you'd be shocked to know that I'm in favor of that. But I do want to talk a little bit about the white space argument. Not to pick that, not to pick that. Pick away. But the white space argument feels a little bit like it's, you're taking a yard and thinking about in terms of graphic design. You know white space like we don't have margins that we want to have clear. it's not like a piece of paper it's a kind of a person's yard is a real livable place where they have family and they have activities and they do things it's a functional space and. We have a. You know, I didn't bring up the issue of swing sets, and I don't want to. But we have swing sets that are in the setback. We have lending libraries that are in the setback. We have all kinds of things that are going on in the setback that don't bother people. Or maybe they do. I don't know. But we have lots of things that are happening in the setbacks right now. And setbacks were created for, you know, to have breathable space, to have functional A neighborhood is going to have the same frontage. It's going to be clear across a neighborhood what the setbacks are. There are lots of reasons for setbacks that have nothing to do with leave it alone. Don't put things, don't put chairs, don't put pots, don't put, I mean, you can have a shed in the setback, but other things we're saying can't go in the setback. And I don't really think there's a good reason for not allowing plants to be there. And you can have a shed and lots of other things so. I don't I we probably i'm guessing at least 30% of the homes in Newton already have. raised beds in the setback. And nobody is really big. When you drive around, you can see them.

I'm just gonna say, show me and I'll bite I'll eat my hat.

But I don't want to point things out. I just want to show that the person who spoke tonight, who has a neighbor who's objected to his raised beds, lives way down, it's like he's on the top of the hill and the neighbor is way down at the top, can't even see the raised beds. But there are other issues with neighbors, reporting neighbors who have raised beds and have nothing to do with the actual raised beds themselves. So you said that we should work it out. I'm not sure neighbors can work things out if there's animosity between neighbors. And we certainly couldn't leave this in the hands Poor Commissioner Ciccarello having to watch members work things out. You can't have them work it out because it's not legal.

But if I may, if we pass this as it's currently set up, we're not doing anything about the animosity, other than saying the thing you're going to be animus about, you can do by writing. That's the only difference. I appreciate your point, but we're not doing anything to solve the challenges of the neighbor. Hey, who doesn't like looking at neighbor bees? Yes.

Well, it, and consequence issue needs to be dealt with. And, and there are probably, I think, I know more has thought about things. Counselor Dahmer bed has, I have thought about ways to solve the issue of non-conforming sites. So that's a totally reasonable thing that we have to figure out. I've gone on too long.

Well, I mean, the reason we designed this meeting is so that people could go on as long as they want. OK. But I just should give you my views. I'm very cautious about extending things into the setback we don't already have. And as I said earlier, the trade-off is that I'm limited in what I can do with my yard, but my neighbor's limited on what they can do with their yard, and that we benefit because of that reciprocity. And I'm concerned that if we start this, we're going to end up with, because the beds are, when they're talking about it, we're fairly substantial structures. I mean, they're in order to hold the dirt. They've got to be built sturdily and so they're not casual items that come easily in and out. So I'm very cautious. I think I'm in the same place as the president about this one. So I just feel that should explain my sense. Councilor Wright, and then we'll come back to you.

So one of the things it seems like is the side setback is the big deal. And the MR locks, and I think SR3 locks, the side setback is 7 and 1 half feet. So why not we say at least on the side setbacks that they need to be 7 and 1 half feet away? And it'll be, yes, maybe in the setbacks for the bigger locks, or like an SR1 that has, I don't know, 15 feet or something. for a setback, but this would solve for the more dense neighborhoods, the tighter lots, things like that, keeping it at the side setback, which is seven and a half feet.

You've read my mind exactly what I'm gonna share.

Okay, why don't you come back and talk to us about what you have in mind.

Okay. So, Mr. Clerk, I'm gonna share my screen. I'm sorry. so okay right so this is sort of what was originally proposed which was uh we're looking at a plan view here um if you had you know a house on one side a house on the other side here the heavy red line is your side lot line and here's a raised bed and another raised bed let's say both neighbors wanted to have a raised bed what was initially proposed was that they could have each neighbor could have their bed within three feet of the property land on the side. And these, just for context, these beds and these spaces are to scale here. So you're looking at three feet, seven and a half feet to here. So this is what was originally proposed in this conversation and then this was the feedback from Council Gordon but also others of like if you're built to the side setback as you might have a house that is that just feels really close that feels too close right so even if it's three feet on the other side of the lot line and seven and a half that's still that's still pretty tight so what I kind of thought through was, well, if the spirit of seven and a half and seven and a half on either side is that you get basically 15 feet clear. And so what I've kind of thought about was, well, what if you said, as long as this house, we're 12 feet away, then you could be up to three feet close, but that you would create a sort of 15 foot traveling buffer. So if that house got closer, then that raised bed would get farther and go towards dwelling one. So there's some language here about how you might enable that to happen. But just for kind of to flesh that out a few scenarios. So let's say you had a single lot, or more or one building were built to the side setback. That means that that raised bed on the other side is on the other side of the setback 15 feet on the other side 15 feet away from from dwelling to seven and a half feet outside the setback. If you had a single non-conforming lot, let's say an extreme case, for some reason the house was built all the way to the lot line, okay? That bed is still seven and a half feet on the other side. Let's say you built both lots to the setback. Then I can have my bed up to the side setback, you can have your bed up to your side setback, but they can't enter into the setback. Let's say you build both lots really non-conforming. This probably is not super common in Newton, but definitely happens where they're both right up to the lot line. Okay, so then your bet on your side, my bet on my side, both seven and a half feet away. The goal of this was to maintain the spirit of that seven and a half foot setback. It creates an allowance for gardening within the setback. And this, I think, I'm not speaking for Councillor Kalis, but I think he raised the point of, well, I've got a side setback. I've got mainly side yards and houses that are kind of farther away on either side. It may not impact anyone enough if my garden bed is a little bit closer to them. But it also protects against the sense of nuisance or imposition near dwellings, and it preserves the ability to have raised beds within setbacks for lots, with primarily side open space, depending on Councillor Cayla's concern. It really is about this idea of a sort of travelling 15 feet. So as long as the house is more than 12 feet away from its own property line, you could have the bed up to three feet. to the property line, but if that house were 11 feet away, then it would be four feet, 10 feet, five feet, so on and so forth. So this is kind of, this was my best attempt at a side setback solution, a triple S.

You've got plenty of room to put a raised bed without going into the setback, right, if it's 10 feet into the setback? Seven and a half feet. Seven and a half? Yeah. So are you accomplishing anything new by that?

No, if your house were 15 feet from your property line, then you can put your raised bed between your house and the property line. or between your house and the three-foot setback.

You can do it legally where it's legal now, right? Right, it's legal now until the seven and a half foot line. What I'm trying to understand is the impact in the setback itself, right?

If I'm understanding your question correctly, it's what benefit does this serve if your house is already that far? And I think the key point there is that it's measuring from the next house. So it's protecting the neighbor, not your house.

Right. Cyrus, can you put up the language again? I need to do that, sir. Councilor Wright?

We could ask the commissioner, but I don't think you can go on the other people's property and measure that. And this will be a lot harder to enforce, instead of saying, if you're an MR lot or whatever, or all the lots, it's seven and a half feet from the side setback. Or you could say from the side setback where houses are opposite of there, versus farther in the backyard where you don't have another house or structure back there, maybe then it could be five feet. But where there's the house there, and again, my house, My garage is, I think, a foot, 18 inches off the side of my lot line. So there are those out there. But this rolling thing, and I think that makes it, I think, more difficult to enforce than they actually do versus saying, so I'm unhappy.

So, Councilor Rosha, you want to add something?

No. I have one question, which is, how are we distinguishing in all of these different conversations between When vegetation is allowed, similarly, there's no limit on vegetation. So next door to me is arborvitae. You can't see through. You can't. It's just and they get to do it. It's much taller, much denser, right up against the lot line. Now, I don't really have a dog in this fight, but if we're going to be consistent about this, then we should think about the fact that the white space can also be filled with green stuff.

There may be green space, but never mind.

It's my understanding that we're not just talking about green stuff, right? Because we're also talking about built structures. Like, my understanding is we're still talking about a permanent structure in a setback with green stuff in it.

No, not really permanent.

Well, it's more.

Yeah, it'd be something like this big. This would be kind of . I mean, that's too high. It's three and a half feet because it's

We're in the ballpark over here. Roughly, that's kind of what it would be.

Maybe it's a little shorter. And the bushes aren't necessarily four feet wide either, which this could be that wide too.

The argument about what we do permit and what we don't, I think we can get in a real endless loop on that. And my concern is just do we want to exempt

this particular this kind of structure in this situation i haven't found yet a situation that i'm comfortable with but that's just me um yeah and also if i may like i i wouldn't mind if if he's so inclined i'm not sure if this idea is more helpful than where we currently are i don't know if commissioner wanted to comment on that i see he took his hand down

Whenever we're measuring things on the property, like we're talking about the side lot line, three feet off the side lot line. I can tell you for a fact that my inspectors do not know where the side lot line is. We can guess where the side lot line is, or any lot line. Even if I had a survey of the property at my end, I couldn't tell you where 3 feet off the property line is, to be exact. Okay. We rely on plan surveyors to give us that information. Nor do I believe we should have a ransomware plot out where a raised bed should go. We do the same, yeah, we use an educated guess where three feet is. For sheds, we typically try to use what might be a side boundary like a fence or bushes, a fence to that effect to get an idea where five feet for the accessory building for a shed would be anything larger than the shed typically we would have a survey or mark out or plot out where it is on the property so it's always difficult and what happens if the neighbor disagrees where the three foot mark is well you know it leaves a lot of openness for potential problems

So I see we have Mr. Lee from the Law Department and also Councillor Black. So let me go to Mr. Lee first and then move to Councillor Black.

So I mean, the comment of the Commissioner Ciccarello, I guess that's true of any setback. We have something like this where there's not going to be a plot plan required. So five feet, three feet, that doesn't really matter. I want to comment on Councillor Donalbrook's proposal I'm not aware of anything on our zoning right now that dictates the location of a structure based on structures on a different lot that's not owned by the same property owner. So I just wanted to note that and also request that the law department have an opportunity to look at this type of proposal to see if there was any issues with it. That's all I wanted to say. Councilor Block.

And then I'll come back to you, Councilor. Welcome.

yes uh i i have to relocate here for a moment sorry for the um inconvenience um this conversation is a new one for me not sitting on your committee and i've tried to get a little bit informed about it um one of the comments that several members of the public made i think counselor albright and perhaps counselor roach also said something similar about other structures that we allow in these locations in these setbacks um And I realize that's not the docketed item. The docketed item is just raised flower beds. But if we're going to consider what do we allow in setbacks, then that's a larger discussion. And I'd be interested in hearing what our rules are regarding sheds, what our rules are regarding recreational structures, why we settled on what we settled. Members of the public seem a little confused and I can't really blame them when we have these kind of different rules. And we may have good reason for these different rules, but we need to articulate them so that the public can understand it. Maybe so that just city councilors can understand it. So that might be a reason. I know, Chair, you wanted to bring this to a vote tonight so that it could go to the full council. But if we want to have this broader discussion, then I'd like to see some more information. What are all these different them one of the differences between raised setbacks and anything else is that things are growing on top of this that's the whole point so if something is four feet which is a pretty typical fence height um i mean there are taller fences but four feet's pretty common so this would be Potentially the height of the fence, and then you've got. Vegetation on top of it, whatever. I realized there's no. Zoning rules on the height of vegetation that's allowed. But again, I think that's one of the things that makes raised flower beds different from some of these other structures. But again, maybe that's just part of the conversation that we need to have. One of the questions that I wondered about is why the four feet? Where did the four feet come from? what little research I've been able to do on raised flower beds, that that's pretty tall for a raised flower bed. It's not that they don't exist, but 12 inches, 18 inches is much more common height for a flower bed. And maybe there's some compromise here where A lower height is allowed, but once you get to a certain height, there's too much of a danger of creating safety issues that we really can't anticipate. So those are just some of my thoughts on this. It doesn't, for somebody who's just coming to do this, it doesn't really feel like this is ripe for a full city council discussion and vote. I'd love to hear a lot more. So those are my comments. Thank you for the time to speak, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Councillor Bayh. Let me just offer a perspective. I would hope, given the different things that we have before the committee, that we not necessarily, while I understand the desire to know why we have other rules, to go down the path of trying to articulate what the other rules are and the rationales behind them, because that will be a long conversation. And I think we just have to assume that The issue before us is what is before us. And does it make sense? And are there 16 votes in favor of some version of the planning department's presentation to us? If there are, then we can pass that and we can go on. And if they're not, we can come back to other things. But the sentiment by one of the speakers who's saying there are a lot of other things we could work on in the city, I have some understanding of that because I look at the agenda. and the law department and the commissioner to try and figure out how we're going to talk about all the things that we've got, including some of the ideas that we talked about earlier today. So I guess that's, I'm not sure where that takes us. And so, Councillor Block, but I'm sympathetic to your concern. I'm just not sure that going down that context road is going to help us. I think we've got to focus on this issue narrowly and decide

One way or another, where we wanted to be, if if I could just make a comment, I fully understand what you just said, and why you want to restrict the discussion to to the specific issue that's in front of you. I just raised this because the public is kind of asking this. And someone had mentioned that we should have some informational pamphlets such as we have for recycling rules that we should have for gardening. And maybe in that context, we can address this. But I get this all the time. the public's attention is way different from all of ours and it comes and goes but right now it's focused on this and I don't want the public to think that we just make up rules for whatever whimsical reason we have and that we never look at them again but I

I don't know. A compromise that I'd be willing to do is, like I said, seven and a half feet, three feet in the rear, and then either five or ten feet in the front. And some people don't want it in the front. But some people don't have much of a backyard. It's their only green space for a garden. But I don't know if that would help get a few more votes, because we need 16 in order to pass. So we need to do some technical .

So when we talked about that structure right there. So in the front.

Let the record show that there was a cabin behind it.

So the rule already says it can't be more than two feet in the front yard. So I think that. we could one compromise that would probably make everybody feel better is to say it has to be no higher than 12 inches or something one foot in the front yard and i i think a lot of people could live with that um if it's in the setback so i i'm putting that out there as a possible reasonable compromise and they could have it higher if it's out of the set yeah well of course yeah

So again, Councillor Galloway.

I think Councillor Block raised a good point and asked about where the height had come from. And I think this conversation that's just been had about the compromise of height seems fine to me. But to respond to Councillor Block's question, I believe the height originally came from the idea that sometimes these raised beds are made for folks who are getting older or may have mobility challenges. And the idea there is that this is a kind of accessible height, both for folks who might be standing and leaning or wanting less strain on their back, or who might be using a mobility device that can kind of slide under or get them a little bit closer. That's where it had come from, Councillor Block.

3.75. The ones at Amazon seem to be all 48 inches, but that's, you can build your own.

Or you can buy them and chop them up.

Yeah. Okay, so let's try this. If the members of the committee are agreeable, let's sum up the problem a little bit. Generally speaking, the setbacks are both front and side and rear. And right now, people who have the ability, as we saw from this presentation, to put things closer to their house. And then the question is, how far away from their house towards the lot line do you want to go? I mean, people can continue to do it. This is legal to do. It's not illegal to do. It's just a question of whether and how far you need to set that if you want to let it go. I guess the question is, Among the people who are here, are you concerned? Let's try the rear setback for a minute. Is the rear setback an issue for people more than the side? Or is it just any setback?

For me, it's the other way around. Side setbacks are more contentious than rear.

Right. I understand. I'm just trying to get a feel for which element is going to be more important for people. I'm more of a purist, but I'm a minority in that context. All right. But at least I'm hearing that the rear setback is not as much important. And now side setbacks, I hear concerns because of the ability to, it is such a, it is generally narrower and that's where the houses come up against each other. And we're looking at some difficulty, right? I hear that from a number of counselors. Front setbacks, there are concerns as I hear it about the a specific issue of visibility because of the potential. Now, leaving aside the fact that there are other things, as Councilor Roach has pointed out, that can occur in the front that are vegetative, I don't understand all that. But at least I don't hear a visibility concern so much in the side setback, but I do hear it in the front. And so what I'm wondering, and again, we may not reach this tonight, and if we don't, then we don't, but if there is a model of this that would have More opportunity in the rear setback less opportunity in the side setback and limited opportunity in the front, where it is a lower structure that is set back further, in other words, the fence ordinance actually sets a bit of a. An idea behind it, it may not be the same idea, but that the closer you come to the street, the more the shallower it has to be, and if you want to do something. at all, it's got to be farther back. If you want to make it tall, you've got to go farther away so that the kind of obstruction that the counselor rights constituent pointed out is going to be minimal. Does that have any appeal to anybody besides? It doesn't have much appeal to me. But I'm trying to get the committee to the point where it needs to be.

So let's take a vote on each of them. Let's go like, we're set back. You know, who wants three feet or who wants five feet?

Well, before we go to the numbers, I just want to get a sense of the committee. I'm hearing, is that a presentation?

No, I think you're on the right track.

Okay. All right. So let's take it for the rear setback first. I just want to talk about that. In the rear setback, you're assuming that you're coming up against somebody else's rear setback, but that's not always the case, right? Is it going to be context sensitive? Can you bring up one of your slides? Yes, I was just getting that. I think that it would be helpful to have that context.

Yeah, we can go through each letter.

You'll see why it's fun to get the other parts of the agenda done first because Can you get us to the picture, though? I think it'd be helpful to see the images. So this is current allowance. Yeah. Can you zoom in a little bit on that to sort of make the slide?

Is it possible to make the screen larger and the faces smaller? I can zoom in like this as well. I think if you click View up at the top right, Yeah, and then if you, yeah, put them. Yeah, perfect.

Okay, that makes it a little, thank you. So this is legal now, and this is in the back, the rear yard. So the question is, while it's less a potential problem to the neighbor to go somewhat closer to them, because their rear yard, most houses have more rear yard than front yard. I mean, and that's the general rule of thumb. But there is more room by definition to do something here. Do we want to extend the opportunity to the rear? I mean, how do members feel about that? That's an example where it's fully extended, right?

This is up to three feet.

Up to three feet.

And this is five feet.

So are people comfortable with a five foot setback in the rear? Or are they not in some number? I'm just trying to get a sense of where people are. Let's just talk about rear.

go to non-conforming. If your rear setback is, let's look at the, it's supposed to be 25 feet in the MR, so it's 30, 25, that's quite a bit. But if you're 10 feet and then you're five feet back, you're really up against the house. But I'm mostly concerned about the rear is probably

I think if we're trying to give opportunity to people to do this in the way that's least harmful to both the public interest and the view and the neighbors next door, the rear is probably the safest place to do it to start.

My concern is if you already have a pre-existing, non-conforming, less than 25 feet rear setback,

Again, this is just speaking hypothetically, but you could have a rule that if there were no nonconformity, you could have a raised bed. But if there were a nonconformity, then you would not be able to do that. That sounds good to me. You could just make that choice, right?

Yeah, that's fine by me.

OK. We haven't hit the side yet.

That's fine. I'm just talking about that if the

If the rear lot line is non-conforming in the structure, then you can't do it, right? So we're talking about- In the setback.

In the setback.

You can't do it in your yard. Yeah, yeah. Because you're, by definition, into the setback, right? You're already there. Now, they may be the people that need it the most because they don't have the extra room. So I just want to .

The rear setback is not conforming. Yes. Because some people have side setbacks and front setbacks.

Right. But I'm just taking one side at a time. OK. Because I think the principle that Councilor Goetz has articulated is that part of the neighbors can, not neighbors, but the interest of the abutter is more adversely affected if the structure that is doing this activity is not conforming in their direction.

So even if they have the rolled bushes that are separating the two houses, they still can't put a setback? We can zoom in on all sorts of exceptions, but I'm just trying to get ..

There was a visual screen here. We're talking about the structure not conforming with the rear setback?

The existing structure.

The existing structure of the individual intending to build the garden. No, the house. The house is not .

The house doesn't build. The individual who owns the house builds.

So property A has a nonconforming home on it that is too close to the rear setback.

Too close to the lot. It doesn't have a conforming rear setback.

So that property couldn't put a garden bed in the setback.

Unless we were just talking about visual screening.

Again, the question of the exceptions, let's just focus for a minute on the basics. visual screening if you want.

Just to clarify, though, I think it's confusing without more visuals. But that home, their neighbor could be 100 feet away. So it impacts what the neighbor is. The non-conforming structure is when they're most impacted by a garden bed on the adjacent properties, close to the adjacent properties.

But we're getting into a scenario where we're dealing with Yeah, you know, the two units and I or the two lots and I feel like we have to control one lot.

Yeah, is that the example you have up here, which is if you go back to the permitted use that go back to the first slide. They're close. That's not 20. In that scenario, you could put the raised beds lawfully without any change in ordinance, right? Because their rear yard is deep enough. So the question is, do we want to allow it to go deeper? And then the irony is that in a situation that particular house is conforming, more than conforming, and they have plenty of room, so they don't really need this. It's the non-conforming structure that, oddly enough, may want it in the setback. But again, it's a question of we've talked a minute earlier about the ability to measure to the other property. That was your idea, which I thought was ingenious. But it's difficult for administrative reasons to do that. So I guess what I'm trying to get to is if we can't get the rear setback solved, I think we're going to have trouble with all the others. So I'd like to spend a little time just with the committee just to see if we can get to something that works. Councillor Wright.

What planning did bring out, the non-conforming, and what Consular or Chair Baker has brought up, is the people who are non-conforming, they're the ones that need it the most. I mean, otherwise, I mean, the non-conforming is the other house that's the issue, how close they are in that. And generally, we don't see that as, I think, as often as side setbacks or things like that. and putting it, and maybe it's a height limit, you know, in the back.

Okay, the only, we're going back and forth right now, but it says this screening piece, all raised beds screened by fences of at least four feet in height would be within one foot of the setback. Well, we haven't even discussed that. The commissioner has some illumination for it.

You can't hear you. I'm sorry. Can you hear me now? Is that better? All right. May I suggest that we use the five foot distance from the property line to match what we use for accessory buildings and that in the area where the house is on the side, in the side property line, that no these garden beds be in the distance where that house takes up that space on the side setback. Do you know what I'm saying? No. Wherever that side setback is on the house, the house is 25 feet back, the house is 25 feet wide, that distance where that house is that sits up against that setback, that no raised beds can go in that location, but they can behind the house in the side setback within five feet and possibly in the front. So you're not squeezing up against your neighbor's house or your own house. to try and, so they wouldn't be allowed in that area where the house sits.

Whatever the width of that house is. So, Commissioner, you're sort of saying that there's a, for want of a better way to describe this, kind of a, that the area to the sides of the house would not be available for this sort of thing, because of the importance of the side setback but that you might allow it to occur in the rear setback um or the side setback as long as it wasn't in the plane of the house so the question is is it whatever the side setback is for because

So you would say that's what it needs to be an SR1 against the house. But once it falls away from the house, it would be 5 feet.

I'm saying it's not allowed in that area that Laura is putting on the screen right now.

it's done in the setback other than in front of the house or behind the house.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

We're just talking right now behind the house. I just want to get that cleared up.

So he's saying five feet behind the house. Five feet.

Five feet in the side, five feet in the rear, five feet in the front, but not allowed within the area where the house sits in the side setbacks.

from here and there.

Commissioner, can you see the drawing that Ms. Colello has? I can. Well, we've been joined by Councilor Malecki, who has not spoken yet. So, Councilor Malecki, you have an opportunity.

Okay, the problem with the commissioner's idea is that the abutter's house might happen to be set further back in their lot more forward on their lot and in a position where allowing the raised bed in the applicant's yard five feet from the side setback, if it's not adjacent to the applicant's house, it could still be closer than we'd want to the abutter's house.

That's perfectly possible, I think. But I'm trying to get us to a place that, I mean, you can expand. Ms. Colello, you've got it red now. It was blue before. You can change the color, I guess, and do all sorts of dances here. But whatever color is the OK color. I think I'm hearing a sentiment from the committee that the side yards really are very important to people, right? And so if we were going to make this opportunity available, can I take it as a sense of the committee that we start with not allowing it in the side yard? That might pick up some support.

You know, I guess number one, it's hugely, houses are hugely separated.

I think the problem we're running into is the smaller lots in the more dense neighborhoods. Because if you're in a big lot, you can put it inside. You know, you don't need to go to the setback. It's really to try and help the people.

The small lots are seven and a half feet. If we just say seven and a half feet, that's going to take care of the small lots and the But they have to be 7 and 1 half feet off of it.

Actually, it might be a good compromise. Excuse me.

Ms. Colello has a point.

Yeah, I would just note that that might be a tactful approach, just given that parts of the side are technically in the rear because they intersect. So if you see here, if this, let's say this was an SR2 lot and there was a more significant side set back then, 7 and 1 half feet, this would have to be moved Inward, even though it is in the you know what would anecdotally be referred to as the backyard so seven and a half feet would.

account for that so you're agreeing and seven and a half feet is a good solution, yes, so, so let me be clear is that is the general sense that you want, if you want to allow them and then within the setback and then. If the setback is seven and a half feet, you can't do it anyway, right? So it really isn't within the setback. It's not a general principle. You're just saying, as a matter of principle, we don't want them closer to the lot line than seven and a half feet. And if your particular setback is seven and a half feet or less, you can't do it. You've got to have seven and a half feet clearance on the side. Now, same in the rear. Seven and a half feet. Are you comfortable with that as kind of a minimum? That in the rear line, what is the rear side? Five. Five.

Three. Great.

Well, go to five.

I agree so. I'm going to have an auction here in a minute. Councillor Maliki. Councillor Maliki. I agree seven and a half feet for the whole,

I could maybe see five feet for the rear, but 7 1⁄2 would be, I think, simpler to have at least the side and the rear be 7 1⁄2 feet. Should I say about front or not?

No, we haven't gotten to the front yet. I'm trying to see if we can get at least the back and the sides.

I think rear should be at least five, like, Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Could I propose five, but then three if there's screening?

Screening can die. Offense.

I'm, I'm, my concern, well, I mean, you can propose anything you want and we can talk about it, but let me come to you in a second. Part of the value of this situation, I hope, for the purposes of the conversation with the commissioner, is a relatively simple rule, because they're going to have to deal with, they understand what setbacks are, and we're going to say raised bed, okay, this is the ground rule for raised beds. I mean, there's a, there's a certain, but I'd rather not get into Well, if you put up a fence, you can do it closer. That's special permit territory or something else. Otherwise, then the question is, is it an adequate fence? I would encourage us not to go too detailed, because this is going to be difficult enough to explain.

My thinking there was just that in the scenario where it is non-conforming, as you said, Chair Baker, that's actually where people might need it the most. It kind of gives you a little bit of extra space and some walking room and that kind of thing.

Also, I think the idea behind the The deeper setback, if I can put it that way, again, I'm not necessarily there yet, but I just want to comment, is that if you're a raised bed, I get it. You can garden around it anyway, right? So there is some value in making sure that people can get to all around the bed. But just like making your bed at home, it's a lot harder up against the wall. So anyway, there we go. A lot of bed for a reason. OK, so so let us let us. Can I take a working proposition for purposes of conversation that we're talking about? If you're doing in the side, you've got to at least have seven and a half feet for you at the structure. If you're doing the rear, you've got to have at least five feet. I'm not saying you got to vote yet, but I'm just trying to frame now the front. I tell you, the front bothers me almost as much as the side because it is the part of Newton that I think has been, you know, when people look at the city and they drive through, they look at the fronts and they see that, and that's part of the public space. So I'm not personally in favor of allowing raised beds in the front yard. But that's just my perspective. But I'm open to persuasion, yeah.

Well, really, you know, what's in here now is the issue of two feet in height. So I like that, you know, just even in terms of, like, we're minimizing the height, you know, in terms of just, we're not up at four, we're at two. So, and it's being suggested at five feet from the front lot line.

Five feet back.

No nearer than five feet from the front.

I couldn't vote for it for that, but that's too close.

Well, further back?

No, I want it further back. It's 7 and 1 half feet, and again, the same. I guess the solution that I would feel more comfortable with is the general rule of 7 and 1 half feet, except in the rear of 5. Because some lots are from out their side. The question is the corner lots. I think it's going to be an easier way to make this go.

OK. Chair, can I just? If you drive down Walnut Street between here and Washington Street, you'll see houses that have their whole front yard full of shrubs. And they're often taller than three feet, two feet for sure. And the whole front yard is full of shrubs. What's the difference between that and a one foot or a two foot raised bed in the front yard for a limited number of feet?

It's a structure versus a bush.

You don't even see the structure.

You're asking me for consistency. I'm not giving you consistency. Never mind. Let me ask somebody else. Oh, Councillor Block has his hand up. I'm sorry. Thank you. Councillor Block.

Thank you. I think you, Councillor Baker, had just mentioned corner lots and I just didn't want that to get lost because it seemed like most of the discussion was assuming that a rear lot is going to back onto another rear lot. But that's not going to be the case for your corner lots. So I don't know how that affects your thinking about what these metrics should be, what these distances should be. But I just wanted to point that out.

Well, that's a fair point. And perhaps we should get guidance from the planning department. Commissioner, how do you measure setbacks in corner lots? Ms. Cruella?

I can speak to that. And if I'm at all inaccurate, please correct me, Commissioner. As far as I understand it, corner lots are regulated such that they have two fronts. So all the setback requirements for the two sides that are facing a right of way would be governed by the front setbacks.

And what about the back? Are they governed by side setbacks or rear setbacks?

So you have two fronts, a side and a rear. So the rear is opposite usually the front for which the property is named. But then I think what Councilor Block is trying to say is that a corner lot's rear lot line could be another property side lot line.

Which argues for me for seven and a half feet around as a, you know, just a simple.

Or if you're a corner lot, then you're set back at seven and a half feet because most lots in of 80 or 10 or 20 lots that would have this issue.

So I'm... We're not going to get your vote anyways.

You don't know what I'm going to do. Yes, we do.

Yes, so just to clarify, on the corner lot, the rear lot line is determined where the primary front entrance is opposite of. That would be where the rear setback would be, or the rear of the lot would be.

So how do people feel about 7 1⁄2 feet around just as a uniform? Too much. Too much? I don't know. That's all.

I was going to say, for the sake of simplicity, it's not quite as simple. 7 1⁄2 on sides, 5 and 5 for front and back, with the front no higher than 2 feet.

I raised my hand first. So what do you what are you saying? Okay. We have a winner. But it's a winner.

One additional tweak based on something that comes up.

consolidate your wins.

I think it's a matter of three inches that currently we had said the maximum height for the other ones would be 3.75 feet. And I would just see if we could do an even four feet based on what seems to be easily available to actually purchase.

You're talking about the rear and the side. The rear and side ones. Height. Height.

No, no, no, that's what I'm saying. How did we get to 375 versus 4? It was an accessibility thing.

No, it must be . Yeah, it started as that was kind of the shortest product that seemed like it could be accessible, but it may not be the most common. Yeah, they're mostly 48 inches.

Forty-seven, I saw a couple of forty-seven there.

You mean the... The raised beds. The raised beds. The top of the bed, yeah. I've been getting the ads all... Amazon's been listening to this. It's nothing but an ad for these things.

Raised beds.

Let me clarify. From the front, you're talking about from the sidewalk or the line, right? I remember Ms. Colillo had a clarification, right?

Yep.

front is measured from that and we haven't changed that thank you yeah the language is no nearer than five feet from the front lot line or the back of the slide sidewalk slash right of way whichever is closer to the principal structure so whichever is stricter so um now let me clarify again if you if you're saying that it's four feet side rear uh but two fronts Right? Again, how do we check? Commissioner, you know which is front and which is, again, for purposes of that dimension? If somebody comes to you and says, look, I want to have a raised bed, and you say, the front yard's going to be no taller than two feet, right?

When it's in the setback.

It's in the setback. Outside of it. If they're not in the setback, then it's not a problem. But can you tell what the front is? In other words, we're having different distances are different from the front, but you're also measuring height differences. Can you do that? Is that an enforceable rule that you can live with?

Yeah, because we can measure the height from the gray just outside of the bed itself. So that would be enforceable. Ideally for enforceability, I would rather things that would be consistent five feet Whatever the distance is away from the property line, I would rather it be consistent instead of seven and a half for this, five for this. And I think that would be a much better way to do things.

But that's what I think. I'm in favor of seven and a half all the way around. He doesn't ..

So are we done here?

No.

If we .. OK, I have a question for Commissioner. Did I understand correctly that if somebody is putting in a shed that has to be five feet from a property line, you go do a survey for that?

Typically, they come, they apply for the zoning permit. They give us a drive showing it's five feet off the property line, side and rear. We accept the plan, and then when it's completed, we go out and we verify the distance. We basically ballpark it.

So let me see if there's any sentiment in this.

Sorry, I had another question. We have houses where there's no sidewalk, the grass goes out to the curb. What would be the, where would we be measuring setback from if we don't really know where the, if it's hard to tell where

The resident can always see if there's a survey on file showing the distance from the front of the house to where the front property line would be and then measure off the house to come up to wherever that distance would be.

So what would be the mechanism for making sure they don't put their raised bed all the way out to where the sidewalk would be if there were a sidewalk because there's no sidewalk to make it easy to see?

Well, typically, there isn't going to be any type of zoning permit for these. People are just going to follow the rules. If we get a complaint that it is too close to the road or the front setback or rear setback or whatever it is, then we'll do the best we can to come up with a ruling on it.

So let me just send this to the committee. Those of you who are supportive of this don't have to buy this, but is there a sense for a uniform 7 1⁄2-foot rule around? The commissioner's all right with it. I may be even willing to vote for it on that basis, but I don't know if anybody else is. If not, I'm not going to press it.

I don't think we should stick with the 7 1⁄2 on the sides. Yeah.

So I hear a sentiment in the committee that a uniform principle of 7 1⁄2 feet on the sides five feet in the rear, and five feet in the front, but in the front, a maximum of two feet. Is that fair? Yes.

OK. Do you want to throw logic into this? No.

OK. Councillor Roach. I just would, I would, I don't know how we would do this, and I would defer to our attorneys. But I do think, yeah, well, I can explain that. He's doing it. There, is this better? I'll be dead. Now I've got to get logic in. Are there being an exception for accessibility in the front? So the limit of two feet, unless there's an accessibility issue.

Frankly, I'd rather not get into that if we could afford it.

We're only talking about five feet. No, I'm talking about the height.

I'm talking about the height.

Yeah, but after five feet, they can have it higher. It's only in the setback.

when accessibility has been an issue with regard to these raised beds. I made the point? OK. So you're a no. I don't telegraph my votes quite the same way Councillor Baker does on issues like this.

Is there a way to go through some committee or something to get?

Well, I think folks were getting complicated. And again, I want to give the commissioner Because again, the question of accessibility is, I think that if there is a true accessibility interest, I think the Americans with Disabilities Act will trump the local zoning anyway, if somebody has that.

So would they do go to the commissioner and ask for a waiver?

No, they would raise this in affirmative defense.

Raising is part of the permanent thing. Oh, I see. I mean, we've seen that in other contexts where I think So I'd rather not try and build that into the zoning itself. That's fine.

And as the commissioner has said, this is not something where they're going to get a permit in the first instance. And so.

So I hear sentiment, if I can frame this, as now to go to the language.

Yeah.

Can we look at the language now, Ms. Coelho? Can you put that language into some form that we can look at?

CoB, Cindy Spence, yeah she's hammering away, so I have put in blue what I think is still. CoB, Cindy Spence, Not necessarily something that has the committee has reached consensus on it seems like red is something there is consensus on so. That is what I got.

The fence screening, I would delete that personally, but that's my preference.

And if we're talking about fence screening, I do not think we should be doing anything that encourages more fences. Yeah.

And that would. Yes.

Sorry, Cyrus. I'm trying to define that I'm in total agreement. Oh my god.

I don't know that personal attack is this.

Do you have a new 48 inches instead of 3.75? Okay. Yes, I put, yeah, I can do 48.

Four feet. Four feet. I think four feet is up to. Up to a meter and a quarter.

Oh. So are we landing on four feet? Yeah. That's now red? Yeah.

Yeah. But you should leave it this way for now, just so we see the new stuff. So I'll keep it bold.

Oops. Uh-oh. We need a mouse next time. OK. So now, and then the.

Did you take the question mark out?

The sign or setback. It's only the sign setback is something that happened to me. So you copy it and copy B and.

Here's the rear.

OK.

Okay, and front five or. yeah. yeah okay is this. I think this is a yeah. Now you got the definition and the other yeah she doesn't change right yeah.

i'm sorry.

F Charles was up to five feet nine from the ground attached to occur is it.

What we want in front as well. What did you say? Trellis. Trellis is up to five feet in height from the ground, attached to the raised garden bed. That would put us at seven feet in front. I wouldn't include that.

I don't know how the others do.

Except for from setback. Or you could even say trellis is up to five feet in height in the side and rear.

My difficulty with the trellises is you've already got, you know, you're making a tall structure by definition. I don't think that's what matters.

Well, if you're going to, sometimes you're growing beans.

I mean, remember, we're talking about using the setback and we're putting it, we're in effect creating fence in some ways by that model, which I'm not eager to do. If somebody wants to grow flowers, I'm okay. But if they're jacking the beanstalk, I'm not sure. You all have to decide whether you want to include trellis. I think they're inconsistent with what you're trying to do, but that's another. Because that's a whole other thing.

If we don't have the trellises in there, people will trellis.

And also, as it is right now, trellis is up to five feet in height. So if you already had

Five feet. So would it be better to be from the top of the bed?

But then you've got a nine foot. Yeah, that's my concern. The whole premise here is to try and make these low. And then you've built in an exception if you're putting a trellis in, which I think makes me feel sad.

And also, if you're gardening, now it's seven feet. I'm not reaching the top.

You know your sentiment for taking out the trellis.

You kind of.

Unfortunately, how do people feel about trouble counselor. You got a solution.

Well i've seen some very beautiful ones that include arches over walkway I know, but.

You designed them, but nobody else's. We take choices out.

They're going to exist. They're going to have. Yeah, I would even say from the height of the bed. It needs to be. I'm making these things now. I'm making roving garden beds in my life. And I'm creating a fence structure.

If you want to do that, you're going to have to move outside the setback.

But they're rolling. They're moving. So you have to come over and see them. But my trellis is going to be four feet. Yeah, I think four feet is. Four feet is a reconnecting. And I've got a shelf that's two feet above the ground. And so I'm up to six feet, but I'm roving. I'm not in the setback. The trellis in in in your raised bed if you're not in.

Yes, yes, so I would take the trellis out what are you going to throw us right well, you know the setbacks are.

Very big 25 feet and usually it's your house and then sometimes in the smaller lines, you have nothing in your back. Son is the only place you have.

I'm troubled by that, but I'm troubled by a big tall structure because you've added it to the whole thing.

So we've got it now. It's four feet in the side in the rear and they're not allowed apparently in this with this language, right? Which is a problem for people.

Oh.

Well, if you're growing tomatoes, you have to have it. It's five feet back anyway, right?

Yeah, five feet.

All right, let's see where we are. I have a sense that the committee is in favor of half on the side, five on the rear, five on the front with a limit of two feet in the front. the question is do we need trellises at all or do we need trellises at some location or do we where are we i'm you know i think the trellis is an exception as well as the rule and i wouldn't support it i don't see any advantage to it but members of the committee have to decide that well if we don't put trellises in there then there's no rules on trellises and they can put them anywhere they can put them in as long as they're not in the setback they can have a trellis but where does it say that is it on its own a structure

Oh, yeah. Well, yes. structure. Yes. Yeah. There you go. Trolley structure. What is he saying?

It can't hold itself up. How can it be a structure?

If it's going to be fastened to the bed, it will be part of the structure.

Okay. If it's not fastened, is it temporary?

I mean, it would be required only for plants to be, you know, hung off of, I would imagine. So it could be temporary. But, you know, again, you don't want to go too high with these things. Four or five feet, no more than that. Measured from the grade would be suitable.

I'm troubled by that. I'm troubled by measuring it from the bed.

Okay, that's great. Okay.

Five feet from the grade that's probably not good yeah.

I think you're talking four feet and I period right. I mean yeah. I think. I have a question regarding 12 trellises.

in the front yard you had say okay how how how deep can the um it's deep they're no higher than two feet they can be a maximum of four feet wide four feet wide and eight feet long yeah okay four feet by eight feet okay if the if the four feet dimension straddles the five feet from the property line so you've got two feet in the setback or two feet in the permit in the low area permitted two feet behind in the anything goes area could they put the on their two foot high raised bed could they put any height trellis they wanted in the back of it yep yes okay well that would be a way to do the trellis in the front yard that's why i was yeah so what is uh i don't understand so so right there yes so so in their personalities version your idea there comment

you could still have a trellis in front up to five feet, as long as part of the raised bed were still outside of the setbacks and the trellis were in that part of the raised bed.

But our setbacks in the front are really deep. So if you're at five feet, at five feet, that raised bed is not outside of the setback. They're 15 feet deeper.

yeah so it would be a separate raised bed that could happen i think that's relatively rare i guess the question is where trellis is going to go and how high can they be where where are we now five feet five feet from the ground from the grade yeah okay and in the front you want to allow it in the front that makes that that raised bed effectively five feet high better than two feet three Stonie Cooper- hard to get I would be happy if you just had it in the back of the rear, because I think you want to keep the front basically on trust if you want to divide and put it that way, although the visibility region to just talk about.

Stonie Cooper- What you find feedback from a lot like. Stonie Cooper- Your five feet back from a lot lines I don't think you're going to have visibility speak visibility problem well that's why we went to two feet to begin with, I thought the limited effective that.

So in the front you're going to have wherever you have a trellis you're going to have five feet in the front back okay but it's from the measured from the grade yeah but the other ones in the rear does that have to be only five feet from the grade. Well, again, you're making kind of a fence out of it.

Say yes. You want to try and keep things consistent.

All right.

So let's see. Let's see. Time out, guys. It's 10. I'm trying to get us out of here by midnight. Let's see where we are. OK. We've got a gnome higher than two feet in the front, five feet in the front line, From the back of the sidewalk or right away, I think Ms. Colella, let's take the boldface out, if you don't mind, just to see where we are. Right. Raised garden beds. Okay. The side setback up to four feet in height, no closer than, nearer than seven and a half feet from a property line. Rear setback up to four feet in height, no closer than five feet from a property line. Length of it no more than 10 feet and width no greater than four feet separated by at least three feet. That's the spacing requirement. Total combined with an 80 square feet and trellises up to five feet. And I had measured from the grade that it's attached to a raised garden bed. I'd say trellises are allowed up to five feet or something because they're just a, that's not a sentence.

It's a clause. So the following are allowed. based on the following requirements.

Okay. Sorry.

Okay. All right.

So commissioner, if you got that, I know that it's late, but is that, is that enforceable from your point of view?

Yeah, I guess so. Yes, it is.

Okay.

So committee, we have a,

A concept in front of us with actual language right and the definitions again just put the definitions up so we're all clear on what we're doing and the seven and a half feet doesn't have the you take out the other one right. So raised garden bed the fine term fellas is defined term okay we have all right, so let's go back to the first.

One clarification on the definition of raised garden bed.

we want to set a minimum like if someone does a flower bed that's just lined with a row of bricks they can do it right why have a minimum i mean if it's just lying bricks they can do that right up to the sidewalk we're only talking about raised if it's lying if it's delineating between the lawn and the garden

then that's fine we're not solving your your your retaining wall no i'm not that's going to work with yeah that's going to be a complaint yes but at least i mean it's a fair point but in the interest of simplicity that's great all right so i have a motion to approve what a surprise um okay um i'm going to just indicate that i'm going to abstain because that's not deep enough that's just me um all right all those in favor will say aye aye aye aye okay i got everybody i uh opposed obtaining one so we have a vote of six two zero two one is that correct yeah i'm just gonna say thank you chair yes thank you committee well you know i i told you i was going to go and get the stamina good work team yes all right folks i think we uh thank the planning department our planning department okay