Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Perfect. Heat. Heat. Hello uh everybody Let's see. We're almost ready to go. Katie, are you ready? Are you on ready to record?

I'm ready. Yep. Okay. Recording in progress. So, good evening everyone. Uh, [clears throat] wait until we hit exactly 7 o'clock. We don't see you. Ah, that's puzzling. You're strike blue. Okay. No, that's that's puzzling. Let me try again. You disappeared again. That's uh that is weird. Um I can I can Let me close this down. If that makes a difference. Uh I'm plugged into my I can You can hear me. All right. Right.

Oh, yeah. This is strange. Um, I bet this is the problem of operating um in the home environment. I will try again on a a different computer. Let's see if this worked. Yeah, something might be wrong with your camera. Yeah. Well, that's odd. We saw you at the beginning, I thought. Oh, that was my picture, I think. No, no, we saw you at the beginning.

Oh, okay. Um, that's downright weird. Um, okay. Okay. All right. That should do it. All right. Um, I'm in a a puzzling position of being v in invisible but audible. That's probably We can Well, you can probably do it that way. It's as long as you all are comfortable with that. I mean, and and wait a minute there.

There you are. Whoops. [laughter] Your camera is trying hard. It's trying hard. Come on, camera. Do something. All right, that keeps cutting in and out. All right, folks. Let's not hold up the show and if you're willing to let me uh talk as opposed to be visible. Um, this is a a meeting of the zoning and planning committee. U, this is an unusual meeting in the sense it's virtual and you can see now I'm visible. I don't know exactly how this works. Don't talk about it. You look good. Don't don't don't jinx it.

Don't [laughter] don't do anything. All right. Um, but [clears throat] I'm uh Lyall Baker. I'm chair of the committee and present at the start of the meeting and we have our colleagues. Um, and I will try and recognize people as I see them on the screen. Uh, councelor Albbright, w two. Councelor uh, uh, Vicky Danberg is here, but I don't see her, but I see her name. And councelor Josh Krenman, ward four. Vicky Danburn, ward six. Vice President of the Council David Kalis, Ward 8. Um, vice [clears throat] chair councelor Oliver. Um, we are joined also I think by the problem is my uh my screen keeps saying who's getting admitted but Katie you manage that. Counselor Wright also joined by um from the planning department uh Barney Heath the director uh Miss Kryer and Zachary Lamel and u let's see [clears throat] have I have I missed anybody? Councelor Block is not a member of the committee but joined us and um I think that I've got everybody that I can I can see. So um thank you all. This is an experiment in that this is an all virtual meeting. In other words, we're not in part in the in the in the mini room as we normally are, but this is the Monday before Thanksgiving and we have two items before us. And I hope we can uh make sense of them relatively quickly. And let me just indicate the two items are 23 375 242 which is the uh discussion of amendments to chapter 30 to allow certain res routine residential alterations by by right specifically to allow additions to buildings with existing non-conforming height that increase the non-conforming height but do not go higher than the existing ridge line. This item was recommitted and u um I was the person that asked for it to be recommitted and I'll explain my rationale in a minute. But the other item is 4424. These are

the inclusionary zoning ordinance and I think it's fair to say that we are um in accord on almost everything but there was one amendment that we did not consider in committee that councelor Wright wanted to propose at the floor of the council [clears throat] and because of the um it had not been discussed in committee. I thought it would be appropriate to accept it if she moved to recommmit and so the the council voted that and so we will discuss that and those are the only two items on the agenda. We have some other items uh coming up in the next meeting where we will discuss climate action and then also some leftover items that I don't expect us to tackle this term uh that we need to nan but I'm not going to try and do those tonight. So um let me explain if we can then the rationale for the first one and ask for some discussion and I'll tell you what um I would propose. Um the this item I think is meritorious. This is the idea of allowing non-conforming buildings to be altered as of right. We also received an email today from U. Jay Walter from the building professionals and I commit everyone's attention to that that con indicates support for the item but also to look at another iteration of it in the future but that's not before us. Um the reason that this was concerned to me is that the uh example we had was one project and I didn't know how many of these had come up but the context of it that I thought was um important to understand is that the normal height rules because we've modified our hard rule to say that the height is measured from the finish grade rather than from the uh excuse me from the the previous grade rather than the finish grade could produce a potential hardship. ship to a property owner who is on a sloping lot and the example given was the Lincoln Street project. Um the planning department prepared a memo in response

which basically summarized what they had indicated before but I want to indicate what uh I would unless Mr. Lamel would like to take us through that again. I think we all have seen that and unless he needs to um explain what I would like to see us consider and that is that the context is where the project um is such that the height uh can't be met appropriately because of sloping terrain. And it seemed to me that that's precisely the situation that we ought to have some potential pro uh special permit oversight or at least some additional protection in terms of setback for an abuter because the abuter is most likely to be even further downhill from the proposed addition and therefore the addition will loom more large than it would otherwise. And therefore, it seemed to me u I would like to vote for this item, but I would like to do it with some sense that there are an additional protection for those property owners. And one of the things that occurred to me is to just say that for those situations to apply at least the um the setbacks that would apply to new lots in that particular zoning district would apply in this case in order to trigger the as of right relief. If there were uh anything otherwise, it could obviously go to special permit. And u these are relatively rare situations anyway. So I think the special permit could still be appropriate, but that's where I am. But I want to see where other people are on the committee. I see councelor uh Oliver's hand and councelor Albbright's hand, I believe.

Yeah. Uh excuse me. Uh apologies, uh councelor Baker, but you mentioned we have an email from or letter from uh Mr. uh Walter. Uh I I don't have that. Uh I just saw something this afternoon. It's not formerly part of this record. I just wanted to acknowledge it's not a public hearing. We I can forward it to you, Councelor Oliver. We got it late this afternoon. I'll forward it to you. Yeah, please do. I I really don't mean Mino got you weren't on the email.

Okay, now I'm offended. [laughter] I'm I'm uh I'm I rarely get email myself that I can read. So, that's a whole another story. Um uh Okay. Did you have any substantive comment, Council Oliver, or do you on the question? I I don't know. I thought that count was fairly substantive, but other than that, no. [laughter] No. I mean, on the on the on the No, not at this point. Okay. Okay. Councelor Albright and then Councelor Danberg. Thank you. So my question to Zach is is the is the actual height of the building changing or is it just because of the slope it's changing because of the because it's measured from a different slope.

The actual height of the building is not changing in that it's not allowed to go above the existing ridge line. Um but there but there would be an addition that is extending outward. um that is that wasn't there before. So how if how high could an addition be?

So the way that the language is written is that it the addition can't go any higher than the existing ridge line. Um and so in theory um the you know the only homes that are taller than 36 feet are allowed to utilize this. So somewhere above 36 ft. However, in practice, given what's happening in this situation is that you're applying an addition to a to a portion of the property where it's sloping away is the other rules and regulations within zoning um really come into play here. F lock coverage, setbacks, um number of stories, right? So I think really what ends up happening in this situation is that the if in essence the addition really cannot go up to the ridge line um because mo almost in any given situation um that would create more than two and a half stories um because you know the potentially taking the basement which is not considered a story and making that from a zoning perspective the first floor and that's not allowed as part of this. And so what you typically what you see are these kind of subordinate um additions of one, two, one and a half stories.

Okay, that was my only question and I'm satisfied with the ordinance as it exists and I I know a number of us wanted to apply it to buy right housing as well. So I guess we're not going to do that tonight, but um I I'm satisfied. Okay.

Thank you, Councelor Danberg. Yes, thank you. Um, thank you for the uh the for calling on me. Um, I'm just uh looking at some notes that I had here. Um, I I think that this is a is a good change. Um, I can see that there could easily be a problem uh if the uh building is on a slope because if the if the slope slopes down, for example, um uh the person would be penalized and not able to go up as as high on the building on the rear of the building, let's say, as they could. um if uh we gave them uh the benefit of um of the doubt and um allowed it to be taller because we are uh measuring it from a new grade as opposed to the original grade. Um so I don't have a problem with this. Um I I think that um I I would be prepared to uh move it move approval uh when the time comes.

Okay. Uh, councelor Wright.

Uh, thank you. Um, yes. Kind of uh addressing um councelor Albbright's and u Mr. Lamel's um comments and stuff. So I mean technically a house could be 10t taller but like Mr. Lamel said um then you got you know three stories and F and then you got to take in the basement and all that is going to come into effect. Um, [clears throat] so I think you won't get that drastic um, change, you know, few inches, a foot, whatever, but not real drastic ones or they wouldn't be able to do it uh, unless a special permit. And um, yeah, I did see just before this ma meeting Mr. Walter's um, email, which would be nice to get it a day before [laughter] just before the meeting. Um, and we've gotten some letters on I think people were just like 2 in off or 3 in off and and they have to do a special permit which I think is kind of ridiculous when you're you know doing something especially it's just inches. Um but it's not part of this. So is it that we won't and this is back to the chair we won't be able to to bring that up until next year?

No. No. Leaving aside the as a right just this item will come out on Monday. Yeah, but I mean the as a right ones, you know. No, we can't do that. That that we have to wait on. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. For next year. Yeah. Yeah. Somebody could dock at the item and then we could take it up then. Okay. Because I mean what this is addressing I think is is fewer than the by right instances. Yeah. No, it's it's clearly a non-conforming structure. Mr. L, you want to add anything? Did your hand go up? I was going to just say two other points, but um I can save them until that it's not specifically related to this

unless somebody else has something to say. Well, I I was going to just say two other pieces that I would um mention is that before the before the height how height was measured changed, what would end up happening in this scenario is the person would build out their addition, you know, to the setback line. And if there was a lot of grade, they'd build retaining walls. and they'd build retaining walls at the property line, you know, up to four feet tall, right? And that would be by right or they would have been just at the edge of the of the setback line and built up a retaining wall as tall as they wanted. Um, so there's no incentive to do that anymore. So I think the addition um here which again is very very limited in nature um is going to have to be done without this series of retaining walls um or there's no incentive to do you know any series of retaining walls. And then the second piece is particularly when it deals when it when it comes to the side um is that the facade ratio was approved recently. And so if that mass if that side addition is up front of the house um you also have to run it you run into the facade ratio requirements. And so either a if it's over two you know if it's over one and a half stories then then that 60% you know gets triggered maximum. So that'll limit it. And then the second piece is that if they want to avoid that 60% then the the the addition they're adding will have to be one and a half stories or less. So kind of inherently you know less um intensive uh and uh to the neighboring property.

Okay. All right. That's [clears throat] helpful. Um anyone else that should be heard? I I don't hear a lot of support for amending this further. So I'm not going to move my amendment. Um, I'm just going to ask for councelor Danberg to move make her motion. Um, I move that we approve. Um, okay. Thank you. And colleagues, thank you for indulging me about this because I want to make sure we don't create an unintended consequence, but I'm somewhat reassured by what Mr. Lamel has indicated in additional protections. So, okay. U, all those in favor will say I.

I opposed abstensions. The eyes have it. Thank you very much. Okay, the items approved and then we'll send it back out to committee, excuse me, the full council on Monday. [clears throat] The uh second item is 4424 U. This is the inclusionary zoning and there is a attachment in the packet that consists of uh the memorandum from the planning department that explains all of the changes we made. And again uh this is a very complicated process. We all know very well because we participated in it. But now we come to the uh last outstanding question which we had not discussed and that involves uh the question of the contribution either in kind as of right within a certain size threshold. So I'm going to uh ask if uh u councelor Wright would just explain her item. I'm ask the planning department for a comment and then ask councelor Wright to explain the rationale for her item. I just want to make sure everybody is clear on what what she wants to propose. So if you don't mind council right taking it two stages and then you can take it from there. Is that agreeable?

Okay. So what what I was proposing so um the changes to the right now the in lie of is 7 to nine units and then above that we're requiring um requiring units to be built on site. And so this new our changes to the IZ when we reviewed it is to make that in lie of payment instead of 7 to9 to go to 7 to 19 for both rentals and for ownership. And I would like to see just rentals and not own ownership. And um the main reason is that um the money that goes from in lie of goes to the housing trust and and somewhere else and and to build more affordable housing, but they're only building affordable rental housing. So, we're going to lose, you know, ownership um at that bottom end of the market where um you know, some of even some of our counselors would probably be able to um possibly get a condo at 80% AMI. Uh family of four of 132,000. Um a two-bedroom would be $284,000. and the um

not there. Okay. Okay, that's it. Yeah. So, I just want to get rid of the I want to take out the seven um leave 7 to nine for ownership and um and then expand it for rentals to 19. Yeah. So, the committee report originally would be stay for the rental, but you would committee report for the ownership units. [clears throat] Okay. Is that

person? I want to ask the planning department to have any comment. Uh Mr. uh Keith or uh Miss Kryer is here also. We've been also joined I should indicate by councelor Frell not a member of the committee but welcome and also Peter Doringer from the planning board. And then I'll I'll recognize councelor Albbright after I hear from planning department. But I want to give councelor right a fully opportunity to explain and then we'll discuss it. So I'll go back to her. But Mr. I think Laura's going to respond first. Oh, okay. Miss Chrysler. Yeah,

thank you. I think um our preference is to keep it consistent and and the same for both rental and ownership. Uh part of the reason of that is that I think we do not want to encourage um the creation of one type of unit versus another. and and my personal concern is that if we set a lower threshold of nine units for ownership units, that will discourage developers from doing ownership and that we're only going to have rental units going forward. So, I I think it could actually have the effect of the opposite effect that's intended here that um more rental developments might be created. Um, I also just wanted to note I I think you mentioned that the the funding to the trust is only for rental housing and that's there is no requirement that it only be used for rental housing to date. That's what we've done, but um that's no reason we couldn't do ownership in the future if that kind of project came in and was something that that the city thought would be helpful.

Okay. So, I want to thank you very much. Any further comment from the planning department? and Chrysler, we welcome your your colleague. Uh, thank you. U, [clears throat] councelor Wright, do you want to just finish any further explanation you want to make and then we'll come to other people on the committee?

Yes. Um, so, well, I want to address two of those and and it is correct. It's not limiting the partnership to just rentals, but that's all they've done in the past is rentals and they have um quite a few of those. Um, and I I don't want to lose the ownership part, but when a developer comes in, they're either going to build for rentals or for sale. You know, a developer comes in who just build condos and they're for sale. That's all they do. They don't want to take on the burden of managing a property. So, um I think if we limited it down to um nine for ownership, I don't think that's going to make a difference um for the amount of developers for ownership for rentals because it's two different types of developers. It's not the same ones. Um and again there's not a lot of ownership possibilities in that price range as it is in the city and cutting it off. I mean and Mr. Heath has said in the past is that generally developers are you know are going to take the in lie of very seldom do we get a unit instead of the payment. So we are going to lose a lot more ownership units in the city. We're building there is building quite a few rentals in the city. So, I'm not worried about that, but I'm worried about the ownership possibilities.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Let me go to now members of the committee. Uh, councelor Albbright, I think councelor Danberg was first, but I'll be No, the problem is that there my screen is not picking up all everybody. It just said somebody raised hands, so I can't quite see who's who.

Okay. Happy to happy to go first. Um, so I I looked at the list of housing on the SHI and there are very very very few that are in the 7 to19 category. I think there were seven of them if I remember correctly at all and and I think only one of them was ownership. There were some other ownerships but they were all by the home buyer assistance program. There was only one that was ownership. So I don't think we're losing anything. In fact, we might be gaining something uh if if we if we do it the other way because maybe maybe it the um maybe this is blocking people creating 7 to 19 unit projects and maybe by having this inl thing maybe we'll get more of them who knows um but even so we weren't getting very many ownership units only one as I recall So I I I really think this is something worth trying.

Okay. Thank you. Let me go. I'm have in order. I've got councelor Danberg, councelor Kais, and then councelor Oliver. Councelor Danberg.

Um thank you um Chair Baker. Uh I agree with everything that um that both uh Miss Kryer and um Councelor Albbright have said. And in addition to that, um I'd like to bring up actually um councelor uh uh we brought up we we just began a discussion actually of the um councelor Wright of the um the issue of of property management. Um when these uh when these uh units are built and they're built, let's say one here, one there, one somewhere else, and they're scattered all over the city in small buildings where there's only one maybe maybe maybe two affordable units, it becomes um an enforcement nightmare because the city is responsible, if you will remember, for enforcing um and doing a and keeping keeping track of all the paperwork and um we don't have staff for that. Uh it it it becomes a real problem to try for the staff to try and uh enforce this um year after year when these items when these um units are scattered all over the city. If however there are more units in one building, it's much easier uh to enforce and to keep track of. Um there's also another issue uh that I would bring up about um ownership in addition to the fact that we're not getting um a lot of ownership uh properties because developers are keeping it under a certain number because it it behooves them to do that.

remember that uh when Anne Houston spoke to us u last at the last meeting, she reminded us that the housing authority um the and the housing trust prefer um that that there be that that the developers give payment in lie because if the developer is going to build one and let's say it costs 650,000 to build because that's the number. Um if that 650,000 and that would build one unit were given to the city instead and split between the two groups, that money can be leveraged from she said seven to 10 times. So, we could get many more units and would be able to build many more units than if we were just to get the the one unit that um that was required to be built um by the uh developer. I I just think it's a it's a no-brainer. If we're trying to get as many affordable units as possible, then should we not be going for the the match? And they require matching funds. The grants require matching funds. So the more money that's in the coffers uh for the for toward matching funds, the more units we can get. Um there's another issue that um in in u ownership and that is that if there is let's say there is um a seven-unit building and it's got six uh market rate units and and and one um uh inclusionary unit. the the price has been low. Let's say the person bought it for $285,000 and they and let's say that the um

monthly fee is kept low. There's going to come a time when all the owners want to get together because they need to do upgrades. They need to paint the building. they need to they want to uh do upgrades in the garage or um uh spend some money for other things in the building. Uh the other six people are going to have easier access to means to be able to do that and it will become a hardship for the person with the um inclusionary uh unit very often. um and that person cannot afford to do uh what what the other six people are asking for. So we're in a way setting ourselves up for um uh a a problem uh and conditions that Sorry about my dog um conditions that are going to be made difficult for that person in the inclusionary unit. Whereas if it's in um a building with a number of of units, it's much easier to control that. Um so I will stop there and u go on silent so that my dog won't bother anybody here.

At least at least counselor Danberg, your dog is at home. The last time we talked about your dog, it was out and you were chasing it, but I think that was a while back. Anyway, um councelor Kais I have and then let's see I've got councelor Oliver then councelor Block and coming back to councelor right yeah very thank you thank you chair very quickly I think this is worth trying um I I do I hear what um councelor Wright is saying about these uh homeowners versus rentals so I would support the motion you mean her amendment right her amendment yeah thank Councelor Oliver.

Great. Thank you again, Chair. Um, so I I concur with uh councilors Kais and and Wright. Uh, which is why I voted uh to not support this particular uh or because I was supportive of this, I did not vote for the full uh before I went to to council. There are a couple of things that that concern me. uh you know I and I recognize that councelor Danberg is you know where where she's coming from uh with her comment uh recently you know most recently about the you know the the unit owners inability perhaps perhaps to cover the full um you know h HOA uh uh monthly but I I'd rather just deal with what's in front of us like that that seems incredibly anecdotal and uh maybe iffome kind of situation. So in my mind I can't consider that to be real until it is uh until we have like hard evidence there. Um, I also heard from uh Miss Kryer, you know, the the the housing trust um and the housing authority, you know, if there were some guarantee or some way for us to, and I'm not advocating for this. I'm just going to say that right off up front. I'm not advocating for this, but there's a, you know, because the city hasn't built right any or many uh ownership units. I think that that's a pattern. And from my perspective, we are seeing uh predominantly uh you know, rental units being built in the city. Uh and and fine, great. That

super. I want to see a balance. I want to see us get at that. You know, when I was first elected to the city council, that was one of the big topics that we wrestled with was starting to create opportunities for intergenerational wealth. Well, here we go. Home ownership is a really big deal uh on that uh particular topic. Uh I continue to be incredibly supportive of the of this amendment, you know, i.e. council rights amendment. Um, and the last point I really wanted to make is, and I don't want to lose sight of this, and I forget who pointed it out originally. It might have been counselor Wright, it might have been myself, it might have been counselor gets. The math that was presented to us by uh, Miss Houston included some numbers that were not apples to apples. I, in other words, I'm just going to come right out and say it. I do not believe in the mathematics behind that multiplier number. I think there's a multiplier but I think the math that we shown was show were shown there was unpersuasive because it glossed over some really important facts in my opinion. Um, and for that reason, I'm going to continue to support um leaving uh the ownership unit threshold where we are today, which is nine units. Thank you.

Thank you. I recognize councelor Black and I'll come back to you, councelor Wright.

Thank you, chair. Appreciate the chance to um comment. I want to raise a different balance um question than what councelor Oliver was talking about and that's the distribution of [clears throat] our um affordable housing units. Um I did an analysis of where these are by ward. It's kind of hard to do it by neighborhood since one can dispute neighborhood boundaries. [clears throat] And I submitted this to the affordable housing trust several months ago. 28% of our affordable housing units are in Ward One, 22% in Ward 4. Then there's a big drop off [clears throat] um among all the other wards. And it it feels more comfortable to me that we we should accept whenever possible um units from developers um so that we don't tilt our own efforts in the direction of the least expensive land in Newton because that is very likely going to further um um concentrate the affordable housing units. And I think it's just a matter of principle that um all neighborhoods should participate in this ideally equally. That's never going to happen. But [clears throat] I don't think as a policy matter we should do anything that would further concentrate the percentage of units that we have. And I just ask that the committee consider that um when they make their judgments about

you know what the cuto off should be for cashing out versus versus not cashing out. And that's that's the particular issue that's in front of you. I I'm I fully understand it would be nice to have more cash to work with and and I support that in principle, but I'm not sure this is the best way to do it. So, that's that's just my comment on this. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for being willing to come to our committee and express your views. We appreciate that. Council Wright, I see two other hands up that I'd like to answer and then come back to you if that's all right. Um, Miss uh, Councelor Albbright and then C Miss Kryer.

So, I was just trying to count the number of properties on the SHI. I think there are I don't know, Miss Kryer, you and Doc and Mr. Heath, you probably know this better than I do. It looked like there's about 110 roughly. I was trying to count the lines quickly and only one of them is home ownership between seven and 19 units. Um, so we we don't have a lot of these. We're not that we haven't produced very many of these. If if we if we were trying to give make this more of a thing, then maybe an incentive program is what we should be looking for. I I but I I I don't think I don't think we're going to get very many of these, if any. And it could the money could go into a better cause or a more fruitful cause. The other thing I wanted to say is that and and Miss Kryer or Mr. Heath, you can probably talk about this better than I can, when when you have an affordable unit that you own, you don't benefit from all the equity that that goes with the the the unit, um I you're limited to a certain increase above that because it's an affordable unit. So, it's not like we're doing a whole bunch of good for a lot of people because they're not going to gain the equity that you might gain if you have your you own your house and if it was, you know, $500,000 yesterday and uh a million dollars, you benefit from the whole 500,000. Affordable homeowners don't get that kind of benefit from the equity. Miss Kryer, if you speak next, maybe you could explain that better than I can.

Thank you, Councilman. Uh, Miss Chrysler,

thank you. Uh, yes, you're absolutely right. So, when we put an affordable housing restriction on a property um on a condo unit, say for a household, it includes a calculation of how the next sale price will be determined. And it it allows for some equity, but it also has to keep the unit affordable to the next person who's buying. So, it's not going to mate what the market is doing right now. Um, you know, I would say it's what it does give is security in knowing what your bills are in a way that rental units aren't always able to do. Um, but you're right, you don't get the same equity at the end of the end of the day. Um I also wanted to point out while the SHI has almost everything we have in the city particularly home buyer units which were done by Kand do did a lot of them a lot of smaller organizations you have to be very careful in how you market and how you f how you do your lotteryies and SHI didn't always let us include everything that we have. So, there are units in the city that aren't on the SHI um that we're still working to get added on as they come up for resales. Um but to your point, we do have a far fewer of them than we do of rental units. Um the other thing I just wanted to to mention is um Kesser Wright had mentioned most developers kind of know what they want to do. What we've found recently in particular is that a lot of developers are changing their mind over the course of the project. it's starts as rental. They consider ownership. They go back and forth. Um so it's not always a given um how the how it's going to be done when it it gets permanent. Some have come back in and gotten um permission to change it. Uh we have home ownership units coming online soon on Walnut Street in the Newton Highlands. We had some that just came online in in the Beacon. I know Walnut Street is one of those ones that changed their mind about

it several times before deciding to be ownership. Um, and I guess that's for me that's an example where I'm if we changed the the calculation to be different for rental than ownership that probably would have impacted what they decided to do. Okay. Uh, anyone else? I want to go back to councelor Wright and then I'll as I'll recognize well councelor Oliver um I'll recognize myself last but councelor Wright and I'm going to let you and then I'll go to councelor Oliver.

Okay. Thank you. Um, a quick question to Miss Chrysler. Were there any changes I could see going from rental to ownership, but h were there projects that went from ownership to rentals? It's a good question. I'll have to check. I know that the two that have been done most recently um ended up as ownership units, but we we could check and and see. A lot of these were, you know, of course permitted a couple years ago um before I was as involved in the program as I am now. So I could check in on that.

Yeah, because again I think you know it it's easier I mean so I own units and being a landlord there's a lot to go into that and most people don't want to do that you know and with the ownership you build them you sell them they're gone you know type of thing. So, I can see, you know, going from a rental and you're willing to do a rental and all the headaches that go with that to ownership, but going the other way, I don't think that happens very often. Um, I and yeah, I was surprised by Councelor Albbright that we had so few because I know there is a bunch of other ones there that like you said, Miss Chrysler, that aren't on the SHI or, you know, there's not a lot of um you don't really see that. I um so I wanted to address a couple things from um councelor Danberg and I understand I totally understand about the property management for the rentals and that has to be done every year and but for um ownership it's only done when it's sold and yes people aren't going to make as much money equity in it as market rate houses but there will make some And they're also um and again HUD is determining what the price is when they sell it, you know, a couple years down the road or 10 years down the road, but also their money is going towards buying down their mortgage too versus kind of throwing it away at rent. Um so there is some equity but not as much as you know as much as houses have increased here in the recent past. and what um councelor Oliver said and and I talked briefly with Miss Houston and I really want her to fix it because people

have come back screaming at us because we're not doing what we're saying. So her data showing that you know they can build seven times more units that's the multiplier um than what a um a developer can do. I thought had had some issues with it and they were using um housing cost from precoid and you know cost for development you know precoid versus now is not the same. So I mean for those units there should have been a multiplier factor on it. And then she included um the um the um homeless shelter and those are just rooms. They're not apartments, but she referred that data was used as apartments and that's not apples to apples. And I agree there is a multiplier there, but it isn't seven with what she used there. And second, if we use that, then when the housing trust gets, you know, a million dollars and we're saying it costs $650,000 to build one and, you know, you can do seven times more. So, we expect that every time they got a million dollars, we should see 10 or 11 um affordable units. And I don't think it's going to quite go like that. And so, and then the residents and and um you know, people from Newton are going to be on us. It's like why isn't it? Because that's what you said. So, that that document definitely needs to um to be updated. But still, you know, I would rather not do this, you know, keep it to 7 and 9 and if it's an issue, then, you know, we can change it. And look, we have a 71 unit um ownership property, which they're going and asking for a special

permit to give payment in lie of. So even if you know seven to nine and they want to do a payment in lie of they can first of all it's probably a special permit unless it's in VCOD and you know they that's something they can ask for. So I'd rather just keep it there for now and you know we revisit it in a year or two and see if it did make a difference. Thank you. Um I'm going to go to councelor Oliver and then the planning director and then again my I'll take go last. Councelor Oliver.

Great. Thank you sir. Uh so uh I'm just going to kind of uh in my typical fashion I am going to point out that uh several counselors helped me just make my point uh as well as uh Miss Criter. Um so what you're saying is there's a chance that these folks do get equity when they sell the unit or when they, you know, give up the unit. I recognize it's not, you know, the full boat, if you will, of of the uh increase in equity, but it's equity, and I think it's [clears throat] important that we're doing whatever we can, and that's something we can do. Um, so again, still all for counselor uh Wright's uh version of this, but thank you.

Um, thank you, um, Mr. Heath.

Yeah, good uh, good debate tonight. Um, setting aside the uh debate about whether home ownership is better than rental, I think that's a whole other debate this evening. I think the issue is that the dollars that would come from an inloo payment would and there could be some debate about how many units and what kind of units uh could be created. There'd be more units and deeper affordability. So, we'd be serving a lower income population than a prospective homeowner. Um, you could debate about the merits of that, but I think uh the numbers that Ann put together. I agree there probably some things in there you could look at and quibble over, but the fact is there'll be more units. They'll serve deeper affordability. They might even serve homeless families at some point um as well as we saw with the navigation center, the West Newton navigation center. But I think it really comes down to that issue. Uh more units, deeper affordability versus home ownership.

Thank you. U councelor Kis, before I recognize you, I want to just say that Mr. Heath, I'm grateful to you for coming tonight virtually, but we're grateful to you all along. I'm not sure we have many items to which you can speak at the next meeting. And I want to just indicate that I've appreciated you and your colleagues. I don't always agree with you, but you've come to us from time and time again to try and explain the perspective that you have. And I think you play explained it well. And um I just want to say that I'm one as chair. I'm grateful to you and um I just wanted to indicate that in case I hope that you will come at our last meeting whenever we do it in person and I can say something then. But just in case there's a mishap, I wanted to acknowledge it tonight.

I understand there's going to be food at the last meeting. So that's all. I hope so. This is a conversation the vice chair and I have to have. Neither of us. Well, I can't speak for myself, but I'm not I'm not much of a cook, but we'll we'll figure something out anyway. [clears throat] But thank you, uh, Councelor Vice President Kis, Chair Baker, you It's terrific that you just, um, made those comments. I totally I think those are totally appropriate. And um, yeah, we'll miss you, Mr. Heath. Um, I just wanted to I think this was great discussion. I but I I wanted to say that um we review this every three years. Is it five? So I think

three three to five. So none of this is permanent. And I think that again um I hear all the arguments against but I think it's worth uh trying and seeing what happens. Uh because we've never done it. So um that's all I have. Okay. Anybody else? recognized everybody that wants to speak.

So, I'm just going to indicate that I actually am going to support this item. Um, I think Mr. Heath capsulated it properly. We have a choice of more units or a particular quality of unit. And this is one of those trade-offs that I think is worth trying to see if we can get a little more of of the home ownership um uh in the mix and therefore I think it's worth the experiment of making a distinction. So, I will support the amendment. Council Oliver and councelor Albbright. I'm sorry. Uh who I didn't see whose hand was up first. They were quick. It looks like councelor Albbright was up first.

Yeah, I'll just be quick. I I just want to say to councelor Kis, this is not something new. This is something we've been doing since the beginning of uh inclusionary zoning to [clears throat] require them to do a unit. So what's new is to ask them to do in lie instead. So you're not asking for something new. You're asking for the same thing all over again. That's on rental. It's on the on the rental. It's different. On the home ownership, it's exactly the same. We're keeping the current structure. You're correct. Thank you, councelor Oliver. Councelor Oliver.

Great. Thank you. I appreciate like I [clears throat] I didn't anticipate jumping in again, but I do think that councelor Block made a fantastic point that we should not lose sight of. Uh I think that's That to me is, you know, the point of of of where the units are cited and and how they're kind of u, you know, uh, integrated, so to speak, across the city, I think is a is is, um, is an important aspect to consider here. And I also think that if we are already at a, you know, I and I have no idea what the ratio is, but we know we're getting a much higher degree or number of rental units already. This might actually accelerate that kind of well, I hope it doesn't, but it could accelerate more, you know, um, in lie of payments for apartments. I think we're going to be able to I I think what we might get here is exactly what uh Mr. Heath is talking about. We are going to see an increase of funds going into the Affordable Trust and and into um Newton Housing Authority and that's a good thing. Uh so I am going to be very curious to see how this shapes up and see if uh you know anything does or what does improve because I think we're going to see some improvements obviously otherwise I wouldn't be voting for it. But uh thank you again. I'm going to stop talking to this item. I think I've uh made my position pretty clear. Thank you.

I think you have. So um councelor Wright you I I'm assuming you moving your amendment. Now the committee had already taken this item and voted it out as indicated without the division between Reynold and so uh the motion really has to be to amend the committee vote of the last time in order to add this as a a different model. So I just want to be clear procedurally where we are as I understand it. Anybody disagree please say so. Sounds right. So, Council Wright, you want to move uh an amendment to the prior report? You're muted, I think.

Yep. I want to move um from the prior report and make the change of um not changing um ownership and leaving it at 7 to nine units. Okay. But we would made we would adopt the other recommendation which would make the rental units up to 19. Yes. Well, in fact, all all of the all of the edits would be in place with the exception

all the other edits would be in place. We're not modifying any of that. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Okay. Uh let's uh just see where we are. I'd like those in favor of the proposed amendment would raise your hand so that we can get a clear count. And I don't know if I can raise my hand. It'll be an interesting question. All right. I All right. So, I count councelor Wright, Councelor Kalis, Councelor Oliver, Councelor Baker. That's four. All those opposed. Take your hands down, please. Those you Okay. Opposed. Councelor Albbright. Councelor Danberg. Um, let's see. We're missing councelor.

Councelor Kinsman. Acting councelor Kinsman. Council councelor Gats. Uh councelor Gats. All right. Councelor Chrisman, do you wish to be voting? I think he has an item at finance. Oh, okay. So, I have to count him as um absent at the moment.

Okay. So, the amendment carries and uh so that's what I will report to the council and the council can take up and decide this uh differently. But um I'm it may be uh let me ask Mr. Heath and Miss Kryer, we've done a lot of work on the inclusionary zoning and um this is still going to require 16 affirmative votes. Um uh and I would like to make sure that we get the whole thing passed. Um and I may have to investigate with the law department whether we have to we can or could divide the item if we had to so that we could make sure that we get all the other things passed. I would not like this to be uh the uh the issue that that would prevent us from doing all of the work that we've done.

Council Baker, I I I just want to say I'm not going to hold up the whole item on this one p one thing. So, I'm still going to vote for the whole thing in the council. Oh, okay. All right. Councelor Danberg. Uh yes. I I wanted to say I'm not going to hold it up. U but if um if we could divide the item, uh it would that would at least make it clear to everyone. um that uh the uh home ownership issue and the 7 to 19 on uh on u uh the rentals uh would be separate could be separate votes.

No, I think the tricky problem is that if we hold that item, it effectively leaves the current arrangements in place. In other words, the seven to nine would be apply for both rental and in other words, that would be the one change that would not be made at all if we voted the rest of it. Mr. Heath, you want to comment?

I was just going to say I really appreciate the committee's uh hard work on this, the many months that we've covered this, and uh I would defer to my colleague Miss Kryer who put in the most work on this. Um but I wouldn't want to hold up the whole ordinance on this particular issue. I like the idea that many counselors have put forth, which is let's keep an eye on this and see what the effect might be.

Okay. All right. So, um if that's the case, we may end up having this a um it'll be a second call item because it's an item that's been uh recommitted. Uh well, actually, I don't know if it has to be a second call item. If it's coming out of committee, it could be the committee report just as amended. So um it may deep be that that's a first call item and if nobody puts it on second call we can pass it. All right. Okay. Um thank you very much Mr. Heath. Any comments further comments? Councelor Chrisman uh you were absent for the vote on the amendment the among uh but I would entertain just because of uh importance of your participation if you would like a motion to reconsider the item just so that we could vote again if that you would like to be included. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair, but I didn't hear the the discussion, so I I don't think it's right to vote.

Okay. Um All right. Thank you. So, um then I think uh we are I would accept a motion to approve the item as amended. So move. Okay. All those in favor say I. I. I. I. Opposed. What are we voting on? Just the amendment or the whole thing? Yeah, the whole thing because we amended part of it, but we have to report the whole thing out. Yeah, right. That I wasn't clear on that. I'm sorry. Let me be clear. We're just putting the whole package back before the council. So, all those in favor say I. Again, do it one more time. I opposed. Abstensions.

Okay. One abstension. Council Pres. Thank you. Um, okay. I think that concludes our business unless anyone has any. Um and uh uh if uh councelor Albbright can you stay on for just a minute. I have a for process question for you from the next meeting. Sure. Okay. And also miss uh the rest of you. Thank you very much. Appreciate you coming out. Um and uh Miss Holden, can you stand on and Mr. Oliver, Vice Chair, stay on for just a minute. This will be you can turn off the recording for this purpose. Miss Holden. I just recording stopped. Okay. Thank you. Thanksgiving. Happy Thanksgiving indeed. Uh