Zoning Redesign

[Howard Rosenof]

The City Council has temporarily suspended deliberations on a new zoning ordinance, but the discussions will resume. I would like to call your attention to a statement by a number of architects, builders and residents recently published as a letter-to-the-editor in the Patch. I am not a signatory to the letter and was not involved in its preparation; however I have posted similar views and am generally in agreement.

https://patch.com/massachusetts/newton/letter-editor-newton-rezoning-question

[Susan Albright]

Howard et al,

On Sept 20, 2020 the City Council received essentially the same letter that was published in the Patch today. That  4 page letter was written by most of the same architects and builders.   I'm surprised that you never saw that letter from over a year ago Howard as you closely follow the work of ZAP.  Perhaps you missed it.  On December 14, 2020 , 3 months after that letter was received and 9 months ago- the Zoning and Planning Committee took the discussion of Article 3 OFF THE TABLE.  We agreed with many of the points in that letter and agreed that much more work needed to be done to analyze the impact of the proposals from many points of view.  

I find it disingenuous at best that almost the same letter resurfaces 3 weeks before the election as if this was new information.    I  hope that everyone reading this letter understands exactly why it was resent a year later.   I'm ashamed for our community at this ploy.

Susan

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 4:44 PM Howard Rosenof <howard...@comcast.net> wrote:

The City Council has temporarily suspended deliberations on a new zoning ordinance, but the discussions will resume. I would like to call your attention to a statement by a number of architects, builders and residents recently published as a letter-to-the-editor in the Patch. I am not a signatory to the letter and was not involved in its preparation; however I have posted similar views and am generally in agreement.

https://patch.com/massachusetts/newton/letter-editor-newton-rezoning-question

--
If you'd like to be added to this discussion group, visit this group at the link below, or simply send email to gswi...@alum.mit.edu with your name and affiliation with West Newton.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "West Newton Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to westnewtonneighbo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/westnewtonneighborhood/145ef045-a61e-3db2-1ae7-f6d5a3678769%40comcast.net.

--

Susan Albright, President
Newton City Council

Councilor-at-Large Ward 2

[Jason Harburger]

I had the same take — it feels like a fabricated problem (and fear tactic) to publish a letter about a topic that is no longer in front of the council. The last ZAP meeting I observed was dedicated to a detailed review of transit utilization, employment opportunity, and housing density, pursuant to informing a village centric set of (possibly yet to be defined?) potential reforms. In other words, the ZAP was reviewing data and hypotheses before contemplating solutions. 

Separately, if I had a dollar for every time I heard “we must look at the transit utilization data before we discuss zoning reform.” Welp, that is exactly what the ZAP is doing.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/westnewtonneighborhood/CAD8teTQEibS%2B5gYdiBWxW2b4uJ5_0pZtHweH2NCE0JL1TWFtpw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Susan Albright]

There were 7 architects on the original letter.  When self-interest is at stake it should be pretty easy to get  the rest Simon!   How are you enjoying Ireland?  Hope your kids are enjoying the move?   Please send more pictures.

Susan

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 10:39 PM Simon French <french...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have a different take.

We often hear how hard it is to pass anything in our city council due to the number of councilors we have.

Can you imagine how long it takes to get 19 local professional architects to sign up to this?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/westnewtonneighborhood/CA%2BBaJFkdHO-f8o%2BXKqaVNyKV8CM0rCKZZCMksqOXfCQ6yQdivw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Simon French]

I have a different take.

We often hear how hard it is to pass anything in our city council due to the number of councilors we have.

Can you imagine how long it takes to get 19 local professional architects to sign up to this?

On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 02:40, Jason Harburger <jasonha...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/westnewtonneighborhood/CA%2BBaJFkdHO-f8o%2BXKqaVNyKV8CM0rCKZZCMksqOXfCQ6yQdivw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Lynne LeBlanc]

Susan,

Thanks for your reply. Raising concerns must be an ongoing issue. 

My understanding is that while Article 3 is "OFF THE TABLE" for now, many believe they will certainly be back on the table after the election. 

Unless your remarks are a guarantee this will not be the case?

Lynne

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:27 PM Susan Albright <susansophi...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/westnewtonneighborhood/CAD8teTQEibS%2B5gYdiBWxW2b4uJ5_0pZtHweH2NCE0JL1TWFtpw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Lynne LeBlanc
43 Brookdale Rd.
Newton, MA 02460
617.510.8032 (c)
LynneL...@gmail.com

[didi_614]

Thank you Lynne 

That was my same question - I thought that if was only " OFF THE TABLE" because of the election.

Hopefully Councilor Albright will let us know.  Because I for one believe it was ONLY taken "OFF THE TABLE" because of the election.

Thanks Joanne 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/westnewtonneighborhood/CALncpNK5AmPHx7K-apNBtQscmMtgAnkVQzAh_CJwCiLOB0MD0w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Susan Albright]

Joanne and Lynne et al

Thanks so much for asking the question.  It is an important one.

i think we all want Article 3 to be taken up again.  The issue of the large houses, houses out of character in the neighborhood, replacing small ones -is an issue we must deal with in Article 3.  I think that everyone WANTS Article 3 to be taken up.  

 

There is work going on to analyze every issue inside Article 3.  I assure you that every issue will be discussed and analyzed and vetted in the public square.  That is the path we have been on.

Susan

[Jason Harburger]

When I look at the Zoning & Planning agenda for the Mayor’s office and Council, I see several enormous & complex topics under way, including but not limited to:
– Digesting the Vision Kit & focus group feedback to help enhance our village experience (for residents and businesses)
– Digesting a thorough study of commuter patterns, density, and job opportunity by village to inform zoning reform in village centers
– Responding to the Housing Choice legislation
– Utilizing ARPA funds 
– (Hopefully) advocating to keep the $327B housing funds in the Build Back Better Act
– Continuing to identify land on which to build (or convert) affordable units for ownership and rental

There are endless opportunities to deregulate and build more homes (affordable and market rate) in a contextual manner with the agenda above - which doesn't include city wide zoning changes. All that being said, I have heard growing support from Councilors for simplifying the permitting of multifamily units if those units are much smaller than the 4K+ homes we see being built today, and I am all for the Council exploring that further — in light of the rapidly expanding size (and cost) of new homes in Newton.

So much good can come from the Council & Mayor’s current, substantial, progressive agenda over the next few years, and there are many questions yet to be answered with the current work.

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/economy/the-silent-majority-in-support-of-housing-action/

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/pandemic-reveals-need-space-building-smaller-units-remains-essential

https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63721/637454628662670000

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/westnewtonneighborhood/805012638.3356078.1634296750781%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Howard Rosenof]

A Surprising Reaction

Sometimes when I post commentary to the neighborhood I get a strong reaction, but a few days ago when I posted the link below, to a letter-to-the editor in the Patch written by others, I was surprised by the response. There seemed to be more interest in the timing of the letter than in its contents. To be clear, the letter was new, dated October 2021, and signed by 21 building professionals, the majority registered architects. (That's as of October 19. Some signatories may have added their names after initial publication.)

Timing Isn't Everything

The complaints about timing were that (1) the views stated in the letter had been expressed before, and (2) it's close to the election so the letter may have been published to affect it.

With respect to (1), I'm aware of no philosophical, pedagogical or other principle holding that an idea should be expressed only once. I haven't discussed the question of timing with the signers of the letter, but I can think of several good reasons for them to restate their ideas now:

- They may have felt that their ideas did not in the past receive adequate attention, either from the Planning Department or the City Council.

- Not all residents maintain a strong interest in local political issues through the year. Many, I'm sure, either were never aware of or forgot the details of the discussions around zoning redesign in the Council's current term. As we get closer to an election that has no national or statewide races but will decide the next Mayor and City Council, residents are likely to be paying more attention to local issues generally.

- I am getting the impression that many residents are becoming newly interested in how our city government makes decisions. I don't have hard data to back this up, nor do I have a clear idea of why this might be happening. Possibly, it has to do with our two pot shops on Washington Street, the construction of high-density housing with plans approved for more, increasing traffic, etc.

As for (2), I just don't think there is justification for imputing sinister motives to the letter-writers, who to the best of my knowledge were acting only out of concern for the future of Newton. But if we're really going to travel down that road, let's also remember to pack the recent announcement of dual-platform designs for the three Commuter Rail stations, the recently announced availability of funding to upgrade north-side schools, and the Mayor's announcement that expanded NewMo services would begin tomorrow, October 25, six business days before the election.

Table Talk

In her response below, the Council President advises, in all caps, that the discussion on Article 3 (residential districts) was taken "off the table"

In a later response to a direct question, President Albright clarified that residential rezoning was likely to be considered again in the next term. My metaphor would be that Article 3 was placed underneath a pile of other work, but is still very much on the table. At the time discussion on Article 3 was suspended, the Planning Department put the decision this way: "ZAP agreed at the December 14, 2020 meeting to temporarily set down the proposed zoning for Newton’s residential neighborhoods (Article 3) to focus on Newton’s village centers/transit nodes in 2021." Emphasis added. https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/65658/637487254009400000

All the more reason for the building professionals to reiterate their views now.

However, at about the same time the Planning Department indicated that it still expected zoning redesign to be completed in the current term: "The goal of this deep dive into Article 3 is to hold a ZAP Committee straw vote that memorializes the progress and support for the draft zoning language in hopes to hold a City Council vote on the adoption of the complete new Zoning Ordinance before the end of the Council term in 2021"

See https://www.newtonma.gov/government/planning/zoning-redesign/document-library under "2020: Article 3 - Residence Districts"

There's no argument about the fact that the Council suspended discussion of Article 3, but some controversy about why. One version is that ZAP "needed to do more analysis". That may well have been the case, and I commend ZAP for not rushing into a decision. However, for that to have been the case, the Planning Department must have been overly optimistic about the degree of completion of its draft Article 3. Directly before the statement quoted immediately above, we have this:

"The objective of the latest process to review and revise Article 3, which began in March 2020, is to ensure the code fully achieves the City’s goals, minimizes unintended consequences and manipulation, and is easy to use and enforce. This has been the primary focus of the City Council Zoning and Planning Committee (ZAP). Additional input has been gathered from the Planning & Development Board, Newton Housing Partnership, architect and building professionals, City staff, and local residents."

So around the beginning of this year, the Planning Department presented Article 3 as largely complete, just in need of some fine-tuning by the Council.

Another possible reason for deferring Article 3 is that as residents came to understand what was in it, Councilors started receiving a lot of negative feedback.

Civility in our Public Discourse

I post a lot on the West Newton list server. I always try to make my posts about ideas, actions and their implications, and not about people, whether myself or those who hold other views. I try to use language that is gentle and precise - gentle so as not to be unnecessarily offensive, precise so that what I say doesn't get misinterpreted. I avoid naming names, directly or by position, whenever I can, e.g. "City administration" rather than "Mayor.” I talk about "developers" when often I'm thinking of just one. If all you know about me is what you read in these posts, you don't know for sure which incumbent City officials and challengers I support, and which incumbents I would like to see voted out of office. Even those who almost reflexively disagree with everything I have to say will, I think, acknowledge that I argue my positions in a respectful manner.

I was surprised, then, by the response of the Council President, below, specifically "I'm surprised that you never saw that letter from over a year ago Howard as you closely follow the work of ZAP.  Perhaps you missed it." I was, in fact, aware that similar views had been expressed before. But the President's strongest personal criticism was directed toward the letter's signatories, i.e. "I find it disingenuous at best that almost the same letter resurfaces 3 weeks before the election as if this was new information.    I  hope that everyone reading this letter understands exactly why it was resent a year later.   I'm ashamed for our community at this ploy."

I will not be provoked into responding in kind, but I also don't think that these attacks should be ignored. I'll just say, then, that it's not a good look when a public official, whether elected or appointed, within any branch or level of government, demeans constituents for exercising their Constitutional right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (This is in the First Amendment, and appears along with the more general right of free speech.) 

What I'd Like to See

In the coming Council term, I'm hoping to first see rezoning completed for all of the areas covered by the Washington Street Vision Plan. There were a lot of questions about the Vision Plan when it was offered for approval at the end of the 2018-2019 Council term. I'm not going to go into those issues now; I'll just say that they were numerous and not trivial. The Plan was sold to certain skeptical Councilors on the basis that it wasn't really zoning (true) and that zoning for the same area would be taken up immediately after the Plan's approval (turned out false). So since the end of 2019 we've had a Vision Plan that says one thing and zoning that says something else.

This situation encourages developers who own land in the area to invoke Chapter 40B, which allows them to bypass any and all zoning. If a developer is going to go through the hassle of invoking 40B, then it has no reason not to go for the max, which in the case of Dunstan East means a density of about 84 units per acre. Dunstan East is often compared to Washington Place/Trio, but the density of the latter, done under a Special Permit rather than 40B, is only about half of that, at 49 units per acre. Zoning that allowed, say, four stories on the Dunstan East site might have (I say again, might have) persuaded the developer to use the simpler Special Permit process and try to meet the community halfway. Failing to update zoning and so giving landowners an all-or-nothing choice, we shouldn't be too surprised when the choice is "all".

This approach seems to be working out well for developers. The longer we wait to update the zoning, the more likely that any new zoning will be rendered moot by the approval of more oversized 40B projects. Those who routinely disparage some of us on the north side as "Nimbys" (many of whom would similarly object to such development in their own back yards) could be surprised at how little resistance there might be to new residential development that actually complements rather than overwhelms our community. In fact there's an example of this in progress now, the intended replacement of the Oakley Spa in Newtonville.

The "approval" of the Washington Street Vision Plan actually comprised its incorporation into the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is the mechanism we use, or we said we would use, to document our consensus vision for Newton's future. The current version of the Comprehensive Plan (minus the recently-added Washington Street part) anticipates a 15 percent increase in dwelling units to maintain a stable population. If we as a City wish to change that now, we should be explicit about what we want our population to be and where in the City it should go, before we make any zoning changes. I can understand why some might prefer to avoid such a discussion.

With any new construction, the City receives additional tax revenues and incurs additional expenses. I'd like to see proposed zoning changes from the Planning Department come with a projection of their financial consequences. We residents - taxpayers - have a right to know.

What I'll be Watching For

Most members of this list were in Newton a few years ago, when we voted on recreational marijuana. While other cities and towns, I'm told, offered simple referenda that either would approve or disapprove of non-medical sales, Newton voters were given two questions so complex that people with multiple college degrees didn't fully understand what they were voting on. We know how to make things complicated here. I recognize that zoning is inherently complex, but any proposed new zoning should be presented in the most straightforward manner possible. It's going to be necessary for interested residents to not only understand what any new proposed wording means, but what it implies and what behaviors it is likely to reward.

If the proposed zoning contains illustrations of construction that complies with its provisions, do these illustrations show the minimum, typical, or maximum size and density that would be allowed? Under current market conditions, maximum is probably what we'll get.

If multifamily housing is explicitly prohibited in a residential district, does that mean that two-families are allowed? (Multifamily housing is usually defined as having more than two units.) If development is encouraged near Commuter Rail stops, is it similarly encouraged along the Green Line? If development is encouraged in village centers, are all such centers treated equitably, and what exactly are the proposed boundaries of each village center? If development is encouraged near public transportation, does that also include stops on the north-south 59 bus route? As a matter of fact, if development is to be encouraged in areas with access to public transportation, that now includes all of Newton, since the Mayor has told us that the NewMo service will carry residents between any point in Newton and the Green Line or Commuter Rail, in both directions. I'll also point out that the City Council accepted the idea of a shuttle-bus service to connect the Northland project with public transit.

[m...@halle.us]

Hi Howard, thanks as always for your carefully considered opinions.

I’m sure others will weigh in, as may I with further consideration. However, I want to note this point:

Howard wrote:

But if we're really going to travel down that road, let's also remember to pack the recent announcement of dual-platform designs for the three Commuter Rail stations, the recently announced availability of funding to upgrade north-side schools, and the Mayor's announcement that expanded NewMo services would begin tomorrow, October 25, six business days before the election.

Given that the MBTA Is a state agency, and how difficult it is to get the MBTA to do anything, and how quickly they generally move when they move at all, a belief that the announcement of the Newton Commuter Rail planning process is for the benefit of the Newton Mayor’s re-election seems almost like it would defy the laws of political space time to me. 

As for NewMo, it’s a natural evolution of two previous versions of the same service, so it’s not exactly an October surprise. Even if the administration were somehow planning such a surprise, waiting until very close Election Day would be a big risk with early voting in play. Most Newton residents won’t have heard or NewMo before they vote, and it is always possible that some of the early riders will not have a good experience becasuse of start-up problems.

—Mike