The Zoning and Planning Committee voted to approve the following (see Report and watch the video on NewTV):
- Appointment of Joel Shames to the Auburndale Historic District Commission (6-0, Councilors Baker and Ryan not voting)
- Request for an ordinance to regulate embodied carbon in new construction. The City’s Energy Coach, Liora Silkes, presented the item and explained that the ordinance will apply only to special permit projects. According to the report, “The draft ordinance states that for projects with gross square footage between 20,000 and 50,000 sq. ft., only structural materials must be evaluated. This analysis can be done using the Life Cycle Analysis tools or Environmental Product Declarations noted. Projects over 50,000 sq. ft. must use a Whole Building Life-Cycle Assessment tool to estimate the embodied carbon of both the structural and enclosure materials, justification for the building materials used, and the CO2e per square foot of the project compared to that of similar projects. These analyses are not required for projects where at least 50% of the floor area comprises the reuse of a pre-existing structure.” (6-0, Councilors Baker and Ryan not voting)
The Zoning & Planning Committee voted to hold the following:
- Discussion and review relative to the draft Zoning Ordinance regarding village centers (8-0)
- Discussion on state guidance for implementing the Housing Choice Bill (8-0)
Both items were discussed together.
Version 2 Draft Maps removed historic districts and all public property from overlay districts. Village Center 1 District is broken into two: VC1 with commercial use on the ground floor and the Multi-Residence Transit District (MRT). According to the report, “MRT will allow for 2.5 stories at a maximum height of 45 ft. for a pitched roof and 2 stories at a maximum height of 27 ft. for a flat roof. Commercial uses are not allowed. Using this overlay district (versus the underlying zoning) would require the property owner to provide a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 4 units.” Also, “within this district, the intention is to incentivize rehabilitation of existing structures; those metrics being presented at a next meeting.”
The report further states that “Village Center 3 (VC3) and Village Center 2 (VC2) These districts remain largely unchanged from version 1 except for removing the maximum front setback and the 5 ft. side setback if the parcel abuts a building without a party wall in a non-residential district. Version 2 includes offering a density bonus for increased affordability in both VC1 and VC2, by allowing an additional story and up to 2,500 sq. ft. footprint for providing at least 25% affordable units at 65 % AMI (Average Median Income). Parcels within 50 ft. of a lot line abutting a Multi-Residence Transit (MRT), or any other residential district will not be able to utilize this bonus. Lots within a VC3 district can take advantage of an additional two story height bonus and a 2,500 sq. ft. footprint bonus for providing at least 30% affordable units at 65% AMI. This bonus cannot be utilized by VC3 lots abutting a VC1, MRT, or residential district.”
“In version 2 there is no on-site parking minimum for either multi-family residential or commercial development….while on-site parking is not required, it may still be built, and no maximums are proposed.” “Requiring on-site parking is one of the biggest barriers to reaching compliance with MBTA Communities.”
“By creating the low-density MRT district, expanding it along the Green line from Newton Center to Eliot Street T stops, and removing on-site parking minimums, version 2 VCOD would bring Newton into compliance. As drafted, this scheme enables 10,000 units, a gross density of 35 units/acre, cover 288 acres of land, is 100% (at least 90% required) within half mile of a MBTA or Commuter Rail station, and 69% of the total land area is contiguous (50% required).”
Several Councilors expressed concerns about heights allowed, insufficient incentives to prevent teardowns, and some supported reducing the scale of certain village centers. Multiple Councilors expressed support for the direction of the proposal, and the item was held.
