Press "Enter" to skip to content

Virtual public hearing on non-binding ballot question regarding Zoning: Thursday – June 8, 7PM

The Programs and Services Committee will hold a virtual (Zoom link) public hearing Thursday at 7PM (see Agenda) regarding a petition filed by Peter Harrington and other residents calling on the City Council to place a non-binding question on the November 7, 2023 municipal ballot. The proposed ballot question is as follows:

“Shall the City of Newton adopt new zoning laws to:

  • Allow new buildings of three and one-half and four and one-half stories in our village center business districts;
  • Allow the expansion of the lot size on which new developments can be built, without obtaining a special permit, from the current 10,000 square foot threshold to 30,000 sq ft;
  • Allow the reduction or elimination of parking space requirements in Village Centers;
  • Change Newton Ordinances to allow developers to build fewer affordable housing units and allow the affordable units to be occupied by tenants with more income than provided by Newton’s Ordinances unless Newton shows its requirements are economically feasible.”

In advance of the public hearing, the Planning Department issued a memo (pp. 11-13 attached to the agenda) responding to each of the items within the ballot question and recommending the Committee vote No Action Necessary (NAN). The memo concludes: “This proposed ballot question misrepresents the current VCOD proposal and conflates several distinct issues into one question. As a result, the proposed question may increase confusion regarding the VCOD.”

Failure to inform voters of specifics

In its response to the first item, regarding building height, the Planning Department contends that the question fails to provide specific information on each of the height maximums proposed for each district, that no additional stories are allowed by special permit, and that there is a step-down requirement if a project is within 50 feet of a residential lot line.

Conflation of requirements and review process

With regard to the ballot issue on expansion of lot size, the Planning Department states that the petitioners are treating two different requirements as the same and pointing to the Special Permit threshold and the minimum lot size requirement. According to the Planning Department, the current Zoning Ordinance allows by-right development for lots that are 10,000 sq. ft. in the following districts:

  • Multi-Residence 1-4 for Single-Family and Two-Family detached,
  • Mixed Use 1 and 2,
  • Business Use 1-5,
  • Manufacturing, and Limited Manufacturing,
  • Single Residence 2 (before Dec. 1953), and Single Residence 3 (on/after Dec. 1953) zoning districts.

They argue that because many lots in Village Centers predate zoning and are less than 10,000 sq. ft., these lots have protections that allow them a “by-right pathway to development. “

They state the proposed changes are as follows:

Lot SizeReview
< 20,000 sq. ft.No additional development review
20,000 – 30,000 sq. ft.Site Plan Review – Planning Board
> 30,000 sq. ft.Special Permit – City Council

Parking not required but allowed

In response to the question regarding the elimination of parking requirements in Village Centers, the Planning Department acknowledges that on-site parking is not required under the proposal but points out that parking will be allowed and expected for new development projects. They point to a recent Metropolitan Area Planning Council study that recommends allowing the market to dictate the number of parking spots and found that half of Newton’s parking spots in multi-family buildings are unused.

Affordability requirements will not deter housing development

Finally, in response to the last question regarding impacting the construction of housing units, the Planning Department said it is “confident” that they can “prove that our affordability requirements will not deter construction of housing units” as it relates to compliance with the MBTA Communities Law.

Copyright 2023, Fig City News, Inc. All rights reserved.
"Fig City" and the Fig City News logo are trademarks of Fig City News, Inc.
Privacy Policy