In a letter (Village Center Zoning and Retail- A Response) responding to an Op-Ed (Retail in the age of Zoning Redesign), authors Rockwell, Monahan, and Walter asserted that Op-Ed author Carol Todreas was being misleading and supported their assertion with “facts” that are not true. The fact that the authors were allowed an additional 140-word clarification above their original letter and I am permitted just 300 words notwithstanding, I stand by my objections to the original letter as false. The “clarification” just seems to double down on the original falsehoods.
They asserted, as fact, “The densest new zoning category, VC3, allows a maximum height of 4.5 stories and a maximum footprint of 15,000 square feet.” That is not true. As a baseline, in VC3 the zoning allows, By Right, buildings up to 4.5 stories and 15,000 square feet. However, in VC3, the zoning provides for a potential two additional stories up to 6.5 stories and 17,500 square footprint in exchange for additional affordability beyond what is required under Newton’s inclusionary zoning ordinance
In a second inaccuracy, the authors referenced the number of stories and footprints of Trio and Austin Street as the basis for their claim that “both of these buildings would still require a special permit.” The trigger for a Special Permit under the proposed zoning is the size of the lot NOT the number of stories nor the building footprint.
It is true that under the proposed zoning, the size of both of those lots would trigger a special permit. But it is also true that under the proposed zoning those lots could be subdivided By Right so that potentially none would be over the 30,000 sq. ft. threshold and therefore could bypass the special permit requirement all together. These are facts!
MaryLee Belleville
