On March 10, the Newton City Council’s Zoning and Planning Committee met in a working session to discuss amending the City’s ADU Ordinance. 

Newton’s long-standing debate over the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs, was recently reignited with the passage of the Healy Administration’s Affordable Housing Act in August 2024. 

In a February Press Release, the State defined ADUs, sometimes referred to as “tiny homes” or “in-law suites,” as small-scale living spaces constructed on the same lot as a principal dwelling. Existing spaces, such as garages, attics, and basements, can be converted into ADUs, but ADUs can also take the form of a detached structure or addition to the primary residence.

The Act amended Chapter 40A of Massachusetts General Laws to permit ADUs by-right, statewide, meaning that municipalities must modify their zoning ordinances so that ADUs may be constructed without the need for a special permit. In the press release, Governor Maura Healey said that ADUs expand access to housing for individuals and families of all kinds.

“We said from the beginning that we were going to make housing more affordable by creating homes for every kind of household and at every stage of life,” she said. “By allowing homeowners the freedom to create an accessory dwelling unit, we can provide more housing options for seniors, creating opportunities for young adults with special needs looking for more independence and developing smaller, more affordable, housing options for our state.”

The mandatory requirements

Currently, ADUs – both detached structures and those within a dwelling – are permitted by right in Newton. Those that do not conform to Newton’s zoning ordinance are subject to a process for special permit approval.

Deputy Director of Planning for the City Jennifer Caira told the Committee that Newton is required by the Affordable Housing Act to adopt a specific set of ADU zoning requirements:

• Allow ADUs for residential uses in all SR, MR, and BU1-4 districts. 
• Measure ADUs per the state definition of gross floor area and allow ADUs to be up to the lesser of 50% of the size of the principal dwelling unit – or 1,000 square feet (for internal ADUs) or 900 square feet (for detached ADUs). Currently, ADUs are measured by square feet, not gross floor area, and internal ADUs are not presently permitted to exceed 33% of the principal dwelling unit. However, size restrictions for detached ADUs would remain unchanged.
• Remove the owner-occupancy requirement for by-right ADUs. Currently, the owner of the property must reside in either the primary dwelling unit or the ADU.
• Apply occupancy limitations to each unit separately. Currently, the total number of persons allowed on a lot does not change with the addition of an ADU.
• Remove design standards. Currently, Newton’s design standards for ADUs are extensive. For detached ADUs, the structure of the unit is required to match the character and architecture of the principal dwelling unit as well as the residential character of the neighborhood, and for internal ADUs, any exterior changes made as a result of the ADU may not change the architecture, look, character, or scale of the principal dwelling unit.
• Remove the maximum 700 square foot footprint for an ADU.
• Allow 2.5-story ADUs with principal setbacks and 1.5-story ADUs with 5-foot side and rear setbacks. Currently, detached ADUs must be 7.5 feet, or half the distance allotted for the principal dwelling unit, back from lot lines.

Caira told the Committee that she recommended all of the aforementioned changes be adopted. All members of the Committee agreed to adopt the changes.

Additional proposals

Additionally, Caira presented a series of proposed changes to the ADU ordinance that would exceed the state requirements.

Caira told the Committee that the first proposal would allow internal ADUs of 1,200 square foot by-right in existing homes. The proposal would be limited to homes more than four years old, with owners hoping to build such an ADU in newer homes required to go through the special permit process. She said that she believes the proposal would incentivize the preservation of existing homes and would not add mass to existing homes.

No Councilor voiced opposition to the proposal.

Caira told the Committee that the second proposal would allow 1,200-square-foot detached ADUs by right, with a maximum of 1,500 square feet available by special permit. She said that she believes the proposal would help offset high costs of detached ADUs and would be more attractive for families and downsizing older adults.

Finally, Caira shared two more proposals pertaining to historic carriage houses: one that would allow historic carriage house conversions in local historic districts, provided the local district commission approved exterior changes, and one that would remove the 15-foot separation requirement from abutting homes for conversion of historic carriage houses. She noted that many carriage houses were built close to the property line and that removing a separation requirement would incentivize their preservation.

Committee Member Vicki Danberg (Ward 6) noted that she lived on a property with a carriage house that was just 7.5 feet from the property line, preventing her neighbors from converting their carriage house. However, Committee Chair and City Council President Emeritus R. Lisle Baker (Ward 7) said that the existing separation requirement does not apply solely to the distance between carriage houses but the distance from carriage houses to other existing structures, making him “less enthusiastic” about the proposal.

Options to limit State amendments to minimum requirements

At a public hearing on February 26, several Newton residents shared their opinions on the mandatory and additional proposed zoning changes. While many were supportive, some raised concerns, particularly with regard to the new minimum setback requirement.

In response, Caira said that she and her team drew up a series of options that would limit the State amendments to the minimum required.

Caira told the Committee that the first option would be to retain the owner-occupancy requirement for special permit ADUs. She said that she did not believe such a requirement would be necessary as the City Council would have the ability to tailor the conditions of such an ADU – including owner-occupancy requirements – during the special-permit review process, even without its implementation.

Baker said that he supported the proposal, noting that he believed that an owner-occupancy requirement to be “an important asset for the community.” Committee Member John Oliver (Ward 1) agreed.

Committee Members Susan Albright (Ward 2), Danberg, and Josh Krintzman (Ward 7) voiced disagreement with the proposal. Krintzman said that such a requirement would be “contrary to the goals of what we’ve been trying to do with ADUs” and that he did not want to place restrictions on ADUs that “don’t have any merit.”

Next, Caira told the Committee that the second option would be to create two special-permit criteria for the purposes of considering design compatibility:

• That the size and location of the ADU is appropriate for the lot; and
• That the exterior alterations are compatible with the size, scale, and architecture of the principal dwelling.

Caira said that the second option would provide a more tailored review of ADUs compared to the updated general criteria. In addition, it would also replace the soon-to-be-eliminated design standards.

Committee members expressed a range of opinions on the proposal. Committee member Pam Wright (Ward 3) said that preserving architectural integrity was important, while Albright said that instituting such criteria would be frustrating to those hoping to build a modern ADU on a property with a principal dwelling unit from a different architectural period.

Finally, Caira told the Committee that the third option would be to carve out exemptions for height and setbacks in local historic districts. The proposal would limit detached ADUs to 1.5 stories and keep side and rear setback restrictions as they currently are (7.5 feet or one half of principal setback, whichever is greater).

Baker said that he would support the proposal, saying that he thinks it would “give historic districts some authority.” However, Albright, Danberg, City Council Vice President David Kalis (Ward 8), Krintzman, and Oliver said they believed the proposal was unnecessary. “Based on the fact the historic districts have a lot of authority already, I don’t think we need this,” Albright said.

Next Steps

Beyond the Council, other local groups have taken up the issue of ADU zoning changes. On March 4, housing advocacy group Newton for Everyone hosted an event where author Will Cohen discussed the implications of the Affordable Housing Act for local communities.

Caira and the planning team will provide a final version of the proposed revision to the ordinance based on Committee feedback. A vote could take place at the Zoning and Planning Committee meeting on March 24, followed by consideration by the full City Council.

Theo Younkin is a Fig City News student reporter, a junior at Newton South High School, and Co-Managing Editor of the NSHS Lion’s Roar.