The Zoning and Planning Committee voted to approve the following (see Report and watch video on NewTV):
- Appointment of Scott Friedman as an alternate member of the Newton Historical Commission
- Re-appointment of Leigh Gilligan to the Conservation Commission
- Re-appointment of Nancy Grissom to the Auburndale Historic District Commission and the Newton Historical Commission
The Committee voted No Action Necessary – regarding a request to amend the sign ordinance to allow for digital advertising in exchange for EV charging stations. Councilor Crossley reported that they talked with staff and that because the Urban Design Commission is reviewing and recommending changes to the sign ordinance, it would be appropriate for that Commission to take the issue up.
All other items were held.
The Committee discussed the item related to Village Center zoning with the Chair outlining the process and emphasizing that the community engagement process is an “interim” step” that will not be immediately followed by voting on Zoning. The engagement process will be followed by consideration of draft maps (which will be released sometime at the end of October) along with a review of design guidelines and zoning text. Public hearings will be scheduled once the Committee has a “product” to propose to the public. The Chief of Long Range Planning, Zac LeMel provided an update on the Community Engagement efforts currently being employed including the online feedback tool and the library exhibit – both open until October 16th. Councilor Wright questioned maps that show alternate boundaries for the different boundaries and staff are looking at Google Maps and what is already existing on the ground – starting with the Pattern Book boundaries (what’s on the ground and what is zoned); volunteered for leading sessions at the Library, asked when she would get a response to questions she had previously submitted, inquired about 3D modeling to show by-right and special permit potential developments to help people understand, and asked about why preservation was not addressed in the exhibit at the library.
LeMel responded that he encourages people to go to Google Earth in 3D – for existing conditions – but when it comes to future development, the exhibit and zoning proposition – is centered on what is allowed by right – showing what can happen by special permit – is valid and they can look at that. What is realistic – buildings will evolve over time – but not all buildings at the same time. When it comes to historic preservation, he reported that they have taken a look at historical development patterns in Newton and across New England, and see that requirements of new development are in keeping with historic development patterns while looking to the future. They see that the current zoning allows for purchasing multiple properties and almost encourages the tear down of existing buildings and not preserving historical character.
Councilor Albright asked for a sense of numbers – how are we doing with engagement? LeMel says the responses are in the hundreds currently – and encourages Councilors to get as many people to the feedback tool as possible and respond.
The Committee also discussed the state guidance for implementing the Housing Choice element of
the MA Economic Development legislation. Mr. LeMel gave a brief outline of the new guidelines that were released in August and highlighted some key elements:
- Percentage of zoning district that needs to be close to transit: The final guidelines required 90% of the district must be within a half mile of fixed rail (commuter rail or green line station)
- Affordability: The final guidelines allow for zoning to require up to 10% of the units at the 80% AMI level, and also allow requirements that pre-date this legislation at the 80% AMI level – but this remains ambiguous. Newton has these requirements and requirements for a deeper level of affordability.
- Mixed-use development: The final guidelines say that compliant zoning cannot require mixed-use. Zoning can allow for mixed-use but cannot require it and must allow for a fully residential building. The City is actively looking at how to incentivize mixed-use development in a way that is compliant with this legislation and still allows for full residential-only development as well.
- Compliance determination: The state is developing a model spreadsheet where communities can enter zoning and parcel information and the software will calculate whether it is in compliance or not.
- Action plan due by end of January 2023.
The Chair read an email from Craig Ziegler, Mass Housing, who acknowledged hearing from Newton and other communities who have adopted Inclusionary Zoning requirements/policies and understand and acknowledge the concerns raised.
Several Councilors raised questions – regarding clarification of the date the Action Plan is due, the issue of identifying potential locations and who determines them, whether any benefit or credit will be provided for those projects already approved, what numbers – particularly regarding the size of units – were used in making a statement in the library exhbit that the the City is not likely to comply with the legislation based on Village Center Zoning alone, why the bus service category was eliminated, what happens if the City rezones something that has already received a special permit, and comments regarding disappointment regarding affordability – with Councilor Ryan saying calling it “hypocrisy of the State/Commonwealth…” when you “would want to have people in deeply affordable units near mass transit.”
The Planning Department responded that fixed date for submittal of the Acton Plan was January 31, 2023, that they were hoping to submit the draft maps (which will be submitted late October and go through iterations by the Committee) as supporting documents for the Action Plan, that compliance only looks at what zoning allows for by-right – not special permit, that no calculations were made but the calculations used in the statement by the Planning Department leading to the statement in Slide 5.2 was a back of the envelope calculation and those calculations were done by Utile (consultant), that there was a strong push for fixed rail and that made sense because only bus stations and not bus stops counted, and that there was shared disappointment regarding the affordability component.
The Committee also heard a presentation regarding a proposal to amend the Rear Lot Subdivision Ordinance. The proponent, Attorney Terry Morris, pointed out inconsistencies with the current ordinance and how that has impacted residents, in particular, a petition he is working on. He argued that the ordinance has not been applied in the same manner – citing a Kenrick Street petition and a Court Street petition. The planning staff said if this is something that the Committee is interested in pursuing, the would review and possibly add a section that would address the frontage issue. When asked about a timeframe – they said they could possibly set a public hearing in about a month from now but the attorney for the City said it might be premature. Shares concerns about what is being proposed – it will fundamentally change how frontage is applied in Zoning Ordinance. Requests that the item is held – if looking for more input from staff. Baker is troubled by the item which appears to be designed to help one particular applicant and the implication of changes. President Albright, feels differently, not very many – two instances – that involve a rear lot subdivision where the back of the lot abuts a street. Believes that Court Street – made it a better project. She does not support a motion to support No Action Necessary but would like the Planning Department and Law Department to look at it. Chair Crossley sees this as a clean-up item and would like to hold it. Councilor Leary stated that she doesn’t want to spend a great deal of time on this – if this is a question of interpretation and a clean-up item, she hopes that the Planning Department could come back and then made a motion to hold.
The next item that was discussed was a request to increase the requirements for electric vehicle charging station infrastructure in new construction projects. The item was introduced. Councilor Bowman explained that the stretch code and the base code include some charger-ready infrastructure starting in 2023. The City’s co-Sustainability Director requested more time to discuss some issues in depth – how we are defining “access to a charging station”, the residential proposal would require 100% spaces provided with a charger or wiring to each space, third area – automatic load management systems that are provided for the stretch code and specialized opt-in – not a complete understanding on how they work or interface with what they are trying to do with this ordinance – for instance – provide for several chargers on one circuit – a concern that if do that, then the charge is a lot slower – understand how these systems work and how it would affect the number of spaces they would require under the ordinance.
One member of the EV Task Force, George Kirby, believes it is important to address this issue, particularly the amount of power available for new developments and the special permitting process. Several councilors commented on the item, Councilor Wright on the number of spaces that might be needed (one-to-one may be too extreme), and Councilor Leary on whether there is flexibility for e-bike charging infrastructure as well.