Thoughts on Newton Village Center Zoning
Prepared by Richard Rasala r.rasala@gmail.com

Updated January 6 2023

Contents

Introduction
This web site is intended to examine Village Center Zoning in general and also to focus on special issues related to the VC1 districts in particular.

I will use quotations from city documents and snapshots of data tables. Along the way, I will raise issues, ask questions, and make suggestions.

My impression is that the proposed zoning ordinance will lead to a dramatic increase in the residential density in the neighborhoods that already have residential buildings and that have been placed into VC districts.
Is this impression correct?
If so: Why is such a dramatic increase in the residential density being proposed?

For access to copies of the city documents and to details of the data studies, go to:
Newton MA Zoning Documents


The District Purpose of the Village Center 1 (VC1) District
The first draft of the Village Center Overlay District (VCOD) Ordinance states that the purpose of the VC1 district is:
Village Center 1 (VC1). The VC1 District facilitates small to medium scale multi-family buildings given its proximity to amenities, mixture of uses, and transit options found in Newton’s village centers. This district acts as a transition between the mixed-use cores of village centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods.

The buildings that currently have been placed in the VC1 districts according to the draft maps are close to 100% residential. This begs a question:
Why do existing residential buildings have to become “transformed” to act as a transition to existing adjacent residential buildings in the “surrounding neighborhood”?

If the question is simply one of modestly increasing the residential density in the area encompassed by certain buildings then this may be accomplished by an adjustment to an existing MR zone or by the creation of a new MR zone if needed.

This is not merely a semantic issue.
If the buildings in question are zoned with a residential designation then:

Existing residential buildings should not lose their residential status simply by being placed on zoning maps.

Note: The next 2 sections will present data studies.


Study of the Village Center Zoned Area based on the 1.0 Zoning Maps

Village Center Zoned Area Summary 1.0

Conclusions:


Data Analysis of Existing Residential Buildings in VC Zones

Quick Summary 1

Quick Summary 2

Conclusions:


Residential Density in VC1 Districts
The meeting of Zoning and Planning (ZAP) committee on December 12 2022 was quite important because it provided a detailed look at the residential density enabled by version 1.0 of the village center zoning ordinance. Since the details cannot be included here, I give the references.

Version 1.0 of the village center zoning ordinance:
2022-11-23 Village Center Overlay District (VCOD) Zoning Ordinance [22 pages]

Slides from the ZAP meeting on December 12 2022:
2022-12-12 Village Center Zoning Phase 3 with 1.0 Test Fits [14 pages]

Data analysis of the slides from the ZAP meeting on December 12 2022:
2023-01-02 Data Study of the Examples from the Zoning Slides of 2022-12-12

The West Newton Armory Affordable Housing Project {for comparisons}
2022-12-22 West Newton Armory Affordable Housing Project {for comparisons}

The slides from the ZAP meeting on December 12 2022 have:

The 3 main studies of residential density in a VC1 setting are:
Here are the number of units in each example based on whether there will be underground parking or surface parking:

Lot Size Greater than 30000 SF

Lot Combining Two Lots

Small Lot
Slide 11 notes that underground parking is less viable with this building size.

I was astonished at the intensity of the residential density enabled by the proposed VC1 zoning rules, both when listening at the ZAP meeting and later when examining the data in depth.

To wrap my head around the situation, I decided to consider my own house and its lot as an example. I realized that 6500 SF is approximately the size of my lot in Newton Corner and of many other lots on my block. The buildings on my block currently have 1-3 units. Therefore:

The proposed VC1 zoning rules would permit doubling the residential density on my block or even multiplying that density by 2.67 {8/3}.

Another, less anecdotal, way to look at the residential density question is to extrapolate the 6500 SF density data to estimate the number of units per acre. One acre = 43560 SF. The ratio 43560/6500 is 6.7. Therefore, we may estimate the number of units per acre using small lots of size approximately 6500 SF by multiplying the above counts by 6.7 and then rounding down.

One acre via using multiple small lots

Either of these “number of units per acre” values are far in excess of the mandate of the MBTA communities law that requires only a minimum of 15 units per acre.

A third way to approach the residential density question is to look at the West Newton Armory Affordable Housing Project to seek comparisons. It is best to look at a single floor in the plans and to use an upper floor since there are no complications of the building lobby.

West Newton Armory data for a single upper floor:

This data is relevant since it shows a plan with a distribution of room sizes and shows the net areas of the rooms rather than the gross areas. This data also shows that the net area of the apartments is smaller than the gross floor plan area. In the West Newton Armory case, the ratio is 73%. I believe that in other cases 80% would be the most that might be achieved.

One key constant in the 3 main studies of residential density is the gross area per unit which is set at 1000 SF. The corresponding net area would be 800 SF or less. Given the apartment sizes for the West Newton Armory, this seems to be a skimpy allowance for the apartment sizes in the VC1 districts.

The second study in the December 12 ZAP slides is a study of the smallest lot that may contain a 4000 square foot (SF) building designed as 40 feet by 100 feet. The building is estimated to have 10 units by the same methods as in the earlier examples. The interesting information is:


The total space for parking is 1.5 times the building footprint. This shows the impact of parking on development.

Finally, there is a slide entitled "Residential Building Comparison for VC1" that shows photos of three buildings. The one that interests me is a home in my neighborhood: 11 Washington St. This home is described as: Multi-Family Residential: 6-unit converted Victorian, with footprint 3831 SF.

11 Washington St

This is a charming building on the north side of Washington St whose lot abuts the Newton Brighton line. It has indeed been subdivided into 6 condos with one 4 RM 1 BR, three 4 RM 2 BR, and two 5 RM 2 BR units. The unit sizes range from 1003 SF to 1541 SF. The total unit area of all condos is 7896 SF.

What is not mentioned on the ZAP slide is that the building has a front setback of 64 feet and that it is the sole building on a very large lot of size 60002 SF. The 11 Washington St lot is not in a VC1 district but if it were then it would be subject to having a large number of buildings built on the lot. By doubling the numbers in the 30000 SF study above, we might estimate the number of units as anywhere from 40 to 60 total units. Furthermore, the current 11 Washington St structure might be unlikely to survive such development.

Some key questions are:

Have I described the current residential density policy for VC1 accurately?

If so, on reflection, is the policy of ZAP and the Planning Dept to strive for this intensity of residential density in VC1 districts?

If so, what is the justification in terms of benefit to the residents of the village centers?


Reuse and Revitalization of Existing Buildings
There is little in the draft zoning ordinance about reuse and revitalization of existing buildings.

Section 7 entitled Adaptive Reuse has the following paragraph:
The reuse and revitalization of existing buildings, particularly large homes, within the VCOD tiers will benefit the general health and welfare of the Newton community by fulfilling stated goals on housing, transportation, sustainability, and historic preservation.
This paragraph is simply followed by a section marked “[reserved]” that is presumably to be filled in later.

As it stands, these words represent a “wish list” that has no legal force. It is up to a developer to decide to renovate or tear down an existing building.

In my opinion, the intense increase in residential density allowed by the current version of the zoning ordinance and the ability of developers to do what they wish “by right’ is a financial and legal combination of forces that incentivizes tear downs. To state it bluntly:
Residential buildings in the VC zones will be designated for demolition.


Suggestions

I believe that the cleanest solution to the problems of the current zoning starts with replacing VC1 by an MR type zone that is explicitly residential. Let me call the zone MRX.

The huge advantage of this solution is that MRX may be used all over Newton and be introduced to well chosen areas on a gradual basis. This can lead to a graceful increase in density over time.

For the purposes of further discussion, let me use the term MRX {which may turn out to be VC1}.

Here are some ideas about how to handle MRX {or VC1}.

There are some issues that apply to both MRX {or VC1} and VC2, VC3 zones. These are the questions of what is a half story and how should the top story be treated if it is not a half story. The half story constraint that I propose is based on how half stories are handled in the December 12 ZAP slides. The constraint applies whether or not roof lines are sloped.



Final Thoughts
My sense in early January 2023 is that the city is listening to concerns about the village center zoning maps and beginning to come to grips with what areas should be residential and what areas should be VC2 or VC3 as seen by the local communities.

The harder issues are that guard rails are not in place that promote density in a significant but moderate fashion, that incentivize adaptive reuse of residential buildings, and that discourage tear downs. I have tried to put forth some ideas along these lines in the Suggestions above.

It is clear from the small area of the village centers (2.72% of the city) that additional zoning to promote additional housing must be done in areas beyond the village centers. These areas will necessarily be residential. To do the additional zoning, you will need to invent something like the MRX zone that I propose. It would be wise to invent MRX now and then use it in chosen area across the city as well as in the village centers. Such a plan will work provided that MRX supports significant but moderate increases in density and promotes adaptive reuse. It will not work if people are frightened of the intensity of the proposed residential density.


Go To Top