Meeting Notes
February 2, 2023

The meeting began with a quick review of outstanding issues:

A. From information provided by Councilor Maria Scibelli Greenberg, we learned:

Where we stand regarding the repairs for the Farlow Park pond basin: A preliminary report received from BH+A (the low bidder) states the water pump is working and cites the failed concrete surface expansion joints as the main reason for water loss. A secondary report included reasons why the Pond Armor paint system failed and the recommended repairs. The last report, expected March 1, will be unit prices for various repair scopes of work. 

41 Washington Street was found historically significant by the Historic Commission. Councilor Greenberg wrote: “I've put in an application to the Historic Commission to Landmark the home. This was co-sponsored by all 3 Ward 1 councilors and several residents. Landmarking will not be protection from the 40B but my hope is that is will incentivize the petitioner to refurbish the facade of the home and preserve the porte cochere. A meeting on whether to accept the nomination will take place between 45-90 days after receipt “ 

Councilor Greenberg later sent this update from the project’s lawyers: “The development team is in the process of redesigning the project and hopes to submit the revised design to Mass Housing sometime in March. The Ward One Councilors will receive copies of the revised design when it has been completed.”

B. Dan Shaw reported that he learned from Josh Morse, the Commission of Public Buildings, that State Representative Kay Kahn is filing a bill to get CPA (Community Preservation Act) funds to paint the Chaffin House.

C. Re: lowering the statutory speed limits on Washington Street. In a post-meeting email update, Laura Johnson wrote that the Traffic Council voted to change the statutory speed limit for the entire length of Washington and Tremont Streets from 35 mph to 25 mph. Since no appeals were filed during the 20 days after the Traffic Council took this vote, the request for change will be forwarded to Mass DOT. It is not known how long the process will take since this is the first time the City of Newton has made such a request.

D. Marcus Breen reported that the renovation of Lincoln Eliot Elementary will also include the upgrade of the former Aquinas Junior College Building at Walnut Park and Jackson Road, with a performance hall as part of the renovation. When it is completed in summer 2025, the renovated auditorium will be available for large scale events using all the space, as well as smaller activities in areas that can be reduced in size with moveable partitions. His public facility will bring new options for performing arts and music to Newton Corner. Details of the plans are available at this link.

Guest speaker at February's meeting

We were fortunate to have as our guest speaker Marc Hershman, a practicing architect in Newton who was appointed by former Mayor Setti Warren to the first Zoning Reform Task Force. He continues to be involved with zoning reform and spoke to us on the issue of rezoning Village Centers. Copies of slides he presented at the meeting showing the potential impact of the new zoning regulations can be found at this link.

Marc’s presentation and the following discussion, with significant input from Councilor John Oliver, was very informative. The basic question at the center of the conversation was:

“Will the look and feel of our Village Centers be altered or destroyed if—through upzoning—we allow Islands of Urban Density to replace what was built over time to meet the changing needs of the neighborhoods?”

To answer this question, we must first ask: “What defines a Village Center? And “How does it differ from an Island of Urban Density?”  

A Village Center serves as the commercial and institutional focal point of the surrounding community. A New England village center has a particular look and feel. It is a visually interesting place to which, because of the small building size and intimate scale, we can comfortably relate. We see our history in the village architecture. The presence of light and green space encourages pedestrian activity. It is a place for social interaction. It is a vibrant retail and social hub.

“Urban” spaces, in contrast, have a high density of population, often resulting in anonymity and transiency, an increased social distance and impersonal social interaction. This may not be bad in itself - but is it what we want for our village centers? If you want to experience an urban island in Newton, come to Newton Corner - which, because of the traffic rotary, is a pass-through Village Center, not a destination. Slides depicting the potential effect of upzoning Channing and Thornton Streets and the resulting canyon effect show the detrimental effects of expanding Urban Islands through allied streets. 

Very few of the commercial establishments in Newton Corner exist to meet local needs. Why is that? We have significant residential density - yet no services. To what extent does the micro-economy that has developed around the Mass Pike exit worked to diminish the functioning of the local market sector? Does the lack of a “network of walkable routes” - the inability to easily go from one part of our village center to another, reduce pedestrian activity and consequently community oriented retail? Or does the actual structure of the buildings themselves make retail less appealing?

What do we know about what makes retail work? To begin, we know the importance of a visual relationship with the ground floor and not having too much distracting from it- such as building height and/or shadow effect. Second, we know that having a plaza in front of a building, particularly a 3 story building, makes it more acceptable. Sinking the building into the ground (as in One Newton Place) prevents the street space from being used in a consumer friendly way. Third, we know that buildings above 3 stories do not “feel” the same. So why would we want more such building here?  

What are the challenges presented by the revised Village Center plan? Perhaps the biggest challenge is that it has no goals that can be represented by measurable indicators. We all agree that “vibrance” is a good thing - but how can it be measured? And how do we know if it’s not being achieved? You can’t manage what you don’t measure. And what are the options if there are shortfalls?

Another major challenge is the “by-right” provisions that blurs the line between “means to an end” and the final results. We are being asked to offer up the place where we live to a new form of regulation with no guarantee of what will be built there. Marc and John discussed all the tweaks that could be made to FAR (Floor-Area Ratios) but it was agreed that this is not the only means of incentivizing development. Special permits are often granted in order to build higher - but height is not what we want. It was suggested that we should instead tie special permits to economic benefits to the developer such as accelerating the permitting process. Of greatest importance, it was stated, is that we should be able to have some control over what is built in our neighborhoods. This would come either through stringently defined By-Right provisions or through negotiation.

This discussion concluded with John’s observation that there needs to be a balance between housing and retail facilities. We, as residents of Newton, are the investors in the city’s future and we need to have a plan that makes sense to us.