Sign up to receive Ward and political newsletters by email here.
Hello on this snowy April day!
Though the weather is gloomy now, the good news is that general eligibility for covid-19 vaccines in Massachusetts is beginning this Monday, April 19!
Information on pre-registering for a vaccine, finding a vaccination location, vaccine safety, and more can be found on the state website here. The state of New Hampshire will also be opening up its vaccine supply to out-of-state residents (including Massachusetts) on the same day. Those who want to receive the vaccine in NH may do so by registering on its vaccination site.
Another quick piece of good news from Councilor Holly Ryan on the Route 52 MBTA bus: The 52 bus route that runs between the Dedham Mall and Watertown Square via Oak Hill Park will resume partial service on June 20. This marks a change from a total suspension of the route, as I discussed in my March 17 newsletter.
Chestnut St work update
The Utilities Division and its contractor has begun cleaning and inspecting sewer lines along Chestnut St from Route 9 to Beacon St overnight between 8 PM & 6 AM from April 14th (this past Wednesday) through approximately April 30th. Some noise is expected from this work. However, please keep in mind this is a rolling operation.
This work is in preparation of the final paving on Chestnut St. Due to the amount of vehicular traffic during the day, the Newton Police Department has requested this work be done in the overnight hours.
Volunteer opportunities
The Friends of Hemlock Gorge Spring Cleanup Day is just ahead of us on the morning of Saturday April 24 from about 9:30 or so until lunchtime. See you there.
The annual NewtonSERVES registration is open and there are lots of opportunities around Newton to volunteer outdoors at a safe distance apart! Sign up here.
I signed up for the Upper Falls Greenway cleanup this year as soon as registration opened this past weekend, because I was so disappointed about missing NewtonSERVES last year when it had to be canceled in the early pandemic.
Gun store controversy
You may have heard the news that a gun store is set to open in Newtonville on Washington St. We have certainly been getting a huge number of emails this week against it, generally citing public health risks and other social concerns. There are not currently any other gun stores in Newton, but there have been some in the past.
This type of business is highly regulated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts at the state level. (For example, certain weapon types cannot be sold at all.) But many of you have been asking whether the City of Newton has any local authority to regulate, constrain, or prohibit this type of business.
Our city’s Law Department is currently examining the legal options in response to many City Councilors requesting a review and possible change. Several of us made specific suggestions on what might be appropriate or feasible. Rest assured, we will all be providing updates to the public when we have something more definitive to report back. However, until we know more on the legal points, given the unusually specific state and federal laws on this type of business, I don’t feel prepared to make any statements on what we can or should do on this matter.
Demolition Delay reform?
The City Council continued its work on considering reforms to the demolition delay ordinance from 1985, with presentations and a public hearing on Monday, April 12.
As noted in a Planning Department memo, “The current proposal includes a reorganization of the current ordinance as well as a number of revisions to the content and process, as recommended by the Historic Working Group. Currently all properties more than 50 years old trigger [Newton Historical Commission] review when at least 50% of any one façade is proposed for demolition.”
So what are the substantive areas being debated for possible major amendments?
The main points of the amendments currently on the table are that the 50-year benchmark for reviewing properties subject to Demolition Delay would be changed to only cover properties built in or before 1945, as a fixed date, and there would also be new categories of properties subject to Demolition Delay regardless of age. (Alternative proposals on the table would change it to a rolling 75-year period or some other span between 50 and 75, or there could be no change at all, if Councilors do not agree that a change on this point is needed.)
How many buildings might a shift in the automatic review point affect?
There are approximately 17,900 buildings constructed before 1945 in Newton and approximately 7,100 buildings constructed after. The Newton Historical Commission (NHC) currently holds jurisdiction over about 4,400 buildings that were built between 1945 and 1971, in addition to the earlier buildings. But that would change if the rolling 50-year review protection were to be revised to something else.
I was unable to watch or participate in this portion of the meeting live, due to the overlapping Finance Committee schedule, but I did watch all the presentations and public comments the next day on the NewTV website’s recording.
Most of us agree that there are some updates that need to be made to clarify the ordinance, but there is a great deal of disagreement on many of the details beyond that.
Many of my colleagues during the meeting expressed specific concern (shared by many public commenters) with the part of the proposal seeking to change the rolling 50-year automatic review for structures proposed for demolition to a fixed date of structures dating to before 1945.
We have already lost the bulk of our neighborhoods of postwar GI Bill housing, which taken together represent a historically significant period in our city’s development – and in the case of Oak Hill Park once offered an alternative vision of suburban planning that was not so car-oriented and emphasized more modestly-scaled living. If anything, it seems to me that we might want to consider stronger protections for some of our postwar homes, if that ship has not already sailed in demolitions before now.
Others disagree and argue that many of these homes are not up to current standards – or something to that effect. I would generally prefer to see homes retrofitted whenever possible, rather than demolished for “efficient” modern homes that are much larger and more energy-intensive, both in construction and long-term use.
While I’m not sure if a rolling 50-year trigger for automatic review is exactly the right length, I’m also not sure that it really needs to be a longer period like 60 or 75 years, and I certainly don’t think a fixed date of 1945 makes much sense. Just because homes from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s do not seem ancient to us now does not mean they will not one day be viewed as historic for various architectural or contextual reasons.
However, two important considerations from a different angle on the demolition delay reform debate are:
1) Does the demolition delay actually deter a determined and well-resourced developer from knocking down a building, if they are willing to wait out the delay?
2) What (perhaps unintended) side effects do the protections have on ordinary homeowners (not developers) seeking to make additions or substantial modifications to their postwar homes – e.g. does it counter-intuitively discourage partial preservation of more modest existing housing stock by homeowners, in favor of selling to someone incentivized to demolish and rebuild instead?
So, as those questions suggest, there’s not a simple, clear-cut policy fix to promote preservation of our neighborhoods or discourage mcmansionization. This will require thoughtful balancing all around. (That’s one reason why comprehensive zoning redesign is probably a more viable pathway to meaningful preservation than the demolition delay mechanisms.)
The public hearing on these demolition delay reform proposals will continue, and I expect further changes will be debated before any final vote.
NOTE: The Zoning & Planning Committee also this week continued work on a separate item about possible reforms to Local Preference in affordable housing lotteries in Newton, but this week’s newsletter was too long to include my notes on that. I’ve saved it for the next newsletter.