Sign up to receive Ward and political newsletters by email here.
As a childhood Gath Pool devotee and as a City Councilor, it was an honor and a blast to attend the city's grand finale Pool Party free swim on Friday this past week before the leaky, venerable municipal institution is demolished and replaced with a fantastic new outdoor swimming and water recreation facility next year.
Ward 5 residents might be interested in commenting at two virtual public hearings this month, one on proposed updates to Newton’s tree protection ordinance (this Wednesday 8/16 at 7 PM at Programs & Services Committee) and a local landmark nomination for the “Strong Block” of Waban Square (next Thursday 8/24 at 7 PM at the Newton Historical Commission). I have been heavily involved in both of these efforts, which I am summarizing in today’s newsletter.
Tree Protection
The Programs & Services Committee has been working since last year on possible revisions to the City of Newton’s ordinance on tree protection, primarily focusing new measures on trees located on private property. This has generated a wide range of passionate opinions and it has been our task as a committee to hammer out a viable and meaningful compromise that can pass and be effectively enforced. The agenda document for Wednesday’s committee Zoom meeting includes a detailed summary of the latest proposals, beginning on page 36, as well as a copy of the latest text, beginning on page 41. We are fully anticipating making further edits based on public comments and other feedback, but we are fairly close to a final proposal.
Below I have written my own summary of the broad strokes:
Under the proposal, there would be significantly more protections for (and fees related to) cutting down large trees on properties under construction (particularly for developers who do not reside at the property in question), but there would still be fee exemptions for residents of single-family or two-family lots who are not doing construction at the time or within 18 months.
Neighboring trees on an abutter lot would now be protected (by ordinance anyway) from construction-related damage to the root systems, etc. Developers or homeowners doing construction would need to submit more plans for vetting to demonstrate appropriate protections especially along property boundaries.
Although abutting property owners would still not have any rights to appeal tree removals on neighboring properties, there would be a new public notification system to abutters of properly filed tree removal permits. This would (we hope) have three benefits: one, it would offer an opportunity for a neighborly conversation about upcoming tree removals; two, it will help reduce chances of damage to nearby trees across property lines; three, if an abutter does not receive notification but notices an imminent tree removal, they will be able to call it in to Newton’s Forestry Division and prevent illegal and unpermitted tree removals.
Dead or dying trees can be removed without a fee. Trees can also be pruned without a permit (within reason, as defined by clearer standards).
We are still debating whether or not the ordinance should have special fee exemptions for removing mature but non-native invasive trees, such as Norway Maples.
Removal of mature trees will either require replacement with new trees (and five-year maintenance of them to ensure survival) or paying a replacement fee to the city that factors in the costs of replacing those trees and maintaining them for their early years, as well as the environmental impact of the mature tree’s removal. Replacements will have to be done at a 1:1 ratio for smaller trees and a 1.5:1, 2:1, or even 3:1 ratio for much larger trees.
The proposed fee structure has been revised a bit from the current ordinance, but I believe people will generally consider it to be fair and reasonable. (The fee schedule will be published annually but unfortunately it was not included in the agenda document linked previously. However, we did spend many hours studying it in committee and discussing it with the City of Newton’s Law Department.)
An ordinary, non-exempt property owner removing one large healthy tree to do some construction should be able to afford the fee cost as part of their project (or can simply plant some new trees elsewhere on the property to avoid the fee), but a for-profit construction firm clear-cutting an entire lot will end up paying a substantial amount of money in total, if they choose not to plant replacements.
On that note of replacement trees: Hedges of trees along a property will no longer qualify as replacement trees, which addresses the habit of many development/construction firms cutting down all the mature trees and then lining up a hedge of little newly planted evergreen trees at the property that often end up dying off within a few years anyway and certainly rarely grow very large. Replacement trees will also have to survive and not be cut down for five years, or if they die or are removed early, then they will be treated for the purposes of permits and fees as being the size of the original tree they had replaced.
Finally, the non-profit Newton Cemetery, which was established in the mid-19th century, had respectfully requested that they be treated differently under the ordinance because of their status as a publicly accessible arboretum. They will have to submit regular updates and tree plans from their staff arborist to the city, but they will have the flexibility to plant replacement trees based on their existing and ongoing botanical plans, rather than on more arbitrary formulas. As a funerary institution, they are nearing full capacity, and they are working to ensure that they have a fully-funded trust that can support the maintenance of their arboretum for generations to come, even after they no longer have new customers purchasing plots.
Historic Preservation
Like most of my family, I have a keen interest in history and I have been passionate about exploring the complexities of Historic Preservation in an ever-evolving community like Newton. On the one hand, historic structures contribute to a distinctive streetscape and a unique sense of place. On the other hand, if the laws are too restrictive on maintenance, modification, and allowed uses, we have seen many communities lose their historic structures to neglect, decay, and collapse.
In order to preserve our local structural history, we have to balance protections with cost-effectiveness questions and adaptive re-use. For example, if a historic church’s congregation is running low on members and funds, then that building is at risk of maintenance failures or redevelopment pressures – unless they are allowed to attract and retain tenants of various non-religious uses, who can contribute rental income toward preservation budgets. Allowable land use categories, parking restrictions, and more all affect these decisions and the viability of preservation. Similarly, for historic homes, many of the larger homes can be difficult to afford routine maintenance, but if converted internally to allow multiple dwelling units, there would be more income to cover the annual upkeep costs.
Earlier this year, I nominated (with the help of former Councilor John Rice and current at-large Councilors Andreae Downs and Deb Crossley) the “Strong Block” property along Beacon St and Windsor Rd in Waban Square for local landmark status at the Newton Historical Commission. Some of the structures have been on the National Register of historic buildings since the 1980s, but Newton had never added a layer of local protections.
The present Strong Block was developed over a span of more than 60 years, from the late 19th century through the mid-20th century, on land owned for much of that time by William C. Strong or his heirs. Strong had been one of the main advocates of extending a railroad through what became Waban, and he had also acquired many large tracts of land in the surrounding area for development. In a sense, his vision built the Waban we know today, even if some of it was not completed until well after his passing. The oldest section of the Strong Block consists of the building including the three storefronts currently numbered 1649, 1645, and 1641 Beacon Street. This building was constructed in 1897 for William C. Strong, but the other buildings post-dated his death in 1913. The distinctive corner building, Number 1625 Beacon Street, opened in 1931. The heirs of William Strong finally sold their interests in the Strong Block in 1951. The final contiguous addition to the Block was Number 1651 Beacon Street, in 1958.
Next Thursday evening, August 24, at 7 PM there will be a final public hearing on the staff recommendation to the Newton Historical Commission for landmarking this large, multi-structure property. The Commission has flexibility in determining differing future levels of review for various, discrete portions of the property. If approved, some parts of the lot (such as the rear parking lot located at a lower elevation) would still be eligible for contextually-appropriate multi-story redevelopment in the future. Even some of the not-so-historical structures there now, such as the Waban Market, could potentially gain additional stories, with a review of Appropriateness by the Newton Historical Commission in the future.
But the truly historic and architecturally distinctive structures on the block would receive enhanced protections, even if new Village Center Overlay District zoning is approved for Waban Square. These would not be ironclad, unbreakable protections of every single detail – because maintenance is important and businesses need to be able to change out their signs – but overall the sense of place and unique facades would be maintained essentially as they are now. (There would also not be requirements to turn back the clock to some earlier version of the building.)
The property owners’ legal representation expressed that they were willing to accept the landmarking as long as some of those key points of reasonable flexibility were maintained. Similarly, Newton’s Planning and Development Board offered a non-binding opinion to the Newton Historical Commissioncommenting on both the historic nature of the site and the importance of keeping some ability to enhance and develop the large property for greater economic potential, which will actually help make historic preservation more financially viable in the long-run (and any teardown prospects much less attractive).
“The Planning & Development Board recommends that the Newton Historical Commission landmark the property at 2-12 Windsor Rd. However, the site is proposed to be included in the Village Center Overlay District and the Board advises that the landmark designation acknowledge the opportunity for commercial and residential development on the site. In particular, it was the view of the Board that the entire parking lot and the section of the multi-building property at 10 Windsor did not appear to be contributing to the historic character of the site. The Board would urge that the NHC to review proposals for alterations, additions or new buildings on the site a focus on the key historic qualities of the site that ought to be preserved and with greater flexibility in considering the non-contributing portions of the site noted above.”
I also anticipate a staff memo to the Newton Historical Commission being released online next week with further detailed recommendations on appropriate and practical historic preservation standards for this site.