×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Washington Street Zoning Toolkit

Leave your comments by Dec 2, 2018

This Zoning Toolkit is the first draft of the “rule-book” for those seeking to develop or change a property along Washington Street. The zoning tools and regulations found within will clearly define how development in the area is allowed to happen based on the community’s vision for Washington Street (as outlined in parts 1-3 of the Vision Plan). The Zoning Toolkit will be updated and expanded according to changes in the Vision Plan.

Powered by Konveio

Comments

Close

Commenting is closed for this document.

Most recent

Most replied

Most supported

By page

Replies

in reply to Beth Smith's comment

Julia Malakie Dec 3 2018 at 1:26AM on page 3

Answer

Sorry, they're in such a hurry to railroad this through, that we've been asked to comment on an incomplete document.

0 replies

in reply to aconant's comment

Julia Malakie Dec 3 2018 at 1:13AM on page 3

Suggestion

It can't be approved without City Council approval, so I suggest not voting for any councilors or candidates who support it either!

0 replies

in reply to Annie Hall's comment

Julia Malakie Dec 3 2018 at 1:08AM on page 1

Yes, And yet, the mayor want to replace trees with solar carports in the Library and other city parking lots.

0 replies

EliotAve Dec 3 2018 at 12:17AM on page 1

Suggestion

For those of us not familiar with zoning codes, I'd like to see a series of Washington St Vision Plan teaching sessions to help the community learn about building codes - past, present, future options. I've been at public events where the industry attendees can confidently provide input (pro-development from past experience) but the average homeowner is not able to contribute. We all live here, pay taxes, and should be brought up to speed on this complex topic.

0 replies

aconant Dec 2 2018 at 11:18PM on page 3

Suggestion

Residents never asked the city to increase the density and height of buildings nor the population. Residents did not request that the City change the villages into urban enclaves and intersperse apartment buildings next to our homes. We want to preserve our properties as is and preserve our community and villages. The Mayor never mentioned in her campaign for office that she would transform the city and add thousands to our population. I will not vote for the Mayor if this plan is approved.

0 replies

aconant Dec 2 2018 at 11:17PM on page 3

Suggestion

Residents never asked the city to increase the density and height of buildings nor the population. Residents did not request that the City change the villages into urban enclaves and intersperse apartment buildings next to our homes. We want to preserve our properties as is and preserve our community and villages. The Mayor never mentioned in her campaign for office that she would transform the city and add thousands to our population. I will not vote for the Mayor if this plan is approved.

1 reply

aconant Dec 2 2018 at 11:17PM on page 3

Suggestion

Residents never asked the city to increase the density and height of buildings nor the population. Residents did not request that the City change the villages into urban enclaves and intersperse apartment buildings next to our homes. We want to preserve our properties as is and preserve our community and villages. The Mayor never mentioned in her campaign for office that she would transform the city and add thousands to our population. I will not vote for the Mayor if this plan is approved.

0 replies

aconant Dec 2 2018 at 11:06PM on page 3

Suggestion

Residents never indicated an interest in increasing the density or height of our villages or of the city. Mayor Fuller never said anything about changing the city's character or adding thousands of residents when she was running for office. I will not vote for the Mayor again if these proposals pass.

0 replies

Seth1 Dec 2 2018 at 11:05PM on page 3

Suggestion

This does not look like a 'village' center. It looks more urban and dense than the village architecture and scale exemplified in most of Newton's villages. Why encourage dramatic changes/increases to the village scale which exists and has been successful for many years?

0 replies

Seth1 Dec 2 2018 at 11:01PM on page 3

Some of these structures look like large single units. Should show more varied examples of single unit structures.

0 replies

Seth1 Dec 2 2018 at 10:57PM on page 2

Suggestion

Parking minimums should be maintained. South Boston had reduced parking requirements in recent years, and found the parking space shortage had dramatic consequences increased parking on neighborhood streets. They have since required more parking from developers. We should learn from other communities to avoid similar issues.

0 replies

Seth1 Dec 2 2018 at 10:53PM on page 2

Suggestion

Newton would benefit from continuing to prioritize village/human scale in Newton. Varied building heights and roof lines for buildings from 1-3 stories with a historic flavor would be more palatable to most residents than drastic change to zoning to allow larger and higher buildings.

0 replies

Seth1 Dec 2 2018 at 10:47PM on page 2

Suggestion

Not in favor of allowing buildings 3 or fewer stories in height to be approved by right. This does not take into account potential density which may be associated with these buildings which would still warrant a special permit.

0 replies

Pizd@Newton Dec 2 2018 at 10:47PM on page 1

Question

Will this be high reasonable quality construction or will this be more of the all wood tall death building construction one can see in Watertown? With the more narrowed streets and stressed infrastructure it will be terrible life safety and future upkeep problems. Who is getting paid off here? Making the streets narrow is a bad idea given the population density, but not a surprise since it seems the traffic engineer in Newton should have chosen another line of work.

0 replies

Seth1 Dec 2 2018 at 10:45PM on page 2

Suggestion

Rather than emphasizing the importance of stepping down height when located near residential neighborhoods, I think we should prioritize the importance of keeping zoning compatible with existing neighborhoods. The BU1 zone is worth maintaining as the predominent zone in or near village centers and residential areas. (building heights of 1, 2 , or in some cases 3 stories could be appropriate near residential neighborhoods.

0 replies

Seth1 Dec 2 2018 at 10:31PM on page 2

Suggestion

This document presumes zoning should be changed to allow for larger scale buildings. Many residents do not support changing from village scale to city scale zoning on Washington St.

0 replies

Seth1 Dec 2 2018 at 10:28PM on page 2

Suggestion

I think Newton should offer incentives to preserve historic buildings, not just their facades. Newburyport could be an inspiration. They worked to restore historic buildings in their downtown, rather than razing them in the 80s. Their downtown is now a destination which people value because it is historic. If there has to be development on Washington St, incentives for keeping historic buildings should be a priority.

0 replies

Seth1 Dec 2 2018 at 10:17PM on page 1

Suggestion

This document is cumbersome and time consuming to review and comment on in a restricted timeframe. I also think this format is not inclusive to people who are not as comfortable using technology, as well as those with work and family responsibilities who may not have sufficient time to provide feedback using this type of platform. Since Newton emphasizes the importance of inclusiveness and diversity, I would encourage city staff and govt to offer more equitable means of providing feedback through other channels. For example, sending a short word document and posting it on the city website with drawings of a few potential scenarios, and allowing people to reply by email would be a good alternative way of providing feedback. Shorter different documents sent or posted at spaced intervals would give people more opportunity to digest material and comment in a more manageable way. This platform excludes and limits people, as evidenced by the low participation rate.

0 replies

Pam Dec 2 2018 at 10:16PM on page 38

4 to 6 stories too large for village centers

0 replies

Pam Dec 2 2018 at 10:15PM on page 37

4 stories is OK with set back on upper story. Anything larger is will change and in my opinion destroy the village centers

0 replies

Pam Dec 2 2018 at 10:14PM on page 36

4 stories is OK but anything over that is too tall for the town centers

0 replies

Pam Dec 2 2018 at 10:13PM on page 35

4 stories MAX - no "up to 12 stories"

0 replies

Pam Dec 2 2018 at 10:12PM on page 33

5-12 stories will destroy the fabric of the town center. It is totally out of place here.

0 replies

Pam Dec 2 2018 at 10:08PM on page 15

But most of these bordering neighborhoods are now in the proposed zoned R3 and the maximum height is 4.5 stories for a civic building. This means the "step down" building could be 5.5 stories tall. I think it should not be more than 1 story above what is presently there or 3 stories maximum - which ever is taller.

0 replies

Pam Dec 2 2018 at 10:07PM on page 14

5 to 12 stories are not appropriate

0 replies

Pam Dec 2 2018 at 10:06PM on page 12

6 stories too tall. If you allow 6 the developers will build 6 not 2!

0 replies

in reply to John R's comment

Pam Dec 2 2018 at 10:05PM on page 11

But most of these neighborhoods are now in the proposed zoned R3 and the maximum height is 4.5 stories for a civic building. This means the "step down" building could be 5.5 stories tall. I think it should not be more than 1 story above what is presently there or 3 stories maximum - which ever is taller.

0 replies

in reply to dprosk@gmail.com's comment

Pam Dec 2 2018 at 10:04PM on page 11

But most of these neighborhoods are now in the proposed zoned R3 and the maximum height is 4.5 stories for a civic building. This means the "step down" building could be 5.5 stories tall. I think it should not be more than 1 story above what is presently there or 3 stories maximum - which ever is taller.

0 replies

in reply to j-piha's comment

Pam Dec 2 2018 at 10:04PM on page 11

But most of these neighborhoods are now in the proposed zoned R3 and the maximum height is 4.5 stories for a civic building. This means the "step down" building could be 5.5 stories tall. I think it should not be more than 1 story above what is presently there or 3 stories maximum - which ever is taller.

0 replies

Pam Dec 2 2018 at 10:03PM on page 10

This looks OK but not the 5, 6 10 or even 12 story buildings in the earlier drawings!

0 replies

Pam Dec 2 2018 at 10:00PM on page 6

this is too big for this neighborhood

0 replies

Pam Dec 2 2018 at 10:00PM on page 7

no

0 replies

Pam Dec 2 2018 at 9:56PM on page 2

good idea but only allow 4 stories

0 replies

in reply to Beth Smith's comment

Pam Dec 2 2018 at 9:55PM on page 2

But most of these neighborhoods are now in the proposed zoned R3 and the maximum height is 4.5 stories for a civic building. This means the "step down" building could be 5.5 stories tall. I think it should not be more than 1 story above what is presently there or 3 stories maximum - which ever is taller.

0 replies

in reply to DougL's comment

Pam Dec 2 2018 at 9:55PM on page 2

But most of these neighborhoods are now in the proposed zoned R3 and the maximum height is 4.5 stories for a civic building. This means the "step down" building could be 5.5 stories tall. I think it should not be more than 1 story above what is presently there or 3 stories maximum - which ever is taller.

0 replies

Pam Dec 2 2018 at 9:53PM on page 2

They should not be allowed more than 1 story higher than what is there now or 3 stories maximum. The new proposed rules allow for much higher buildings than there are now in R3 districts. R3 allows 4.5 story civic buildings and therefore these other buildings could be 5.5 stories in the "step down" areas. This is not a step down to a 2 story building!!!

0 replies

Pam Dec 2 2018 at 9:50PM on page 2

The plan should not allow higher than 4 stories

0 replies

Pam Dec 2 2018 at 9:49PM on page 2

I think you need to add max 15' to the mix

0 replies

Linda Fritz Dec 2 2018 at 9:03PM on page 35

Ah, but this needs to be filled in with a definite maximum limit and let's not make it too large.

0 replies

Kathy Pillsbury Dec 2 2018 at 8:52PM on page 14

Suggestion

Glad there will be some taller options especially near train stations but not necessarily near highway entrances. Near train stops encourages more walkability and public transit. Near highways may encourage more cars -- which we do not need.

0 replies

Linda Fritz Dec 2 2018 at 8:52PM on page 24

5 units on a single lot seems like a lot of units on single lot. Are these to be located in current two-family lots? If so, I would not like to see this change. It seems like a recipe for congestion.

0 replies

EdDailey Dec 2 2018 at 8:47PM on page 12

If mixed use development is confined to an edge of an historic village, might the new development draw uses away from the historic village, thus depriving the historic village of its commercial uses?

0 replies

Kathy Pillsbury Dec 2 2018 at 8:46PM on page 9

Glad to see this size multi unit included. Options for areas with well-designed and landscaped multi units is needed in Newton.

0 replies

EdDailey Dec 2 2018 at 8:34PM on page 16

Suggestion

Setback is critical with higher density. In our existing villages, even with much lower height and density, narrow sidewalks impede and discourage "people use". There is a real need for setbacks that create social space, easy walking, and easy access.

0 replies

EdDailey Dec 2 2018 at 8:33PM on page 14

Suggestion

Setback is critical with higher density. In our existing villages, even with much lower height and density, narrow sidewalks impede and discourage "people use". There is a real need for setbacks that create social space, easy walking, and easy access.

0 replies

EdDailey Dec 2 2018 at 8:33PM on page 12

Suggestion

Setback is critical with higher density. In our existing villages, even with much lower height and density, narrow sidewalks impede and discourage "people use". There is a real need for setbacks that create social space, easy walking, and easy access.

0 replies

EdDailey Dec 2 2018 at 8:32PM on page 10

Suggestion

Setback is critical with higher density. In our existing villages, even with much lower height and density, narrow sidewalks impede and discourage "people use". There is a real need for setbacks that create social space, easy walking, and easy access.

0 replies

Kathy Pillsbury Dec 2 2018 at 8:31PM on page 6

It's great that there is a mix of housing options in this district. There needs to be some sections of Newton that allow small multi-family homes. Better for the environment -- multi family homes generally use less energy per person than single family detached homes.

0 replies

EdDailey Dec 2 2018 at 8:30PM on page 8

Suggestion

Setback is critical with higher density. In our existing villages, even with much lower height and density, narrow sidewalks impede and discourage "people use". There is a real need for setbacks that create social space, easy walking, and easy access.

0 replies

EdDailey Dec 2 2018 at 8:23PM on page 1

Suggestion

A well designed, comprehensive toolkit will be useful to developers, residents, and council members for design and evaluation of Washington Street development. A concern, however, is the extent to which the toolkit will be followed in the land use political process.

0 replies

Leave this field blank