Regulating Monster Homes

  Susan M. Glazer
  Session: Tuesday, April 18, 2000, 8:45 AM Author Info 

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Newton is a community of approximately 83,000 people on eighteen square miles of land immediately west of Boston. It was settled in 1630, but a significant part of the city's development took place in the late 1800's as a result of the introduction of a rail line from Boston to the west. There was another burst of development after World War II, particularly in the southern part of the city. Newton is a very attractive community today because of its well maintained residential neighborhoods, its good schools, its proximity to downtown Boston (eight miles) and its location at the intersection of two major regional roads - I-90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) and I-95, a circumferential highway around the city.

Socio-economically, although there are areas of low and moderate income households, Newton is considered an affluent community where the average single family homes sales are above $425,000. Seventy-three percent of the homes are single family.

2.0 CONTEXT FOR CHANGE

The predominant feature of the community is the fact that there is no one center, but thirteen villages, each with its own character. People tend to relate more to their villages with tree-lined residential neighborhoods, rather than the city as a whole. Thus, when the housing market heated up several years ago, and developers started to take advantage of Newton's real estate market by tearing down smaller homes to build larger ones, citizens reacted strongly to their changing neighborhoods. Residents besieged their aldermen (there are twenty-four of them, three from each of eight wards) and the Planning Department with pleas for how to stop the "monster homes".

3.0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT EFFORTS

First the Planning Department had to define the issue. What were residents reacting to and what did they want? In addition to the market pressures to build in Newton, developers were building very large structures out of scale with the neighborhoods in which they were located. For example, 21 Puddingstone Road has a 6,600 sf. house on a 27,000 sf. lot. In other neighborhoods, developers were tearing down single family homes and, where allowed, building by right two-family homes. For example, 16-18 Tanglewood Road has a 5,136 sf. two-family house on a 11,500 sf. lot. In this case, a developer bought several single family homes that were about 1,200 sf. each and replaced them with two-family homes. Since this was a Multi-Residence I District, the construction was allowed by right. The houses being torn down were modest single family homes, the homes people buy to get in to the community. The "affordable housing" stock was being threatened. In other cases, owners were adding a second unit to their existing single family homes. For example, 63-65 Highland Avenue is a 7,622 sf. two-family home on a 16,128 sf. lot. The existing home was 3,094 sf. The overriding issue, however, was the size and scale of these new homes that changed the character of the neighborhood.

The Planning Department consulted with a number of neighboring communities that were experiencing the same issue. There were a number of common aspects to our problem:

Since the aldermen were sure of the best solution to the problem at that point, the Planning Department put forward an array of ideas to focus the discussion: 3.1 Revise The Definition Of "Height" Height was one of the obvious things to look at. The Zoning Ordinance definition of building height at that time was the measurement from the mean grade around the structure to the top of the ceiling rafters of the uppermost floor (eave line). The height restriction at that time was three stories and thirty-six feet. The proposed change in the definition of height changed the measuring points. Instead of measuring to the top of the uppermost habitable floor (the eave line), the proposal changed the measurement to the mid-point of the highest roof surface. This change encouraged the use of sloped roofs. 3.2 Reduce The Height In Feet That Could Be Built Not only was the definition of height changed, but the maximum height in feet was reduced from 36 feet to 30 feet. Here is an example of a larger home that is three stories and thirty-six feet high. 220 Winchester Street is a 5,526 sf. home on a 18,780 sf. lot in a SR 2 district that requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 sf. for new lots. Under the old ordinance, this home met all of the requirements. Under the new 30 foot height requirement, a 36 foot home would not be allowed. In other cases, many of the "monster homes" receiving attention had garages on the first floor with two full stories of living space above (3 Troy Lane). This not only pushed the structure to the maximum height allowed, it left an unattractive garage door at the street level. With a reduction in the allowed height from thirty-six feet to thirty feet, it is less likely that a developer would commit an entire story to garage space. Exceptions to the height limits are chimneys, spires, architectural ornaments, etc. 3.3 Reduce The Number Of Stories That Could Be Built Accompanying the reduction in measured height was the reduction in the number of stories. If a new home is limited to thirty feet in height with three stories of living space, a flat roof might be required to fit the three story home under the thirty foot height restriction. This is exactly what one developer did (example-8 Wyckham Road, a three story flat roofed residence). With the proposal to reduce the number of stories from three to two and one-half, a builder might still build a two story home with a flat roof, but to achieve the maximum footage, he would have to add a sloped roof to gain the extra half-story. The final version of this amendment resulted in allowing a third story by special permit, if the construction was consistent with the design, size and scale of other structures in the neighborhood. In this way, a three story home could be built in a neighborhood of other large homes. 3.4 Add A Definition Of One-Half Story Related to the reduction in the number of stories was the need to define "half-story". The proposed limited on the amount of livable square footage in the half-story so that a half-story was considered as being less than two-thirds of the square footage of the floor below. This prevented attic space from being excessive and encouraged the construction of sloped roofs. 3.6 Limit The Amount Of Reconstruction That Could Occur By Right A proposal arose in an effort to make new building size consistent with its surrounding neighborhood. A new structure would have a height limitation of either the average height of the abutting residences or the height of the structure being replaced, whichever was greater. The idea was to prevent homes from being too large for the neighborhood, while allowing large homes to occur where appropriate. The proposal had several technical problems including the fact that records of building heights did not exist in city records and when they did, they were unreliable. Determining heights of abutting structures would put an undue burden on staff and to ask the property owner to do the measuring could lead to biased numbers. Finally, if a home was placed next to a large home, the new home would be allowed much greater height than the home directly across the street where no "monster home" abutted. Staff felt that the issue of neighborhood context was better addressed by allowing larger homes than zoning permits by special permit with criteria for such a determination. 3.7 Require A Special Permit To Demolish A Home Fifty Years Old Or Older This proposal intended to curb demolition of residential structures. The City already had a demolition delay ordinance whereby the Historical Commission could delay demolition for up to one year on structures or portions of them that were fifty years old or older if the commission found that the structure is "preferably preserved". The applicant could come back to the Commission within the one year period with revisions to the design incorporating the size, massing or architecture features of the structure to be demolished. The idea behind requiring the review and potential data to develop is to get developers to think about restoring a structure before tearing it down. This proposal to allow demolitions by special permit was not adopted because it did not directly address the issue of building size and scale and it would have substantially reduced the Historical Commission's power and purpose. Although this zoning technique was not adopted in Newton, it might be helpful in addressing the issue of teardowns in communities where there is no demolition delay ordinance or by-law or where the Historical Commission does not have any power. 3.8 Create A Floor Area Ratio Requirement This was the most complex and controversial of all of the proposals. Although the City had floor area ratios for buildings in business and manufacturing districts, it had none in the residential districts, in part because of the sentiment that people had a right to build whatever size home they wanted, so long as the setback requirements were met.   A floor area ratio requirement would limit building mass by restricting the maximum size of a building as it related to the size of the lot on which it sat. The first consideration was how to determine the gross floor area. Staff recommended using all floors above grade (excluding basements and free-standing garages) whether there was livable space in them or not. This proposal addressed the issue of visible building mass. The next challenge was to determine the best ratio for Newton.

The Planning Department developed a sliding scale of ratios based on the minimum lots size which, in Newton, went from 25,000 sf. in Single Residence 1 to 10,000 sf. in Single Residence 3 and Multi-Residence Districts. The FARs proposed initially ranged from .3 to .45. When the Inspectional Services Department started applying the FAR requirements, some aldermen realized that they had gone too far by including attics in the FAR calculation. Thus, although the ordinance was still freshly minted, it was changed again, this time excluding attics from the calculation and instituting a new set of requirements ranging from .2 to .4.

Because there was a concern about older homes on smaller lots another provision was added to allow an additional .05 for pre-1953 lots when the more restrictive post-1953 setbacks and lot coverage requirements were met.

The final version of the ordinance made clear what types of structures FAR applied to. Requiring application for all structures would have penalized the property owner who wanted an addition of his/her home. Thus, the ordinance specified that FAR requirements would apply to:

 4.0 CONCLUSION

What can be learned from all of this? First, it is important to define the issue carefully. Is reaction to the construction of "monster homes" economic, the loss of affordable housing, the pace of demolition, the perceived loss of open space or change to neighborhood character. Second, there is no one "fix" for curbing "monster homes". A multi-step approach may be needed. The Newton aldermen, despite all of the amendments that they adopted, still feel as though the "monster homes" are still somewhat out of control "There is something missing", one alderman said recently, "but I don't know what it is," referring to why one large house looks okay, but another does not. The answer may be in design regulations, but the aldermen are reluctant to impose design limitations. A house may appear large to one person and modest to another. Keeping new homes in scale with their surroundings is still going to be difficult. Even when Newton reduced height, number of stories, and instituted an FAR, big houses are still being built and the aldermen are reluctant to change the zoning ordinance again for fear of unintended consequences. While the real estate market is hot, developers will build to the maximum allowed. When the market cools off, they may not. The real estate market has been driving up the size of homes, but it may not go on forever. As one recent (March 17th) article in the Wall Street Journal put it, "The bloating of the nation's homes may finally be peaking .... as the (baby) boomers .... become empty nesters, and families with children become a less significant segment of the population." In the meantime, planners will have their hands full keeping the "monster homes" under control.

#456-96

CITY OF NEWTON BOARD OF ALDERMEN

April 23, 1997

ORDINANCE NO. V-1 11

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF NEWTON AS FOLLOWS:

That the Zoning regulations, Chapter 30 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Newton, Mass. 1995, as amended, be and are hereby further amended as follows:

1. Substitute for the existing height definition in Section 30-1 the following:

Height. The vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of the highest roof surface. Not included in such measurements are 1) cornices which do not extend more than five feet above the roof line; 2) chimneys, vents, ventilators and enclosures for machinery of elevators which do not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height above the roof line; 3) enclosures for tanks which do not exceed twenty (20) feet in height above the roof line and do not exceed in aggregate area ten (10) per cent of the area of the roof; and 4) towers, spires, domes and ornamental features. Further, no space above the maximum height established in Section 30-15, Table 1, shall be habitable. 2. Amend the building height limitation in Section 30-5, Table I to 30 feet.

3. Add a definition of Grade plane to Section 30-1:

Grade plane: A reference plane representing the average of finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls. Approved as to legal form and character

Daniel M. Funk
City Solicitor
#457-96

CITY OF NEWTON BOARD OF ALDERMEN

April 23, 1997

ORDINANCE NO. V-112

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF NEWTON AS FOLLOWS:

That the Zoning regulations, Chapter 30 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Newton, Mass. 1995, as amended, be and are hereby further amended as follows:

1. Amend the existing definition of floor area ratio in Section 30-1 to read as follows:

Floor area ratio:

A. For residential structures in residential districts, gross floor area of a building on the lot divided by total lot area.

B. For all others: gross floor area of all buildings on the lot divided by total lot area. Any portion of a basement not used for storage, parking or building mechanicals shall be included in determining the floor area ratio.

 2. Amend the existing definition of floor area, gross in Section 30-1 to read as follows:
Floor area, gross:
A. For residential structures in residential districts, the sum of the floor area within the perimeter of the outside walls of the building without deduction for garage space, attics, hallways, stairs, closets, thickness of walls, columns, atria, open wells and other vertical open spaces, or other features exclusive of any portion of a basement as defined in this section. For atria, open wells and other vertical open spaces, floor area shall be calculated by multiplying the floor level area of such space by a factor equal to the average height in feet divided by ten. Excluded from the calculation are bays or bay windows which are cantilevered and do not have foundations and which occupy no more than ten (10) percent of the wall area on which they are mounted.

B. For all others: the floor area within the perimeter of the outside walls of the building without deduction for hallways, stairs, closets, thickness of walls, columns or other features.

 #457-96
V-112
Page 2

3. Add to Section 30-15, Table 1 the following floor area ratio requirements by district in the column headed TOTAL FLOOR AREA RATIO:

Single Residence 1:
Single Dwelling Units .3
Lots created before 12/7/53 .3

Single Residence 2:
Single Dwelling Units .35
Lots created before 12/7/53 .35

Single Residence 3:
Single Dwelling Units .4
Lots created before 12/7/53 .4

Multi-Residence 1:
Single & Two Family Dwellings .45
Lots created before 12/7/53 .45

Multi-Residence 2:
Single & Two Family Dwellings .45
Lots created before 12/7/53 .45

Multi-Residence 3:
Single & Two Family Dwellings .45
Lots created before 12/7/53 .45

Multi-Residence 4:

Single & Two Family Dwellings
4. Add a subscript 5 to the column headed TOTAL FLOOR AREA RATIO and add a Footnote #5 to Section 30-15, Table 1, as follows:   Allow an increased FAR by special permit if the proposed structure is consistent with and not in derogation of the size, scale and design of other structures in the neighborhood. #457-96 V-112 Page 3

5. Add a subscript 6 to the column headed TOTAL FLOOR AREA RATIO and add a Footnote #6 to Section 30-15, Table 1, as follows:

An additional FAR of .05 shall be allowed for construction on pre-1953 lots when post-1953 lot setback and lot coverage requirements are met. 6. FAR requirements shall apply only to: (1) all above-grade new construction; (2) total demolition of a single family residential structure or dwelling when the owner seeks to replace it with a two family structure or dwelling; (3) reconstruction where more than fifty (50) percent of an existing structure is demolished; and (4) in a multi-residence zoning district, construction of a second residential dwelling unit which lies in whole or in part outside the walls, i.e., the existing footprint, of any existing residential dwelling unit.

Approved as to legal form and character

Daniel M. Funk City Solicitor
Under Suspension of Rules
Readings Waived and Adopted
18 yeas 2 nays (Ald. Bullwinkle, Salvucci)
3 absent (Ald. Antonellis, Ciccone, Lipsitt) 1 vacancy
#27-97

CITY OF NEWTON BOARD OF ALDERMEN

April 23, 1997

ORDINANCE NO. V-113

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF NEWTON AS FOLLOWS:

That the Zoning regulations, Chapter 30 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Newton, Mass. 1995, as amended, be and are hereby further amended as follows:

Amend the maximum number of stories allowed in the column headed MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES in Section 30-15, Table 1, from 3 to 2 1/2 in all residential districts except for Garden Apartments, More than Two Dwelling Units on a Lot, and Residential Care Facility.

2. Add to Section 30-1 a definition for Half-Story:

A story directly under a sloping roof where the area with a ceiling height of 7'3" or greater is less than 2/3 the area of the story next below. 3. Add to Section 30-15, density and dimensional requirements, a new subsection (q) as follows: (q) Any residential structure that is replacing a previously existing three-story residential structure shall be allowed three stories, but only insofar as the absolute height does not exceed that of the previously existing structure. 4. Add a Subscript 4 to the column headed MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES and add a Footnote #4 to Section 30-15, Table 1, as follows: Allow three stories by special permit if the proposed structure is consistent with and not in derogation of the size, scale and design of other structures in the neighborhood. Approved as to legal form and character

Daniel M. Funk City Solicitor
Under Suspension of Rules
Readings Waived and Adopted
19 yeas 1 nay (Ald. Salvucci)
3 absent (Ald. Antonellis, Ciccone, Lipsitt)
1 vacancy

#457-96(2)

CITY OF NEWTON BOARD OF ALDERMEN

July 14, 1997

ORDINANCE NO. V-122

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF NEWTON AS FOLLOWS:

That the Zoning regulations, Chapter 30 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Newton, Mass. 1995, as amended, be and are hereby further amended as follows:

1. In Section 30-1. Definitions. amend the definition of floor area, gross, as most recently amended by Ordinance V-112, dated April 23, 1997 by deleting the existing subsection (a) and substituting in place thereof the following:

(a) For residential structures in residential districts, the sum of the floor area within the perimeter of the outside walls of the building without deduction for garage space, hallways, stairs, closets, thickness of walls, columns, atria, open wells and other vertical open spaces, or other features exclusive of any portion of a basement as defined in this section. For atria, open wells and other vertical open spaces, floor area shall be calculated by multiplying the floor level area of such space by a factor equal to the average height in feet divided by ten. Excluded from the calculation are bays or bay windows which are cantilevered and do not have foundations and which occupy no more than ten (10) per cent of the wall area on which they are mounted and any space in an attic or 1/2 story as defined in this ordinance. (2) In Section 30-15 TABLE 1, delete the existing floor area ratio requirements by district in the column headed TOTAL FLOOR AREA RATIO, as most recently established by Ordinance V-112, dated April 23, 1997, and substitute in place thereof the following:

Single Residence 1:
Single Dwelling Units .2
Lots created before 12/7/53 .25

Single Residence 2:
Single Dwelling Units .3
Lots created before 12/7/53 .3

Single Residence 3:
Single Dwelling Units .35
Lots created before 12/7/53 .35

Multi-Residence 1:
Single & Two Family Dwellings .4
Lots created before 12/7/53 .4

Multi-Residence 2:
Single & Two Family Dwellings .4
Lots created before 12/7/53 .4

Multi-Residence 3:
Single & Two Family Dwellings .4
Lots created before 12/7/53 .4

Multi-Residence 4:
Single & Two Family Dwellings .4

(3) Add to Section 30-1. Definitions: the following new definition:

Attic: the space in a building between the ceiling beams of the top story and the roof rafters. Approved as to legal form and character:

DANIEL M. FUNK

City Solicitor
Under Suspension of Rules
Readings Waived and Adopted
23 yeas 0 nays 1 absent (Ald. Antonellis)
Approved July 16, 1997
 

Author and Copyright Information

Copyright 2000 By Author

Susan M. Glazer
Beals and Thomas, Inc.