The state’s new housing law has requirements for local zoning for accessory dwelling units. Newton has allowed accessory dwelling units since the 1980s. Now, the city has to set an ADU policy that satisfies state law and makes sense in Newton.

The City Council’s Zoning and Planning Committee held a public hearing regarding accessory dwelling units on Wednesday night—specifically about whether the city should stick to the new state law or expand its ADU zoning to make more allowances than the new state law requires—and the committee will discuss and possibly vote on a set of local ADU regulations next week.

“So we have, basically, two items—one which is designed to capture those things which we need to do in order to conform to the changes in state law,” Chair Lisle Baker said. “The second is designed to capture those which the committee and the council ultimately believe are wise policy and should be enacted.”

Newton already allows ADUs of up to 1,000 square feet, so in that respect the city ordinance is more permissive than the state’s new law, which allows ADUs of up to 900 by-right (no special permit).

Committee member Susan Albright has suggested increasing the size ADU allowed by-right (no special permit) to 1,200 square feet and increase the size allowed in carriage houses and other historically significant accessory structures. And the Planning Department recommends changing setback requirements, removing a bunch of design standards and lifting owner occupancy mandates (right now, you have to live on a property as your primary residence in order to add an ADU on that property).

Baker had previously opposed bringing Albright’s amendments to a public hearing. But the mood at the public hearing suggested the amendments are quite popular.

“In the 40 years since Newton first allowed ADUs, only 121 have been built,” Jane Harper of Newton Centre, co-president of the Newton Women’s League of Voters, read from a letter in support of Albright’s ideas. “Councilor Albright’s additional proposed amendments may make it easier for some homeowners to benefit from an ADU.”

Jay Walter, representing the Building Professionals Working Group, recommended the committee approve Albright’s amendments and the Planning Department’s suggestions as well, calling them “commonsense changes that will help make ADUs more within reach for homeowners throughout the city.”

“I would go a step further to incentivize the preservation of historic buildings and ask that we allow separate ownership for historically significant buildings,” Walter said. “In the last few years in my architectural practice, I’ve had at least six clients who have had buildings on their properties that they expressed interest in restoring but they couldn’t because of the restrictive zoning. If we allowed separate ownership, there would be an economic incentive for them to restore these buildings and they wouldn’t be left to decay, as they are now.”

Curt Lamb of Newton Centre, also an architect, lives in a house he designed in 1981. Now he wants to build an ADU for himself so his daughter and her family can move into his house and he and his partner can live in the ADU. But local restrictions on size have made that difficult, and 1,100 is unworkable with their needs.

“It doesn’t seem like much, but it’s a lot when you actually have to draw it out and figure, do I get a studio? Do I get an office? How big is the bedroom?” he mused.

Dan Ruben of Auburndale spoke in favor of Albright’s amendments as a way of addressing the region’s housing shortage crisis.

“We’re a stronger city when we enable our residents to stay here and we enable their kids to live here,” Ruben said.

Ruben also noted the environmental benefits of having more housing options.

“When we enable people to stay here instead of living further and further away, when we prevent more sprawl, it means less driving, fewer greenhouse gas emissions and few trees cut down,” he said.

Ruth Rosenberg of Newton Centre said she was concerned about eliminating design review and reducing setback requirements.

“Not that I disagree with the ability to put ADUs in the right place on your property, taking into consideration the aesthetics, the design, the style and so forth,” she said.

The committee may vote on the ADU amendments at their next meeting on March 10.

You can watch the entire public hearing on NewTV’s YouTube Channel.