The Town of Needham’s Large House Review Committee on April 7 reviewed a sampling of 17 recently built single‑family houses on conforming lots and discussed a proposal to measure bulk by counting above‑grade floors — “1, 2, 3, including garage” — when calculating floor‑area ratio (FAR), committee members said.

The topic matters because committee members and residents have raised concerns about visual bulk, tree loss and how current zoning measurements affect house size relative to lot size. The committee is preparing modeling and a consultant request for proposals and has scheduled public engagement sessions this summer and fall ahead of any Planning Board zoning recommendation.

Oscar (Co‑chair of the PC) told the committee the working group reviewed houses on lots ranging from about 10,000 square feet up to one example at 32,000 square feet and found consistent patterns in how builders are using existing allowances. “We are looking at just single residence … single family lots,” Oscar said, noting many homes were close to current FAR limits on smaller conforming lots and that the FAR factor shifts from about 38 percent to 36 percent once a lot reaches 12,000 square feet.

Joe Matthews, a committee member who led the data summary, walked members through three comparative columns in the packet: the advertised or designed livable area (which in many cases included finished basements), what would be allowed if FAR counted the first three floors plus garage, and a theoretical maximum if builders used the full lot‑coverage allowances. “If you have 5 feet of … clearance in the interior space, then it’ll count,” Joe said, describing a working definition for attic/third‑floor area to be included in FAR calculations.

Members described a developing consensus to measure bulk as above‑grade area (first, second and third floors) plus the garage, with basements generally excluded because they are not visible from the street. “Our idea … is measuring bulk is essentially what is above ground,” Joe said. Some members cautioned that excluding basements could create incentives to enlarge footprints or basement area unless lot‑coverage limits are adjusted.

Technical details discussed: committee members reported typical first‑floor ceiling heights of about 9 to 10 feet and second‑floor ceilings around 8 feet; typical ridge and roof heights for the reviewed houses were generally under the 35‑foot limit in Needham’s zoning (many in the 30–34 foot range); builders routinely place garages with a 25‑foot setback while the principal façade may be at 20 feet; and current lot‑coverage rules in Needham were noted as 30 percent up to 12,000 square feet and 25 percent above that — figures committee members referenced when comparing what is built now versus what would be allowed under different FAR definitions.

The committee agreed to pursue two parallel workstreams: (1) issue an RFP to hire an outside consultant to produce visual and quantitative modeling that compares existing houses with modified massing (an RFP Lee, a staff member, is preparing), and (2) continue data collection and community engagement. “We’re gonna take some of these houses and … make example models and making changes to the models so that we can start to look at how adjustments can be made to bulk massing,” Oscar said.

Scheduling and outreach: the group laid out a timeline aimed at informing the Planning Board and, ultimately, a town meeting warrant. Key dates discussed included a committee report to the Planning Board around April 15, a listening community meeting proposed for early June (June 2 was suggested), a follow‑up public meeting in September, and a final community session in early November (November 3 was cited) before the Planning Board’s fall/winter hearings. The committee identified May–October as the period for modeling and two meetings per month over the summer if necessary to finalize recommendations.

Disagreement and cautions: committee members recorded disagreement about whether basements should be counted in FAR. Joe Matthews said including basements would change incentives and suggested stricter lot‑coverage controls if basements are excluded to prevent builders from simply expanding footprint or basement area. The group also noted administrative and staffing concerns if the town adopted a Wellesley‑style “large house review” process that adds discretionary reviews and neighborhood outreach, which members said can be personnel‑intensive.

Next steps and direction: Lee (staff member) and others will finalize the RFP for modeling; Dale Paulson (committee member) and others will continue compiling data from building plans; the committee will draft message and logistics for the June listening session and make the packet materials available online; and members agreed to prepare a clear, non‑technical summary for the Planning Board handoff. No formal zoning changes were adopted at the meeting.

The meeting concluded with administrative items and an adjournment that committee members confirmed by voice; no formal roll‑call tally of votes on policy changes was taken during the session.

What’s next: the committee plans to present its interim findings to the Planning Board and hold public meetings this summer and fall to gather resident input before finalizing any recommended amendments to definitions or numeric FAR/lot‑coverage limits for the Planning Board to consider at its hearings.