The Land Use Committee of the City Council on a night meeting (Chamber and Zoom) considered Northland Investments’ request (item 7-25) to amend Special Permit 426-18, asking to convert the mill building at the Northland site from planned office use to residential, reduce several small buildings, add residential units, and change parking and circulation arrangements. The committee did not take a final vote and kept the public hearing open for further information and review.

Peer reviewers hired by the city presented economic, transportation, design and stormwater analyses to the committee. Tom Duretsky of Camoyne Associates summarized the economic review and told the committee there has been a sustained weakening of office demand since the pandemic: "we're just at about 63% of that level of activity," he said, referring to in‑office occupancy compared with pre‑pandemic levels. Duretsky told the committee that in optimistic modeling it could take six to 10 years for office vacancy and absorption to return to pre‑pandemic levels in the region. He also presented the project‑specific tax comparison that showed the mill would likely have a higher assessed value as residential than as office (about 37% higher in assessed value) but, because Newton applies a split tax rate, residential use would produce roughly 27% less tax revenue per year than comparable office use. He noted both uses would yield far more tax revenue than the current condition on the site.

Dennis Flynn of Beta Group summarized the transportation peer review. He said the revised program reduces expected weekday and Saturday vehicle trips relative to the previously approved plan, and the study area for intersection analysis was narrowed from 27 to 11 intersections because of that reduction. He described changes in parking counts (originally more than 1,300 spaces reduced by about 280 to roughly 1,070) and said the petitioner provided additional Saturday traffic data and a plan for shared parking and property‑manager tracking of visitor parking. On bicycle accommodations he noted 128 public rack spaces and 55 indoor bicycle spaces, and recommended considering electric bicycle charging if demand warrants.

Janet Bernardo of Horsley Witten Group, who reviewed stormwater and infrastructure changes, reported her team found the submitted revised site design to be "substantially equivalent" to the previously approved and already‑installed stormwater infrastructure and that city engineers and conservation staff had reviewed the installed systems.

Design peer review (summary provided by planning staff in lieu of an in‑person presenter) flagged pedestrian and bike access and the relation of new surface retail parking to the greenway. Responding materials from the petitioner showed a 20‑foot planted evergreen buffer on the project side plus an existing 20‑foot berm, creating 40 feet of vegetated separation between the new surface parking and the Upper Falls Greenway; the petitioner also provided a photometric lighting plan staff said shows no material light spillover onto the greenway.

Northland’s counsel Alan Schlessinger and members of the development team were present to respond to questions. Schlessinger emphasized that the splash park remains in the project and that surface parking was intentionally increased for retail to support shopper convenience; he also said the applicant proposes a commuter‑hour shuttle schedule (about 3.5 hours in morning and evening) under the revised program and that the site’s total built square footage is down by about 10 percent compared with the previously approved buildout, a change that contributes to a lower traffic forecast.

Public commenters were split. Supporters — including Marva Serotkin, chair of the Newton Housing Partnership — urged approval of the amendment as a response to changed market conditions and said the revised plan adds affordable units and public amenities (Serotkin listed a splash park, a free transit shuttle in commuting hours, a mitigation fund for nearby traffic calming, and stormwater investments). Serotkin said, "We supported the original special permit requested by Northland Investments, and we are here to support the revised special permit request." Other residents and area‑council representatives pressed the committee for clearer answers on parking supply, shuttle hours, delivery and drop‑off locations on Oak Street, potential spillover parking into neighborhood streets, and whether residential uses would intensify late‑hour activity near Oak Street and the village green.

Several speakers urged retaining more commercial/office space for long‑term tax base reasons and questioned whether retail or small office spaces could be retained on the mill’s ground floor. Councilors and neighbors asked the petitioner to explain why retail or small ground‑floor office uses were not appropriate for the mill; Schlessinger responded that the mill lacks street frontage and the petitioner does not believe the ground floor of the mill would attract retail tenants in that location, and that leasing large floor plates as office is not feasible in the current market.

Planning staff explained how transportation demand management (TDM) conditions in the original permit will be updated: the developer must submit a detailed TDM work plan that planning and transportation staff review and approve; initial monitoring is frequent (six‑month review periods) and can be relaxed over time if performance metrics are met. Planning staff said changes to shuttle hours or other TDM measures require city review and approval and that monitoring data will inform any changes.

Committee members requested additional materials and clarifications before a final council order: a consolidated written TDM plan and monitoring schedule; clearer circulation and queuing/circulation diagrams for vehicles, deliveries and drop‑off (including how deliveries and move‑ins will be managed on Oak Street); the final breakdown of residential vs. retail square footage (Northland provided interim figures in the meeting and said it would submit corrected totals); confirmation of handicap‑accessible parking location and reserved accessible spaces near the mill; and explicit documentation of where residential parking will be located and whether spaces will be assigned. Councilors also asked for written confirmation of the splash park maintenance arrangement (the city will maintain the splash park under a license agreement) and a short list of which conditions in the earlier permit the amendment would change.

The committee kept the public hearing open for further submittals and set the item for follow‑up at a future meeting. A motion to keep the public hearing open and to continue the item was made and carried by voice vote; the meeting adjourned with the public hearing left open for additional materials and staff review. The committee asked planning staff and the developer to provide the requested clarifying materials in advance of the next session so the council order can be drafted and reviewed.

Topics discussed that the committee asked for follow‑up on include written TDM and shuttle details, vehicle and pedestrian circulation diagrams, clarified parking counts and location tables (residential assigned parking vs. retail surface parking), confirmation of accessible parking/resident drop‑off plans, and precise square‑footage reconciliation for the revised program. The public hearing remains open; no final approval or denial was taken at this meeting.