Planning staff presented a proposed amendment to Chapter 30 (zoning) to limit how much of a lot
ds frontage may be covered by the principal residential facade. The proposal aims to preserve neighborhood scale by limiting long, uninterrupted front facades on new construction.

Why it matters: The change would shape how new houses and two-family buildings present to the street. Staff said the measure is intended to reduce "teardowns" that produce larger massing at the street and to encourage articulation (setbacks, wings, porches) that better fit neighborhood context.

Key points from the presentation
- Staff proposed a facade build-out cap of 60% of a lot
ds frontage for standard residential lots, with exemptions or alternate rules for narrow or irregular lots.

- Staff highlighted "edge cases": many Newton parcels are not rectangular; some have very small public frontages but open lot areas behind (flag lots and irregular lots). Applying a strict percentage to those parcels could produce unrealistic, 7 foot-wide facades where a practical home should be wider.

- Options presented included: lower the exemption threshold from the initial 60-foot frontage to a smaller cutoff (for example, 50 feet), always allowing a minimum facade width (for example, 25 feet) regardless of the percentage calculation, or sending uncommon parcels to a site-plan or board review pathway to avoid automatic application of the ratio.

- Staff also proposed protections to avoid unintentionally pushing two-family buildings to rotate "sideways" away from street-facing fronts. The staff suggested revisiting the two-family definition to allow more flexible configurations while retaining at least one unit with a front-street presence.

Councilor questions and concerns
- Multiple councilors said they preferred a simpler, administrable rule that avoids creating hardship for owners of odd-shaped or narrow lots. Suggestions included lowering the cutoff (50 feet) or adopting a minimum facade width (25 feet) so the rule would not produce impractical building footprints on irregular lots.

- Councilors asked staff to run test cases and report how many Newton lots would be affected by alternative thresholds (50/40/60 feet) and whether the rule should apply only to new construction or to additions and renovations as well.

Decision and next steps
- The committee asked planning staff to refine the draft with (a) a proposed exemption threshold (staff suggested 50 feet as a working option), (b) a minimum facade width as a floor to prevent impractically narrow facades, and (c) clearer language for how additions and existing homes are treated. Staff also recommended a separate docket item to modernize the two-family definition so the house form rules and the two-family configuration align.

Ending: The committee held the zoning amendment items for further work and asked staff to return with additional test fits, counts of affected lots and draft ordinance language for committee review.