The Town of Needham’s Large House Review Committee on Tuesday presented three stepwise reduction options to curb the size of new single‑family homes in SRB (single residence B) neighborhoods, and said it has hired a consultant to test the fiscal impacts of any change.

Committee member Joe Matthews said the committee’s work is focused on how the town defines and limits the volume of houses built on typical SRB lots. “We conducted an online survey with 1,155 respondents,” Matthews said, and summarized that a large share of respondents said the town should regulate or moderate housing size differently than it currently does.

The committee’s technical work centers on floor area ratio (FAR), lot coverage and height. Presenters said the committee is leaning toward redefining FAR to count first, second and third floors and the garage (but not basements for FAR calculations), then setting lower FAR limits. Oscar Mertz, one of the presenters, said the consultant produced 3‑D renderings and floor‑plan tests for three representative houses on lots of roughly 7,828, 9,191 and 10,001 square feet, and then modeled three reductions — roughly 10%, 20% and 30% — that progressively lower total livable area and roof height while keeping a basic interior program (garage, living/dining/kitchen, four bedrooms on the second floor).

Under the committee’s current summary of existing rules, SRB limits include a maximum of 2½ stories, lot coverage typically between 25% and 30%, and an FAR of 0.38 for lots up to 12,000 square feet and 0.36 thereafter. The committee’s visual models showed that counting third‑floor area and garages in FAR calculations would reduce the allowable “by‑right” livable square footage and bring Needham closer to more restrictive peer towns such as Wellesley, Concord and Lexington.

Several residents who signed up for public comment urged the committee to act. Karen Partridge, a resident of 38 Sutton Road, said “stormwater management is a huge and increasing problem,” and called tree loss around tear‑downs “environmentally disastrous.” Ilya Schiedwasser of 83 Hawthorne Avenue framed the issue as one of local housing affordability, saying prohibiting very large tear‑downs could “incentivize people to maybe sell houses as they are at a lower price.”

Other speakers stressed competing concerns. Builder Bruce Riccadelli told the committee that interior finishing choices (for example, finishing a basement after purchase) can double a home’s marketed square footage without changing its exterior. Several residents asked for better outreach: Teresa Combs (7 Eutogo Road) requested a mailed notice to all SRB property owners; others asked whether proposed changes would render existing homes nonconforming or limit future homeowner additions.

On process and next steps, committee members said the consultant’s fiscal and market analysis will address two questions: how any size limits affect sale prices of newly built homes and whether municipal tax revenues would shift. The committee plans another community meeting in November, intends to bring proposals to the Planning Board in December, and expects the Planning Board to aim for a report or a proposal to Town Meeting in May 2026.

No regulatory changes were enacted at the meeting. The committee closed the session after a public comment period and an interactive four‑question poll of meeting attendees.