Needham committee weighs FAR, height and setback changes to limit oversized houses

The Large House Review Committee for the Town of Needham met in a hybrid session and opened a substantive discussion of Article 44, the referral on floor‑area ratio and related regulations aimed at controlling the size and bulk of new houses.

Committee members front‑loaded the meeting by electing leadership: Artie Parker, the acting chair, was nominated to continue as chair and a second co‑chair role was filled by a committee member identified as Moe after a roll‑call vote that recorded unanimous assent among members present. The committee then turned to the meat of Article 44 — whether the town’s definition and measurement of FAR, and related rules on height, setbacks and what building area counts (basements, attics, garages), are producing houses that are out of scale with neighborhoods.

The discussion focused on two related choices: (1) change the numeric FAR limits that apply to different lot sizes, and (2) change the FAR definition to include or exclude additional building area (for example basements or a third floor). Committee members emphasized that the aim is to control “bulk” — how a house appears on a lot — rather than detailed interior layouts. "I'd like to have a solution come October," said Joe Matthews, a committee member who led the group’s comparative research, summarizing the group’s consensus that May is too soon for a complete bylaw change but that the committee should report progress in May and aim at an October zoning article if more time is needed.

Members reviewed photographic examples assembled for the packet, including a recent redevelopment at 59 Yale Road where a listed 1,600‑square‑foot house on a lot with sloping buildable area became a multi‑thousand‑square‑foot house after excavation of the rear slope; and a small‑lot example at 609 Honeywell Street on an approximately 8,200‑square‑foot lot where neighbors and members said the new house’s apparent height and massing were acute concerns. Committee members also discussed a set of before‑and‑after street photos and flagged recurring problems: houses that take advantage of unbuildable acreage (wetlands, steep slopes) to claim larger FARs, houses that place lots of bulk at the front setback, and flat roofs that produce a boxy 35‑foot wall at the setback line.

Technical work presented by a volunteer labeled Ed included a spreadsheet tool that lets the committee model “what‑if” scenarios: input lot size and floor areas, toggle whether the third floor or basement counts toward FAR, and see whether a sample house would pass current bylaw tests. Ed showed that the town’s current thresholds used in the model treat lots under 12,000 square feet with a FAR of 0.38 and lots at or above 12,000 square feet with a FAR of 0.36; lot coverage switches from 30% to 25% at the same breakpoint. The spreadsheet also reflects the town’s 600‑square‑foot garage exemption. Using a sample program, Ed showed that a particular 5,500–6,300 gross‑square‑foot house would pass under the current FAR when counting only first and second floors, but would fail if a third floor or basement were included in the FAR calculation.

Participants debated policy tradeoffs. Several members argued that counting basements or attics will not prevent bulk because engineering can make basements dry, while others said including basements is necessary to prevent developers from simply shifting square footage underground. Members raised administrative concerns about counting “unbuildable” acreage (stream buffers, steep slopes, conservation jurisdiction): defining and verifying which acreage to exclude would add process and require input from other town departments (conservation, engineering, building). The committee discussed the administrative burden on buyers and developers and on boards (planning board, ZBA) if design review or additional permitting layers were added.

The group agreed on a short list of next steps and assignments. Staff (Lee Newman) will compile updated teardown and new‑build data since 2017 and prepare a table of comparable town FAR rules for towns the committee agreed are most relevant (Lexington, Wellesley, Concord and Winchester were named as comparables for follow‑up). A small volunteer working group (members volunteered during the meeting) will gather recent examples of undersized lots (generally lots under 10,000 square feet) and plug those projects into Ed’s spreadsheet model so the committee can see the actual effects of candidate FAR and measurement changes. The committee plans to present a status report at the May meeting and continue toward a possible zoning article in October.

Votes at the meeting were procedural. The committee elected co‑chairs in a roll‑call vote and then adjourned after setting the next meeting for February 3 and establishing the working group to prepare the data and examples.

The committee’s discussion made clear that members regard FAR and how height is measured as the principal levers for controlling visual bulk; they asked staff and volunteers to return with tested scenarios tied to real parcels and floor plans so the committee can evaluate tradeoffs before recommending specific bylaw changes to the planning board and, ultimately, town meeting.