Land use panel approves revised four-unit proposal at 60 Brookside, asks for Eversource transformer specs

The Newton City Land Use Committee voted 5–2 on June 20 to approve a revised special-permit application to build four attached single‑family dwellings in two buildings at 60 Brookside Ave, but conditioned final passage on the petitioner verifying that the project’s proposed electrical transformer placement complies with the utility’s published guidelines.

Attorney Lawrence Lee, representing the petitioner, told the committee the current design splits the massing into two buildings, reduces total living area to about 9,138 square feet from roughly 10,366, lowers the main building under 36 feet and increases open space to 64 percent. “We reduced the size of the buildings,” Lee said, describing a primary house with a subordinate carriage‑house form and design review support from the historical commission.

Planning Associate Sandrea Berman told the committee the project is closer to full zoning compliance than the prior filing: lot coverage and several dimensional waivers were removed; the rear setback was improved to just under 30 feet; parking maneuvering and turning radii inside the below‑grade garage were revised; and the open‑space ratio increased. Berman also noted an increase in impervious surface area due to new patios and walkways and that retaining‑wall heights were reconfigured in places.

Neighbors who live across and next to the property urged the committee to deny the four‑unit plan or scale it back to three units. Abutter Richard Frank said the revised layout still reduces the separation his family has had for decades and argued the lot‑area‑per‑unit hardship was self‑created. “We ask that you deny the petition or reduce it to three units,” Frank said during the public comment period.

Several councilors voiced competing considerations. Opponents pointed to loss of buffer space and concerns about garage access and drainage; proponents said the revised design is a restrained alternative to a by‑right redevelopment that could produce a larger, more intrusive building. “The trade‑off we have before us is between this project, thoughtfully designed to blend into the neighborhood, and a by‑right alternative that could be far more intrusive,” Councilor Sean Roach said.

After public comment and an extended committee exchange about transformer placement, drainage and tree preservation, Councilor Frell moved to approve the special permit with the standard conditions set by planning and an additional second‑call requirement that the petitioner provide documentation showing the proposed transformer placement meets Eversource guidelines. The motion passed on a roll call vote: Yes — Frell, Irish, Liry, Roach, Kelly; No — Block, Lucas.

Planning and law staff cautioned that final transformer placement is subject to the utility company’s safety review and could require an amendment if it needs to be sited inside a setback. The committee’s condition asks the petitioner to provide the relevant published guidelines and a representation that the proposed transformer location meets those guidelines before the item advances on second call.

What’s next: The committee approved the special permit subject to the listed conditions and the second‑call transformer verification. If the utility later requires a different transformer location that conflicts with the approvals, planning staff said the project may need to return to the committee for an amendment.