Trevor Jones reported in today’s Newton Tab about a proposal to build a 334 unit housing development in the Wells Ave office park off Nonantum Street. The project would include 84 units that would be set aside for tenants at or below 80% of the area median income. The remaining 250 units would be rented at market rates.
The developer (135 Wells Ave LLC) says that the apartments will be targeted at young professionals working in the tech industry along route 128. The two obvious concerns that the project raises are schools and traffic. While project manager John Sullivan doesn’t expect the project to have a major effect on the local schools, it’s hard to imagine how 334 new apartments in the area wouldn’t have a substantial impact on local school populations.
The traffic issues are also complicated. The Wells Ave location is just off Nahantan Street. Plans are already underway to add a new exit to Rt 128 at Nahantan Street which is likely to substantially increase the traffic on Nahantan Street. Adding 334 new housing units with no access to public transit will certainly add substantially to the traffic flow. The developer says that they’re conscious of the issue and will be reviewing the possibility of shuttles and other possible public transportation issues.
The proposed project would be built under the state’s 40B housing regulations which allow developers of housing for low to moderate income residents to bypass much of the local zoning ordinances, which means that the city will have limited say over the details of the proposed project. City planner Alexander Anath encouraged residents to send any concerns they have about the proposed project to [email protected]
A developer can “aim” at a young professional, but in fact families with school aged children will move into the development. Where will Newton put these new kids!
Traffic to Wells Ave is already crazy during rush hour. Residents would need to drive to everything but sports clubs.
With the two fires yesterday, I wonder if Newton has adequate equipment in the area for a 6 story apartment building. Also, since these are almost exclusively 1 or 2 bdrm rented units, the low income component of a whopping 84 units would predictably have a high number of disabled individuals. Without a bus stop or train station, getting around will be a challenge. Who’s problem will that become?
40B plus add-a-lane sounds like a lot of traffic.
Not to worry, add-a-lane will dwarf any traffic problems caused by this development.
This is a business park, about to get a major infrastructure boost thanks to a very aggressive neighbor (Needham). Why shouldn’t Newton capitalize on this and add density to business parcels here instead? With this proposal, we get the worst of all worlds — Needham’s business traffic, cut through traffic to Boston, less tax revenue and more strain on our city services.
I agree with Adam.
Bill Heck asked me to work on creating a unified media voice for the Newton Taxpayers Association.
Going forward, at the margin, the Newton Taxpayers Association supports new growth/redevelopment that targets commercial development instead of residential development. Furthermore, the Newton Taxpayers Association supports new commercial development growth that instead of targeting more ground floor retail outlet, Newton should target the following innovative industries because these industries bring good jobs at good salaries:
• Investment Management/Capital Markets
• Commercial Real Estate Management
• Insurance
• Commercial Banking (we have plenty of retail banking outlets, why not have credit analysts and other like-type jobs to go with the retail banking teller jobs)
• Technology
• Life Sciences (especially biotech, pharmaceuticals and health care equipment/devices)
• Telecommunications
• Media
• Professional and Business Services
• Specialty Manufacturing
I mentioned this to Alderman Jay Ciccone and he agreed with me 100%.
When I first heard about this proposal I was scratching my head at the idea of building a big housing development in an industrial park. Then last weekend while walking along the Charles River path on the Needham side of Christina St, I realized that they already have one in Needham. The 350 unit Charles River Landing is on 2nd Ave in Needham, backing on to the river.
It was also built as a 40B by the same developer.
@Jerry, the difference is that Wells Avenue office park is subject to a deed restriction, which trumps Chapter 40B. So unless the aldermen approve an amendment to the deed restriction, this project is going nowhere.
Very interesting. First I’ve heard of that. Thanks Ted
@Ted: Do you know what the deed restriction is or the history of how it was incorporated into the deed? Also, can you shed any light on this powerful exception that allows a deed restriction to remove a property from the state mandated Chapter 40B process?
@ Sallee: Yes and yes.
@Ted: Not helpful, Ted! If I say pretty please, with sugar on it, will you elucidate?
The 1962 decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS INC. vs. CITY OF NEWTON, 344 Mass. 428 (1962), explains the genesis and effect of the deed restriction. Briefly, in 1960, Sylvania, which had an option to purchase the property, petitioned the Board of Aldermen to rezone the property to light manufacturing in exchange for a set of deed restrictions* that included the use of what is now Wells Avenue office park, and the preservation of conservation lands along the Charles River. In Sylvania, the SJC upheld the validity of the agreement for the deed restrictions, which is referred to as “contract zoning,” against a challenge by certain Newton landowners.
Chapter 40B exempts developers from zoning restrictions. The reason it does not apply to Wells Avenue office park is based on the SJC’s holding in Sylvania (at p. 436) that the deed restrictions on the property are not “zoning restrictions.” In other words, because the deed restrictions are not “zoning restrictions,” the Chapter 40B exemption does not apply. Thus, the developer may seek a comprehensive permit under Chapter 40B only if the Board of Aldermen approves an amendment to the deed restriction. The deed restrictions may be amended by a simple majority vote of the Board of Aldermen, and approved by the Mayor.
Although it was not unusual at the time, as far as I am aware, Wells Avenue is the only such example of contract zoning in Newton.
*The deed restrictions at issue in the Sylvania case were 30 year deed restrictions. In 1969, a 99-year deed restriction in favor of he City was placed on the same property by the owners of the office park.
Thank you, Ted, for your insights. Have any other MA cities/towns used this type of “contract zoning” to work against the imposition of 40B’s?
@Sallee, thwarting 40B is not the purpose of contract zoning. So the short answer is probably not.