How well-notified are you feeling about city meetings? As a resident of a neighborhood near 70 Rowe Street, Auburndale, the site of a proposed 150-unit apartment building, I found my notice about the last (June 19) meeting hidden amongst the weekly grocery fliers that I sometimes have time to look at, sometimes not.
There’s another public meeting coming up this Wednesday, August 13, at 7:45AM, in Room 202 at City Hall, when the Newton Housing Partnership will review the proposal. I learned about this one from an email sent last night by a resident named Reilly who said this:
We received the attached notification of a public hearing regarding this project on 8/9/14. The letter was dated 8/8/14 and apparently mailed on that day as well. You can only imagine our utter surprise when we discovered that the date for this public hearing is on 8/13/14 at 7:45 AM… an advance notice of two business days on a day when most people are likely in traffic heading to work. Really? What are the city’s by-laws regarding advance notice of interested parties in public hearings regarding zoning?
and also noted that there was never the followup to the original June 19 meeting that was supposed to happen because a number of residents had prior commitments including school graduations on that evening.
I re-checked my grocery fliers, and found nothing about the August 13 meeting.
This morning the official city email from Robert Muollo in Planning, to the “interested resident” list arrived, 8:44am on a Monday before a Wednesday meeting, containing the agenda.
At 8:55am, Ward 4 alderman Lenny Gentile sent this to Robert:
We could do a lot better than 2 days notice about a meeting of such importance that is being held in the summer when many residentsof the neighborhood may well be out of town.
And at 9:39 Ward 4 aldeman Amy Sangiolo sent this:
Dear Rob,While I do appreciate the meeting notification, I would note that it is rather late. I cannot imagine that the Housing Partnership just recently put this on their August agenda. At minimum, a weeks notice should have been provided to the neighbors. Further, it would really have been nice to have given the Ward 4 and Ward. 3 Aldermen notice in advance of having to find out about this meeting from the neighbors.Aldermen Harney and myself are not able to attend as we both have work commitments. We will be sending a letter to the partnership regarding our opposition to the project as currently proposedFinally, i will also forward you a copy of a supplemental letter offered by the Ward 4 Aldermen sent to David Hanifin today regarding this proposal.
Dear Robert and Mayor Warren,
We appreciate this notice. However, this 2-day notice about a meeting for such importance is really disappointing. Does this indicate that the city doesn’t want to address community’s concerns seriously, and just plan to make this meeting as a show?
70 Rowe Street surprises just keep on coming. I will be at the 8/13/14 meeting as I have teamed up with a group of city officials and private individuals that have come up with a real alternative plan to this project.
We may have been caught off guard, but we are reacting fast.
Thanks Julia. this kind of information is so valuable for those of us who live in Newton and care about how our gov’t functions.
One of my neighbors who abuts the Carr School recently told me of his experience with school officials regarding the renovation of that school. People in the area were notified about the plans which would affect them, invited to the meetings on condition they could not speak at the meetings.
Many of those residents spoke up anyway as the plans were so disruptive to their lives/homes that they spoke up in vehement opposition.
I don’t think Mayor Warren’s rhetoric about promoting openness and transparency to all aspects of city government matches up with the reality of what is going on with this project.
I agree with Aldermen Cote, Gentile and Sangiolo’s comments regarding this.
I live off of Auburndale Avenue, just a few blocks from this project site, and I must say that I do not at all find the proposal to be anywhere near as alarming or objectionable as others (who perhaps live closer?) do. The location is basically in a commercial zone, situated across from industrial buildings that back up to the Pike. There’s access to Rowe St. from Comm. Ave, Webster St, Auburndale Ave, and Crescent St, where a separate townhouse develpment was built a number of years ago. The notion that these apartments would somehow cause either massive traffic jams or overcrowding at Burr School seems farfetched. Still, that’s no excuse for the abysmal notification that the city gave to interested residents regarding this meeting. It brings to mind the recent procedures the School Committee has been employing regarding their meetings around the Fleishman plagiarism incident. Surely there must be some way to rectify this situation so that residents aren’t constantly left in the dark regarding important decisions being made by city government officials.
@Colleen, I was at all the Carr School meetings this spring. No one was prohibited from speaking. I do not know about meetings prior to 2014.
We made a great effort to let people know about the informational meeting for the neighbors. Flyers were dropped at people’s doors a week or more before the meetings.
If anyone still has problems or questions about Carr they should contact their ward alderman, Alison Leary. I’m also happy to hear from anyone and see what I can do to answer questions and provide information.
At least the Mayor’s name [if not his signature] appears on this letter. Yep, there it is right under the City seal. And that’s pretty darn appropriate too, considering he’s the one greasing the skids for these apartment developers.
Colleen – Were the renovation disruptions in anyway unusual? I am very glad the City has repaired Carr and made it accessible. It is a beautiful school building.
Was Carr not up to code when Williams used it as a swing space?
I am fully supportive of clear and early notification to the public about all meetings scheduled in furtherance of a proposed 40B by a developer. In fact, last May the Waban Area Council sponsored a panel discussion entitled: “The ABCs of Zoning Relief for Housing Developments in Newton: A Residents’ Guide to How Developers get Permits and How the Community can have its Say.” (Check out the video on our website: http://www.wabanareacouncil.com). That said, I am compelled to applaud Robert Muollo of Newton’s Planning Department on his notification to neighbors and residents that the Newton Housing Partnership will be meeting to discuss the proposed 40B on Rowe Street on August 13. With prior 40B proposals, the public would have gotten notice only on the City’s website via [email protected] and/or by written notice on a Bulletin Board in City Hall, outside the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Aldermen. Further, the Newton Housing Partnership is well within the Open Meeting Law requirement that it post its notice and agenda for this meeting at least 48 business hours before holding it. Additionally, if you think that it was Machiavellian that the NHP scheduled this meeting at 7:30 in the morning, let me also dispel that misperception: the NHP schedules all of its meetings, and not just specifically this one, at that awful and ungodly early hour! Now that I have defended the process for the notice for this meeting as 1) being better than the process was heretofore; 2) being within the letter of the law, and 3) for being scheduled at its “normal”, although citizen-unfriendly, early morning hour, let me suggest a different approach. Proposals of 40B’s are spreading like chicken pox through our city. Newton residents need timelines attached to each 40B proposal, from the time the City is first notified by the State that a developer intends to seek a 40B comprehensive permit to the time of every scheduled meeting date and comment period attendant to each step in furtherance of that proposal. The timeline needs to be clear and well publicized. And when a 40B discussion is to be on its agenda, the Newton Housing Partnership and all other boards, committees and commissions that participate in discussions of 40B’s should be expected to schedule their meetings in the evening when interested and concerned residents can attend.
Margaret, the Carr abutter was referring to an early attempt to bring the buses to the side of the school for drop off. The neighbors spoke out against this proposal. The original idea was for the buses to enter off Linwood, circle in back of the 4 abutting homes and drive through to Nevada St. At that meeting the school officials initially prohibited any public comments. The proposal was poorly received and people spoke against it.
@Former SC Supporter, if you think traffic congestion won’t be an issue, maybe you don’t have to deal with getting through the Wolcott/Lexington St/Comm Ave intersection at anything close to rush hours. Try that in September after people are back to work and school. Crescent street is one-way in from Webster; you can’t drive out that way, I presume for visibility/safety reasons, because you can’t see what’s coming west-to-east on Webster due to the curve in the road. So there’s only one way out to Webster St. If you want to get to or from Rowe to Comm, it’s via the already overburdened Wolcott/Lexington intersection, or the little back way across the Comm Ave carriageway, where there are more visibility issues due to the curve and hill of Comm Ave., complicated by backups when the Star Market delivery tractor-trailers do their backing into the delivery bay thing and tie up Comm Ave traffic.
Sallee, I’m not sure “spreading like chicken pox” is the right metaphor. I’m old enough that I’ve had chicken pox, but nowadays kids get vaccinated. In the case of 40Bs, the vaccination would be having a Housing Production Plan, which the Planning Department seems unwilling to do.
I do agree that evening meetings are accessible for more people, but given the neighborhood concerns over Rowe Street, this morning meeting could be well attended, so I hope there’s a backup location in case Room 202 is not sufficient.
@Jim Cote, thank you for tackling this issue as a brand new alderman. I think a lot of people will be interested to hear your idea.
@ Julia. All good points of the reality and simple observation, especially about the Supermarket trucks backing up.
EVERYTHING else aside (affordable housing, 40B, diversity, etc, etc), that area is simply not physically equipped to handle even 5 more cars. It’s just not.
This is like trying to fit 10 cars into 5 parking spaces. The physical world we live in won’t allow it.
The present situation is terrible, so the proposal to date is illogical and an attempt to bend time and space.
@Julia: You’re of course correct about chicken pox! I should have said the flu!
I’m not saying I like this proposal. But, in general, the city needs to get to its 10% affordable requirement so we don’t have to worry about any more 40Bs in the neighborhoods.
http://whoa-70-rowe.tumblr.com/
It came to my attention that 180 pages of public comments were received regarding the 70 Rowe Street project.
The only one that supported it was former David Cohen operative Gerry Chervinsky. I’m not surprised that Gerry C supported it, considering he supported the Newton Political Insider Group’s candidate slate last year (Setti Warren, Chris Steele, Deb Crossley, Andrea Steenstrup & Eve Tapper).
We were told that David Cohen was in the past, yet the same people pushing David Cohen are now the same people pushing these gaudy monstrosities that privatize profits for developers and socialize costs to taxpayers.
Gerry C is such an obnoxious left-winger even Ben Miller loathes him.
@Jared: Are you advocating that the residents of Auburndale take another one for the team and that we put up with any old crap being built just to get to the magic 10% SHI? You do know that there are hundreds if not thousands of units set to expire in the next couple decades so it’s not just a case of getting to the 10% but also staying there. And just because a town meets the 10% mandate doesn’t mean that there won’t be more 40B’s. It just means the town has the power to say no (if they choose to). And who’s to say the state won’t change the rules again?
Geez, what with Riverside, Turtle Lane, Myrtle Village, Parks & Rec, Auburn St, Crescent St et al I think we’ve about had our fill in Auburndale. How about we stick this on WEST NEWTON HILL?
Peter, I think the best place for a 40B housing project is on Prince Street myself.
@Jared– I’ve heard that argument before. But it really doesn’t make sense. It’s like saying let’s ruin our neighborhoods, so we won’t have to worry about them being ruined anymore. These large 40B apartment buildings are like a blight on Newton. They overburden our school system and will irrevocably change the character of our villages. We need to elect people who will fight back against 40B, not roll out the red carpet for apartment developers. There are other ways to create affordable housing besides large apartment buildings.
@Jared – I agree that Newton needs to reach its 10% level. Affordable units is an important component to any City/Town’s housing stock.
@Peter – I also agree that there are areas of Newton that have disproportionate amounts of larger scale apartment communities. In fact, I’ve been following this trend for some time now, and it appears that the northern half of the City has the vast majority of Newton’s affordable housing. The southern half, and in particular Ward 8, have only realized less than a handful of units over the last decade. I do not believe that this skew is fair to residents of Auburndale and other northern villages, and in my opinion it also makes for poor City planning.
@Mike – The 40B statute has been around since the 60’s and isn’t going anywhere. That said, just because a project is a “40B” doesn’t mean it’s going to ruin a neighborhood. Here’s an example: there’s currently a proposal for a mixed use 40B on Wells Ave (Ward 8, by the way) that has some public commercial space on the ground floor. From what I understand from the developer’s proposal, the project’s “thesis” responds to a national trend called “live-work-play” where employers are increasingly locating their businesses proximate to where their employees can live. Makes sense to me! Sure, the site may have some drawbacks, but at least there’s no “ruining of any neighborhoods”, and if the thesis holds true, perhaps the project will help Newton attract some Class-A commercial tenants to help its tax base. To @Jared’s point, this seems like a responsible way for the City to crawl out from under the 10% threshold. Contact your Alderman and voice your opinion, I know I will be.
Letting 40Bs get us to the 10% affordable housing number would be a disaster. Think about the math. In the Rowe St. example, the developer is proposing 150 units, 30 of which are affordable. By increasing the city’s housing stock by 150 units, doesn’t that require 15 additional affordable units (10 % of the 150 new units)? So of the 30 affordable units in this development, 15 would cover the new development itself, leaving us with a net gain of only 15 affordable units. Thus this huge 150 unit development would bring the city only 15 units closer to the 10% goal, when we need hundreds (I think around 900?) to get there. Crazy! If my assumption (that the 40Bs add to the base number of housing units on which the 10% is calculated) is right, we’d need 9000 units of 40B development give us the 900 affordable units we need.
There has to be a better way.
@Allison – That’s not how 40B’s work. ALL units (not just the affordables) are counted towards the 10%.
Allison, your math is right. Of course new units of any kind get added to the denominator. Including all those by-right and special permit market-rate units which keep raising the denominator. At the very least we need to only allow 40Bs that count 100% to the Subsidized Housing Inventory (rentals that meet the arcane rules for financing, etc), make sure they’re deed restricted to be affordable in perpetuity and not convertible to condos, or we need to get state law changed, or in a generation or two the only way to get to 10% will be to start building high-rises in parks and playing fields and conservation land because that’s the only land that will be left.
@Eric — really? That does make me feel much better (though per Julia’s comment, it sounds like that’s not always the case).
Actually, what is also worrying is that Riverside will NOT count in the SHI since only 15 % of the units will be affordable. We will have all those units but they will not count.
Newton is a built-out city: there is no land for new construction and certainly we do not need more luxury condos. As I am writing, I hear the bull-dozers demolishing Angier (so far the chimney is still standing) and the back-up beep-beeps of the construction trucks on my street as not so musical counterpoints!
Eric– I’m a commercial developer who has been directly involved with a handful of 40B projects. Just because 40B has been around for years, doesn’t mean it’s a good piece of legislation. And you need to be aware that not every municipality plays by the same rules. Where some communities have discovered the secret of fighting back against out-of-scale development, Newton lays out the red carpet for apartment developers.
Allow me to clear up a couple of your misconceptions. Your response to Allison was only partially correct. When large condominium projects are built under 40B, only those units dedicated as “affordable” are counted toward the requirement.
You are correct that when an apartment building is built under 40B, all the units in that building are applied to the 10% goal. Now, does that really make sense? When used in this way, 40B discourages homeownership in favor of a transiency, and undermines the very objective it was created [and failed] to achieve, a 10% “affordable” community. For a community that might be inclined [Newton?] to reach the minimum standard in that way [through large apartment buildings] the 10% is illusory. With that community having been irrevocably transformed through large apartment buildings, without ever actually coming close to the 10% affordable goal. So if you really have warm feelings about the “affordable” objective in Newton, large apartment buildings are not your friends. They make the developers rich, and the community pays for it.
As to your support for that 40B proposed for Wells Ave… The “thesis” you describe is not entirely without merit. I agree that an apartment building would add some life to an otherwise 9-5 area. Needham did it nearby, and it seems to work well. But the first thing Newton residents should be asking about a massive proposal like that… “What’s in it for us?”
It’s a given that the developer will make a lot of money. But should the developer’s good fortune come at the expense of our existing residents and taxpayers? The biggest single expense that comes along with large apartment buildings is generally borne by the closest elementary school. Avalon Apartments on Needham Street was responsible for more than 100 new students at Countryside. To the City of Newton, there’s nothing “affordable” about that result. So if our elected officials choose to allow the Wells Ave project, they should damn well make sure they get as much out of the developer as possible.
If I were Mayor Warren, I’d be in the developers face, demanding they fund a new 10 year pilot program for our school system, in exchange for the city’s cooperation. If Mayor Warren get’s anything less than that, he’s selling the city short.
Mike, reasons such as “adding students”, traffic, other fiscal restrictions, such as new apartments or condos having a much larger percentage of studio and one bedroom units than larger units, are considered federal legal violations. Many towns across the country have been sued for these violations.
I lived in a small town in CT that had a lot size restriction (no smaller than one acre) in a large area. It was sued by the federal authorities for discrimination, rightfully so.
Mike, I’m interested in how you would increase the number of affordable units without going down the 40B route. Are there any incentives for private developers to do so, or would this fall on the city to do something directly?
@Marti– I’m not sure which specific legal precedents you’re referring to. Concerns about traffic and schools come along with any large project. And I’m not proposing legislation that would place new limits on apartments. I’m simply suggesting a better strategy for dealing with 40B developers, whose mindset and financial nuances I know reasonably well. Each of these apartment projects should be judged on its own merit. But any initial proposal must be met with a healthy dose of arm twisting from the Mayor, in order to strike a deal that benefits the city, not just the developer.
For example, I opposed the development of Avalon Apartments on Needham Street, [which eventually added over 100 students to Countryside school], because the developer was making a fortune and offering nothing of benefit to Newton schools. On the other hand, I might view the proposed 40B on Wells Ave in a much more favorable light, if that developer agreed to offer something. But it’s incumbent on the Mayor to understand the financial dynamic in play, and use the power of his office to negotiate a favorable deal.
It’s worth noting that the developer of the proposed Wells Ave 40B owns a lot of buildings in that area. If I were in Mayor Warren’s position, I’d be asking the developer for a 10 year–zero cost lease of sufficient space, to launch a new pilot school. Thus mitigating the impact of the approximate number of new public school students generated by that development.
@Robert– Newton could help create some affordable housing units by loosening restrictions on in-law suites and carriage house conversions. In 2007 I spent $25K simply making the legal case to renovate an existing carriage house on my property. The City has to make things like that easier and less expensive. Carriage houses and in-law suites are admittedly a drop in the bucket though.
Frankly, developers are unlikely to include so-called “affordable” units without a profit motive. But that doesn’t mean 40B is the answer. 40B is designed to do one thing–increase the number of affordable homes in any subject community. But 40B does not take into account the consequences associated with massive apartment buildings. That’s where our local leaders must find the courage and wisdom to strike a balance.
For example: There was a proposal from a private developer to build a mixed-use property on Willow Street in Newton Centre. That developer was in a unique position, because they own the only private parcel of land within what’s been referred to as the “Firefighter’s Triangle.” Their public/private partnership proposal included both a new fire station and a certain number of affordable residential units. Regrettably, Mayor Warren chose to not pursue that particular proposal. But I do believe there are a lot of potential affordable housing units that could be harvested from similar public/private partnerships. We may still see something like that over in Newtonville, but the Mayor seems determined to give away most of the value associated with that project.
Mike — If the city owns certain parcels of land like the Austin St parking lot, what’s to stop the city itself building affordable housing for rent? Is public housing of that nature unheard of in this country? (I’m from the UK, where local authorities are obliged to provide a certain amount of public housing.)
Eric, you are dead wrong when you write “That’s not how 40B’s work. ALL units (not just the affordables) are counted towards the 10%.”
We have a 36 unit proposed for Court Street and only 9 units count. Please correct your statement. Rental projects are treated differently than condos. Please know the facts before writing
And Salle, when the NHP discussed the Court Street development with Bob Engler, the for-profit developer and former long-term chair of the NHP, NO RESIDENTS were informed. And we certainly were not included in the agenda.
As for the May 1st meeting you reference, Brooke Lipsett of the ZBA stated that if the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) gives its approval, the ZBA pretty much always approves.
At an April 24th Court Street site visit, the DHCD’s Catherine Racer stated that if the Mayor signs a letter about a project, the DHCD almost always approves. Candace Havens will affirm that she said this.
Finally, the Mayor told a group of 20+ Court Street residents on Jan 24th that he had little influence on a 40B.
The whole process is screwy and undemocratic and needs repair. It will do us no good here on Court Street but hopefully others will be spared being treated like mushrooms: kept in the dark and covered in manure,
@Robert– I can’t speak about the rest of the country, but public housing being owned by the City of Newton is unheard of. At least on any substantial level like the Austin Street project. Frankly, the City is ill prepared for such a venture during either the planning, construction, or operational phases.
@Bob– The Mayor is ill informed. I can attest to the fact that local elected officials can have great influence on a 40B. Not long ago I was attempting to obtain a permit for a 66 unit 40B apartment building in a town south of Boston. Local officials told me in effect–“we can do this the easy way, or the hard way.” They asked that the proposal be restricted to age qualified renters of 55 years or older. I saved myself 1-2 years of battling, by accepting their deal. They saved their schools from an influx of new students. Deals like this are cut all the time.
I believe the truth about Mayor Warren, is that he doesn’t want to stand up to these developers. Warren is a strong supporter of 40B,and it’s more politically tenable for him to suggest theres nothing he can do, rather then to step in and try to do something.
Hi @Mike – Quick point of clarification: Newton does have an official housing authority (http://www.newtonhousing.org/) by which it maintains about 1300 housing units (according to the site).
The Authority is not a direct arm of City government, but is a significant player in the provision and maintenance of affordable housing in the City.
Chris– Thanks for the information. Im curious… Where does the funding come from for the Housing Authority? I’m assuming it’s the State since I see the Commonwealth’s logo on their website.
@Mike – I don’t honestly know. I saw the Commonwealth logo and thought the same thing.