Newton aldermen are considering whether to lift a deed restriction and allow construction of a six-story, 334-unit apartment complex at Wells Avenue Office Park, the Globe’s Ellen Ishkanian reports.
And here’s The TAB”s Jim Morrison’s report.
Aldermen committee to vote Monday on Wells Ave deed restriction
by Village 14 | Nov 9, 2014 | Wells Ave | 40 comments
Watch carefully as the aldermen vote on this issue. What each person says won’t be as important as how each one votes. It will be worthwhile to tally up those who vote yes. Mark Laredo will be the key vote to watch. What ever he says will indicate the direction our city will go regarding 40Bs.
@Colleen: Aldermen don’t get to vote to approve 40Bs per say. and that’s not what this vote is about tomorrow.
I’d suggest that anyone who looks at this through the same lens as the other 40Bs before us will be making a mistake. This is very different in many ways, including the fact that it’s not directly abutting any residential properties or neighborhoods. On the other hand, approval would move us closer to our 40B requirement, which could eventually stop the onslaught of these projects elsewhere.
In this case, i believe removing the deed restrictions would be a mistake.
I normally don’t agree with Dan Fahey but when he’s right I’ll give him credit.
I do not support lifting the deed restriction and I agree with Fahey that it would be a mistake to do. so.
To recap, can someone provide a reference for just how close we are to the 10% affordable housing threshold in this city? I thought it was a lost cause.
There is nothing in the 40B statute that requires a municipality to roll over and play dead. As a developer who’s been involved with 40B projects in other communities, I’ve long advocated Newton employ a more adversarial strategy with developers of large 40B apartment buildings. Our mayor on the other hand has suggested there’s nothing he can do to slow down these massive projects.
The key to stopping a project like Wells Ave is to change the financial dynamic for the developer, forcing them to spend as much time and money as possible in the permitting process. Sometimes stating that position up front, is enough to get a developer to walk away. Other times it brings a developer to the negotiating table, where the city has an opportunity to substantially downsize a project and/or extract a public benefit[s]. Only the most deep pocketed developers will dig in their heels for a battle that can take years and cost a fortune in legal fees.
That is how we should deal with every 40B proposal for a large scale apartment building in Newton. The only thing unique about Wells Ave is our weapon of choice, in this case a deed restriction. But the City has at it’s disposal a virtual arsenal of tools that can be used to [at least temporarily] derail any massive 40B proposal. And given the current public sentiment about 40B, no developer in their right mind is going to willingly engage in a battle that could take years, risking a high likelihood that the statute will be changed by the time they reach the finish line.
I have no idea about the deed restrictions on the Wells Ave. property, so I’m commenting solely on the process. How many times does it have to be stated that 40b is a state law with which the city has to comply – just like every other city and town in Massachusetts? To look to one aldermanic vote as to how the city is going to follow state law just doesn’t make sense to me at all. If we want to get the 40b burden off our backs, then let’s look at realistic, legal ways to get the city to the 10% mark. As for the obstructionist approach that Mike S advocates, I’m 100% opposed. It’s government at its worst.
That being said, this is an odd location for a residential complex so it’s hard to predict who might live there. Wells Ave. is a culture-free environment with little to attract any demographic. I can definitely imagine myself living in a condo/apt. complex near a village center at some point in the future. Wells Ave.? Not happening, and I can’t imagine my millennial (grown) kids living there either.
Living in the middle of nowhere with no public transportation to speak of, surrounded by big box businesses isn’t exactly a major draw for anyone I know. When I think of this project, I envision the empty strip malls of the 80’s, the overbuilding of casinos in the 2000’s, or the death by bank/nail salons of village centers – why would anyone think Wells Ave. is going to become a thriving residential area? I just don’t see it happening. If the anticipated success of a development has anything to do with how an alderman votes on the deed restriction, I can imagine a no vote.
@Adam: The Planning Department is looking into that question currently. There are other ways of meeting 40B besides the 10% affordable housing units.
@Jane– You crack me up! You support a moratorium on tear-downs, which effectively replace one single-family home with another, because you don’t like bigger houses in your neighborhood. But when a developer wants to drop a 334 unit apartment building on someone else’s neighborhood, you’re fine with that.
See this as less a 40B issue, and more about it being poor location for the intended purposes.
Mike-I didn’t support the moratorium.
@jane: 135 Wells Ave is zoned LMD (Limited Manufacturing District) or commercial and, like the rest of the lots on Wells Ave, has a 99 year deed restriction to commercial use.
Jane– I realize there is more than one person named “Jane.” I apologize if I’ve misstated your position. Here’s what someone named Jane said on the Tab Blog…
August 12, 2014, 9:11 PM
If the City officials or BOA don’t like a moratorium, then come up with a better plan to preserve moderate priced housing. We’ve been talking zoning reform for years – maybe a moratorium will actually get people moving and make it happen.
This is a complicated issue.
The 40B application is proceeding before the Zoning Board of Appeals, which is the body that rules on 40B applications, not the Board of Aldermen (and its Land Use committee), though Land Use might have some limited site-plan approval authority.
The ZBA seems likely to approve the 40B application, which sets us up for litigation between the City and the developer over whether or not 40B’s authority applies to end-run deed restrictions as it end-runs zoning regulations.
The developer’s intent in getting the deed restriction lifted was to avoid that litigation. I count at least three no votes (Laredo, Lipof, Schwartz). I suspect it will go down 3-5 or so.
The no-aldermen have some basis for their position: a residential building on this site would take another significant lot off the commercial tax rolls and onto the residential tax rolls. The Comprehensive Plan has identified Wells Ave as one of the significant engines of commercial tax revenue in the city.
But, it’s an oversimplified view of the potential of Wells Avenue. There are already lots of non-commercial uses, including one significant non-profit owner (no taxes) and the potential for two more. Rents are stagnant. The capacity for more actual commercial (office) use is limited both by the design of the office park itself — one entrance/exit serving the whole park — and the growing traffic volumes on Nahantan.
I suspect that you can fill all the reasonable office demand without 135 Wells Ave. The question, then, ought to be whether or not 135 Wells Ave. could be the catalyst for improvements that jumpstart new investment.
It’s a tough call. As I wrote a while back, 135 Wells Ave is not where I would put dense housing. On the other hand, the city is playing a weak hand on the litigation front. Seems worth taking advantage of this market opportunity to do something at Wells Ave.
Mike – Just when I thought I could stop using jane… Actually I have no recollection of anything that happened in August, but I do know that I was never involved in the push for a moratorium in any way or a part of a group that did, never contacted Amy Sangiolo to express support for it, never contacted any alderman one way of the other on the issue, or attended a private or public meeting or public hearing about it. I ran into one alderman after the fact and we agreed that a moratorium wasn’t going to achieve its intended result. I have expressed my frustration with the tear down of moderately priced housing in the city and will continue to do so.
Sometimes people take the blogs too seriously.
Here’s something important that’s being overlooked in this conversation…
Cabot Cabot & Forbes is offering to to underwrite more than $1 million in traffic mitigation, street/sidewalk renovations and other infrastructure improvements along Wells Ave, Nahanton, Winchester and Dedham Streets. They also plan to operate a shuttle bus that would serve not just residents at 135 Wells but others in the park too. These improvements should greatly benefit the entire park and improve the awful traffic conditions along Nahanton, Winchester and Dedham Steets.
But CC&F says those improvement will come of the table if they have to engage in a long and costly court battle over whether or not the deed restriction trumps 40B.
So the aldermen will be rolling the dice if they chose to deny lifting the deed restriction.
I see a parallel between this and the efforts in the 90s by Stop & Shop to build on Needham Street. As some will recall, Stop & Shop offered to fund something along the lines of $1 million for improvements along Needham Street.
Aldermen rejected Stop & Shop and we’re still waiting for Needham Street to be fixed.
@greg. The mitigation money that the City Engineer Lou Taverna asked for the I and I (Infiltration and Inflow?) of the sewer system) was $4 millions. The ZBA Chair bulldozed her committee into voting for $750 000, which satisfied the applicant (CCF), indeed.
She also gave away money that the City desperately need to upgrade a sewer system that cannot support the water use of at least 600 new bedrooms. Watch out for flooding in the rest of the city, since the Wells Ave sewers are at the beginning of the network that flow through the city.
The Chair also argued and got parking spaces reduced to 1.4 per unit: right now, cars are parked all along the roadway of Wells Ave. Where are the people with no parking spots going to park? There were 49 conditions imposed by the City but the Chair (and some of her development-connected colleagues) did not have our city’s best interest at heart. Some of those committee members should really recuse themselves as there are serious doubts about their ability to keep the best interests of Newton residents in mind.
The shuttle? Please! It would run in the morning and at night!
The traffic? A little circle with plants where there is already an island; a traffic light at Winchester and Nahanton? They would ‘contribute’ to the cost, not pay for it. Will it decrease the number of cars at those horrific intersections????
@Isabelle: I suppose only having a ride to and from your home to the T at commuting hours is terrible, unless of course, what you need is a ride to and from the T during commuting hours! But better for you to judge what works for someone else than someone who might actually appreciate that service.
Jane– I hope you’ll accept my apology. I’m glad to hear you didn’t support the proposed moratorium. Perhaps you can see why I was confused, because this was your namesake’s first response to the Tab Blog story detailing Alderman Sangiolo’s moratorium proposal.
August 12, 2014, 4:14 PM
Go Amy!
Greg forgot to mention one of the most important benefits associated with the Wells Ave project. Lots and lots of new friends for the kids in south side elementary schools. If Avalon on Needham Street is any kind of indicator, Wells Ave would put 100+ new school children in the school system. Any time a developer approaches Newton with a proposal for a large apartment building, the first think we should require of them is to mitigate the educational costs associated with their development. No dough = No go! The million bucks the developer is offering for infrastructure improvements is self-serving, and much of it would likely be required of them anyway, even under 40B.
Cars parked on Wells are just parents doing pick-up and drop-offs at Russian Math and the gymnastics place. Parents who don’t want to bother with driving thru the parking lots. There are many empty parking lots on Wells Ave beside the buildings with space for rent signs.
Isn’t add-a-lane still on the table in this very area? Won’t add-a-lane create a lot more traffic in this area?
Also, there is a very simple solution in slowing down affordable housing, without breaking the law, that fits within the comprehensive plan and the city should fully support (but won’t). My understanding is if the city came up with a game plan (just a game plan) to get to 10% of affordable housing, as long as it is approved and they stay on track, the city gets a lot more decision making powers over 40B projects that enter the city.
@Tom: Add A Lane could very well bring more cars to that area which is all the more reason to want the road improvements Cabot Cabot & Forbes are willing to underwrite, as well as the shuttle.
It worth remembering that Boston Sports Club — currently at 135 Wells — also brings a lot of round trips (often at rush hour) in and out of Wells Ave at peak hours.
Also, Adam I believe we are around 7.4% (give or take)….I believe we are roughly 7-800 units before we get to the 10% as well. You can wait for the exact numbers, but that’s my best estimate.
If we found away to create in-law apartments so that they apply for affordable housing we can create a huge dent in what the city needs, without adversely affecting the city.
No problem, Mike. I wouldn’t take my posts on V14 too seriously. For the most part, I try to stick to a 10 minute rule – read, post and be off in ten minutes, unless it’s an issue related to the schools. I have appreciated Amy’s efforts to take action about problems for many years and often cheer her on, and may very well have in this case. Beyond that, I had little interest in the moratorium and didn’t follow the story. In fact, I have no idea when or if a vote was taken on it. But I continue to like Amy’s willingness to stick her neck out with out-of-the-box thinking. Sometimes her willingness to do so stimulates other solutions to a problem.
9 min. 35 sec., so I’m off!
“Just a game plan” what an understatement. The catchy part is “as long as it is approved and stays on track.” To stay on track, it must actually create those units of affordable housing. You put this on the city (government) so if the mayor and his administration develop a plan suitable to meet the provisions needed to keep 40B developers from basically doing whatever they want, that would be find by you? Well, they can’t just do that. With all the elected officials, committee members, neighborhood associations and the public weighing in on how the plan will accomplish its affordable housing goals every year, it’s not the city refusing to create such a game plan, but getting the citizens to agree on a plan that keeps it from happening.
Jane– Glad to hear we have something in common… Both Amy Sangiolo fans! Just couldn’t support her on the moratorium.
Has the city promoted such a game plan? Because I have yet to see one. Please give me a link to it, if I’m wrong. If there is no link, then the city hasn’t tried.
OR has tried and failed to come up with a game plan.
The developers and the N2 Chamber are in disagreement with the city planning department and the administration’s comprehensive plan about whether housing, especially at this density, is the best use of the land. The Newton-Needham Chamber has a vision for the N2 corridor that is in opposition to Newton’s Comprehensive Plan. Does that make sense? Two major groups of people are planning two entirely different visions for Newton. How do we work with that?
And the Newton legal department says the deed restriction trumps the permit for the 40B. Do we really want to go to court?
This development would have 334 apartments with 87 of them deed restricted for 80% AMI affordable (permanently I believe) (27%) and 247 apartments at market rate (73%). And because they are apartments, the entire 334 units will count toward meeting the 10% (as ridiculous as it seems).
Since the one way in and one way out seem to be a problem, could the developer change that?
Does Newton now have an effective way to keep track of the 87 apartment tenants continuing to meet the 80% AMI requirements and not let them grow to 140%, meaning some would be making more than the median income of Newton? Will the regulatory agreement allow incomes to grow to 140% as it does with Avalon Newton Highlands?
The shuttle is effective only for the tenants who leave at a specified time and return at a specified time and use the green line commuter rail. I don’t see any mention of multiple times. If this developer sells to another owner, will the new owner continue the shuttle? I ask because while homeownership 40B’s have a cap on the profit made from a “flip” of around 20% with any additional profit going to the town, rental deveopements have no cap and retain all profit in a sale. Avalon sold at least 2 of its large rental developments to a Delaware limited liability company for over $40 million and $65 million.
@Marti: some really good questions there. For starters…
I have great respect for the Comprehensive Plan but in this instance I don’t think it takes into account the changes in markets and what companies are looking for in 2014 when choosing a location. Office parks don’t have the desirability they once had. Employees don’t want long commutes. Companies can’t hire if they there’s no place for their employees to live. Plus we really need the infrastructure improvements now. This appears to be the most direct path to achieving that before this current economic expansion cycle ends.
Yes the Chamber and the city disagree over the specifics of this project but we agree 100 percent on the larger vision. We share the belief that this area has great potential as a destination for innovation sector companies, including companies that outgrow Kendall Square or the Seaport District, or from overseas and other states.
“How do we work with that?,” you ask.
The same way we work with anything else. We advocate our position, make compromises if/when appropriate, hope things go the way you believe is best, and either way, move on in a continued spirit of cooperation.
Tom, I’m certainly not against having a plan approved and carried out by the City, I just don’t see it happening anytime soon and pointing fingers and making it sound simple doesn’t help, in my opinion. I would definitely like to reach the 10% and not be at the mercy of a flawed law like 40B.
In addition to being required to meet the number of units per year stipulated in a city plan, even with one and after meeting the percentage, the certification only lasts as long as we keep it up.
One way some communities deal with the inevitability of 40B’s is to develop guidelines including density, design, etc. and maps with parcels of adaptable land marked for developers to use in their initial planning stages.
Marti,
135 Wells Ave would be rental apartments. (It’s only with rental apartments that the odd rule that some affordable apartments mean that all apartments count against the 40B cap.)
I must be missing something. I thought that was what I said. “and because they are apartments …”
Thanks Greg. I feel that as just a citizen I can only ask questions and hope for a glimpse of agreement from both sides as positions are presented. This one seems to be a tip off with the answers still in the air.
Marti– I respectfully suggest you’re focusing on the wrong downside issue associated with this project. While it would most certainly have an effect on traffic, the much larger impact would be on schools. If I were a Countryside or Spaulding parent, I’d be very concerned about this project.
After listening to Mike’s comments about the impact on schools, wouldn’t the SC be well advised to keep in mind the need for an additional new school building on the south side and rethink the plan to build a mega school on the Zervas site.
Mike Striar, it’s seems pretty clear that I’m not focusing on any particular downside. Traffic was one sentence on my post and I was just asking if it could be addressed. I don’t have any agenda here; I’m just trying to look at both sides and brainstorm how problems might be solved, any problems, so decisions can be made. Newton needs to meet the affordable housing quota and stay there before we can effectively regulate 40B development, that’s a fact.
Other facts are: (Open to correction, of course.)
It is a rental building so all units count (300+) toward the 10% needed,
It’s not directly in a neighborhood,
The land has a commercial deed restriction for 99 years, I think,
The legal department says the deed restriction trumps 40B,
The ZBA is approving whatever deal has been made (Isabel has some interesting insight above),
If both of the above are true, then Newton goes to court spending lots of money without knowing the cost/benefit,
If the deed restriction can be lifted, the development goes forward,
There is disagreement over the likelihood that this is in an area where people want to live,
Traffic may be and public services and schools will be negatively impacted,
Commercial property is taxed higher than residential,
The developer is proposing services that may or may not be useful,
The developer is pointing out that if Newton isn’t ready for their deveopment, surrounding towns are, (doesn’t sound
like the start of a friendly 40B,
The developer could sell the complex for a profit, with the city receiving nothing, because it is rental property,
There is no guarantee a new owner will continue promised services,
There is no guarantee that a regulatory agreement has not been or will not be signed letting a tenants income reach
140% AMI, as it has been with Avalon Newton Highlands.
I’m sure these are not all the facts, but all will have to be taken into consideration when making a decision.
Marti: That’s a pretty reasonable list, I’d just like to address two points…
I do think it is legally possible to enter an agreement with the city that requires the services be continued as a condition of a sale.
I think you are misinterpreting this quote from the developer which appeared in the TAB..
I don’t think, Doherty was referring to taking his project elsewhere. He was referring to the fact that Burlington, Cambridge, Needham and other communities have already taken steps to rezone and re-imagine their office parks/industrial areas to reflect the changes in what businesses look for when choosing a location, which includes placing housing near offices.