Newton has met its 40B threshold and is confident it can withstand a 40B challenge, Jim Morrison writes on Wicked Local Newton. Here’s two key excerpts…
[Chief Administrative Officer Dori] Zaleznik said the city was very conservative in calculating the numbers and is fully confident it would withstand a legal challenge from a developer. She said that when other communities have claimed to meet the 1.5 percent threshold, they’ve been challenged before the state’s Housing Appeal Committee, but once the determination is upheld, subsequent developers are much less likely to challenge it.
Mayor Setti Warren said meeting the threshold is important for the city, but it doesn’t mean the end of affordable housing developments here. Warren said he plans to create more affordable housing in the city so that by 2021, 10 percent of the housing in Newton is affordable.
“We’re still committed to creating more affordable housing,” Warren said.
It’s about freaking time this city fought back against 40B!
Striar: It’s about freaking time this city fought back against 40B!
Mike are you willing to concede the possibility that all the time you’ve been saying “The mayor isn’t doing anything to stop 40B…The mayor isn’t doing anything to stop 40B.. The mayor isn’t doing anything to stop 40B.. ” that maybe he was?
I never heard of the 1.5% rule. I assume now that Wells Ave is off the table? They can’t use 40B on us any more.
Hi tomsheff, unfortunately the City did not invoke the 1.5% exemption in time to block the Wells Avenue application.
@ Mike, I’m not sure that’s true since the city rejected the Wells Av developer’s request. And the denial is not based on the 1.5% threshold; it was denied its request to waive deed restrictions.
That is correct Dan. They rejected it for other reasons but did not invoke the 1.5% rule. The problem with that is the developer can still appeal to the HAC and has stated that they will. If the City had invoked the 1.5% exemption on time, the developer could not have appealed.
@ Mike, why are you so sure that the 1.5% issue couldn’t be applied if by some chance the deed restriction were to get overturned by the courts? You may be correct, but wondering on what basis you assume that?
@Dan
ZBA have upto 15 days after opening the hearing to declare 1.5% or 10% compliance.
But was ZBA ruling on 40b or a deed restriction?
The question of whether a deed restriction trumps 40B, needs to be looked at from two different perspectives. First, does the City have a right to deny a 40B application based on the deed restriction? But there’s a second question that needs to be asked. Do the other property owners on Wells Ave have their own set of rights under the deed restriction? Even if it’s ultimately determined that the City cannot reject the application, abutters may hold some sway. Deed restrictions are not like zoning regulations that can be changed over time. A deed restriction is intended to be permanent. Anyone who bought a property on Wells Ave is not only limited by the deed restriction, they also have a right to expect the restriction to remain in effect. This presents a different question than whether the City has a right to reject the application.
There’s a very good Paul McMorrow column in the Globe tonight about Wells Ave.
The city never should have ganged up against that development. As the development in Needham’s industrial park very clearly proved, these projects are a huge net gain when tax revenue is measured against the marginal increase in education and services spending. And these projects consistently end up with far fewer pupils than anyone forecasts, because (for better or for worse) they’re unattractive as long-term housing for families.
The only drawback of a Wells Ave. development would have been traffic. From years of observing the mess created by the Wells Av./JCC/Nahanton St. following its installation in the 1990s, I can confidently proffer that the traffic issue could very easily be solved with a 10-to-1 ratio of green light cycles, with a 100-second green for Nahanton and a 10-second green for the entering traffic.
…years of observing the mess created by the Wells Av./JCC/Nahanton St. traffic light, I meant to say.
mayor warren may be committed to affordable housing for the city but are his constituents?
Have you attended any of the 40b hearings at city hall? If the latest Rowe Street debacle is any indicator he and his political supporters will be having an uphill battle.
@Blueprintbill – Wrong. Just wrong. That may be your issue, but it’s not ours. And if you were from this neighborhood you would understand that. The Auburndale/West Newton neighborhood is opposed to the proposed 40b development on Rowe St because of the mass and density of the project as well as serious traffic issues, not to mention the issue of converting one of the city’s limited commercially-zoned parcels to residential. It is NOT because it would contain some affordable units. There is a mixed-income townhouse development barely 50 yards from this proposed site, as well as several others nearby. Affordable housing is NOT the issue here.
Thanks for the link, Michael. Besides the loss in tax revenue, McMorrow seems to miss the more common objections, such as the fact that this is more like one of those highway-oriented developments CCF has traditionally built out and not one with a natural walkable neighborhood. It’s also misleading to suggest that there is a new “plan” for the office park, only for that one site.
It could very well be that the Wells Ave property would be profitable, but I’m not convinced on the pupil count. Short-term housing with the opportunity to enroll in Newton schools is exactly what drives up enrollment.
What Trisha said re affordable housing.
@Adam: I’m going to start a new thread on the McMorrow column but if that’s your impression of the Wells Ave. project, perhaps you missed some of the details. It may not be located in walking distance to shopping, but it was in walking distance to two college campuses, a cultural center/fitness facility, walking trails/conservation land and potentially a lot of peoples’ offices. Plus is was going to have a lot of amenities on site, a pool, fitness center, cafe, bike repair shop, co-working space, cafe and dry cleaner.
This is great and I’m particularly pleased the Mayor has taken leadership of this particular issue. It’s pretty obvious that the original intent of 40B has been horribly distorted by some developers to the detriment of many streets and neighborhoods across the Commonwealth.
Does anyone have a take on what this might mean for the planned 40 B on Court Street in Newtonville, or the likely 40B project on Pinecrest Road behind the 4 Corners Whole Foods in Newton Highlands?
Greg, on site amenities are nice, but I don’t think that really supports the walkable argument. If anything, just the opposite. Residents need those amenities because there are no others within walking distance, further justifying a car culture. The trails are another wonderful amenity, but also quite isolated. Sure, Newton will provide a few walkable dormitories for Needham’s new tax generating machine, but I’m skeptical that the vast majority of residents aren’t going to get in their cars and jump on 128 at the new Kendrick exit. That, plus entry to the Newton schools are going to be the biggest values for the proposed development.
If a year-around pedestrian connection to Mt. Ida was on the list, then the 52 bus and joint transportation efforts should have been part of the proposal, too. I didn’t think it was. Interesting point about the two campuses, but are they really creating that much demand?
Walkable neighborhoods don’t just pop up in office parks, they evolve with village centers or mass transit over decades. It would take an awful lot of planning to make a walkable neighborhood, and a 40B plan is by nature focused on just the single development. When Wells Ave has a supporting plan, maybe mixed use will make more sense. The Needham Street vision is that sort of a plan, but much too far away from Wells Ave to be of any benefit.
Greg: “…are you willing to concede the possibility that all the time you’ve been saying “The mayor isn’t doing anything to stop 40B…The mayor isn’t doing anything to stop 40B.. The mayor isn’t doing anything to stop 40B.. ” that maybe he was?”
Court Street calling…he did NOTHING for us. Why not?
Greg– Have you considered the possibility that my criticism and similar complaints from many other Newton residents caused Mayor Warren to FINALLY do something about 40B? You’re suggesting this was his plan the whole time, and I don’t think that’s the case. I will admit that I’m very impressed with the Mayor’s newfound willingness to fight back. This is the first time he’s taken a big political risk, and I truly admire the fact he was willing to do that in defense of the Newton community.
@Mike: I’m not suggesting anything except that you may have been mistaken.
I’m also willing to believe those city officials who said this took a long time to calculate, although I think we all wish it had come together sooner.
Someday Greg we’ll tell you how it all happened, but for now we have a lot of work to do in building affordable and low income housing without the mega-deals.
Looking forward to both Alderman Cote.
James C,
What’s the rush to build more affordable and subsidized housing projects in Newton.
Newton has met the state mandated threshold for 40b housing projects. We have done our share of providing for same.
Why even more? Our schools are bursting. Our roads are jammed with traffic. Our sewers overflow with storm water with every 100 year storm on a biannual rate.
The city is a mature entity,.. It’s built out. Housing projects, zoning special permits, FAR excesses, accessory apartment increases are like death by a thousand cuts. They are ruining the existing quality of life that attracted us to live here in the first place.
The states annual population increase is .22%.
For Newton that projects at 183 persons. Why must we grow at a faster pace than the rest of the Commonwealth?
@Blueprint: What we’re doing now is aging at a faster pace than the rest of the Commonwealth.
I applaud Alderman Cote for his dedication to a city that is economically diverse. For wanting a city where our school teachers, fireman, policemen and our children can afford to live.
Greg,
So who doesn’t want a city where working class folks can afford to live ? do you see McMansions being torn down Mc Mansions at a prodigious rate. But we are loosing $500,000 to $900,000 homes to developers outrageously fast and with little concern. A Sangiolo tried to put a focus on this to little effect, with her Moratorium proposal.
I have 6 ‘affordable’ properties within 60 feet of my own that have been torn down and have been ( or are being ) replaced with 8 units of housing costing from between $1,200,000 and $2,300,000 all in the past 4 years !
If I increase the radius to 100yards I can count 18 ! In the process there will be added school children, more asphalt paving, loss of green space and trees, noise and civic disruption, more cars and traffic, added stress on our shaky sewer system, loss of a cohesive and familiar social fabric, and in general a derogation of the suburban character of the city !
It was the quality of an environment that attracted us to move here in the first place and it is the loss of that quality that loosens the ties of those who cash in and leave.
Where once there were city workers, and middle class wage earners, there are now multimillionaires who drive from their snout house garages without the slightest recognition that there is /was a neighborhood here, or even could care, on their rush to where ever they might be going to ‘earn’ their livings.
@Blueprint: Who said anything about supporting Mc Mansions? That’s the opposite of advocating for affordable housing.
Greg,
Sorry,.. my point is that it’s NOT the Mc Mansions that are being torn down but the more modest ranches and affordable housing stock that is being lost.
The city with its overly generous zoning regulations not only supports the tearing down of affordable homes, it encourages same by allowing Mc Mansions to be built vastly outsizing their neighbors. The setback rules allow new construction be built too close to property lines casting longer shadows from their taller more massive volumes onto neighboring properties. Floor Area Ratios allow too large, out of character construction for most neighborhoods. Lot coverage numbers allow / encourage / mandate snout house designs where neighborhood front yards become parking lots. Trees are the first thing to go, being clearcut with site preparation even before permits are issued for demolition.
Its a sorry state from an environmental /aesthetic viewpoint, and this is important because it relates to property values if nothing more.
Well then Blueprint, you’ve lost me. I was responding to your original comment…
I’m troubled by the idea that you think we should put our feet up and be satisfied with the lack of affordable housing in our community, just because we’ve met an arbitrary quota.
@Blueprintbill, your point about losing housing that “working class folks”can afford rings hollow. House going for $500,000 to $800,000 are still well beyond what working class folks–let alone someone earning the median income in Newton–can afford. The only way someone making $110,000 a year could afford a $500,000 house is if they are debt free, has no other monthly expenses and can afford a $25,000 down payment. Even the smallest ranch house in Newton is beyond most of the middle class.
I know many people want Newton to remain inside a “snow globe” that evokes a Currier & Ives painting of a simpler time when the working class could afford a starter home in Newton. That time has long since passed, and is the reason why Newton so desparately needs affordable housing. Other than subsidized housing with permanent affordability restrictions, there is precious little available in Newton.
So if homes that working class folks can afford is what you really want, then you should support reducing the minimum size for buildable lots, allowing far greater density particularly in and around village centers, and using CDBG, HOME and CPA funds to create more affordable housing in Newton. But if all you want is to keep Newton inside a snow globe, then you are going to have to deprive current homeowners of a substantial portion of the fair market value of their homes by drastically curtailing their property rights. They tried that in the Soviet Union, and apparently that did not work out so well.
Ted,
With all due respect.
Is the only “starter home” in Newton , the one that your constituents want to give to the ” working class” ? How generous of them.
Give me a Currier and Ives snow globe any day, and we will see just how far market values drop. One persons drastically ” curtailed property rights ” is another neighbors property investment protection.
Isn’t that what the argument, 100 years ago, was about when those “soviet ” styled zoning laws were proposed?
Blueprintbill, if you deprive people of the right to redevelop their property, property values will drop. So will yours.