The developer whose permit to build a four-story, mixed-use, 334-unit rental apartment complex at 135 Wells Ave. was denied by Aldermen and could be headed for litigation is offering $3 million in incentives to move forward with the project, The TAB’s Jim Morrison reports.
[Cabot Cabot and Forbes] offer includes $1 million to redesign and rebuild the intersection of Wells Avenue and Nahanton Street, $1 million for the Board of Aldermen to spend on affordable housing in Newton at its discretion, participation in new Wells Avenue commercial development to include $750,000 for infrastructure and traffic improvements, the operation of a shuttle service for the development, and other, smaller payments to the city.
In some cultures Cabot Cabot and Grabbit’s offer would be known as paying Baksheesh. They know they are fighting an uphill battle in the Deed restriction reversal, and this is a possible strategy in an attempt to buy their wayaround it.
Lots of profits in housing development. That site is perfect for some kind of development and far more appropriate than a small public site in a village center.
The fact that CC & F is offering $3 million to alleviate city problems is an indication that even they know this project would give us undue hardship. If memory serves, there were people on this blog claiming that this project would cause minimal traffic and city issues. A developer doesn’t just give away money for the hell of it. If there willing to give away $3 million then our issues could lead to well over $10 mil when everything is said and done.
@Tom: Perhaps.
Or perhaps both CC&F and the city will spend millions in court and CC&F will win. But then the money CC&F would have liked to spend on replacing that traffic light, affordable housing, etc. will have gone to lawyers instead of towards real needs.
Or perhaps the city spends millions and wins. And then tax dollars won’t be available for that traffic light (or some other need) either.
And might I remind everyone that developers are going to keep challenging the city until we meet our 40B requirements. Somewhere along they way we ought to approve some projects we find less troublesome than others or we’re never going to meet that goal.
Maybe a project that comes with road fixes and funds for affordable housing should be one of those projects?
I think the deed restriction will be very difficult to overcome. As I understand it, the current case involves the City exercising its rights under the deed restriction. What happens when one or more of the abutting property owners claims that they have a right to expect the deed restriction to stay in place?
Mike: I’m not following. Are you suggesting the board doesn’t have the right to lift the deed restriction? Because they’ve done it multiple times in that park for each of the many schools and other non-profits that are there.
Greg– I’m suggesting that other property owners on Wells Ave may think that a large apartment building will negatively impact their property value or business. Those people certainly had an expectation that the deed restriction was permanent when they bought their properties. The question is, do they have the right to require enforcement of the deed restriction? It’s a legal question, and I don’t know the answer.
@Mike: I’m not a lawyer either but I can tell you that property owners I’ve spoken to support this proposal because they see it as the only way to fix a horrible traffic situation during this current economic up cycle, as opposed to waiting years for the city to fund it. And tenants in the park would very much like the shuttle bus, housing and other amenities that are also part of this project.
Greg,
Do you personally believe that we haven’t meet our 40B requirements?
@Paul: It doesn’t matter what I personally believe, it matters how it stands up in appeals. At the moment, that’s uncertain.
that should be “met”
This is a bad project and should continue to be rejected on the merits. A cash payoff by a developer is wrong and needs to be rejected out right. Let’s not forget Nahanton St. CAN NOT be widen. The Country Club is not giving up it’s golf course. Also, the impact on the schools in terms of overcrowding will come back to haunt us. As Nancy Reagan use to say “Just say No”.
@Greg
“And might I remind everyone that developers are going to keep challenging the city until we meet our 40B requirements. Somewhere along they way we ought to approve some projects we find less troublesome than others or we’re never going to meet that goal.”
The city believes its met the goal. Better documentation and an improved methodology may be needed, but that’s far from saying we need approve more projects. So that statement doesn’t make sense, unless of course, you don’t believe we’ve met the threshold. Hence, my earlier question.
@Paul: The most recent thing I’m aware is this.
If there’s more recent news, please share.
It has been stated on this blog many times in the past (particularly by Greg) that the city has yet to meet the state’s 40b requirement. I did not know (and searched comments on this blog) that this was under dispute (though the idea that perhap the state should change the requirement has).
Doug–
Check out V14 and Newton Tab for the Rowe St 40B project. The city has filed paperwork that its above the 1.5% threshold for land used for affordable housing.
Has anybody examined the expected impact on Newton’s sewer infrastructure as sewage from the proposed residential development flows from Ward 8 through pipes northward through Upper falls and Waban and other Villages on its way to processing? Would Upper Falls and Waban and others be “indemnified” against problems arising from this development? If the BOA (CC) were to remove the deed restriction, maybe CC&F should be held to escrowing a very large sum for at least twenty-five years to be used to fix any downstream adverse effects of their added burden on our aged system.
By the way, has anyone asked why the deed restriction was put there in the first place? I think the original developers of the Wells Office Park (someone from the Wasserman family(?) et al.), added the restriction. Does anyone know for sure? Was it so that they wouldn’t have to bring in costly infrastructure to the Park (like larger sewer and water pipes) that they didn’t wish to use or pay for? Would they have been able to get a permit to develop the Park without that restriction? Otherwise, it seems it would be adverse to their financial interests to limit the property’s use. If there is another explanation, it might be a useful part of the current discussion about the property.
Thanks Paul- Greg I just found he same article- so based on that it is correct to state that Newton believes it has met the threshold, but the state begs to differ.
Exactly Doug. And with that in mind, I think we ought to be at least planning how we meet the threshold if we are rejected. Otherwise we’re back to being held hostage by some really bad projects.
Plus, as a community we ought to be committed to providing a diversity of housing options, 40B law or not.
Dennis Murphy was hired by Newton, for one reason, because of his experience with 40B proposals. He signed the letter January 15, 2015 to the Appeals Court asserting Newton had met the 1.5% land area minimum and why it’s computing methods were sound. Was he fired for being wrong?
Greg: “Plus, as a community we ought to be committed to providing a diversity of housing options, 40B law or not”.
Never thought I’d say this, but Greg, I AGREE WITH YOU. I, and the NVA, was really encouraged by the funding for the building at 54 Taft Ave. Reconverting makes so much more sense than building new! Especially when new means you get only one affordable unit but add three luxury units nobody wants.
Salle’s comments about the sewer system from Wells Ave affecting other villages is a HUGE concern. I like her idea of a 25 year commitment from CC&F but there is no reason to think anybody will change the deed restriction any time soon.