The developer of a Chapter 40B affordable housing project in Waban is now proposing just 10 to 12 units and two single-family homes for the Beacon Street site. The original plan was for 48 units — 12 townhouses and a 36-unit apartment building at the site of the former St. Philip Neri Church, Jonathan Dame of Wicked Local Newton reports.
Great job Waban and the developer! Waban Area council and two of the three council members does a really good job listening and advocating for the residents.
I wish Newtonville learned some lessons from them.
Neil P:
Huh? I’m happy something got worked out between the developer and Waban, but my guess is that this plan was in the works by the developer for quite some time, and the 40B was the threat to get exactly this result.
Not sure what lessons Newtonville should learn from this, the situations at the Orr building are somewhat apples and oranges. Much bigger site at the Orr building acquired for more money. Or are you talking Austin Street, which wasn’t a 40B?
@fig – sorry for the delay.
Its easy to Monday morning QB and declare the developer was originally proposing a 4X more units than he intended. I did not hear anyone else say that before.
My point re Newtonville is simple – Many people I know from Newtonville did not want Austin Street or the Orr building. These are the people I know from my kids activities. The irony here is these people have just complained or expressed displeasure – but not done a thing. Maybe there was a concentrated and organized local opposition to ASP from Newtonville residents – if so I think they did not push hard enough. If these residents are really upset about the Orr building, I suggest they take a play out of the Waban playbook.
These Waban residents are darn good at getting their voice heard.
Neil,
You can bet that the original proposal for St Philip Neri was much bigger than the developer expected they were going to get. It was their starting negotiating position, knowing there would be opposition to anything they put forward.
Robert:
Agree 100%. Neal, the developer isn’t going to develop the site at a loss. The configuration must have worked for him and been lucrative. If he had come to Waban and asked for 14 units, there might still had been objections. I’d bet considering how quickly the developer folded that this was his plan from the beginning, or at least it was an attractive plan b. I’m not saying that Waban didn’t have a role in it, they did. My objection was to your statement regarding Newtonville. To say there wasn’t a concerted effort to block ASP ignores the last two years. There was also a concerted effort to have it built. I don’t believe Waban was nearly as torn, which makes sense, since Austin Street wasn’t a 40B, and therefore has a fair amount of community benefits that St. Neri wouldn’t have. In other words, the projects are apples and oranges.
Now where you have a point is Orr street. I’m not in favor of that project as currently designed. But it is also not yet a 40B, and the developer acquired the site for a very large dollar sum, namely around $16,000,000 I think. That wouldn’t allow the developer the small project that St. Neri became, for simple economic reasons. So I don’t believe the developer is planning on ratcheting down the project in such a major way as the St. Neri developer did.
That isn’t because those of us who live in Newtonville don’t get their voices heard, or that we are less astute than Waban, or that we don’t learn lessons from our neighbors, it is because the two situations are different. I think Orr street will be a far more difficult negotiation, because of the site, because of the developer, because of the acquisition price, because of the aftermath of Austin Street, because of the historic buildings, etc, etc.
But I do think Waban was a great result all around. If the community is happy and the developer is happy, who am I to complain?
I don’t think this was the result of any kind of brilliant negotiating strategy as I think many Waban residents would have supported something of this scale right from the start. I suspect it has much more to do with it being a developer who may be bleeding money on other stalled projects and either didn’t want to or couldn’t afford the protracted legal challenge to the likely 1.5% safe harbor 40b declaration coupled with the overwhelming neighborhood opposition that this project was facing. See https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/04/08/zoning-board-rejects-west-roxbury-project-despite-mayor-support/7Cd11WNr0YFGvaBbgFKV5H/story.html
Paul:
The 1.5% may have had something to do with it. I don’t know in all honesty. But it is also true that the smaller project must pencil out handsomely for this developer. It all comes down to cost benefit analysis.