In a new column, Newton TAB Editor Andy Levin raises a question that’s been bothering me for a while too: How is it that Newton Mayor Setti Warren can champion growing Newton’s affordable housing stock while his Planning Department and the Zoning Board of Appeals continues to cite a questionable claim that Newton has met its 40B threshold?
This sizeable anti-development movement is being enabled by a city government that on one hand has a “housing strategy” but on the other has taken a position that makes achieving the goals of the plan extraordinarily difficult.
Do as I say Not as I do
1) I think you mean “cite a questionable claim” – unless you have a specific place you want to site it?
2) One can be in favor of affordable housing and against using 40B to get it. There are other ways to get there, as Mike Striar has discussed in previous threads.
The answer is complicated. Politics plays a role, as Warren tries to position himself for Governor. So he can pitch himself as a creator of affordable housing [Austin St.], while claiming he pushed back against burdensome state regulations [40B] and overzealous developers. It’s nice to have things both ways in politics.
Then we have the practical side… has Newton met the 40B threshold or not? Personally, I think Newton has a strong case. It really boils down to whether or not a couple of golf courses should be considered developable land. And since those courses used a state tax law to reduce their property taxes, and that law specifically precludes their development, I’m betting the city wins this case if they play it out in the court system. People seem to think the city’s case is a lost cause because Newton has been handed a couple of setbacks. But those setbacks have come from the bureaucracy established to support 40B, not an unbiased court. These non-judicial hearings are always biased in favor of developers.
Regardless of eventual outcome, the city is well served playing this out to the end. It makes developers think long and hard before they go 40B, knowing it could be years before the city’s claim is resolved. That strengthens the city’s negotiating position immeasurably.
But as we just saw with the Orr Block project, having the upper hand only works if you have a strong negotiating skills. The city clearly did not display those skills when they negotiated the initial Austin Street development. And if the city actually had someone with negotiating skill, there would have been a compromise reached on Wells Ave. Unfortunately, we’re left in a strong position without the right leadership to take full advantage of the situation.
@mgwa and Mike Striar
In the meantime, over the past couple years, we have lost projects on Rowe Street in Auburndale, Goddard Street in Newton Highlands, and the St. Philip Neri project is a shadow of what was initially proposed, which was not huge by any means. There is another project not too far on Beacon Street in Waban that will likely be severely impacted as well by the “safe harbor” claim. The Wells Ave. situation is different because it involves a deed restriction.
In theory you can develop multi-unit housing without 40B (I’d prefer that route as well). But in a city where the anti-development movement is so strong, I don’t see how it happens. Instead we get a second century of the Orr block buildings, which are decades past their prime and not particularly attractive to look at.
I agree with much of Mike Striar’s analysis of the city’s position on the 1.5% safe harbor provision of Chapter 40B. However, the city’s claim to exemption is not based the golf course rationale he cites (and his description of the ultimate legal status of the courses may well be right.) As explained in detail to the Zoning Board of Appeals before they invoked the Safe Harbor by Alexandra Anath of the Planning Department, the city does exceed the 1.5% requirement even without the golf courses counted as exempt from development.
Since then the city of Waltham has won a legal case that will enable it to document individual parcels that are affordable in accordance with the terms of the law in addition to those previously submitted. Newton should be able to use this precedent to add to its percentage over the required minimum.
The other site on Beacon Street in Waban that Mr. Levin refers to is the Staples-Croft Farm on Beacon Street at the intersection with Windsor Road in the heart of the historic village center. The site was the first significant development that still exists from the origin of the village . I and two other then Aldermen successfully proposed it for designation as a City Landmark.
After the development of 24 units that would tower over the original building and most of the rest of the village was proposed, the Newton Historic Commission voted unanmously to recommend denial of the proposal to the Mass. Historic Commission because it would overwhelm the historic character of the site even with the mitigation measures proposed by the developer. I don’t think Mass. Historic has reached a conclusion.
Chris Pitts of the Waban Neightborhood Advisory Council has documented the historic character of the site and I’m sure he’d be happy to share it with Village 14 readers.
City Councilor Brian Yates
Those developers could very well have continued and completed 40b projects. The likelihood of the 1.5% exemption is remote at best, and it’s doubtful that was the reason the developers pulled out. Rowe St. was a poorly situated project for development due to a lack of appropriate access points. Would St.Philip Neri and Goddard St. have been able to muster 16 votes with the current city council? I doubt it.
I understand that Robert Korff is going to give the city council one more try but is certainly willing to go the 40b route, and I hope he does if the city council doesn’t have enough votes to pass a plan. Let’s be clear about who holds the cards with land use projects and special permits. By state law, those decisions are in the city council’s hands.
Being exempt from 40b doesn’t mean that Newton, the mayor, or many (perhaps even most) city councilors will suddenly opposes affordable housing and village centered residential projects. In addition, housing a top priority for many residents, especially longtime residents who’d like to remain in the city once their current living situation no longer works for them.
@Jane Frantz
The ZBA invoked “safe harbor” with first Rowe, then Goddard and later St. Philip Neri. Ask the first two developers why they pulled out; I am sure they would be willing to share.
Here is the further reading Councilor Brian Yates mentioned: http://newtonforum.org/690-2/
Also the WAC provides a running status and links to all the documentation: http://www.wabanareacouncil.com/issue/staples-craft-farm-1615-beacon