Read here.
Mark Development plans a 40B along Washington Street in West Newton
by Amy Sangiolo | Jul 31, 2019 | West Newton | 28 comments
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
Read here.
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
Wait, didn’t some folks assure us that Newton had met its 40B requirements and this could no longer occur!
I’m shocked, shocked I say…
With that said, I can’t say I’m surprised. There is a usual path to these types of larger developments. If we don’t like it, we can always increase our affordable housing percentage to 10%. I believe Brookline just did, after 4 or 5 large 40B projects…
Also, folks should remember that this is a state law, and we the voters passed a referendum a few years back keeping it in place.
Thanks for posting Amy. Very interesting!
Good luck to Korff, I think the 40B laws will benefit the community better than our City Councilors deliberations.
Korff will discover that he will lose a significant profit margin.
The State has strict regulations about community impact too.
I agree that Mr. Korff should be encouraged to pursue a 40B project. It could turn out to be better for West Newton & Newtonville.
It might incorporate some element of limited, village oriented, business with an opportunity for employment of local residents. He might keep it modest in height and environmentally sensitive to the care and protection of Cheese Cake Brook, that runs along the northern boarder of the site.
As a non-profit venture there would not be so much pressure to pursue high end profits.
Surely, this is an opportunity to blend a 40B project into the surrounding neighborhood and put an end to the NIMBY, racist talk that is so often associated with such plans.
The project can be discussed on the basis of design, building assimilation, density, transportation opportunities, walkable streets and the other topics of development interest.
Ummm definitely not a non-profit venture.
Amy, kudos again for keeping us in the loop. I suspect it would’ve taken a lot longer to hear about, but for you.
Good for Korff for trying to move forward in the face of continued stonewalling by the city. How long have we been hearing about zoning reform — 8 years? 10? More? Let’s get on with modernizing the Washington Street corridor. But please, let’s come to our senses regarding narrowing the street from 4 lanes to 3 and turning it into a northside Needham St. With all the development and accompanying traffic that new development will spur it would be absolutely crazy to reduce the number of lanes. Newton needs more affordable housing, but not more traffic gridlock along with it.
Once again I must point out some obvious problems with this plan. 61 units of “affordable” housing (not very affordable to working and lower middle class folk) by itself might be beneficial. But the plan also includes 182 units at market price, i.e. for the affluent and wealthy. Couple the 243 total units with ground-floor commercial space, not to mention the large Newtonville developments already under construction, and Washington Street becomes even more clogged with traffic. I won’t even discuss the potential effect on our schools and infrastructure. If I lived on the north side of town, I’d be panicking the way that south-side residents are in light of the Northland project on Oak and Needham streets.
Creating “affordable” housing through 40b mixed-used projects is the Devil’s deal. There must be a better way to create truly affordable housing than leaving it wholly to the private sector and throwing the Nimby label at anyone who dares to object.
What Bob said. Sometimes ‘hysterics’ ARE in order.
In addition to Bob’s comments, who is actually subsidizing
the questionable affordable units? Is it the young working
people who pay the steep market rate apartments that pay extra
for those who earn less?
To answer your panic question, many north spiders are saddened
and feel betrayed by city government.
Hi Colleen.
Yes that is the way it works. What a mess.
Umm…that’s not the way it works. No one pays “extra”. You aren’t burdening the young working people any more than any other project burdens the young working people. Market rate units are rented at market rate. No one is forcing the young working people to live in them.
The developer builds a bigger project and rents the affordable units at mandated affordable rates. Developers overall gain is limited to set percentages. 40B has lots of pluses and minuses, but let’s make sure we all use the facts to describe said pluses and minuses.
I’d be happy to post more about 40B, but folks tend to get rather angry and personally insulting when I do. But I’ll note that Brookline has 4 or 5 of them going right now. These aren’t a Newton only development.
Also, 40B is a state law. A referendum was put up against it. It didn’t pass. It wasn’t that close.
I appreciate that 40B can be frustrating. Happy to engage in a thoughtful discussion on the facts at any time.
Fig – kind of semantics. The market rate apartments create enough profit to carry the affordable rate apartments and still keep the overall project profitable.
By all means educate us – I’m working on getting up to speed myself because I think we are going to be seeing much more of this. Especially given the city council’s negotiating tactics.
Also – anyone’s comments on this?:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/87504
The neighborhood and city would be better off if this project were zoned through the city council rather than the state. Three reasons stand out:
1. Control traffic. The city’s Land Use Committee is getting much savvier about using incentives and conditions to get developers to better offset car-trips.
2. Help local retail. Special permit conditions could require the developer to lease to non-franchise businesses. We are trying to pilot that at Washington Place, now.
3. Design, walkability, and green space: In special permit hearings, the neighborhood and committee’s input has improved similar projects along these dimensions, even though it’s slower. I worry the ZBA will not be as intensive in review.
40B exists because municipalities blocked efforts to create affordable housing through local zoning for decades. If Newton hadn’t made it so hard to develop here, we would have already met our 40B threshold and removed this option.
It’s our own doing for saying “no” too often for too many years.
I agree with Jake. Thanks for the info Amy.
If what I have read is correct, the city is about 4/10ths of an acre short of it’s required 1.5% affordable (by land area) to be safe harbored from 40b. I’d assume that 61 units would get us 4/10ths of an acre?
Am I way off on this? If not, then this project would be the last 40b eligible going forward.
Newton and any other city will always be better off having control over its development rather than handing could control over to the state and 40B regulations. It’s good to note that the vague 40B rules are undergoing a stricter interpretation. With 40B, developers can disregard a city’s zoning regulations, contribute less in mitigation’s if at all, make a set profit that’s actually not must less than they usually do in Newton regardless of the hoopla about “greedy developers” – all to include fewer units of Affordable housing than Newton usually receives after negotiations.
Brookline didn’t meet the threshold of affordable housing without developers resorting to using 40B. Because of not only saying no to too many proposals but also the long process involved for developers to even get close to finding out if their special permit will be approved, developers will do the same thing in Newton. If we don’t start allowing development under reasonable conditions, without imbuing the projects with hyperbolic and untrue accusations, using 40B will become the norm here.
From the letter from the Planning and Legal Departments to the city council (thank you Patrick), Newton has a long way to go to meet the 1.5% land threshold.
Does anyone know how far off Newton is from the 10% threshold? It may be easier to reach that one now.
Newton needs 107.7 acres to meet the land acre threshold.
Newton has 105.6 acres.
We need 2.1 acres as presented to the city council.
Right but there was 1.7 acres in the pipeline at that time. Two of those three projects have comprehensive permits posted on the city website.
Patrick, weren’t those included in the total submitted to the council?
@Marti – from this memo dated April 12, 2019:
It’s a little hard to say exactly how many units we need to get to 10%, since the denominator changes each time you add affordable units. But it’s definitely a significant number – by my math, likely in the neighborhood of 1000.
Allison, thank you.
Newton has a long way to go before 40B is not an option using both percentages.
Folks, there is a lot here to discuss. And I’m not a true expert in this. But I know enough I guess for the blog. 😉
We are not close on the 10%. And we lose units every year. But it isn’t impossible.
On the land front, it really depends on the golf course being in or out. I think it is pretty clear that golf course are in, as in they are land that can be developed. Other folks feel they are out, because there would be a tax to be paid if they are developed. If gold courses are in, we aren’t close on land either.
I agree with Jake that the city is much better off when it is NOT a 40B project. You can negotiate directly and get more accomodations. But 40B is the safety valve for these projects to push them through, and it gives the developers far more leverage.
The city can attempt to slow down the projects. But we aren’t the only one fighting these battles and there has been litigation in other areas about the open questions.
Often this is a negotiating tactic, file for a 40B, then use that as a negotiating tool to push the city to permit the project, negotiating accomodations along the way.
We should be asking what other communities do in these situations.
Fig, according to the latest report, Newton seems to have accepted that golf courses will have to be included in its usable land inventory mainly because the Housing Appeals Court will never accept not including them. (That ruling seems appropriate to me.)
Here’s some food for thought: this article in today’s Boston Globe titled “Too much, too fast? Towns hit ‘pause’ on big projects.”
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/globelocal/2019/08/01/too-much-too-fast-towns-hit-pause-big-projects/w7hfobk9LgLVH2gqfc8tFM/story.html
“Design, walkability, and green space”
Meanwhile, they want to take away green space with the senior center.
Ugh. Maybe I do need to get the heck out of Newton. It’s full of idoits.
When you get tired of people changing the rules, so each project has different rules, and dealing with people who don’t want any change, or anything to disrupt their lives, a rational person would seek to engage a set of rules that are predictable and not subject to whimsy. And 40B is just that set of rules.
To think that it took 8 years from start to finish to build 28 Austin Street, and the city owned the land. There are individual rights, which must be respected. And those same individuals must respect and recognize community obligations for the betterment of all.