You might have missed it* in the latest Mayor’s Update from Mayor Ruthanne Fuller, but Mark Development has started the process to develop some Washington St. parcels, including the site of The Barn shoe stores, under Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws. Chapter 40B, in essence, allows a developer to build in violation of applicable local zoning if a) the municipality is under an affordable housing threshold, which Newton is and b) the development will include a defined percentage of affordable housing. The city will have very little control over what Mark Development builds, unlike what would happen with a development proposed under the city’s special-permit process.
What’s interesting is that the proposal is for mixed use: 243 units of rental housing and 12,000 s.f. of retail. With previous 40B developments, both the developers and the city have suggested that 40B developments have to be housing only. This does not appear to be the case, which is good for the proposed site. With retail as part of the mix, the development can both mix into the commercial uses on the street and provide desperately needed housing.
Here’s the full text of the mayor’s update on the proposal.
Mark Development last week submitted a proposal to MassHousing for 243 units of rental housing (25%, or 61 units, of which would be permanently affordable) and 12,000 square-feet of retail space on Washington Street located on a series of parcels including “The Barn” shoe store east of Dunstan Street.They filed the project under Chapter 40B, the state law enacted in 1969 which allows developments that include a certain percentage of affordable housing units to bypass most local zoning restrictions in communities that do not meet the law’s criteria. Newton has not yet met the threshold to bypass the law. Applying to MassHousing, the quasi-governmental agency created in 1966 that supports the development of affordable housing, is the first step in the 40B process.This proposed project is on an important stretch of Washington Street near West Newton Square and I care deeply that the development is consistent with the guiding principles set out in the Draft Washington Street Vision Plan. (Read the plan here.)The Planning Department, soon followed by Newton’s Zoning Board of Appeals, is now beginning the review process. Most likely the ZBA will vote on the proposal in mid-2020.Some aspects of the project initially look promising: 61 units of much-needed affordable housing; underground parking; a courtyard with public access; buildings at staggered heights; attractive treatment of the Cheesecake Brook culvert.Nonetheless, there are many questions and issues we will be looking at closely. Are the dimensions of the retail spaces suitable for small businesses? Will retail rents be affordable to attract small, local businesses? Are the heights of the proposed buildings in keeping with the City’s vision? Will the buildings be built with green energy standards and be environmentally sustainable? How is the developer planning to address traffic impacts from this project?I would have preferred this project come in through the special permit process so the City Council could have more input, but until Newton meets its affordability thresholds developers will continue to have this option to move forward with the 40B process.
* Mayor Fuller, if you’re reading, please put a few bullets at the top of your Mayor’s Updates to indicate the topics covered. Apparently, a few people missed the Washington St. and unfunded obligations sections, because they thought the email was just about the algae at Crystal Lake.
Very interesting tactics by Korff and his lawyers. This could lead
to a more efficient permit process. The State has strict laws and its main concern is to balance the various stakeholder interests.
I shall watch with great interest as the process unfolds.
Newton’s City Council has done a poor job in the recent past
regarding development. Certainly Fuller is not up to the
leadership task.
A little more setback from the street please. If only the Austin Street and Washington/Walnut Street projects had a bit more setback, it would have fit in and looked 100% better. How did the City let that fall through the cracks??? The Austin Street project looks like it was jammed in with shoehorn; now it looks completely pedestrian unfriendly, bleak and crowded on Austin Street — a completely missed opportunity! And on Washington Street (at Walnut) overwhelming (right up to the street in terms of what the eye sees — especially since Washington Street is already wide in comparison to the norm in Newton) and, again, unfriendly for human interaction without more setback.
That’s the ONE thing we should have gotten by approving those projects (frankly I would have allowed an additional floor if the developer had been required to provide additional setback).
I appreciate that John Hilliard made the effort to interview all of the ward 3 candidates for his story in the Globe. It’s not that their answers were particularly insightful (except perhaps for Julia Malakie, who hinted at one possible obstruction strategy) but this is an important election that will best be decided by focusing on what kind of city we want to be.
I don’t think it’s an “obstruction strategy” to ensure we do right by our environment, Greg.
Yes, Sean – this filing of the 40B project was posted here in July. https://village14.com/2019/07/31/40b-coming-to-west-newton/#axzz5wPVtby7Y
And there is a story here (I just can’t read it because I’m not a subscriber) https://www.bankerandtradesman.com/category/bt-daily/
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z5qboopqx4skulp/IMG_0383.PNG?dl=0
This is what the concept of space is. The link above is the lovely apartment building on Union Street in Newton Centre. Right next to the green line. A nice courtyard, not in-your-face as Jim Epstein mentioned above. I guess builders just can’t afford to build like this anymore, apparently. Instead they have to maximize every square inch leaving nothing for any kind of aesthetic purpose. The above is what makes Newton or any village looks inviting. Austin Street looks I’m sorry to say very uninviting.
Not all setbacks are created equal. In a lot of cases they’re used as a visual element for people who will primarily view the landscape through the windshield of a car. In those cases the wider area allows the driver to travel at a higher rate of speed (30mph or 40mph) and have it feel more natural.
If you’re walking, however, setbacks can feel deadening and change the nature of the landscape. The Newton Centre example above works, in part, because the building across the street is built without a setback, creating a walkable environment. But if you compare the walk up Union Street (Between Beacon and Langley) with the same distance walk up Beacon (from Union to Langley), it feels entirely different.
That’s a visual trick of open spaces, setbacks and broken streetscapes.
The point being, in this case the lack of setback is a deliberate move to create a walkable side of Washington Street.
The 40B application is for three buildings with a courtyard that will be accessible to the public, as well as a boardwalk along the Cheesecake Brook, in an area which is not at all accessible to the public now. The buildings are on Washington Street to pull them away from an environmentally sensitive area next to the brook, where there are several buildings currently located, as well as the residential neighborhood on the other side of the brook. The height of the buildings is stepped back in the rear as a transition to the multi-family homes on Watertown Street.
This particular stretch of Washington Street is sort of a hodgepodge of commercial buildings and uses without much in the way of historical or aesthetic value. Sullivan Tire, the commuter rail and the MassPike are on the other side of Washington Street. In addition to affordable housing, this will add energy and vitality to West Newton square (which is less than a quarter of a mile away) by increasing foot traffic and retail space. It is also on or near bus lines and the commuter rail, a grocery store, the district court, police headquarters, a pharmacy, retail stores, the post office, two churches, two banks, and, of course, West Newton Cinema.
Chuck is right about the impact of putting the buildings on the street. It will make this side of Washington Street much more walkable than it is now. All that the setbacks are being used for now is parking in front of the buildings, which is anything but pedestrian/bicycle friendly, and doesn’t really count as “open space.”
Just my opinion, but I think that this project will fit in well and be a real asset to the area.
Chuck and Ted, I see what you’re saying. I’m not talking about a lot of setback — and certainly not a setback for parking. As I said at the beginning of my first comment above, “a little more setback” — so the sidewalk pedestrian doesn’t feel right up against the parked cars, the fast driving motor vehicles, the curb and the building, a feeling of a little buffer of space from the busy 4 lane Washington St., especially to accommodate tree plantings so they’re not right up against the building as well. And in the case of Austin St., a little more space so the building doesn’t look shoehorned in. I think the Austin Street project could have looked a lot lot better with that little extra setback. And, again, the developer could have gone one flight higher with a setback re the roofline of the top one or two floors.
I’ll reserve comment on this particular proposal for now. But I’d like to use it to illustrate a point I’ve been making about the Northland project at Needham and Oak Streets…
25% of the residential units associated with this 40B proposal on Washington Street would meet the state’s definition of affordable, which gives the developer the right to build more than allowed under local zoning without obtaining a Special Permit from the city. The developer is willing to make that commitment because the rest of the project is profitable enough to underwrite the affordable units.
Northland on the other hand is a much larger project and requires a Special Permit from the city. Yet the proposed percentage of affordable housing at Northland is significantly less than this 40B project on Washington Street. The city’s elected officials should be insisting that 30% of the housing units at Northland are affordable. Why has the Land Use Committee dropped the ball on affordable housing at Northland?
Jim:
A lot of us wanted a higher floor and more developer amenities for Austin Street. But real estate development sometimes isn’t about the perfect project, it is about the project that can be built. The major objection was that the same number of parking spaces had to be delivered, and there was a huge focus about delivering close to the same number of spots. The project did get improved along the way, more affordable (thanks Amy and the city councilors who pushed for that!), they buried the utilities, the finishes got a bit improved. But if you set it back a few feet you lose parking spaces, and the former mayor picked this developer partially based on the 4 story height and the building system providing a more rapid build.
Austin Street was flawed as a process (due to length, due to nonsense lawsuits designed to lengthen the process, due to the method for picking the final winner from the 5 ranked participants, etc.). It has taken far longer to build than anticipated, partially due to the above, partially due to the developer I’d think. I really don’t see the advantage to the building stack system they used.
But I do think it isn’t as bad as you think. Wait for the streets and sidewalk to be reformed. Wait for the small park to be activated. And wait for the new tenants and retail to move in. If they do the streetscape the correct way and match the rest of the Walnut redo, I really think the whole area will seem much improved. Not perfect. But much better.
I do wish we could convince Bank of America to put in benches instead of those ugly plants and rocks on the side of their building. Or perhaps some public art? I wonder if they own their own building in that location…
As for Washington Street, it is really hard to envision the end result. Too many variables. But I do agree with Ted’s post, there can be significant improvements to walkability. And replacing front facing parking lots with buildings is an improvement in my view.
Korff either wants to work with the City on new developments, or work on his own via 40B. If he chooses the latter, he should be excluded from any efforts to partner with the City on any other developments that are non-40B. He wants special permits in other areas of Washington St.? Um, no. You decided to go around us- legally. But that makes him someone we should actively oppose.
Friend or foe? Korff doesn’t get to be both.
“The point being, in this case the lack of setback is a deliberate move to create a walkable side of Washington Street”
Wrong. It was already “walkable” but the height was much lower, creating less of a canyon feel.
But at any rate, It’s not very walkable, or at least pleasantly walkable because you’ve got 85 dB pike noise on your right.
If you stand at the Starbucks on Austin Street, and look down the line of buildings, every other building including the brick office building, is set back more. The Austin Street building is cheaply contracted and situated poorly.
Constructed no Contracted.