A new mixed use 40B development has been proposed for a site just off California Street in Nonantum along the Charles River next to Forte Park.
The Riverdale project would include 204 units of apartments, including 51 that are classified as “affordable,” along with 17,782 square feet of office/innovation space and 4,600 square-feet of retail space.
It comes a few weeks after Mark Development (which is already developing the Washington Place project in Newtonville and is proposing a project at the Riverside MBTA station) proposed a 40B with 243 units (with 61 affordable units) and 12,521 square feet of ground floor retail space at a three acre site at the Barn Family Shoe store on Washington Street, Dunstan Street and Kempton Place in West Newton.
Both projects were filed under Massachusetts 40B, a statute which allows developers to bypass most local zoning restrictions in communities such as Newton where less than 10 percent of the housing stock (or other measures) qualifies as “affordable.” The process is reviewed by the zoning board of appeals rather than a city council.
Here’s what Mayor Fuller wrote about it in her newsletter:
A second 40B housing development proposal was submitted last week to MassHousing. Criterion Development Partners is proposing 204 units of rental housing, 17,782 square-feet of office/innovation space and 4,600 square-feet of retail space between Los Angeles Street and Riverdale Avenue. This is just off California Street in Nonantum along the Charles River next to Forte Park.
The project was filed at MassHousing 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. The proposal includes 51 units of permanently affordable housing (at 80% of area median income), or 25% of the total number of units. 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 property that was once used by manufacturing businesses. The existing building on the property has been used by The Boston Globe for newspaper delivery.
The Planning Department, soon followed by Newton’s Zoning Board of Appeals, is beginning the review process. Most likely the ZBA will vote on the proposal in mid-2020.
As with the 40B project proposed earlier this month on Washington Street, some aspects of the project initially look promising while there are still many issues and questions that we will be looking at closely.
The promising aspects include the 51 units of much-needed affordable housing and a new public walkway through the complex to a landscaped area along the Charles River; new retail and commercial space.
We’ll be looking closely at whether the retail spaces are sized appropriately and rents priced to attract small, local businesses. Will green energy building standards be used? How is the developer planning to address traffic impacts from the project? Are the number of units appropriate at this location? Are the heights of the two buildings, four and five stories, appropriate? Is there sufficient parking? What is the impact on Forte Park?
I would have preferred this project, like the Washington Street project, to 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
This is exactly why the city needed to establish it had met the 40B threshold. Not to stop projects like this. But to force developers to designate a higher percentage of affordable apartments than required under 40B. Instead of the city being in control, it’s the developer who’s now driving the train.
The City of Newton should have fought much harder to prove it had met the 40B threshold. Two successive mayors decided to use the City’s Law Department to fight an exceptionally complicated case, when they should have hired outside counsel with 40B expertise. Had we won that case [as we should have], these new 40B developments would have needed Special Permits.
But Mike. What if the city determined it didn’t have a case? Are you proposing spending taxpayer dollars to fight an unwinnable legal battle?
The real solution is to work with developers on friendly 40Bs. That’s how Needham and other communities have reached their threshold, built housing we need and maintained control.
The real solution is a pro-active City government that encourages developers to go through the special permit process with a commitment to work together to get to yes.
We can plan for proactively and then approve special permits that bring benefits to the city, are in context, create affordable housing, and are financially viable to the developer.
At the City Council meeting tonight on the Climate Action Plan, they’re highlighting the impact you can make by pushing for Passive House standards for green building.
That option is only available right now through special permits, because the state does not allow us to require more than the state’s stretch code allows. So by going 40B, we lose our leverage to push for more efficient buildings.
I disagree with your premise, Greg. I don’t think the City properly determined it didn’t have a winning case. I think they just dropped the ball. I posted numerous times about the need for specialized legal counsel.
I’ve used 40B as a developer. That doesn’t make me an expert. I’m smart enough to hire legal counsel with an expertise in 40B. That’s exactly what the City of Newton should have done. No developer would have opted for 40B if that case was still pending. The City would be in the driver’s seat instead of the developers.
Mike,
I know we’ve been having this conversation for years, but I, too, don’t understand this without-40B-we-could-demand-more-affordable-housing argument. How can the city council do better than the 40B promise of no city council approval required?
Also, don’t Austin St., Washington Place, and the proposed Northland projects all disprove your point?
If I lived north of the Pike, I would be livid (or maybe dejected and resigned). I would demand that Chestnut Hill and Waban be upzoned (no single-family-only lots, at all) immediately and that significant development be allowed around Green Line stations by right before any more north-side lots get rezoned residential or mixed use.
The demand for residential development is enormous and will be realized wherever there are opportunities … soft spots, if you will. Right now, those opportunities are overwhelmingly on the north side.
That ain’t fair. Or, responsible, in light of the public transportation available in the city.
@Sean why not be a voice for those of us who live ( just) North of the pike anyways? You can write the mayor as well as I can.
Uh, Rick, I just wrote that what’s happening on the north side isn’t fair. Isn’t that being a voice for those north of the Pike?
You might not be delighted with the positions I’m taking on zoning. I think we should remove single-family-zoning across the city and allow for thousands of more housing units by right. I’ve communicated that in a myriad of ways: on this blog, in public fora, to councilors, to the mayor, to the mayor’s staff.
Without question, the status quo has a disproportionate impact on those north of the pike. I’ve made that point repeatedly and will continue to make that point. Loosen things in Waban and Chestnut Hill and Newton Centre, immediately.
@Sean well you wrote it as an if statement which was unnecessary. Believe me, there are plenty of people who are in opposition to all the development being dumped on the north side. And we are organizing to get new representation in government as I write this. Not because we’re “anti-development”. We want thing done with proportion and not just bigger is better. Austin Street is a good example. Ugly AF, no setback, trees that will be unable to grow naturally. Piece of garbage that looks completely out of character. I know, that’s subjective. But it’s jarring when you look at the nicely sculpted brick building on the other corner. Or even the smaller brick building a few lots down, with a nicer setback and some decent sized trees.
Perhaps in a hundred years people will look in awe at the new building on Austin Street and say “ah, they don’t build them like they used to”. But I doubt it.
@Sean– The three projects you mentioned actually prove my point.
Austin Street… The City demanded and received six additional affordable housing units.
Washington Place… The City itself prioritized and received concessions other than extra affordable housing from the developer. Concessions the developer would not have made under 40B.
Northland… The City should and could require 30% of the housing at Northland be affordable. Yet I haven’t heard a single public official ask for 30%. You don’t ask/you don’t get!
Rick,
I don’t live on the north side. Pretty well-known fact. So, I tried a little empathy for those who do. Thought that’s what being an ally is about. Oh, well. Swing and a miss on my part.
As for the appropriate response, as I thought, you and I don’t agree. You want to dial back development. I want to spread it out more equitably.
Also, Austin St. looks far better than I expected. A great addition.
Mike,
Austin St., the city had ultimate leverage. They owned the lot.
As for the other two, on the dimension of affordable housing, we’d have had more units under 40B. Sure, without 40B, the city has leverage generally. And, it might use it to get more affordable housing. But, 40B guarantees affordable housing.
At least now I better understand your point.
If by dial back, you mean scale back the plans, yes. I would like to see less height and more setback. But I don’t consider that “anti-development”. The Orr building was in need of an update or replacement, and many of the older buildings along Washington street are. So it’s a matter of degree and design.
As for spreading it around, I’m in favor of that as well. As a matter of fact, if it was spread around, it would require less height and could have more setback in each area, rather than an a too-tall-too-big development like Washington Place etc all along Washington Street and now the new 40b in Nonantum, which is not far from that.. Washington Place, btw, I think looks better constructed than Austin Street. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the aesthetics. It looks cheap and ugly to me.
Austin Street was a failed process in my view. I thought the ranking process was good, but I disagreed with Mayor Warren’s final decision and how he made it. GreenStax was going to save very little time, and the idea that it was more “green” vs the alternative doesn’t seem accurate to me, taking all things into account.
With that said, it is a 4 story building. And there are setbacks on the side facing Starbucks. Let’s not overreact to setback.
Once it is finished completely, I’d welcome us all weighing in on it, I think it will be useful. But let’s wait a few weeks.
I’ll be honest. I think the above qualifies.
@fignewtonville – it would have been nice to put some trees in the “setback” then, that could grow to a bigger size.
Also, there is a plan (not sure how it’s going) to close Bram Way, the road there is now considered a bit dangerous. How to do it exactly remains a problem I think, because delivery trucks cannot easily back out of there – it’s easier for them to go straight out Bram Way, and it’s difficult for them to turn around.
@Sean Roche: “the city had ultimate leverage. They owned the lot.” Like, hello! Last I checked ‘the city’ includes the taxpayers. The STAKEHOLDERS. What, is “The City” some kind of self-contained autonomous entity, now? (They sure act like it!) Law department’s been busy, I guess. ;)
I live on the north side. I’m in favor of NO equal opportunity development ANYWHERE. It’s just another Trojan horse, people. Of course its being advocated for!
I live on the north side. I’m fine with more apartments and condos. What I’m skeptical of is all the retail space in these mixed use developments. Retail is dying in general and I’d prefer to see interesting retail and food spaces move into Nonantum village center instead. (If we can turn it into a mini Davis Square circa 2005, maybe Sean Roche will visit someday) You can also keep in mind that this development is right next to the Stop n Shop strip mall with its dumpy Papa Gino’s and several other disused retail spaces already. So dollars to donuts the new retail spaces will be new banks and salons.
One has to wonder what a Scott Lennon would have to say if he was the mayor now.
Would he be saying oh well, we haven’t met our 40b requirements, feel free to come into our city and ignore our zoning codes that the rest of our residents do.
Sure know Amy Sangiolo wouldn’t be rolling over.
This Fuller administration should never have given up its status of being compliant with 40b.
Yes retail is dying, and one article I read about mixed use in California said that the developers there used calculations that priced their retail revenue at $0.00. That is, they did not depend on the retail at all to be able to make money, so if it sits vacant they will still make money. The only reason they built it was to please the city planners cult like following of the mixed use religion.
Yuppie S.,
Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with you. New residences and office space could help revitalize Nonantum and the Stop and Shop center. We probably don’t need more retail. The only countervailing argument is if new retail could help activate the Charles.
I wrote the comment above mostly to say, “I was right!” when I argued that mixed use was possible at the two Avalons.
But, in restrospect, I was probably wrong in my advocacy.
I know I’m going to sound like a broken record, but what is going to go into all of these mixed use buildings? 2/3 of the Elm Street storefronts are STILL vacant!
Why are manufacturing districts rezoned for more housing?
These sites are necessary to meet service needs for the local population?
If this site builds mixed use housing, make sure the ratio is not
weighted too heavily for housing.
Mary (and others wondering about retail):
Retail is not dead. I get the temptation to bury it, but in any period of retail upheaval, there is inefficiencies in the market. What does that mean? Some retail units will stay empty.
Here is how I know it isn’t dead. Newton retail rents are very high. Eventually if there is a glut on the market of retail spaces, overall retail rent will go down.
So why is a particular space unrented? Could be any/all of the following:
1) prior tenant/lease still paying rent (just because they empty the storefront doesn’t mean they can abandon the lease)
2) Landlord doesn’t WANT to lease it (see Village Bank in Newtonville)
3) Landlord is waiting for a particular tenant/type of tenant
4) Local market saturated with banks/other high paying tenants, but LAndlord wants high rents and is will to wait for it
5) Space is weird (bad electrical, short ceilings, no basement, bad smell, bad location, bad landlord, outdated plumbing, requires a zoning variance to rent to anything except office)
6) No parking
7) Something is in the works but buildout takes forever
8) Environmental concern (old dry cleaner)
I do agree that some locations should NOT have retail, and sometimes we force it in. That does not include any of the Newtonville/Washington Street projects, but that location in Nonantum isn’t a slam dunk at all for retail.
By the way, for the folks talking about how California underwrites retail, don’t confuse bank underwriting with reality. Housing prices are so high they don’t need the retail at all. Bank usually require a debt service coverage ration of 1.2 or higher. If they get that on the residential, they don’t need to assume lease-up risk on the retail, making it easier to get loans. Doesn’t mean anything much, and is market specific. I’ve seen deals like that in downtown Boston. Gravy is gravy, and if you don’t get a highly leverage debt structure, you have flexibility to take out the reliance on less secure cash flow sources. That doesn’t mean retail is dead. It just means housing is more secure.
Good retail happens and is very lucrative. Bad retail goes bankrupt. Tale as old as time. Also, Newton Rents are sticky, because we have a wealthy city by comparison.
Hope that is informative.
I agree with you that retail is not dead and I think there are plenty of businesses that could succeed in these developments, but it just seems like A LOT of storefronts that will need to be filled, and if they aren’t it can create a feeling of blight in a neighborhood.
Mary:
Some communities provide grants to landlords or zoning variances for pop-up shops. Similar to the one on Washington Street near Cook. That is a good way to mitigate a bit of the “blight” issue. Or storefront artwork. But I hear you, lots of empty storefronts aren’t ideal.
I’m very curious as to who will fill the many new spaces at Austin Street and Washington Place. I’m hoping for some new interesting tenants. Everyone tenant won’t be great, they never are. It’s a mix typically.
If you look at a similar village like Newton Center or Coolridge Corner, there are lots of potential tenants.
Kinda makes you wonder though why he already asked for a change to allow for a 2800 sq ft bank. Not very exciting.
Rick:
Honestly, because banks are the best tenants for a developer. High rent, low impact, low maintenance. And they rarely go bankrupt and they pay on time.
Also, there is the concept of it being harder to fill a completely empty building than one at 60%. Sometimes preleasing is your friend, especially for refinancing construction debt. So having a super stable tenant might allow you to take more risks on the other spaces.
Not defending it. Just spelling out what I’ve seen.
Of course. But, as part of the “deal”, Korff agreed to not lease to a bank ( because the councilors, esp Mr Auchincloss I believe, thought it would be appealing to the public that there wouldn’t be another bank. But recently Mr. Korff held a “public” hearing, and as I understand it now he gets a bank. Bait and switch. Easy peasy. It’s going to be banks and nail salons.
The developers are taking the city Council to the cleaners, and it’s my goal to get many of them out of office so we can get better local democratic representation.
Rick, didn’t they also get something in return? Namely renting to non-chain local stores for a portion of the remainder?
I would have made that deal too. The bank space is there but so are the local stores.
Also I’d be shocked if it is nail salons. Why move into new space at high rates when there are lots of mini spaces on walnut and wanshington? Plus we have a lot of that already and they are sort of limping along.
I think it will be at least one restaurant, one fast casual place, one service business, and one quirky WTH is that business. What’s your guess?
I’m more worried about Austin street. Those are tiny retail units.
A wine bar would be nice. An extension of the Sycamore restaurant empire. A Figgy can dream, no?
You would like a wine bar or restaurant, but the people living right above it aren’t going to like it. What most people have overlooked is that living above a restaurant with the smells and the noise isn’t going to be popular. Restaurant needs to have the proper ventilation, grease handling, if there’s outdoor seating , And the people are living right above it how noisy is it going to be at night? Where are all the patrons of the restaurant going to park because they’re going to be coming from out of town or across the city. I really think that the folks who imagine this kind of fantasy are Just completely naïve and don’t have any common sense. You all have really not thought it through to the end. Do you want to live above a brewpub? An Indian restaurant, the paint bar, cook restaurant (which is very noisy). The only thing that’s going to go in there maybe is a Starbucks or Some other place where there’s minimal cooking. I really can’t believe you folks think that there’s going to be Some sort of aa big restaurant Or even a medium restaurant much less a bar.
Not to mention that all the stuff is made of wood and living above the restaurant is a fire hazard.
For the kind rent they’re asking no thanks. As a matter fact except maybe in Back Bay or something, I can’t think of a single place in Newton where there is apartments or condos directly above the restaurant. The way to do it properly is to have a floor of office space, like medical offices, separating the residential from the first floor retail/restaurant space. If they were really serious about having nightlife activity On these first floors they have to have a buffer