Updated — I got the latest unit sizes for the proposal and have updated below.
—
Concerns about guest parking at a proposed development appear to have eliminated an opportunity to provide two permanently affordable homes and have made the homes that will be built larger and, therefore, almost certainly more expensive. Who would have guessed?
At a July 27 meeting of the Newton City Council’s Land Use committee, developers presented a petition for a three-story condominium apartment building at 50 Jackson St., which is currently two lots: 383 and 387 Boylston St. There are two buildings on the site that will be removed; one is retail, the other houses two restaurants.
The developer initially proposed 12 three-bedroom units and 22 parking spaces. The units ranged from 1,186 to 2,077 s.f., with an average size of 1,460 s.f. Under Newton’s Inclusionary Zoning ordinance, a condominium development of 7 to 12 total units must provide 15% of the units as permanently affordable to households with 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). Doing the math, 15% of 12 is 1.8, which rounds to 2. Accordingly, two of the 12 units would have been affordable.
As well as providing two affordable homes, this is a great example of the gentle density that the city needs. Just three stories. Moderately sized and, one expects, moderately priced units, or at least more moderately priced than other options in Newton. All of the unit are three-bedroom homes, which a neighbor noted are scarce at reasonable prices, making this development attractive to young families. At just about a mile from the Newton Centre T, it’s not a terrible walk or bike. It’s about a 10-minute walk to Wegman’s. And, close to Bowen school. So, a pretty good opportunity for some car-lite living.
Some neighbors expressed concerns about the amount of parking. They worried that 22 spaces was not enough parking for residents or for their guests and that the development would result in more on-street parking along Jackson St. and Langley St. Councilor Marc Laredo amplified their concern:
Third, the Parking situation. Where are guests going to park? What is the plan for that? I don’t think it’s commercially reasonable to tell a developer, “No, you can only have one parking space when you sell a three-unit condo?” I think the market speaks for itself, quite frankly, and we have to respect developers desires in that regard.
Councilor Laredo’s comments begin at 4:05:15 of the meeting video.
It’s hard to know what to do with this. Not to state the obvious, but Councilor Laredo is a councilor on the Land Use committee — and was even its chair at one point. The entire point of zoning and Land Use’s role in reviewing special permits according to the zoning code is to prevent the market from speaking for itself. And, if he really wanted to let the market speak for itself, he’d defer to what the developer thought was adequate parking. But, Councilor Laredo wants to know what the plan is for guest parking.
In his summary of the item, committee chair Councilor Rick Lipof echoed Councilor Laredo and expressed a number of concerns, including “the lack of guest parking.”
Councilors Alicia Bowman and Tarik Lucas, on the other hand, both dismissed parking as a concern. Here’s Councilor Lucas:
It’s twelve housing units with 22 parking spots. […] And, I think… just my personal opinion … there’s a lot of parking there. If it’s so close to the T and the 60 bus, in theory you would need fewer parking stalls.
The item is back before Land Use at tomorrow night’s 7 PM meeting (agenda, zoom link, and planning memos one and two). And, apparently in response to the feedback about parking, the developer has increased the ratio of parking spaces to units from under to over two by eliminating three homes from the proposal, including both of the affordable units, while also eliminating two parking spots (and adding a bike room).
How can the developer eliminate both of the two affordable units? Isn’t 15% of 9 1.35? It is, but the Inclusionary Zoning ordinance allows a developer of a 7- to 9-unit development to provide a cash payment in lieu of actually building affordable homes. Instead of building two affordable three-bedroom condomiums, the developer will pay $520,415.28.
The building size is essentially unchanged in the new proposal. With three units removed, the unit size has grown considerably. The range of eight of the units in the updated proposal is 1,341 to 2,496 s.f.* The range of the units in the updated proposal is 1,296 to 2,496 s.f. The smallest unit will be bigger than half of the earlier proposed units. The average size of the eight nine units will be 2004 1900 s.f., or over 500 400 s.f. — a third 30% — larger than the average in the original proposal. It is still a good development, but these are no longer all moderately sized units.
So, that’s the tradeoff. No affordable units. Larger, likely more expensive market-rate units. But, two spots for guest parking.
Councilor Laredo is fond of saying that the special permit process results in better developments than are first proposed. Not in this case.
* For some reason, the Planning memo only includes the sizes of 8 units. I will update when I get a corrected list.
We somehow have 4 Sean Roche development posts in the span of one (1) week. For those of you counting at home that’s .57 Sean Roche development posts a day!
Surely other things happen in this city worth writing about.
I posted this comment in another thread before I saw this post. Here it is:
This project recently came before the Newton Fair Housing Committee. Pursuant to the HUD Reconciliation Agreement settling the claim against the city for withdrawing federal housing funds for the Engine 6 housing for chronically homeless persons, the NFHC and the city review all residential projects to determine whether they promote fair housing goals by meeting and/or exceeding legal requirements for affordability, accessibility, proximity to transportation, amenities, and jobs, and not discriminating against discrete protected groups. The Boylston/Jackson project was reduced in size because of neighborhood complaints about density and traffic, which means much larger units that are less affordable and no onsite affordable units. This is particularly galling since this is a conversion of commercial use to residential, and residential uses have by far the lowest traffic impact. Because of Newton’s progressive inclusionary zoning ordinance, however, the developer will contribute over $530,000 to fund affordable housing offsite. Thus, while this individual project does not contribute onsite affordable housing opportunities, it will support an overall increase in the number of affordable units in the city. Nevertheless, I would personally prefer to see more, smaller units for all income levels at this and every residential project close to transit and village centers. Reforming Newton’s restrictive zoning by allowing multi-family construction by right near villages and transportation would promote the City’s fair housing goals far better than a special permit process that just makes it economically infeasible for developers to create affordable units except in much, much larger projects.
Did you think it’s entirely possible for the Land Use Committee to suggest smaller units? And to actually build the affordable units instead of the cash payment? Hmm…
Overposting by Sean has made this blog unbearable. I will be taking a long break.
I find it amusing that commenters are complaining about over posting on development issues. We just had an election in which nearly everything was about two issues: development and schools. That’s it. You can argue that one issue was climate change, but that still came down to development.
One thing I always hear is that people are afraid of overcrowding in schools, more traffic, parking, increased density, etc. and that these issues are entirely separate from their desire to have more affordable housing. But this is a stark example of the realities at play. The actions that people take in trying to change the size of development, that is, working to make it smaller, directly results in a loss of affordable housing. Ironically, in this case, it doesn’t even result in a smaller development!
I find it amusing that some commenters are apparently incapable of just skipping posts they aren’t interested in. I follow several blogs, all of which have posts I’m not at all interested in. The solution? I don’t read those posts. I don’t write complaints in the comments about the posts. I don’t threaten to stop reading the blogs because I’m only interested in some of the posts. And if I find that a blog I formerly liked is no longer of interest, I quietly stop going there without first throwing a temper tantrum. It’s not like you’re paying a subscription fee to read Village 14.
However, if some day you encounter on one of those blogs a post that contains factual info that contradicts your worldview and your opinions, then you should in fact write comments that insult the blog and the blogger, and then loudly announce your exit. It’s a surefire way to draw attention away from facts that contradict your narrative and undermine your credibility.
Or, you can both support development, and acknowledge that an over barrage of development-esque posts probably increases tribalism and does the opposite of what you’d like to achieve. The Globe manages to write a whole weekly report on mostly non-development things, surely there’s enough out there.
I hope more weight is given to the opinions of Councilors that live in areas with transit – like Lucas and Bowman, than those who live in public transportation deserts, like Laredo. This is not only a housing issue but a climate issue.
Laredo is also opposing a speed cushion on Grant Avenue, a residential street that is a popular cut through for drivers cutting through Newton. Cars go so fast (40+ or your honked at) that the city put 8 concrete and steel bollards in front of a house that had been hit twice.
For reasons I don’t understand Councilor Laredo found measures to slow vehicle traffic are not good. Thank you for posting this Sean.
Councilor Laredo proves dinosaurs are not extinct.
TRS,
I’m not sure he’s a dinosaur, though Laredosaurus does have a ring to it. Can you be a fossil if you’re addicted to fossil fuels?
It’s a weekly tussle between two Ward 7 councilors to see who is the bigger apologist for car culture.
This is one of those rare occasions where I kinda agree with Sean.
Yes to smaller units
Yes to affordable units
I do appreciate the concern that overflow parking will (WILL) inevitably flow into the neighborhood, but would have rather seen some sort of street permitting and ticketing put in place instead of fewer and larger units.
Land Use just recommended approval of a 10-unit apartment building with ground floor retail with just 16 parking spaces. One space for each unit (mostly 2BR), two spaces for the commercial space employees, and four guest spaces.
This project is on
Washington St. Watertown St. in Nonantum, across from the Coletti-Magni park, so even less available on-street parking than 50 Jackson St.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think you meant Watertown St.
Can we simply say one development (approved!) is in Nonantum while the other (no way!) is in Chestnut Hill? There’s a reason there is so much mistrust, nobody thinks this is a coincidence do they?
If I’m not mistaken, the one in Nonantum replaces a structure that has already been torn down, but is on the same footprint. But your point is fair.
However, I’m of the opinion that the density on the north side of town is our strength, it’s what makes living over here so amazing. I had breakfast the other day with a neighbor who said “I wouldn’t want to live on the south side, there’s nothing there!”
Both proposed developments seem like good ones. But there does seem to be a pattern of what gets approved and what doesn’t that many have remarked on. 50 Jackson St is basically right on Rte 9, it’s not exactly a low density spot.
Garry,
Absolutely right. A useful comparison is to 145 Warren St., 5 minutes from the Newton Centre T. It’s a proposed 5-unit development at a density of about 10 units per acre, compared to about 26 units per acre with the amended, 9-unit proposal at 50 Jackson St. The original proposal would have been (and might again be) about 35 units per acre. Why is 145 Warren St. less likely to be approved than either 386 Watertown or 50 Jackson St.? Because of context. Neighbors complain (and a number of councilors are sympathetic) about 154 Warren St. that there is no lot with similarly intensive development (which is demonstrably untrue). If anything, at 50 Jackson St., the neighbors complaint is that there’s already enough development. But, the analysis is about whether the building fits into the neighborhood. With a number of apartment buildings in the area, it “fits” into the context.
This is how we get more density where density exists, and density doesn’t succeed where density doesn’t already exist.
50 Jackson St. is a decent project at 9 units, and a very good to great project at 12 units. But, it would be much more aligned with the city’s housing and climate goals if we had 50-Jackson-St. levels of density on Warren St.
Garry, I hear you but I don’t recall there being any comment from the public. Was there not a public hearing as a part of this or was there just no one there to comment?
The Ward Councilor for Ward 1 spoke in support. Was she representing the ward view?
Also I don’t this the other project was in Chestnut Hill. I think that is Thompsonville? Not that it necessarily matters. Just a point if clarification
I think technically it’s in Thompsonville, it’s right on the border though. I guess my point is that optics matter. A lot of people in Nonantum feel like they are being over burdened with development and that wealthier parts of the city are not doing their fair share. Decisions like this validate that perception regardless of the merits.
Personally it seems to me that both projects should move forward, I’m not at all an anti-development person.
I wasn’t suggesting that you were Garry. I was just surprised that no one from the public spoke…unless I missed it
Langley and Jackson is basically the heart of T’ville. The businesses the development abuts (and replaces) are essentially the core of the Thompsonville business district, if there ever was one, though a block or two in either direction you’re arguably in a different village. Thompsonville is that small.
I’m sorry I missed the most recent Land Use meeting, but there was plenty of public comment at the previous meeting, including a good amount of public support FOR the smaller units and affordable housing. I don’t remember how many expressed concern about parking or whether they were electeds or neighbors (there were undoubtably a few) but there were several criticisms about the orientation of the development, particularly from the immediate abutter to the west, and also about how the development was oriented more towards Route 9 than towards the neighborhood. Neither of those concerns had anything to do with the number of units or their size.
@Gary I don’t
It seems to me that the opportunity to create even two more affordable housing units in Newton is something that most folks on this blog should be ready to endorse. How about a system of short term permits that would enable guests to park on designated portions of streets that are adjacent to the new development project. I know this isn’t entirely convenient for homeowners on affected streets, but I think these problems would be entirely manageable if everyone would follow some give-and-take common sense rules and restrictions. As a homeowner here, would I be amenable to this short term inconvenience on my street if it meant that two more families could find affordable housing here. I’d be delighted provided everyone played by the rules.
@Sean Roche, your comment “we get more density where density exists, and density doesn’t succeed where density doesn’t already exist” is very perceptive, and I think it drives some of the resentment we see in a lot of the city, of “why do we get all the noise and traffic associated with development and the ‘rich’ parts of the city don’t”?
It would be an interesting topic for a separate article. It has to do with zoning yes but also politics and class and history. I think it would be useful for people to really reflect on what “this doesn’t fit the character of the neighborhood” or “I moved to Newton for the suburban feel” really ends up meaning in practice and how that reads to people from “non-suburban” parts of the city. 70% of the city is zoned single-family, what happens then in the 30% that is not? It would be interesting to know what % of development occurs in the 30% non-single-family-zoned parts of the city.
Parking seems to be a hot new issue. I recently attended a meeting where a resident was seeking a change to allow resident permit parking on a specific street. The basic premise was to retain the current three hour limit (to prevent commuter and school parkers as the street is close to Newtonville), but allow residents with a permit to park for longer. Most abutters did not want this as they were concerned that everyone would start using the street for parking. Is this becoming another method to continue exclusionary practices?