Anyone who doubts the impact of houses torn down and replaced or expanded into townhouses, and those of you who don’t get north of Washington Street that much, should take a walk around Elm, Oak, and Cherry and Webster Streets to see what’s happening in my part of West Newton.
Above is a photo of the five units of luxury condos at 11-19 Elm Street, under construction in April. One unit of what is being marketed as “Phase 1” of Elm Gardens is still available: 3,715 sq.ft. for $1,359,000.
Tonight, overshadowed by the second water meter debate, the Board of Aldermen is due to vote on petitions #273-14 for a change of zone for 114 River Street, and #273-14(2) for a Special Permit/Site Plan Approval to build four additional units on the combined lots of 114 River Street and 5-7 Elm Street, next door to 11-19 Elm.
What’s going on here? I can’t describe it any better than a near neighbor, Tricia Bombara, did in a November 6 letter to Land Use and the Board of Aldermen:
While the Planning Board now believes that the FAR for this project is within the context of the neighborhood, in 2007 they wrote: Although there is a range of Floor Area Ratios in the immediate neighborhood, the proposed units will be larger than most and much larger than the average floor area/unit… the Planning Department remains concerned about the project scale (bulk), which should show careful respect for neighborhood context.
The bottom line is that the “neighborhood development pattern” toward more bulk and more density was set in motion by the Board and is now self-perpetuating. In a neighborhood where many of the homes were built before 1900, there are certainly many modest houses on small lots quite close to the neighboring house, which contributes to density. But there are also many homes – some large, some quite small – on large lots with significant amounts of open green space; these have also contributed greatly to the neighborhood character and context. It would seem that these properties are now considered “underbuilt” by the City and are prime targets for further development, changing the character of the neighborhood from one of mixed-density with low, moderate, and high-end housing to one of primarily high-density, high-end housing.
Finally, I would like to note that the petitioners’ Special Permit application (#40-07) for the first phase of this development at 11 Elm was for 5 units, each with 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, and a single car garage, but the units as built are 4-bedroom, 4.5 baths, with 2-car garages. This second phase again proposes 3-bedroom, 3-bath units; do the proposed unit sizes have any meaning? If the developer had come forward initially with a proposal for a 9-unit development of $1.3M+ luxury single-family attached homes, with 4 bedrooms, 4.5 baths and 2-car garages, the developer would have been required to include an affordable unit. By separating it into two phases, the developer was able to make a smaller payment to avoid including the affordable unit in the first phase (under 6 units), and won’t be required to include one in the second phase (4 units).
Note the bit about two phases. The Report of the November 6 portion of the Public Hearing says:
Alderman Hess-Mahan noted that, although several neighbors had done so, it was incorrect to characterize this petition as part of a nine-unit project.
But the marketing website for Elms Gardens itself refers to Phase 1. And the Assessors Database lists the owner of 11-19 Elm St as Antonio Bonadio Tr, Bonadio Realty Trust, and the owner of 5-7 Elm St as Antonio Bonadio T//C, Nicore Construction Company. (The owners of 114 River St are listed as Salvatore Marrazzo Jr and Mark Rayhall.)
Despite reservations expressed by even the Planning Department and some members of the Board of Aldermen, about the size of the project, and size and lack of diversity in size of the units, many other seem to be onboard with yet another replacement of relatively affordable housing and open space, and here, the loss of a small commercial parcel, with still more mega-sized condos for the wealthy.
Seems to me Ms. Malakie that if you wish to influence how a private individual develops (or does not develop) his/her land, you and your like-minded cohort should band together, purchase the property, and do with it as you see fit. Build a shed, plant some trees, donate the property to the city gratis. As the owners you have those options. Absent that, it is rather an abomination for the city to exercise any but the loosest control over how private landowners choose to use their property.
A debate about how the city uses the land it controls (e.g., Austin Street) is right and proper. That is after all land held by all of us. The situation is far different for a private landowner. Nobody is making you live in a tear down. Nobody is forcing you to stare endlessly at a teardown. The damages inflicted upon you by the presence of these houses are naught compared to those which are suffered by a homeowner restricted from realizing the full value of their investment.
Newton would be far better off if people minded their own business rather than the business of their neighbors.
@Elmo:
Really?? First, there’s no damages to me personally. It’s what we’ll all lose if we become a city with no middle, just really wealthy and people who qualify for officially affordable housing. But if you don’t think government has a role anything but the loosest control of property use, I’m probably not going to convince you.
And I don’t feel sorry for anyone with property to sell in Newton. For heaven’s sake, letting someone realize “full value of their investment” could involve a 20-story high-rise. Are you saying that would be okay? Because one person’s ‘full value’ is the neighbors’ adverse impact. The principle is the same, in both cases; it’s just a matter of degree.
But while I disagree with your opinion, I do admire your use of the word ‘naught.’ :-)
Since my name has been taken in vain, please let me explain (Points for alliteration!).
When the Board of Aldermen approved the attached dwellings at 11-19 Elm Street in 2007, the current developer was not even in the picture. Because of the recession, the owners, one of a number of Italian-American families who have owned properties on Elm Street for many years, did not construct the project until this past year. They were allowed to do this because of legislation extending the time to exercise special permits because of the recession.
A developer subsequently bought both properties from the same extended family and is seeking a special permit to build the attached dwellings on the corner of River Street and Elm Street, where there is currently a two family house built in the 1920s and a small empty lot on River Street that used to have a grocery store owned by a different family until it burned down in 1999. In the past 15 years, the only economic activity on that site ever has been someone selling hot dogs out of a food cart. The site is overgrown and has trash on it. According to the owners of the vacant lot, no one else has expressed interest in buying it for a commercial purpose over the past 15 years, and the planning board recommended that it be rezoned as residential.
The common driveway for both developments was actually suggested by the planning department, in order to move the access to the site farther away from a busy intersection and make it safer for everyone. So it is just incorrect to say that the developer sought to avoid the inclusionary zoning ordinance by doing serial projects, since this developer was not even on the scene until this past year–almost 7 years after the original special permit was granted for 5 units!
Moreover, the lot with the two-family on it is about 19,000 square feet and the vacant lot is about 6,000 square feet for a total of 25,000 square feet. If the special permit is granted, the lot area per unit will be almost 6,000 square feet, which is more than on many of the smaller lots with two-family houses in the neighborhood. (The minimum lot size in the MR2 zoning district is 10,000 square feet and 5,000 square feet per unit.) It should also be noted that the lots on this side of Elm Street are particularly deep, which is why some of the owners built second homes on the rear of some of the lots prior to the adoption of the rear lot ordinance by the Board of Aldermen, which imposes stricter limitations on density than before it was adopted.
And for anyone who thinks that denying the special permit will preserve moderately priced housing, please go to the box marked “Clue.” The two-family on the property was built in the 1920s, has fairly small sized units of a little over 1,000 square feet each, and is not in very good condition after many years of providing housing for tenants. The property just sold for $900,000. By right, on the 19,000 square foot lot the owner could build two units of 3,750 square feet each and convert them to condos which would probably sell upward of $1 million each. The setbacks would be significantly smaller than are allowed for attached dwellings (minimum 25 foot setbacks from property line), and the Board of Aldermen would have no say about things like landscaping, regrading, or anything of the other conditions that are included in the special permit, including the location of the driveway, which would be closer to the intersection of Elm and River Streets. Finally, the developer’s counsel said it may be possible to merge and subdivide the lots, so it could end up being four by-right luxury condos, but without any conditions required by a special permit whatsoever.
Each project should be taken on its own merits. This neighborhood is comprised of both older and newer homes of various sizes and descriptions and has been in a process of renewal, which for obvious reasons has accelerated in the past year or so because of the housing market in Newton. It is close to the commuter rail and an express bus route, and is a short walk to an elementary school, a playground with a ballfield, and West Newton village center. It is simply not reasonable to assume that it is going to remain unchanged, and the addition of the newer market rate dwellings will increase property values in the neighborhood, whether the Board of Aldermen grants a special permit or not.
Ted, I don’t think the owner/developer set out to develop the properties in phases to avoid the inclusionary zoning requirements – that would have been a pretty long and risky game plan. It just wasn’t until this year that the owner of 3 Elm agreed to sell – according to the residents, he’d been trying to buy it for years. And if by “the developer who bought the property” you mean NiCore, it’s still a family company connected to the original owner. NOT THAT THERE’S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT. The houses that are/were there were in rough shape; it’s clear they would be gutted or replaced eventually. It’s the mass and density that bothers me. Yes, there are older houses with rear subdivisions that were done before the rear lot ordinance – I would imagine that’s why it was enacted. Just because the city CAN allow 9 luxury attached single family homes on 3 lots, it doesn’t have to. Getting rid of 2 curb cuts doesn’t seem that compelling to me. P.S. the original plans from the developer that I saw on the city website proposed the shared driveway, so I didn’t know that came from Planning. But it also means more area for new development since none has to be set aside for a driveway.
“This neighborhood…has been in a process of renewal” – really? There was no need for “renewal” of this lovely neighborhood. It may be the next area in Newton where tear downs change its character, but “renewal”? That statement is highly disrespectful to Auburndale.
“The addition of the newer market rate dwellings will increase property values in the neighborhood”. Property values in the city are increasing due an increase in housing prices in the entire metro-Boston area, not because you have a $2m house in your neighborhood. We are not the only community experiencing this, nor are we the only comparable community that’s no longer affordable to middle income families.
I totally don’t get how you push for $2m homes to replace and modestly priced homes and then push for affordable housing in the next breath. Just don’t get it.
p.s. I hate to quibble, but your points are for rhyme, not alliteration. ;)
Before the water meter discussion, these items were requested to be postponed to the first meeting in January, by Dick Blazar, and that motion passed in a voice vote.
anyone thinking that Newton is a better place to live in 5-10 years than it is now?
My hometown went from tree filled and ‘underbuilt’ to barren and overbuilt over a 10-15 year period – it ain’t pretty to see that happen. The photo in this thread is Newton’s future. No trees, horrible architecture and as an added bonus, a whole lot of SUVs covering up the rest of the lot.
I’m starting to think about exit strategies instead of putting down deeper roots.
@Denis Goodwin, I’m curious, if you don’t mind saying, what is your hometown? And if far away, can you suggest a starting point to take a look on Google Street View?
@Julie the town is lynbrook on long island. denser and more middle class than Newton to start with. with no before/after it’s tough, but put “marion st, lynbrook, ny” in google earth.
My street had a complete tree canopy in the 70s, early 80s, now it’s pretty sparse and lots of properties are built out to the max with lots more paved surfaces. The whole town feels more like Queens in NYC now – not sure if that means much to most of you, but I don’t know how else to describe it. There’s a sense of proportion that is changing in a way that reminds me of my town. It’s the changing ratio of trees to open sky and green space to structures/pavement. I don’t know if the zoning laws are bad, the developers are just smarter, or not enough people care about anything other than money anymore but I see an increasingly barren, congested garden city coming our way.
Dennis,
Your instincts based on personal experience sound oh so correct to me.
We lose the green space, and we gain more traffic and an architectural inheritance that will oh so graphically record the delinquency of our political leadership, and the avarice that is so endemic of our times.
Our city is undergoing a rapid change in character. I live on a street that is all 1950’s ranch style homes. They are not modestly priced – all are over $1,000,000. Three houses, including my next door neighbor’s house, are in the demolition delay or review process – all sold for well over $1.2 million, just for the land and the right to rip the houses down and rebuild. The house next door to mine is not supposed to be taken down until next fall but the developer is so certain that he will be able to get around the City’s delay that he has already taken down 90% of the trees on the property, erected a lovely orange construction site fence, and leaves the front end loader in the backyard, which is now totally unsightly and gutted from the construction equipment and trucks that come and go each day. I am certain that this was not what the city intended when they cited a delay. At this point, I long for the day when the house is taken down and construction on the new 6,000 SF colonial will begin (yes, that is what we have been told by the developer). Ted, is there any way to push this project ahead??
People who want to buy new-construction $500,000 homes do not look to buy in Newton. It doesn’t exist. And fewer who are buying older homes in Newton in this price range (the few that still exist) are not tearing them down and building $1.4M condos. Today’s buyers want to buy new construction homes, or fully restored/updated homes. If they want to live in Newton the price tag is hefty. Sorry, that’s what it is. What would you sell your home for if you had to put it on the market today? Not unlikely considerably more than you paid for it (and likely more than it would be worth if located somewhere other than Newton)!
@NativeNewtonian, you’re right, that is not what demolition delays were supposed to be used for. They are supposed to be for time to find an alternative to demolition. Instead developers seem to be allowed to strip the insides of houses and then argue that they are in bad shape and not salvageable, so the demolition delay should be waived. Demolition delays seem to be little more than a speed bump that developers factor in and use the time to do things like the tree cutting you observed. (BTW, you can check with Marc Welch at Urban Forestry to make sure they have the required Tree Permit. Eventually you’ll be able to do this online.)
It would be nice if demolition delays were true delays and nothing could happen until the delay was over, with penalties for doing what’s happening next door to you.
@Denis Goodwin, I’ve been perusing random streets in Lynbrook on Google Street View and it doesn’t look that extreme in house sizes compared to what’s happening here. I guess you’re right, you have to see the ‘before’ as well. And the street trees, at least, look pretty good compared to a lot of ours. I was wondering from your description if it might be in one of the Long Island ALB regulated areas, but I see it is a few towns away from the Brooklyn/Queens one.
Good catch, Tricia. (Points!)
Nicore Corp. was established in 2011, four years after the prior owner obtained a special permit for 11-19 Elm Street, and, yes, the principal of the company is part of the same extended family as the property owner.
Every special permit project goes through DRT (design review team) review, where the planning department, inspectional services, engineering, fire and other departments provide feedback and recommendations, and identify potential issues prior to filing an application and docketing with the Board of Aldermen. The driveway could have been located either right next to the existing driveway at 11-19 Elm Street or on River Street, which is a busy street. DRT recommended using a common driveway for traffic and safety reasons, to reduce turning conflicts and move the egress away from a busy intersection.
In terms of changing the character of the neighborhood, there are several medium sized houses on small (<10,000 square foot) rear lots that were built 30 to 40 years ago or more. As I previously mentioned, much of the neighborhood is comprised of multi-family dwellings on lots that are smaller and denser that, likewise, have been there for a long, long time. Just across River Street is a 10 unit building on 21,500 square feet that has been there for almost 30 years. If you compare the city atlases for the latter part of the 19th century through the early 20th century with the current assessors database, you will see that larger lots in the neighborhood were subdivided over the years and that a number of single and multi-family homes built during that period are on small, undersized lots (<10,000 square feet) which could not be developed today.
In short, for those of you who do not live in or are not familiar with this neighborhood (which apparently doesn't prevent some of you from having some pretty strong opinions about it), this is a densely settled neighborhood that has been undergoing substantial changes and renewal for over a century. The fair market value of the properties in the neighborhood, particularly the larger lots like this one (~20,000 square feet) are well beyond the reach of many middle class families and can hardly be called "affordable," "modestly," or "moderately" priced. The condo units in the neighborhood start in the $500,000 range, and the newer $1 million plus units have no trouble selling. As any RE appraiser worth their salt will tell you, RE values are based on comparable sales in the area, and the recent sales of higher priced units in this area are definitely driving up property values.
Would I prefer more affordable housing in West Newton? Absolutely. And if the owner came in for a special permit that included affordable housing, I would most likely have supported that, too. But that decision belongs to the property owner. Moreover, such a proposal might still meet neighborhood resistance. The 10 units across River Street include an affordable unit owned by the Newton Housing Authority that was created through the (at the time) 10% inclusionary zoning ordinance. This site is 25,000 square feet, and it would have to be a mixed income project including at least 10-15 units to be economically feasible. Given the toxic climate around 40B development in this city, there would inevitably be substantial opposition to a project of that size. Nevertheless, based on my discussions with the property owner, if this special permit is denied they may go that route at some point in the future (they would have to wait a year to file a 40B), or they may just build two, 3750 square foot luxury condos on the existing lot by right, which would sell for up to $1.5 million. And the neighborhood would still have more luxury condos, and would also continue to have the eyesore that is the small vacant lot located on the corner for perhaps another 15 years or more. You may not like that outcome either, but that is the most likely result if the special permit is denied.
NativeNewtonian, our demolition delay ordinance was meant to give property owners an incentive to preserve existing houses to the extent possible, or replace them with new houses that fit in with the historic character of the existing structures in the neighborhood after review and approval by the Historic Commission. But there are constitutional limits on how long the city can prevent property owners from doing what they want with their properties, consistent with local zoning restrictions. I do not know you particular circumstance (you can contact me at [email protected] if you would like me to follow up), but as long as the owner has the appropriate permits, it can demolish or modify the interior of the building and remove trees (which may require either replacement or payment to the city under the tree ordinance). Sorry about the unsightly construction fence. That is often required by the city for safety reasons during construction.
Ted, the point isn’t the existence of the fence. I understand that, once construction starts, it is necessary. My point is that, as of right now, the city has said that construction cannot start until late September 2015. Why has the developer been allowed to turn the lot into a construction site NOW??
NativeNewtonian, without knowing more of the specifics I cannot tell you. While total demolition of the existing house has been delayed, the owner may still be allowed to do other things with the property. And even if the owner cannot get a waiver of the demolition delay, as of September 2015, they can pretty much do whatever they want so long as they comply with zoning.
Its all about zoning !
I’m not sure about that inevitability. In the last 10 years or so, there have been several projects developed in this neighborhood (Crescent Field with 20 units and Auburndale Yards with 10 units, both mixed income, and Parkview with 10 units, all affordable) all WITHOUT substantial opposition.
Yes, many large lots were subdivided over the years, and houses were built on lots that wouldn’t be buildable today, and yes, houses were built behind other houses on some lots – before zoning was enacted to curb these trends to prevent the neighborhood from becoming too dense. Now we’re going back in the other direction – the attitude seems to be “well, there are already some lots with high-density, so we should allow this one.” What prevents ALL the lots from becoming high-density, changing this from an area with a mix of single and multi-family houses and high and low density lots to all high-density? And for the record, I’ve lived in this neighborhood for more than 20 years, so I’m more than a little familiar with the “renewal.”
I should add that the two-family house that was torn down to make way for the townhouses above was once a small cottage surrounded by a large lot when it was built in the mid-1800s. But, over the years, the lot was subdivided, other houses were built, and the small cottage itself was radically altered by the addition of a porch and stucco siding, which made it virtually unrecognizable. The photo above, taken during construction, also does not show the landscaping and trees that will be added to screen the structures and add to the canopy.
There is, however, another historic house on a large lot at 37 Elm Street that had been converted to a multi-family dwelling, which was preserved by adding attached dwellings pursuant to a special permit. This example has been followed many times throughout the city, where historic houses were preserved through the addition of attached dwellings by special permit (including across the street from my house). Otherwise, these historic structures would in many cases simply be demolished to make way for newer, bigger houses.
The house at 5-7 Elm Street was not historic in appearance, and was not found preferably preserved by the historic commission, although as former alderman George Mansfield informed the Land Use Committee, it was once the “Mansfield Manse,” where he briefly lived many years ago. But, like the project shown above, under the conditions of special permit, the lot would be regraded and thoroughly landscaped to screen the structures from the neighboring properties and the street.
Tricia, I am well aware that you are a long time resident of the neighborhood. You may not know that there was substantial opposition to the Parkview Homes, which include 10 affordable townhouses on one acre, when it first came in for funding and permitting. Ironically, one of the chief concerns was that it would bring down property values in the neighborhood. Happily, the project turned out very well, the houses are a beautiful addition to the neighborhood, and the families who moved in are very pleased with it.
@Julia Yeah, its more the trees and additions versus mcmansions. I don’t think the village’s economics supports large numbers of teardowns. i don’t know if the rules are more restrictive, i don’t have any connection to Lynbrook anymore, but i don’t recall teardowns happening much, if at all. It’s possible they’re just not permitted, or very hard to do — what a concept!
If Google maps had existed in 1976, you would not be able to see my street from the air in Summer. It would have been 100% tree covered. So while it might look OK now, it still feels like different place than what i grew up with.
@Denis Goodwin. We think so much alike it’s scary.
“And for anyone who thinks that denying the special permit will preserve moderately priced housing, please go to the box marked “Clue.””
Sarcasm is uncalled for.
The majority of your constituents do NOT want oversized developments encroaching into their neighborhood because it eliminates views of green space, trees, sun, moon, stars, skyline, etc. Overdevelopment often blocks light from neighbors’ homes thereby increasing energy costs — not to mention the depressingly tall shadows that these structures cast. When you go to a hotel, do you prefer a view of nature or of a dark, towering, adjacent building blocking your view?
I prefer that my small, modest family room continue to overlook green space & not overlook a massive new townhouse with a neighbor’s bedroom 5 ft from my property line. As it is, the view from my porch was greatly diminished by a large project a full street away.
In concert with wide-reaching energy conservation policies in the western part of the country (esp CA), new “solar rights” energy laws are furiously being enacted to prohibit new development (and even landscaping, i.e. tall trees) from infringing upon the rights of abutters. Unfortunately, Newton’s short-sighted administrators seem to only care about the increased tax base. They rarely delve into the well-known shady (no pun) financial practices of developers who shield profits by illegally shifting building material costs during government-subsidized housing projects.
@Bob I’m sure you’re much nicer than I am!