13 Comments

1. 

   BOB BURKE on January 26, 2015 at 5:35 pm

   I’m disappointed since I think this is a horribly disruptive way to get some affordable housing into Newton. Just a question, but I can’t figure from the Tab report if the state has found that Newton hasn’t physically reached the 40 b threshold, or if it is that Newton simply failed to provide the “necessary supporting documentation” and the State would be open to considering additional information. . In other words, is the ball game over, or is the City back to the drawing boards. Does the City really want to take this any further.

2. 

   Joshua Norman on January 26, 2015 at 5:42 pm

   I’m speechless

3. 

   Mike Striar on January 26, 2015 at 5:44 pm

   This seems to be more a case of timing, rather than a rejection of Newton’s basis for having surpassed the 40B threshold. So the implications of this decision may not spread beyond the Rowe Street proposal. And the Mayor still has plenty of ammunition to slow down that project if he chooses to use it. As I’ve pointed out many times, the key to stopping large 40B apartment buildings, is to change the developer’s financial dynamic, making them spend every last dime possible within the constraints of the law. Forcing them to spend money and time will erode any developer’s commitment to a particular project. That’s what needs to happen on Rowe Street.

4. 

   tomsheff on January 26, 2015 at 5:58 pm

   I’m surprised, the Mayor’s office said there numbers were conservative.

5. 

   Mike Striar on January 26, 2015 at 6:13 pm

   @Tom– It doesn’t mean the Mayor was wrong. It may simply mean that Newton’s inoculation from 40B came a little too late to protect us from the Rowe Street project. This will certainly be a good test of the Mayor’s commitment to stopping 40B developers who continue to exploit that law in Newton.

6. 

   Julia Malakie on January 26, 2015 at 7:08 pm

   Hey everybody, you can stop hyperventilating. It was predictable that DHCD would side with the developer, just as it is predictable that HAC will side with the developer when the city appeals. It will end up in court. The grounds for denial sound very thin indeed, having to do with the amount of documentation provided on the day of the invocation, rather than the underlying facts.

   Greg, can you upload the ruling as a PDF for people who aren’t on Google Drive?

7. 

   Adam on January 26, 2015 at 7:40 pm

   Greg, you might just have to tweak permissions on that document

   • 

     Greg Reibman on January 26, 2015 at 7:51 pm

     sorry link fixed I think

8. 

   Marti on January 26, 2015 at 8:00 pm

   “Zoning Board of Appeals did not provide necessary supporting documentation when it notified Dinosaur Rowe LLC, the developer of 70 Rowe Street, ”

   It says “when” they were notified. Can Newton provide the documentation now or on appeal?

9. 

   BOB BURKE on January 26, 2015 at 8:16 pm

   @Mike Striar. I hear what you’re saying about the timing, and thanks for your cogent thoughts and insights. I still hope the City will continue to look for any possible way to submit new documentation if, in fact, the possibility even exists. Rowe Street is among the worst of the 40b travesties. I’ve been open about Austin Street, but Dinosaur will lose any possible credibility it has on that project if it keeps pushing this massive assault on Rowe Street in its current form.

10. 

    Marti on January 26, 2015 at 8:45 pm

    “… shall file an … appeal … within 20 days of its receipt of the decision …”

    “The Board’s hearing of the Project shall thereupon be stayed until the conclusion of the appeal … ”

    Looks like the town better get crackin’

11. 

    Paul on January 26, 2015 at 11:36 pm

    Is this the same Dinosaur as Austin St?

    If so, why are we partnering with a developer for Austin St who has so little regard for Newtonites that they seek statutory shelter from receiving our citizen’s input?

    They have every right to pursue 40B developments as per the law, but we should not give them the opportunity to pursue another development on public land.

12. 

    Jerry Reilly on February 1, 2015 at 10:30 am

    Ellen Ishkanian has a story in today’s Boston Globe West about the state rejecting Newton’s assertion that it had met it met the 40B threshold – i.e. that more than 1.5% of Newton’s develop-able land is currently used for affordable housing.

    The story goes on to say that Stoneham is in a similar boat. Stoneham also asserted that they had reaches the 1.5% threshold, and the state also rejected Stoneham’s claim. In the case of Stoneham, the state disputed some of their submitted facts. In the case of Newton, the state didn’t dispute the facts but told Newton that they did not provide sufficient documentation.

    Rather than immediately appeal the decision in court, I would have thought the first course of action would be for Newton to submit additional documentation of it’s claims.