The new year is here, and predictably, affordable housing action has picked up in Wellesley where it left off in 2017.
The developer of a proposed 55-unit housing project at 148 Weston Road that would include 11 rental units deemed affordable has had the site eligibility okayed by a quasi-public outfit called MassHousing that also finances such buildings. The town has a long list of concerns about the Wellesley Park project, including its potential impact on traffic, the environment and character of the neighborhood, and MassHousing has instructed the developer to address such issues as it moves forward with trying to get a comprehensive permit from the town. The developer might be expected to apply for such a permit within the next couple of weeks.
Neighbors, citing another 40B project proposed for Delanson Circle about a half mile away, have raised similar concerns to those aired by the town. The fact that two such projects are in the works in relative proximity to each other has ratcheted up neighbors’ concerns.
RE-EXAMINING THE TAILBY LOT
But residents opposed to these 40B developments might take heart in a new effort by the town to issue a non-binding request for proposals (RFP) related to the possible development of the Tailby parking lot on Linden Street at the Wellesley Square train station as well as the parking lot that sandwiches the train tracks from the other side. The possibility was discussed on Monday night at the Board of Selectmen’s meeting and the decision to draft an RFP was approved by the Board (tune in around the 1 hour, 32-minute mark of the Wellesley Public Media video).
“What the RFP would do is put out to the public to come up with conceptual ideas” in a process similar to what was done regarding Lower Fall parking and the 900 Worcester St., project, said assistant executive director for the BoS office Meghan Jop. The town has explored development possibilities for this space since the 1990s, and most seriously of late in 2004, when it was determined not to be economically wise, Jop said.
“Given the recent developments with 40B and proposal at Delanson Circle it’s really brought forward this notion of should we look to see if the Tailby lot… has a higher development potential,” Jop said. Development of Tailby and possibly the lot near the post office could result in an alternative to the proposed 90-unit Delanson Circle project. One scenario might even involve a scaled down version of the Delanson Circle project that syncs up with something at Tailby.
Developing the railroad parking lots would fit with the town’s effort to take more control over where housing is developed through a housing production plan and fend off 40B proposals seen by some as exploiting the fact that Wellesley has less affordable housing than what the State mandates.
First comment – MassHousing is a joke. It’s not a real entity and it’s certainly NOT qualified to opine on what sites in Wellesley should be developed. It’s a puppet of the developers and politicians that are going to get rich off buildings these massive housing complexes. So let’s all be clear about that up front.
Second comment – The area between the major intersection at Grove/Washington/Central and the major intersection at Crest/Linden is already the most congested area in Wellesley. It’s essentially the definition of a “bottleneck”. What a sad situation we have found ourselves in where this tiny little corner of town is the best we can come up with for places to build giant apartment buildings. Are you kidding me? THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN AND IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN NOW – Find a site on Route 9 somewhere, probably in the patch of woods across from Toyota dealership on Route 9 on Newton line near the Wok, and build a 90 unit affordable housing building. DESIGNATE EVERY UNIT AS AFFORDABLE. Taxpayers will foot the bill because obviously affordable housing standalone is not profitable for the developer and politician friends. It will be worth paying up, even to make some jerk developer rich. Trust me. This way we get this done in one hatchet wound to the forehead rather than by a thousand pen knife cuts all over our body for the next decade. That land makes perfect sense – It’s right near Barton Rd, it’s on Route 9 where the traffic can be absorbed, and it’s raw land — no destroying of current single family homes or badly needed parking lots in town center! And if it’s not here, do it somewhere else on Route 9. Don’t do it in our quaint town center or in the middle of a single family neighborhood. Someone get control here or residents are going to pay dearly.
I agree with Janice Mooney 100 percent.
Leave Delanson Circle alone. There is not enough land to build apartments. Period!
Thank you Janice for these great suggestions.
Your message is truthfull. Home owners on
Hollis Street and Linden Street will also agree with you!
I travel through this area on my way to appointments on Linden Street often and at various times of day. It is a traffic problem area, but at least when sitting in traffic, I can enjoy the charm that is Wellesley through its inviting architecture and New England character. Adding high density living, while destroying the character of one of the many charming streets in Wellesley is not a solution at all for additional housing. Taking away valuable commuter and shopping parking spaces is no help either. Surely there are existing sites in Wellesley, either undeveloped or ones that would have less impact on the character of Wellesley’s architectural gems, that can be used to fulfill the affordable housing shortage. A more earnest effort must be made to find a solution that everyone can live with, long after the development is done. I no longer live in Wellesley, but I am a former resident of many years, who will always remember the town for its charm and character. It is a shame to see so much of what makes Wellesley special being destroyed.
These developments are near Wellesley’s walkable downtown and a transit node (Wellesley Sq commuter rail stop). That’s *exactly* where density should be built.
Demanding that affordable house be shunted to the edge of the town near the Barton Road development where it will be out of sight and out of mind is, well, a not-so-pleasant and not-so-subtle hint about the nature of people’s real concerns regarding this project.
In fact, building affordable housing in an area with existing transportation services (train, MWRTA bus) and with walkable access to many local businesses not only enhances the value of the affordable housing development to its residents, but also will increase patronage to local Wellesley businesses.
A couple of multistory buildings will hardly kill the character of Wellesley’s downtown.
Lorraine, you are dead on. I cannot believe we are talking about turning Wellesley town center into Brookline. If I wanted to live in a town with density like that, I would not have moved to Wellesley. Wellesley is a leafy suburb. The streets are tree lined and the neighborhoods are for families with kids who can play in the street and walk their dogs without getting hit by a car. Why is there such pressure to build it out? If people want density and city-like living, why can’t they move to a town that already is zoned and built-up in that way? There are TONS of those towns outside of Boston already. I really don’t understand who are these people who are so hell bent on turning Wellesley into a city? Wellesley is dense enough already. Please stop!
Janice’s thoughts about MassHousing are spot on. We in Ipswich are dealing with similar issues with THREE 40Bs of which two will actually LOWER the percentage of affordable units in town by creating 3 owner-occupied units to every 1 affordable unit.
It is also troublesome when there are no repercussions for MassHousing when their employees fail to do their due diligence – one of the Ipswich project applications contains false and incomplete information, and yet was approved. Maybe it’s time for the media to investigate and ask who this law is really benefitting.
Not sure it’s still a valid process when the overdevelopment is SO over-the-limit of the zoning bylaws that govern the location of the project – in our instance, a neighborhood of 1 1/2 level single- and small two-family homes where the developer wants to place a 3-story 8-unit apartment building on an 11,000 square foot corner lot… and not provide enough onsite parking or other amenities. And more to the point, perhaps it’s time for our politicians who created this law and agency to answer to the voters why so little can be done to address the inequities.