In a crowded Wellesley High School cafeteria full of passionate residents—there were tears, there was anger, there was an on-the-spot election campaign launched for a Town Meeting seat—the town earlier this week hosted a public meeting to present the 8 Cliff Road housing development project to the community.
(See a Wellesley Media recording of the meeting embedded below.)
The initial plan for the condo development, at the intersection of Cliff Road and Rte. 9, would aggregate three parcels of land at 489 Worcester St., 4 Cliff Rd., and 14 Cliff Rd., into a 168,000 square foot parcel to be renamed 8 Cliff Road. This development conceptually includes 60 market rate units and 9 affordable rate ones, and has been discussed in recent months at Select Board and Wellesley Housing Development Corp. meetings.
Wellesley Executive Director Meghan Jop began the nearly 3-hour meeting on June 15 by giving a presentation that explained the standard process of any proposed development to potentially be approved for construction. According to the Frequently Asked Questions sheet handed out during the meeting, the development team is looking “for denser development” of multi-family housing units in an area of single-family homes.
Two members of the 8 Cliff Road development team, Victor Sheen and Peter Holland, spoke about their preliminary plan and listened to resident concerns. It was heavily emphasized by the developers and the town that the project was still in the “concept phase” with many more hurdles to jump before being approved.
“The town through the Select Board, Planning Board, or Zoning Board has also not made any determinations regarding support for the project at this point,” Jop wrote in an email to Swellesley following the meeting.
During the meeting, Sheen said that two of the reasons for proposing 8 Cliff Road were to build an option for older residents to downsize and to support the Wellesley Housing Production Plan and Unified Plan goals. These goals include increasing housing in high-transit locations (“MBTA communities”) and supporting and welcoming “a diversity of people and households”.
“In terms of how this project meets the current housing plan, and then the unified plan, we believe it checks most of the boxes if not all of the boxes that the town has identified, through a public process, as their priorities and goals,” Sheen said in a follow-up interview. Sheen, whose earlier projects in town include multifamily developments on Linden Street and Weston Road, said during the meeting that the development team will consider changes to the number of proposed units, traffic patterns, and more based on community feedback.
Despite the preliminary nature of the project, many residents in attendance were against the development itself and raised concerns about how it could increase traffic congestion and destroy historic preservation. One resident also warned that this could be just the beginning of big changes to the neighborhood—she said her family has been approached separately by a developer interested in purchasing their home for another multi-unit project.
Dan Chiasson, who lives on Cliff Road near the proposed development site, was one of these people.
“The houses that face the road on Cliff, number 5, number 11, number 4, and number 14, really make up a distinct historic and scenic landscape, and to take down two out of the four will completely ruin that appeal,” Chiasson said in a post-meeting interview. He added that what he dubbed as the “cheesy Epcot like ‘tribute to Europe’” design, would also look and feel out of place.
Resident Ann Rappaport, an active town government member, said during the meeting that even though the town is committed to “preserving its historic character” in the Unified Plan, approving the 8 Cliff Road proposal would be a “travesty to the historic fabric” of the town in addition to undercutting the value of the other current historic homes.
Sheen said that since the meeting, the team has begun to modify its plan to potentially preserve 14 Cliff Road and that an analysis of how to preserve other existing historic homes are underway.
Many of the residents who got up to speak during the Q&A expressed distrust of the Select Board and developers. This stemmed mainly from not being told about the proposal earlier, and what they viewed as a lack of communication on the part of the development team.
Wendy Garber, a resident who has attended past meetings on the topic, said that despite multiple attempts from neighbors on Cliff Road and other town residents to contact the developers and ask questions via written comments, they received nothing back.
“I don’t mean for this to be adversarial, but I think you need to be able to sit and hear our concerns because we have not had an opportunity to voice them,” Garber said. “ I think town boards need to understand that people in the town are concerned about this, we do not want to be told what to do, we want to have a say in this, and that is how this town is supposed to work.”
Holland and Sheen said during the meeting that they had emailed and spoken with neighbors from Cliff Road on many occasions.
Other meeting attendees brought up concerns that the safety of children living in the Cliff Road neighborhood would be compromised by increased traffic and speeding from Route 9 and intersecting roads. They also disagreed with the results of a Preliminary Traffic Impact Assessment submitted by the development team to the town.
Ann-Mara Lanza, a Select Board member and co-founder of the Building a Better Wellesley advocacy group, emphasized that it was still early but the town would eventually also do its own traffic assessment. It has not been done because the project needs to be better defined first, she said.
Some residents expressed support of the development proposal, including resident Andrew Burnet Mikula, a steering committee member for Building a Better Wellesley.
“I’d certainly like to see something built here, and I think the current plan is better than nothing. The most important reason why is this: there are a lot of people who already live in Wellesley whose housing needs aren’t being met right now,” Mikula said in a post-meeting follow-up.
Lanza said that she understood the frustrations of residents about 8 Cliff Road, but acknowledged from the Select Board perspective, every time there is a project proposed people support Wellesley’s housing goals, but do not want the traffic and changes that come with it.
“It isn’t like any of these concerns are unreasonable,” Lanza said. “But the question is, if we as a community support these goals, then we as a community have to figure out where we’re willing to build the housing to help.”
- Subscribe to Swellesley’s daily email
- Help The Swellesley Report grow. Please consider making a completely non-deductible contribution
- Please send tips, photos, ideas to theswellesleyreport@gmail.com
We’ve left this conversation going for a while but are going to now turn off comments…until our next coverage of this topic.
The Swellesley Report
If you’re going to accuse me of “pretending to be concerned about the public good” instead of engaging with my actual arguments, then I don’t know what to say to you, Broccoli. I DO believe that building more multi-family housing in Wellesley is in the public interest, regardless of how unpopular that opinion seems to be in this town.
Have you considered that the only reason you are able to live in Wellesley today is that, decades or even centuries ago, someone (likely a private, for-profit developer) built your house on what was then forested land? Do you think the neighboring farmers liked that their neighborhood was becoming more residential as opposed to agricultural? No. Development is usually unpopular with people who moved to town because of the status quo. But in advocating for more housing in town, I’m trying to anticipate Wellesley’s future needs. I’ve said time and time again that 8 Cliff is particularly suited for downsizing seniors, many of whom have lived in Wellesley for decades, and merely want access to an elevator and more easily navigable home as they age.
Moreover, if the initial round of residential development in the early 20th century didn’t ruin Wellesley’s beauty, I don’t see why another round of it necessarily would either.
Yes, you have every right to complain. But my point is that, if all you’re doing is complaining and not wrestling with the tradeoffs between preserving town character and addressing future needs, then YOU are the one who is “allowing developers to drive the discussion.”
Victor Sheen’s projects on Linden St. and Weston Rd are truly UGLY and of course exploitatively expensive. The 40b by Northland next to the dump is sinfully crowded and truly UGLY – it also has NO AMENITIES. Now Sheen wants to exploit the town again by building another truly ugly development on Cliff Rd. I hope 2/3rd of Town Meeting Members don’t get hoodwinked into changing zoning for this planned travesty. Honestly, the town housing plan was contrived by a few residents and a small minority of town residents. The silent majority in town doesn’t want it and NO ONE wants it in their back yard. The Wellesley Office Park development is fine with most people because it doesn’t change the character of the town and provides hundreds of housing units.
“Social good” Is not the top line, of developers; nor is it the bottom line. Re: the “fixation” on how much is earned– is a classic accusation by one who stands to profit, and whose every effort is to work towards maximizing that. Please don’t attribute your “fixation” to me. And it is ridiculous to expect that those who stand to profit so astronomically are mostly concerned about “the good of our town”. Something I’m certain of: If “social good” weren’t a consideration due to legal requirements currently in place it wouldn’t even be discussed. Let’s see your definition of “what’s right for our town”. I suspect it differs from the opinions of many who don’t agree that every square inch of town should be monetized, built upon to ridiculous dimensions and restricted in use to the owners. It’s obvious from your commentary re: lobbying the town for more rules that you see no role for developers in that process, except to oppose it. If you were truly as concerned as the rest of us, we’d be standing shoulder to shoulder to work for “social good”…..in some real sense, vs hiding behind the absolute legal minimum required, so that devs can continue paving, walling, constructing, and shifting the power balance in town ever more to those who can profit from the artificially inflated value of the land, and see the discussion of these matters as a mere marketing problem. FYI: You are not us.
Maybe this is me being cynical, Mr. Broccoli, but what option is there for holding private developers accountable to the social good besides legal requirements? You may think the answer is giving the community more control over the process, but in reality the only reason the community has any control over the process in the first places is, once again, legal requirements (requirements for a public hearing, zoning laws preventing the developer from building by-right, etc.).
Again, I have no doubt that the developers are not primarily concerned with the good of the town – that’s our concern in this process, not theirs. We clearly disagree about what the good of our town is. I don’t expect to change your mind on that. But please don’t put words in my mouth – I don’t believe “every square inch of town should be monetized, built upon to ridiculous dimensions and restricted in use to the owners.” Also, please don’t imply that I’m profiting from this project in any way, because I’m not.
Still, I remain baffled that you are so bothered when other people make money for providing a vital service to our community. The owners of Quebrada and Wellesley Books profit off of their ventures too, but calls to shut down their operations are few and far between.
More to the point, the solution to “artificially inflated land values” is, in part, to build more housing, and a big reason they’re so inflated in the first place is because we haven’t met housing needs in Wellesley or Greater Boston for several decades, especially among those with low and moderate incomes.
I also think your claim that I’ve “hid behind minimum legal requirements” is a gross mischaracterization of my role in this process. I and other members of Building a Better Wellesley have called, emailed, and/or met with the developer several times, pushing for higher affordability percentages, changes to the site design that would lift some of the traffic burden from Cliff Road, and environmentally sustainable building practices. What exactly have you done to make this project better besides sit back and complain?
That said, if you want to have a frank discussion about your concerns with this project and how they can be solved, I’m all ears. Just know that complaining about how much money the developer is making does nothing to make the project better.
1. A little tough to see here due to the white hot gas lights; legal requirements exist because if they did not, the behaviors which brought them into existence (rampant uncontrolled development, usurpation of citizens’ wishes, displacement, many more) would continue unabated. Belaboring the point, which seems necessary, is that pretending to be altruistic/concerned about “public good” is just PR– we all know who benefits.
2. the statement that solving the ridiculous cost inflation for real estate in town is to just build more multi unit housing, privately of course, is so transparently self-serving. There’s no mutual benefit. Quality of life is the reason so many of us live in this once-beautiful town, but it’s rapidly devolving into a chaotic, traffic-choked, polluted, overbuilt trophy address with an overrated school system and looming infrastructure failures.
3. Apologies for baffling you. It’s simple, though: overdevelopment and terribly located multi unit housing don’t “Build a Better Wellesley”. It’s of course not that the money itself is bad (sorry, money, I didn’t mean to make you sad); it’s always what was done to get it. Allowing developers to drive the discussion will only result in more development; there’s a definite air of fait accompli here which is part of the gas. Making the point that money is the driver isn’t inherently a criticism of you or the process, or the money; it just serves to make certain that all see exactly what’s going on…..PS complaining is my right as an American. How I do it is my business.
Interestingly, a senior-specific project failed when defined as that and opened its units to all ages– I’m speaking of the multi-unit building on Rt 9, just west of the Weston Rd ramp on 9 eastbound. So– just wondering where all the alleged pent up demand for senior-oriented housing must have gone? Additionally. all of this debate is amusing in that it focuses on high-minded lofty goals of diversity and service; real estate in Wellesley is white hot, simply stated, and these developments are all about the $$$$ and literally nothing else. To pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NB: A great way to make sure the realtor contingent is happy with the outcome is to orient the properties’ marketing toward high-churn clients; sadly, seniors qualify, due to the nature of finite lifespans….
Mr. Broccoli, “A Very Concerned Citizen,” and others love to fixate on how much money the developer is making from this project. Personally, I fail to see why that’s a valid reason not to build it. It should be about what’s right for our town, and the developer’s interests should be considered only to the extent needed to make sure that what’s right for our town is also financially viable. If we have a good reason to believe that the developer’s profits are “excessive” (whatever that means), then we should advocate for exactions that help pay for related town services and infrastructure.
At least in the foreseeable future, the alternative to relying on profit-motivated developers is to let the housing shortage grow continually worse. The nonprofit sector simply doesn’t have the capacity right now to build all the housing we need in Wellesley, and existing state and federal government programs largely outsource affordable housing construction to the private sector as well.
Meanwhile, there’s a lot of social good that can come from white hot real estate markets. All it takes is political will. If you’re upset that the market-rate units at 8 Cliff are going to cost $2M+, you should join the push for a higher affordability percentage. Or lobby the town to get stricter inclusionary zoning rules.
Bottom line: no one is pretending that the developer would be doing this project if they couldn’t make money on it. But I fervently believe that the profit motive of the private sector can be leveraged to help improve our town.
It’s interesting that people talk about downsizing but it will be for million dollar prices to do so. Look at Linden Street and Weston Road. There are condos on Linden Street that cost $2.3 million and above. I can’t believe that these condos would be any less. Weston Road also has the same price range. What would low income , housing cost? May be five to $800,000? Its what isn’t said that is alarming. The developers paint a charming condo community which we all are supposed to think is wonderful, a place to live with all sorts of extra amenities for all ages. However, for the developers, in the end after they’ve pulled the wool over everyones eyes with pretty pictures, is the millions of dollars that will line their pockets so basically why would they really care about Wellesley citizens and what they want? In real estate, it’s all about location, location, location, and this one is a travesty.
How about before embarking on another questionable project the town fixes unfinished business across the street on Kimlo Rd. That gigantic hideous retaining wall project is not only an eye sore but has become dangerous with the decrepit fencing and the concrete barriers narrowing an already narrow road. That mess has been left unattended for over 10yrs with no sign of life or any effort to correct the problem.
I find it interesting that residents on the north side of rt 9 have been fine with developments on Weston Rd , Linden St and the new Hardy School project. We on the south side are enduring constant aggravation from noise and pollution not to mention the damage to our environment. Maybe it’s time to develop in other areas of the town.Sorry about the tears.
What an uninformed and unkind statement. Our neighborhood fought for our school, not in favor of the Hardy project- which was supposedly chosen because of the plan to save trees (that have been clear cut anyway). We have all watched with dismay as developers build projects with 2-3 million dollar condos that will add traffic to our overcrowded streets. These developments are not advancing the worthy causes of diversity and certainly not those of affordability, as earlier commenters have claimed. We should constructively discuss our community concerns, including the agendas of our community officials.
This is not just about DEI. It’s about housing options. Wellesley’s population is greying fast and young families with kids are not able to find suitable housing in town. Before we know it, Wellesley schools will have empty halls, and local retailers will have empty stores.
Thank you Stephanie. BBW does have a seat on the Housing Task Force, does it not? And it is described in Town communications as a “partner of the town.”
Lots of people in Wellesley support DEI and equity initiatives so this should pass easily.
Wellesley simply has to decide how it will comply with state rules regarding development and density around MTBA stations. As long as such density is required, the Town will need to address it. As far as home owner rights are considered, the general opinion seems to be that you have to crack some eggs to make an omelet.
Local home owners are going to take an economic hit when such development takes place. That is for certain.
I sit in the “strong no” group on this development but I also realize that the state rules around housing are the strong part of the developer’s arguments here and their arguments are very strong. The likely end result here is some form of multifamily construction takes place. To the extent the deficiency remains even after this, other areas of Wellesley around the Wellesley Hills MTBA station will remain vulnerable to these rules.
Meghan Jop said at the meeting last Thursday that the 8 Cliff development is not being considered because of its potential to fulfill state mandates. We already have enough multi-family zoning capacity between the Wellesley Square and Wellesley Hills business districts, and also Wellesley Office Park. It’s just a matter of allowing multi-family development in those districts by-right, as opposed to with a special permit process. The Town is currently working with the state to explore our options for shifting to a by-right development model in those places.
For me, 8 Cliff is more about fulfilling the housing needs that arise when existing residents are transitioning to a different stage of life – downsizing seniors in particular. I personally think that’s an important goal to fulfill. It will in turn free up existing single-family homes for younger families who are looking to set down roots in town.
Also, I’m not convinced that “owners are going to take an economic hit” if these condos are built. I understand the theory behind that, but empirically, at least within a half-mile of the development or so, property values don’t change much: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10511482.2020.1821747.
Andrew, your argument has shifted, which is not unexpected since you are making it up from whole cloth. I thought these 2 million dollar units were for young people saving their nickels to live in the town where they were raised? Our “Downsizing seniors” are people newly free to travel and see their families in other regions and cities. Good for them, and I hope to join their ranks at some point. But these baronial-scale pied a terres will not revitalize the community. People will scoop them up as a position within a very hot real estate market. It’s hard to see any gain for rge community.
Yes, Dan, I support housing for a wide variety of people – downsizing seniors, small families, students and young professionals, Town employees and service workers, etc. But I’ve come to the conclusion that 8 Cliff is best suited for downsizing seniors, for a couple of reasons.
First of all, because of the typological similarities to Terrazza and The Bristol. Calls with the leasing offices there have taught me that most people moving in there are doing so to be able to access elevators as they age and to be closer to their grandkids. Sure, not all of them already live in Wellesley, but guaranteeing so would be illegal. Regardless, your implication that these units are mostly serving as investment properties for out-of-towners is entirely unfounded. In advocating for retired folks moving closer to their families as they age, you forget the ones whose families live in Wellesley.
Also, at the public meeting a couple of weeks ago, there was an older couple from White Oak Road who said they were interested in downsizing in the property. I also know that multiple other families have contacted the developer asking to be kept updated because they want to downsize at 8 Cliff. Frankly, I find it understandable that they want to avoid the contentious public debate on the project.
But there’s no need to take my word for it. You should schedule a showing at Terrazza or The Bristol and talk to the people who are interested in buying there. Just please try not to baselessly accuse them of having a conflict of interest.
As Town of Wellesley Public Information Officer, I want to clarify a misconception shared in the above comments. Building A Better Wellesley is not a town entity nor town advisory board, it is a private housing advocacy group. Although one member of the Select Board founded the organization and remains on the BBW board, the work of BBW is independent from the town.
I’ve followed this project since it was first announced, and also watched the sad deterioration and neglect of the once-beautiful 489 Worcester St. property over the past many years. It’s unfortunate that this is the best solution that could be found, it’s certainly disruptive to the neighbors and the neighborhood. It’s evident that their input was not solicited and, in fact, is not being heard. If I were an abutter — or even lived in the Cliff Road area — I’d be outraged. But I don’t. Yet as a Wellesley resident and taxpayer, it’s just so sad to see this happen. Wellesley should know better and can do better.
I’m a bit confused by your defeatist tone. I’m not convinced that this is “the best solution that could be found” either, but it’s also very much a living proposal. The developer is now in talks with the Town to reduce the unit count and preserve at least one of the existing homes.
People (not just you) always seem to think that, the first time they hear about a development project, it’s too late to change anything. In my experience, that is very rarely true.
I think someone sitting on a town advisory board who has done paid advocacy work for a pro-growth, radical free market think tank has a voice like anyone else, but should simply disclose that potential conflict. Pioneer Institute promotes (among other initiatives) ways of undoing local zoning and community controls to provide an on-ramp for developers. One method they use is to place people on local boards and committees.
Mr. Mikula is not simply a “graduate” as you say but a grown-up and a persuasive advocate for his beliefs.: https://pioneerinstitute.org/economic_opportunity/zoning-reform-revisited-local-control-determines-how-not-if-housing-gets-built/
More about Pioneer Institute including its funding sources can be found here: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pioneer_Institute_for_Public_Policy_Research
Mikula says 69 condos are “better than nothing.” But another developer wanted to build 6 or 8 units, which is better than a huge development AND better than nothing. The select board is working against the will of the residents to make Wellesley more like Cambridge and Brookline. They want dense multi unit housing. They want the higher taxes these condo bring in on the land. To hell with what the residents want for their neighborhoods.
I’m a resident of Wellesley and I’m fine with multi-family housing in my neighborhood. It already exists anyway in my neighborhood, and they are building more right now. Life is pretty good, and I’m hopeful that with more foot traffic in the neighborhood we can get better cafes and shops and fewer banks I don’t need. Really wish the Peet’s, Rosie’s, and White Mountain Creamery hadn’t closed, for example.
Wait…these videos are allowed to be edited??!!
I asked Andrew Mikula at the meeting whether he wished to disclose that he has worked for Pioneer Institute, a Libertarian think tank that has money from the Koches and works to overturn local zoning laws to the profit of developers. He refused to disclose. The exchange was edited out of the video. Mikula sits in a leadership role on Building a Better Wellesley, which includes several select board members..
Dan, do you feel good about yourself bullying an young graduate who just want to make Wellesley a better place to live for everyone?
I don’t think this is bullying. Making the community aware of questionable connections is a public service.
I don’t think asking someone about past work as it pertains to a topic they are making public statements on is bullying. https://pioneerinstitute.org/author/amikula/
Whether or not 69 condos in a single family zoned area is good for everyone is strongly up for debate. Being honest about one’s ties to groups looking to significantly change the character of the town isn’t bullying.
What does the Pioneer Institute have anything to do with the topic at hand? They focus on low taxes and government accountability..
Thank you for doing your homework and for sharing it publicly. That certainly is a COI.
I honestly didn’t hear you ask about my work at Pioneer Institute at the meeting last Thursday, Dan. A lot of people were yelling questions at me after I finished my speech, and that one must’ve gotten lost in the cacophony.
That said, nothing about my work for Pioneer Institute is a conflict of interest. I haven’t been a full-time staff member at Pioneer since August 2021. They don’t pay me to advocate for housing production and affordability in Wellesley – I do that on my own time. I also dispute that Pioneer has worked to “place people on local boards and committees” to push for “undoing community controls.” Most of our work on planning and zoning has focused on reforms that can be enacted at a local level with plenty of community input, such as accessory dwelling units. We’ve also made public comments on state-level housing policy legislation but our role in advancing that legislation has been responsive as opposed to proactive.
I also don’t serve on a Town advisory committee, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that idea from. Building a Better Wellesley is a private advocacy group. It’s not affiliated with the Town.
People are more than welcome to read and scrutinize my work at Pioneer. But please understand that I ultimately am motivated to be a part of this conversation on 8 Cliff because I care deeply about Wellesley’s future, not because of any affiliation I have with Pioneer.
Thank you for this considered response Andrew.
Check on the HOA fees for the other developments in town. One basically pays double to live with shared everything. Real estate taxes plus HOA fees make units completely unaffordable.