Proposed Wellesley zoning changes sparked by multifamily housing proposals get Planning Board support, mixed Advisory Committee reaction
Key town bodies over the past two weeks have made big decisions about possible zoning map changes that could pave the way for two proposed condo developments in Wellesley Lower Falls. Though the biggest decisions will be made next month at Special Town Meeting.
Proponents seek a change in the zoning map for properties at Washington Court (Article 16 on the Special Town Meeting warrant) and on Walnut Street (Article 17) to residential overlay districts (RIOs) that would allow and streamline possible multifamily housing development at each sites. As has been emphasized throughout the process, the warrant articles are strictly focused on zoning changes—the proposed developments have been presented ahead of Special Town Meeting to give neighbors and town bodies context for the RIO requests. If motions under the articles are approved at Special Town Meeting, a thorough development approval process involving multiple boards would still need to take place; the currently envisioned projects may or may not be what result based on community and town input.
We wrote over the summer about the proposed projects, which could deliver over 100 condo units as envisioned by the developer (25 at 6 Washington Court, the rest at Walnut Street under a multi-phased approach involving several buildings).
The Planning Board returned to the Special Town Meeting articles on Monday, Sept. 23 (see Wellesley Media recording) and voted to support both.
That meeting followed the previous week’s Advisory Committee public hearing on Special Town Meeting articles (see Wellesley Media recording of the Sept. 18 meeting). Of the 18 articles on the warrant, only Articles 16 and 17 really sparked any significant public comment at the meeting, with housing advocates and neighbors sharing opposing views about the potential developments. Some neighbors said they supported the RIOs, but not necessarily the proposed projects. Housing advocates touted the location of these properties being nearby a commercial district and public transportation, and providing the potential for developments that could offer relatively rare three-bedroom units, including some deemed affordable based on a state formula. Some of those against or for the articles chimed in at Advisory and Planning meetings.
The Advisory Committee vets articles on Town Meeting warrants ahead of Annual or Special Town Meetings. They issue a report with recommended actions on article motions, and Town Meeting members can use the information in the report to help form their opinions. Ultimately, it is Town Meeting members, as the town’s legislative body, that vote on the motions. (See also, “What the heck does Advisory Committee do anyway?” from 2022)
It was clear from the Sept. 18 Advisory Committee meeting that members took neighbor concerns to heart, particularly regarding the article focused on Washington Court, property that sits across Washington Street from the St. John School and Church, and is within the Schofield Elementary School district. Then on Sept. 25, Advisory Committee at its meeting (see Wellesley Media recording) recommended unfavorable action by a 7-to-4 vote on Article 16 and favorable action by a 9-1-1 vote on Article 18, which received far less public criticism.
Please invest in your local news source, The Swellesley Report
Planning Board vote
The Planning Board on Sept. 23 discussed and voted on Articles 16 and 18 over the span of about an hour-plus; the Board had previously discussed the articles and seen presentations about the proposed developments that would benefit from the town changing possible use of the properties in question from what’s allowed under current zoning. Washington Court, for example, is now partially zoned for single family residences and partially for commercial, but approval of an overlay district would provide a residential reuse incentive to increase housing density. The Washington Court property currently includes a duplex and a old garage and junkyard/car storage area. (See proposed zoning map change presentations at the Wellesley Planning Board website.)
Planning Chair Tom Taylor, who was not at the Sept. 23 meeting, had presented about Article 16 at Advisory the previous week. He explained why Planning was bringing the articles forward, and regarding Article 16, cited adjustments made in recent months to the proposed three-story Washington Court plan by the developer in response to neighborhood concerns (nixing a previously discussed roof deck, for example).
Board Member Kathleen Woodward, acknowledging various points raised by community members on Article 16, explained her support for the project in part being that there’s a need in town for downsizing options and affordable housing, and that the town’s Housing Production Plan encourages greater use of RIOs as a tool to enable multifamily housing.
“The town expects the Planning Board to identify and support new housing options, this is clear,” she said. “It’s a place where new housing options make sense. It’s the right place for a residential incentive overlay.”
Wellesley has only approved a handful of RIOs to date, but they are becoming more common.
Board member Marc Charney attempted to comfort concerned neighbors of the properties that might be developed if the RIO zoning goes through that traffic studies will be conducted on behalf of any applicant and the town to gauge and mitigate development impact. In response to calls for early traffic studies, he stressed that such research wouldn’t do much good before an actual project goes through the town’s approval process. Residents are typically skeptical that outside engineers, despite their expertise, really know better than those who will live with the consequences on new development.
On Article 17, regarding properties at 35-37, 47 and 49 Walnut Street now populated with office buildings and zoned for business and industrial, the Planning Board had a brief discussion, then voted their support. These properties are along the Charles River and under the Walnut Park plan have the potential to provide special amenities for residents of any new multi-family housing there as well as the public.
Advisory Committee vote
During the Sept. 18 Advisory Committee meeting, about a dozen residents commented on Articles 16 and 17 (most regarding the former). Those against the articles raised traffic, safety, density, and other concerns. Dawn McGrew said “I think this is an ill conceived project given the scale of where the property is on Washington Street and also what looks like to be developed on Walnut Street, which is also just kind of down the road. What this would do is put our neighborhood in the middle or far middle of what looks to be an incredibly dense increase in population.”
Ann-Mara Lanza, with housing advocacy group Building a Better Wellesley, expressed support for Articles 16 and 17. She began her remarks citing the statewide housing crisis as well as Wellesley’s housing crunch, then went on to specify likes about the proposed multifamily housing complex that sparked Article 16: Three-bedroom units, proximity to retailers and public transportation, that 20% of units would be affordable, and sustainable building design.
Following citizen comments, Planning Chair Taylor (elected official) and Wellesley Planning Director Eric Arbeene (town employee) presented the case for Articles 16 and 17. Advisory members then weighed in and asked questions.
They asked about everything from whether it might be possible to get some general idea of traffic impact ahead of Town Meeting (answer: maybe), where estimates of hundreds of thousands in annual tax revenue generated by the proposed project at Washington Court come from (figuring the non-affordable units might average around $2M apiece), and whether there is any data to back up qualitative statements about the need for such multifamily housing based on factors such as downsizers looking to relocate here. Advisory’s Peggy Rossano also wanted to know why Article 16 needed to be included in a Special Town Meeting rather than wait for Annual Town Meeting. Taylor replied: “The Planning Board felt that it was ready for discussion and didn’t find a reason to wait six months.”
Advisory’s Mark Benjamin said Article 16 could be a tough sell at Town Meeting, even though the article is about the RIO and not a specific project. Questions raised by the public during meetings to this point, and that will likely be raised during Town Meeting, haven’t really been addressed, he said, referring to traffic concerns and whether presumably pricey condos will really make a dent in the town’s housing supply challenge. “People want to approve the RIO but they won’t because they’re fearful of the project,” he said.
Advisory picked up its discussion and voted at its Sept. 25 meeting, which started with comments from a fresh batch of residents, plus some repeat speakers. Concerns cited included overcrowding of schools and the possible traffic impact of new multifamily housing construction on top traffic residents have been warned about on Washington Street/Rte. 16 for years to come because of Mass Pike/Rte. 95 projects.
All Advisory members had something to say about Article 16, some struggling to wade through the pros and cons. Advisory’s Gail Sullivan described Article 16 as “the hardest article we’re voting on for Town Meeting,” and acknowledged good points made by opponents and proponents. Some said they wanted to vote in favor of the RIO, but felt the proposed project is too large, could damage the surrounding community, and that they weren’t convinced the project would change much through the subsequent planning approval process. Philip Jameson was among those voting for favorable action, convinced that a development wouldn’t significantly worsen already bad traffic and safety issues, and that the visibility of the project to neighbors might not be as glaring as feared by some.
Article 17 was a much easier decision for Advisory, with some concerns raised about traffic on an already busy Walnut Street.
Member Kenneth Largess said “I think this is exactly what the RIO bylaw was intended to be used for, whereas the other one I think was trying to be a square peg in a round hole.”