Wellesley Special Town Meeting night #2: Both Lower Falls zoning change articles fail

Wellesley Special Town Meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 22 voted down two proposed zoning map changes that could have resulted in more than 100 new multifamily units in Lower Falls and new tax revenue for the town. It took a combined three-plus hours to present, discuss and vote on Article 16, regarding a proposed zoning change at Washington Court, and Article 17, involving a proposed zoning change on Walnut Street.

See full results of Special Town Meeting voting and watch the Oct. 22 session via the Wellesley Media recording.

The Swellesley Report has been documenting the Washington Court proposal as far back as April, including over the summer, and has reported extensively on these proposals in recent months, including recent Select Board, Planning Board, and Advisory Committee meetings.

Town Meeting Moderator Mark Kaplan shared his hope at the start of the second session of Special Town Meeting that with only three articles remaining, proceedings might wrap up that night (in fact, they did). Though he also said he’d been contacted by “an unusually large number of residents who are not Town Meeting members” that they wished to be heard—as is their right—on either or both Article 16 and 17, the ones focused on Lower Falls zoning.

While advocates of new housing development had reason to celebrate after Wellesley Special Town meeting’s first session on Monday, the results of Tuesday’s votes were disappointing for them. Articles 16 and 17 both involved proposed residential incentive overlays (RIOs), which provide zoning relief to encourage multifamily housing development in areas not originally zoned for that use and nearby commercial districts. The articles were focused on proposed zoning map changes, not actual housing developments, but the developer shared plans to provide context for the proposed changes.

Article 16 focused on a 1.07-acre lot at Washington Court, a dead-end street off of Washington Street across from St. John the Evangelist Parish that now is home to a two-family house and defunct automotive business and junkyard. The area is zoned mostly commercial and single-family residential. Article 17 involved the area of Walnut Street that’s home to a bunch of office buildings, many of which are on the market.

Both the Select Board and Planning Board voiced support for the articles, though the Advisory Committee was split—it recommended unfavorable action on 16 and favorable action on 17 (those against Article 16 cited the density of the proposed condo plan, among other concerns). Planning Board Chair Tom Taylor presented the articles at Special Town Meeting.

Article 16: Washington Court

If a RIO were approved for Washington Court, the initial all-electric condo building plan would be for 21 units, including four deemed affordable under a state formula. Though as Taylor noted, approval at Special Town Meeting for the zoning map change would be the start of a series of public meetings regarding permitting and more, with the end result of what might be built there to be determined (the envisioned condo project has already changed based on town and neighbor feedback). The Bristol (Weston Road) and Terrazza (Linden Street) are other RIO examples in town.

“We’re in the first or second inning,” Taylor said about the Washington Court proposal, making a reference to some sport we’d rather not think about here right now. He added that support for Article 16 would be consistent with efforts by the town to boost housing stock and diversity of such supply.

Taylor acknowledged the chicken-and-egg problem of asking for RIO approval before complete plans for a project are known, including things like traffic engineering studies. Most proposed projects do go through, said Executive Director Meghan Jop, but they also tend to change a lot based on the permitting process, including public feedback.

Town Meeting members spoke for and against the article. Moderator Kaplan then opened comments to non-Town Meeting members, including some who advocated for the article, though most were neighbors speaking out against the article and in favor of better communications from the town. Overall, discussion of the article lasted about two hours and involved more than two dozen participants.

Town Meeting Member Ann-Mara Lanza talked about the practical financial challenges of developing truly affordable housing complexes in town, and that projects containing mostly market rate units under zoning like RIO at least do subsidize affordable units. “If you want more affordable housing in our community, projects like the one being proposed in this article are currently the only way we’re going to get it,” she said.

Another supporter was Michael Tobin, who acknowledged there are no perfect solutions to address the complex problem of producing more housing with minimal harm to the environment. He described the project in mind through Article 16 as not being perfect, but close, and worth getting behind. Echoing this, Jeanne Mayell said “It’s not perfect, and I know we can do better, but it’s time.”

Deed McCollum said opportunities for places to build new housing in town are limited, so that you “have to take advantage of what presents itself.”

Others explained why they were against the article, with some encouraging others to vote “no.”

David Himmelberger shared background on how the current version of the RIO bylaw came to be when the town needed to boost its affordable housing stock or be subject to hostile 40B developments. “The gun to our head has been removed. We can and should reevaluate our RIO” in a thoughtful way, he said, in voicing his opposition to the article. As it is, anyone living near a commercial area would be at risk of a RIO coming to their neighborhood, he said.

Amy Gottschalk also urged the town to slow down, especially in light of the Strategic Housing Plan that’s in the works and not far from completion.

“Time and again we hear our residents talk about the number of consultants that we use, the amount of money that we spend on consultants, only to find out that we may or may not use their data at the end of the day,” said Gottschalk, who voted against 16 and 17.

Lori Ferrante, a Town Meeting member and neighbor of Washington Court, concurred about waiting for the Housing Plan to emerge, and also noted that the bringing forth of Articles 16 and 17 has had the positive impact of making more people aware of what RIOs are.

Odessa Sanchez acknowledged a need for more housing options, but regarding this site, she said just “because it’s already dense it’s not a reason to create more desnity in that area. You have to consider everything, and not just building housing, but building housing that’s well planned.”

Peter Welburn said based on feedback from residents he was voting against Article 16, and also encouraged the town’s Housing Task Force (includes reps from the Select Board, Planning, Wellesley Housing Development Corp., and others) to make its meetings public and act as a clearinghouse for information on housing efforts going forward.

Jeff Wechsler said it pained him to vote against the article, as he knows the availability of more affordable housing would benefit town and other local employees and address dropping school enrollment, among other things. But he felt the town didn’t do a good enough job of engaging more of the public on this matter.

Following comments and questions, Town Meeting voted 143 to 48 against the motion.

Appreciate having a local news source that covers Town Meeting quickly & thoroughly? Please consider supporting our work

Article 17: Walnut Street

Planning Board Chair Taylor did the honors in presenting the next RIO proposal, for three parcels housing office buildings on Walnut Street currently in industrial and business zoning business districts along the Charles River. The proposed development would be done in phases and could total 82 3-bedroom units with 16 deemed affordable under a state formula. Among the arguments of proponents for this RIO are there are not any homes on this stretch, that residential properties would likely generate less traffic than the current commercial ones, and that publicly accessible open space along the river would be made available.

Following Taylor’s presentation, Moderator Kaplan surveyed Town Meeting members whether they wanted to suck it up and finish Article 17 that night or break and continue to a third night. The night owls prevailed, and on to Article 17 they went… Nearly two dozen people weighed in on the article.

Town Meeting Member Kara Reinhardt Block kicked things off during the questions and discussion period by urging her fellow members to “pump the brakes,” vote “no,” and return to this at Annual Town Meeting before a bigger crowd once the Strategic Housing Plan is in hand with recommendations on issues such as location and density. Between now and then, the hope would be that more people in town can be made aware of this proposed RIO, which required less in the way of neighbor notifications given the lack of homes right near it.

(Editor’s note: Reinhardt Block brilliantly suggested everyone should be reading Swellesley. She also acknowledged the challenges of subscribing to and reading “the famous 68 ‘Notify Me’ emails” from the town in her plea for a better communications strategy).

Lisa Hack, who lives near Walnut Street, said that she and neighbors should have been notified about the proposed RIO and the Planning Board meetings about it. “If the town can notify me about the hydrants being flushed it can notify me that the town wants to change my neighborhood zoning.”

Topics touched on by Town Meeting members and other residents were the possible traffic ramifications for nearby streets (as described by those who experience the current traffic day to day), elementary school crowding, and the potential for flooding in the area.

Town Meeting Member Deed McCollum spoke in favor of the article, citing this location as one identified for potential housing in the town’s Housing Production Plan. She also referred to a Charles River Regional Chamber letter about the article describing the need for housing for employees who work at or might like to work at local businesses, such as Newton-Wellesley Hospital.

Gig Babson also spoke in favor of the article, noting it is quite different from Article 16 in that it involves property in commercial and business districts rather than residential. She also expressed confidence in the permitting process and town bodies, including the Wetlands Protection Committee, that would be involved in approvals for any projects under such a RIO.

But in the end, those against the article prevailed by a 107-71 vote.

Will either proposal return at Annual Town Meeting? We’ll see in the spring.

Linden Square development agreement amendment

The warm-up act on Tuesday was Article 13, proposed to amend the town’s development agreement—for the fifth time—on Linden Square with property manager Federal Realty. This article centered on the option to extend the VW property lease for an additional five years to 2033.

In making its pitch on this amendment to the Select Board in August, Federal Realty reps said the possible extension of the lease would give it more time to consider further development options for that space, possibly including housing. Town Meeting approved the motion under this article by a 154-27-1 count.

Note: Wellesley has 240 Town Meeting seats and none of the Special Town Meeting motions registered more than 190 votes using the electronic system (some were by voice vote, so exact counts aren’t available.)

More: Special Town Meeting Night #1 recap