Some saw a win-win-win for the town of Wellesley, MassBay Community College, and the state in a redevelopment plan promising dozens—or maybe hundreds—of new housing units on MassBay property, while others at Tuesday’s packed Select Board/Planning Board meeting criticized the process and warned of the possible impact on the dense neighborhood and nearby forest (see Wellesley Media recording for 9/17 meeting).
Information about multifamily housing being developed on the current MassBay parking lot and surrounding property across from its Wellesley campus has been trickling out since late spring, as the state’s Division of Capital Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) and MassBay communicated with town officials, neighbors, and local advocacy groups. The basic message from the state is that selling 45 acres of MassBay property to a developer for housing on some portion of that land would help the state in its effort to address its housing shortage while contributing significantly to funding of a new cybersecurity education and wellness/recreation center for community college students as well as youth sports groups and members of the public (yes, it will include indoor pickleball courts). DCAMM, which does not build housing itself, heard in its early meetings of local interest in affordable housing, sustainable building, and protection of open space alongside Centennial Reservation.
The briefing by DCAMM (aka, the state’s real estate agency) and MassBay at the joint Select Board/Planing Board meeting at Town Hall this week marked the first time information was shared with the general public, and more is to come with forums slated at MassBay on Sept. 25 and Oct. 8, and various town board and committee meetings to be determined. These meetings would take place ahead of the state issuing any requests for proposal (RFPs) from developers. The property has been added to the State Land for Homes inventory.
Housing is always a hot button topic both for advocates to build more and those residents whose lives will be directly impacted by any significant increase in housing in their neighborhood. What made this meeting different in its level of intensity was the reaction by some elected officials to the emerging plans. MassBay President David Podell, and DCAMM Commissioner Adam Baacke and Senior Project Manager Mike Feloney, presented at the start of the meeting agenda item, which was slated for an hour but lasted for two as they responded to questions from board members and the public (see presentations in Select Board meeting agenda notes). Podell said during his remarks that the MassBay board of trustees earlier in the day had given him authority to put the surplus property to work.
Appreciate our reporting? Now, thanks to Swellesley’s partnership with Tiny News Collective, you can make tax deductible contributions to support our work.
To put the meeting in context, Select Board Chair Marjorie Freiman explained at the beginning that the state’s Affordable Homes Act signed last year authorizes $5 billion in housing investments and streamlines a path for the Commonwealth to dispose of surplus property for housing purposes via DCAMM, the Executive Office of Housing & Livable Communities, and other state government entities. To be clear, Freiman said, the MassBay plan is coming from the state, not the town, whose local zoning rules are pre-empted. Residential use must be allowed by right, without special permits being required, and no fewer than four units per acre must be allowed (the figure of at least 180 units attached to this plan comes from multiplying four units by 45 acres of available property). The state has been making moves on this front in numerous communities.
“The Executive Office of Housing & Livable Communities has not yet promulgated regulations within the scope of the [Affordable Homes Act], so we don’t yet know we will be compelled to work within,” Freiman said.
Neither does the town nor DCAMM know what might be built on the MassBay property to be sold.
“I’m sure there are a lot of questions folks have this evening about what exactly is being proposed. What would be built?” DCAMM’s Baacke said. “The simple answer is that no one knows the answer to most of those questions yet because the party that would ultimately be responsible for building it is not known yet.”
Not that that stopped people from asking later in the meeting.
Tom Ulfelder kicked off the Select Board questions, pondering why the briefing was even happening before Affordable Homes Act regulations are made known. “It’s not an equal negotiation to be in a situation where we have no idea but to have good faith in what you say those regulations are going to be. We have to have ground rules,” he said, wondering aloud how the state is as far along with other communities in light of this.
Baacke said guidance has been issued that should enable useful conversations with the town. He also acknowledged that the process is “foreign, new, and different.”
Ulfelder also questioned Podell about why MassBay hadn’t approached the town earlier about its needs and looking at those within the town’s zoning bylaw in a less drastic way than than doing so under the auspices of the new state act. He then spoke to the commissioner, stating “the message I’m getting and this audience is getting is that if we want anything out of this deal we’re going to have to agree to greater density than four units per acre. And I don’t think that’s a message we like or appreciate.”
Freiman summarized tensions in town between those who want more housing at different levels and “a Town Meeting that did not react well to a project that was not specific.” She continued that “asking us to respond to something that we don’t know, that we have no idea about, is very, very difficult.”
Board member Kenny Largess said he understood the state’s right to do what it will do, but asked: “What are you going to give the town of Wellesley in exchange for our support of this project?” He cited burdens that will be put on the town, from more traffic to increased school enrollment, and Baacke acknowledged that feedback and said it would be part of the ongoing conversation. Largess also sought to know how many units could be put on the property (applause from the audience supported this question), and Baacke said he didn’t have an answer at this point in the process, though said density is an issue that can be discussed both before and after an RFP is issued. Going for more than four units per acre is part of “a more complicated conversation,” but something the town would have the authority to allow, he said.
Board member Beth Sullivan Woods asked about how much money MassBay needs for the property sale to fund its capital needs, and Dr. Podell said an original vision for the facility a few years ago was about $70 million, but that the surplus property sale would not be counted on to cover the entire cost. He added that no other MassBay property is now being considered for sale.
The Board’s Colette Aufranc shared that it was difficult to prep for the meeting without knowing details of the plan, and spoke of the need for a process going forward between the state, college, and town staff about issues such as the infrastructure that would be needed to support whatever project goes forward. She referenced housing as being almost a constant and sensitive topic of conversation in town for the past 10 years, as Wellesley addressed 40B projects, hit the state’s affordable housing threshold, complied with the MBTA Communities Act, and launched a Strategic Housing Plan that’s being finalized.
Some Planning Board members expressed support for the project based on what they know. Jim Roberti said he’s good with 180 units or even more, but that a conservation restriction is a must. “I think it’s an ideal parcel,” he said. Later, he chided Select Board members for their views.
Fellow member Kathleen Woodward termed the effort—if done properly—a possible “win-win-win,” a term that Baacke and a member of the public later embraced. She expressed optimism at speaking to the state at this point rather than a private developer, and wondered if a non-profit could be a possible partner (Baacke said yes, as this could help the state achieve some of its housing goals).
Planning’s Tom Taylor asked about obligations for affordable units, citing Wellesley’s 20% inclusionary zoning rule. Baacke said the state is trying to be respectful of local inclusionary zoning as long as a project can still be done in a financially feasible way. “One thing that is probably not in dispute here is that the market is very, very strong, so market feasibility is probably much less of an issue here than in many of the other places where we are working on this initiative,” he said.
Residents, including neighbors, had their voices heard as well. One discussed how their roads near MassBay are already busy cut-throughs without sidewalks or shoulders, and the worries of intensifying traffic on these routes (“More density means disaster,” one neighbor said.). Another talked of how the college can be a busy place during the week, but typically offers neighbors—including wildlife—a respite at night and weekends. One vocal housing advocate, emphasized the opportunity to safeguard the forest while also accomplishing some housing goals and improving the college’s facilities.
Select Board Chair Freiman concluded the meeting by encouraging people to send their interests regarding this topic to the board at sel@wellesleyma.gov
Subscribe to Swellesley’s free weekday email newsletter
Emotions were running high because there is desired re-shaping of the area into one with much higher residential density, loss of 40 acres of green-space (area not presently occupied by MBCC parking lot), and follow-on impact on physical and social infrastructure in the area and housing stability. One development option involves placing 180 residential units on 5 acres presently occupied by MBCC, to say nothing about the remaining 40 acres that would also be sold. It is a highly lucrative deal for the developer and future owner(s) of the property. Just developing 5 acres out of the 45 and placing 180 “luxury” units on them would more than recoup the cost of buying all of 45 acres for $70 M, even if only 70 such units were sold. One way or another, there is certainty that in the longer run the majority of the units will be rentals (through entities renting or condo owners renting) because there is a mismatch between the housing type and the neighborhood. As a result, there will be impact on average tenures in the host community and effects downstream from that. I believe that rentals in Town should be supported at an appropriate level, but not highly concentrated in any one area that is not a natural fit for it — and that high housing density should be complemented by suitable physical and social infrastructure.
Note: I live in the area and would be directly impacted by the developments.
No one “desires” the loss of green space. But developing the parking lot is the best way to secure permanent protection for the forested land. Neighbors have all the leverage they need in these negotiations to protect the forest.
Housing development is not nearly as profitable as you think. Where is the math that shows a developer can make money by building 180 units and selling 70? Not in any spreadsheet I’ve seen. And with Wellesley’s onerous permitting process and high construction costs, it’s still incredibly risky to build here, even for “luxury” housing.
I wouldn’t take for granted that the new homes will be rentals. Do most owners at The Bristol and Terrazza rent out their units? If not, why would this project be any different?
Also, rental housing can help young families gain a foothold in our community before they can afford to own. Renting nearby is also a good option for professionals who serve our town every day – nurses, teachers, etc. Building housing for people like that makes our community stronger and more tight-knit.
“Average tenures in the host community” have already decreased in Wellesley, and the price and scarcity of housing is a big reason why. Building more housing (of all tenures) is a major solution to that.
I agree that good physical and social infrastructure are necessary to support this project. The developer and the state will fund the physical infrastructure, and the proximity to MassBay helps with the social.
Andrew, to maximize proceeds from the sale and development of the entire 45-acre parcel under AHA regulations, which would be distributed among at least 3 parties, with the primaries being the winning developer and MBCC, DCAMM’s best option is to build a mix of luxury and lower-grade condos on the existing parking lot, because parts of the parcel are highly sloped (> 20%) and challenging for construction. Furthermore, this approach would minimize site development costs.
If AHA did not apply, selling just 70 large luxury units would have produced enough surplus. More units need to be built under AHA to produce the same profit.
In maximizing land disposition and development return, three-fourths of the units sold will be very unaffordable. People who buy or rent these types of condos are senior execs, finance professionals, etc. on the move. You can bet that these people will figure out how to minimize loss, if not earn a small return on the properties, if they do not need them. If so, they will put them to rental use. The remaining 25% of units will be a pittance, and will be divvied up by lottery to different types of qualifying folks.
– Existing physical infrastructure is not practically expandable.
– There will be negative impact on Fiske.
– Scarcity of housing and high alternatives’ prices and finance costs increase tenures.
Overall, the project will bring more people “on-the-move”, and they will have fewer vested interests in the community.
I don’t think the state thinks about “best options” the same way you do. Steep grades would only matter if they wanted to develop the forest, which they don’t. And no project that maximizes profit ever includes below-market-rate, or “lower-grade,” units.
Why exactly do “more units need to be built under AHA to produce the same profit”? The AHA makes development easier by circumventing local zoning and permitting processes. You can’t have a profitable development if the Planning Board/ZBA/Town Meeting doesn’t approve it.
Your speculation about condo owners renting out units is just that – speculation. Talk to the leasing staff at The Bristol or Terrazza. A lot of those owners are downsizing seniors from the local area. Where is the evidence that most new condos become rentals in Wellesley?
“Existing physical infrastructure is not practically expandable.” Replacing a smaller pipe with a larger one is very common. It’s also more environmentally friendly and fiscally responsible than digging new trenches.
Wellesley’s public school population has been declining for years. That’s why we closed Upham last year. How does stabilizing public school enrollment cause a “negative impact”?
“Scarcity of housing and high prices increase tenures.” They’re also the reason why young adults are leaving Massachusetts by the thousands. Don’t you want your kids to be able to afford to live nearby some day?
Sec 122 of AHA discusses project guidelines, explicitly referencing Sec 121, stating that surplus land sales under AHA must be in accordance with affordable housing purposes. The affordability requirements here are the same as in Sec 40B, but from what I understand, developer profit caps for sold (20%) and rental units (10%) do not apply.
Sec 121 in this context caps sales and rental prices for likely 25% of the units, requiring many more to be built to reach the same profit. From what I can tell, the project is viewed very negatively locally on a variety of grounds, and the Town is unlikely to allow construction of more than 180 units required by state law. Thus, under a 180 units cap, DCAMM’s profit maximizing option is not to build 180 detached homes, or 180 duplexes, or 180 townhouses on more than 5 acres of the parcel, even if most of these options would still leave over 30 acres untouched in a mixed (some townhouses, rest apartments) development. Because these alternatives are less profitable, the best option is to “close out” non-luxury condo ones. Coincidentally, the same outcome would also maximize the Town’s net revenue per acre: tax intake less cost of providing public services such as schools, police, fire, and some infra.
If the balance of community renewal, affordability, sustainability, and conservation was the goal, the option of building exactly 135 townhomes and 45 condos would be chosen, which would conserve 36 out of 45 acres.
Where do the Sec 122 guidelines specify affordability percentages? They just establish that the allowable purposes for state land disposition “include affordable housing purposes” and that the municipality can “negotiate additional requirements.” If you look at other State Land For Homes program RFPs (https://www.mass.gov/info-details/state-land-for-homes), most of them express a preference for affordable housing but don’t require it.
The state is trying to make this project financially feasible to build. That’s for the best, in my opinion. The state is not some profit-maximizing entity, though. That’s also for the best.
But in claiming that AHA developments “require more units to be built to reach the same profit,” you’re ignoring that Wellesley’s stringent zoning and bureaucracy make it very difficult to build any housing at all. When the AHA cuts through that bureaucracy and zoning, it makes development much more feasible than it otherwise would be. And Wellesley’s inclusionary zoning law already requires 20% affordable, by the way.
“If the balance of community renewal, affordability, sustainability, and conservation was the goal, the option of building exactly 135 townhomes and 45 condos would be chosen, which would conserve 36 out of 45 acres.” That’s an absurdly specific claim. Email me your pro forma model that shows this. Show me your net revenue per acre analysis too. Seriously.
andrewmikula@gmail.com
Thanks for the back-and-forth comments on this, though we’re thinking it could make sense for you two to carry on your conversation separately by email at this point? Regards, Bob, Swellesley
The sisters of charity donated that land to be used for education as I understood . This is not for education.
Wellesley will never meet the 10% threshold of affordable housing because the low income housing doesn’t stay low income housing in perpetuity. In 15 years it reverts to market rate. This is the false promise of the 40 B proposals . They are not interested in helping low income families they are interested in huge profits.
All of Wellesley’s Affordable Housing (which qualifies for the 10%) is restricted in perpetuity!
A parking lot isn’t exactly an educational use either, Barbara.
Wellesley has already met the 10% threshold under 40B (see https://www.mass.gov/doc/subsidized-housing-inventory-2/download) and almost all of Wellesley’s affordable housing is income-restricted in perpetuity (see https://wellesleyma.gov/1902/Affordable-Housing).
Also, why should developers’ intentions matter here? Housing and land use are very tightly regulated in Wellesley, and as long as we’re getting good results out of these projects (i.e., diverse typologies of housing, additional affordable units, etc.), I don’t care who is making money and who’s not.
One very important part of the discussion is missing from the summary above. A question was asked whether a conservation restriction could be granted BEFORE the property is sold. The DCAAM fellow said all ideas are on the table and that this one–the grant of a CR before the sale–was an interesting one.
Gig Babson
This is a key move