The property at 136 Worcester St., once among a slew of sites proposed for 40B multi-family housing projects during a time when Wellesley was beneath the state’s 10% threshold for affordable housing, could still be developed for such a purpose.
Wellesley Interim Planning Director Brad Downey, during a brief May 4 Planning Board agenda item on possible Fall Special Town Meeting articles, gave the board a heads up about a potential application related to 136 Worcester St. He said that Dean Behrend, a developer already working to bring a 19-unit, 3-story condo complex to the edge of Wellesley Square, called about a possible Project of Significant Impact at that site. (See Wellesley Media recording of May 4 meeting, about 35 minutes in.)
Downey noted that the property, on the eastbound side of Rte. 9 in Wellesley near the Sun Life complex, is in a Single Residence 15 (SR-15) district, so would require a zoning change approval. It’s possible Behrend would be invited to come to a Planning Board meeting to discuss his idea, but would eventually need to seek Town Meeting approval (we reached out to Behrend Construction for comment).
The previous development envisioned at this site, Wellesley Crossing, was a four-plus story, 40-unit apartment building. This proposal was denied site eligibility.
If a proposal were to go forward at this property it would be just the latest of numerous multi-family housing developments in the works in Wellesley, either being built or on the drawing board, and adding well over 100 units to the town’s supply. New projects include the Bellwether on Rte. 9/Cedar St. (34 units), a 28-unit development at 16 Laurel Ave. near the Wellesley Hills train station, and 49 Walnut St. (28 units).
Plus a new 8-townhome project is being pitched alongside the railroad line at Wellesley Square, and then of course there is the big one, 180 possible state-mandated units at 40 Oakland St. across from the MassBay Community College campus.
Expand your reach by advertising your real estate project on Swellesley
More development means more tax revenue for the town yet our property taxes have gone up over 100%! Affordable housing is also a scam because 90% of these projects are building market rate housing with small set aside. Wellesley already has more affordable housing than our neighbors in Weston, Dover etc. The planning board is clearly representing developers not taxpayers enough is enough
“More development means more tax revenue for the town yet our property taxes have gone up over 100%!” Well, there are plenty of reasons why the town’s expenses are rising that have nothing to do with development – health care and pension costs, high interest rates, etc. Academic research generally finds that building multifamily housing improves a community’s long-term fiscal health: https://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=geog_facpub.
“Affordable housing is also a scam.” In reality, the most scalable way to add affordable homes quickly in a place like Wellesley is to have lots of projects with relatively small set-aside percentages. The market-rate units subsidize the affordable ones, with no need to spend taxpayer money. As long as it’s aligned with market conditions, it’s a very appealing model. Now Wellesley just needs the political will to actually let these developments happen.
“Wellesley has more affordable housing than Weston, Dover etc.” That shouldn’t be surprising given that we have about twice Weston and Dover’s population combined. And just because Weston and Dover aren’t adequately meeting affordable housing needs doesn’t mean Wellesley shouldn’t. It’s not a competition. It’s about doing what’s best for our community, and I believe that Wellesley would be a stronger community if people could afford to live here who are making less than, say, $400,000 a year.
Andrew c’mon. You cannot keep squeezing water from a stone. Re: “Well, there are plenty of reasons why the town’s expenses are rising that have nothing to do with development – health care and pension costs, high interest rates, etc.” So are you emphasizing adding more expenses to the list? Wellesley is a diverse community. of income levels. Selling a home may bring in immediate cash but staying in a home at such high tax rates coupled with higher living expenses and little income is quite difficult for many Wellesley Residents. Many Residents are dealing with caring for family members due to cost of living expenses and health issues. It appears and I really mean appears and it may not be your heart, that you are rarely advocating support on behalf of the Residents already struggling to maintain living in their Wellesley homes. At some point,there simply is no more water in the stone and then what happens? We will have nothing and be happy?
Kim, I don’t understand how the “water from the stone” analogy is relevant here. The rising expenses are more or less inevitable. But building more homes, especially multifamily homes, can help alleviate the tax burden on existing residents. Please read the academic resource I shared in my previous comment. Or this one, if you prefer: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166046216301259. And here’s another piece of research particular to Massachusetts (see page 21): https://donahue.umass.edu/documents/MB_072919_low-re.pdf. Building new housing helps broaden the tax base, which in turn helps keep property taxes stable for people who are struggling to maintain their homes.
Also, I don’t know what your preferred metric for socioeconomic diversity is, but the mean annual income for a Wellesley household reported in the 5-year 2020-2024 American Community Survey sample was $367,512 (see https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2024.S1901?q=income&g=060XX00US2502174175). Just 16% of Wellesley households reported making less than $75,000, compared to 38% in the state as a whole (see https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2024.S1901?q=income&g=040XX00US25).
Wait a minute. You are citing research which is published in cooperation with the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston? The same Federal Reserve system Woodrow Wilson warned about at the signing of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act? “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world – no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” (Woodrow Wilson) How can there be any fiscal health for those outside of the uber wealthy international banking families, when our financial system is based on the Federal Reserve monetary system? What is the value of a federal reserve note/dollar bill? Research published in cooperation with the Federal Reserve banking system,in my humble opinion, is suspect since our Federal Reserve financial system is backed by alchemy.
Kim. This anti-Fed rant is a mere distraction from the substance of my argument.
First of all, the actual research was conducted by UMass Dartmouth. The Fed just provides funding to support the publication of UMass’s research journal. There’s no indication that they dictate content in any way.
Second, there are multiple other studies that reach the same conclusion that new multifamily housing in the suburbs is good for existing taxpayers. Do you have the same vendetta against West Chester University or Northeastern Illinois University that you have for the Fed?
If you have any evidence that new multifamily housing will exacerbate the situation of “residents already struggling to maintain living in their Wellesley homes,” please provide it. Don’t just resort to ad hominem attacks against an entity that has an arms-length relationship to (one piece of) the existing body of research.
Half of the cited MassBenchmarks publication was written by a policy analyst with the New England Public Policy Center in the research department at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston which, in my opinion, constitutes more than an arms-length relationship with the Federal Reserve.
I presented a valid concern, with references cited, not an attack. My opinion/concern was formed via Woodrow Wilsons’ admittal. Promotors of new housing projects are tasked with quelling community fears of fiscal consequences of such projects in a constructive manner so as to win over dissenting opinions not the other way around.