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 [Read more…]

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 site. 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 before anything gets built; 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 took up 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.

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, the 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 Articles 16 and 17 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 redeveloped 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 of 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 of 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.”

Sign me up for Swellesley’s weekday email newsletter