Fuller Watch

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

13 Sep 2017, 13:54 #621

I think the reason it is taking awhile is because it is a major project which requires approvals (overlay, major project special permit) that must go through multiple boards.  They also had to figure out the affordable housing piece which I think is being proposed as YMCA/Harborlight building affordable units (more affordable than they would be on the Fuller site) at the old YMCA.  That is a separate project but could be good...I'm staying open-minded on that until I have more details.
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

14 Sep 2017, 16:03 #622

Dianna Ploss...this is a thread about what is going on with the Fuller development with lots of information.
Reply

Cathy (Admin)
Joined: 13 Aug 2005, 09:30

20 Sep 2017, 21:17 #623

Planning Board, Thursday, September 21, 6:00 p.m., City Hall Auditorium

On the agenda: review of FMUV Special Permit App.

This is likely just the start of the review process. There is a public comment period at the beginning of the meeting. It is not a public hearing, just a comment period.

I would normally post a link to the agenda, of course, but I'm on a darn tablet and can't c&p a link to the pdf file.
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

20 Sep 2017, 23:56 #624

It was on the agenda for tonight's P & D council subcommittee but was continued to October 18.  Still interesting...they approved the medical marijuana/Happy Valley permit and voted to have a moratorium on recreational marijuana sales until Dec 2018 (or 6 months after they get state guidelines...whichever is later) among other things.  I don't think I can go tomorrow so take good notes if you do!  
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

20 Sep 2017, 23:58 #625

Also in October (planning board) will probably be the offsite proposal by Harborlight.  That isn't happening tomorrow. 
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

26 Sep 2017, 14:14 #626

GDT article talks about the Harborlight Proposal to build 53 affordable units at the old YMCA, at much lower rental rates and with a large portion hopefully designated for local residents and workers.   David Houlden of Gloucester Housing Authority expressed mixed feelings and is waiting for more information to take a position on it.

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/loc ... 8e107.html
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

26 Sep 2017, 14:31 #627

Also...Planning Board requested a peer review of the overall project which was not unexpected but will likely push any development into 2018.  Sounds like a good idea for such a large proposal.

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/loc ... eaea2.html
Reply

flounda
Joined: 05 Jan 2008, 05:22

26 Sep 2017, 16:08 #628

The article said that the developers are contributing 1.5 million to the housing fund. It is my understanding that they are only  contributing $500,000 and the city is using 1 million dollars of the profit to add to the fund. Also, were do they get parking for 53 units. It's hard enough to find a space when you have business at the relic we call city hall.
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

26 Sep 2017, 16:33 #629

I also wondered about the arithmetic when I saw the paper this morning. However it was early over coffee at Georges and by the time I got through the fog up to Cripple Cove I found that Zeke's was closed for some kind of ventilation system repairs and I stuck my finger into a plank and picked up a splinter under a finger nail while lifting my oars so had to stop at a drugstore to buy tweezers so have no idea how they are getting away with the city paying most of the bill.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

26 Sep 2017, 16:36 #630

However at least the sun came out as I rowed back.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

Cathy (Admin)
Joined: 13 Aug 2005, 09:30

26 Sep 2017, 17:26 #631

FMUV responded to the RFP with an offer of $5.1m.  During the year-long (longer?) negotiations, they offered to add $500,000 more to the purchase price as a contribution to the Housing Trust in-lieu of affordable inclusion.  The Administration accepted the proposal and signed a P & S.  At some point after, the Administration stated that the City would transfer $1.5m from the $5.6m purchase price to the Housing Trust to satisfy the inclusionary housing ordinance obligation.  The Mayor has said that we can just call the purchase price $4.1m.

It's been posted here often enough that any reader knows that's not how it's supposed to work and that the administration had no authority to make an affordable housing deal part of the P & S.

My take on the piece about the possible housing at the old Y - it is not technically or legally tied to the Fuller deal in any way.  It is a proposal to possibly earmark the anticipated $1.5m housing trust contribution to a particular project.  The only relevance is that if the Fuller deal doesn't happen, the old Y property will not be available for housing.  To Mr. Houlden's valid concerns about there being no guarantee for the old Y property to be developed for affordable housing:  there is a 3rd option in the inclusionary housing ordinance - instead of making a cash contribution, the developer can provide the required number of units off-site.

It will be interesting if the permit doesn't get to the council for a vote until after the first when there will be at least one, if not more, new councilors.
Reply

tyu12
Joined: 10 Jan 2008, 01:26

26 Sep 2017, 18:09 #632

Karly wrote: GDT article talks about the Harborlight Proposal to build 53 affordable units at the old YMCA, at much lower rental rates and with a large portion hopefully designated for local residents and workers.   David Houlden of Gloucester Housing Authority expressed mixed feelings and is waiting for more information to take a position on it.

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/loc ... 8e107.html
Since the Y is getting a big gift from the city they should give the building to the city to be used as a city hall. sorry if those things were addressed in the article I can not get the article on my computer and I don't get the paper.
Reply

Cathy (Admin)
Joined: 13 Aug 2005, 09:30

26 Sep 2017, 22:36 #633

Footnote from the Special Permit App:

http://gloucester-ma.gov/ArchiveCenter/ ... /Item/7857

1.  Although technically separate from the Project that is before the Council, the YMCA has entered into an agreement to redevelop its 71 Middle Street site into affordable rental units targeting residents whose income is 30% to 50% of AMI. In addition to income targeting that better meets the City’s needs, the Middle Street project is anticipated to provide more housing units than the 30 that would have been required at the Project site. Harborlight Community Partners has been designated by the YMCA to redevelop the property. Harborlight will be seeking a contribution from the City sufficient to establish to state and federal funding sources that the community is committed to the success of the Project. To that end, Harborlight will make a request to the Gloucester Affordable Housing Trust Fund that the cash contribution from the Project be committed to the 71 Middle Street project.

On a related note:

One of the goals identified in The Housing Production Plan is to review and revise the Zoning Ordinance to encourage production of affordable housing.  Included in strategies listed to achieve that:

"Explore modifications to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to create incentives for the production of more inclusionary units while discouraging payments in lieu of building units. Consider reducing the threshold for triggering inclusionary housing from eight units. Enforce the provisions of the ordinance to ensure actual construction of the required affordable units. Consider an alternative calculation for the payment in lieu of so that it is an amount equal to the required number of affordable housing units multiplied by the median price of a market-rate home comparable in type, size, and number of bedrooms over a period of 18 months prior to the date of application submission."

http://gloucester-ma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4238

Another random bit from the Permit App:

"Finally, the City will enjoy a substantial increase in local spending from 200-300 new residents who will frequent local businesses and support the Cape Ann economy." - New residents?  Make what you will of that.

And finally, thinking out loud:  Would the City be better served with more affordable units downtown in a lower rent range but consisting of studio and one-bedroom rentals or one and two bedrooms priced in the higher end of affordable?
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

26 Sep 2017, 22:43 #634

"And finally, thinking out loud:  Would the City be better served with more affordable units downtown in a lower rent range but consisting of studio and one-bedroom rentals or one and two bedrooms priced in the higher end of affordable?" - Cathy

That most likely depends on how you define "better served." 
Reply

Cathy (Admin)
Joined: 13 Aug 2005, 09:30

26 Sep 2017, 22:50 #635

I probably should have asked, "What is the greater need for current residents?"  Is the need for lower priced studios and one-bedrooms greater than higher priced one and two bedrooms?  I don't know.  Those stats may be addressed in the HPP but I'm about done reading for today, lol.
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

06 Oct 2017, 01:49 #636

So the developer has presented at the last two Planning Board meetings.  Tonight was the hardship request with a housing financial expert.  Some questions from a few members related to the fact that a large amount to the expense of the project is being allocated to the developer building the housing (vs the YMCA or Sam Parks) which I would think affects their hardship numbers.  The developer said it was the agreement between the three.  How the in lieu of is calculated came up and it is viewed as not set in stone by either side.

A couple of PB members seem to want to move it along quickly.  No one expressed any opposition to the hardship...no vote taken and continued to October 19 meeting.   Shawn Henry and Henry McCarl had some interesting comments and seem very smart so I'm glad they are on the board.
Reply

Leland33
Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 03:07

06 Oct 2017, 04:46 #637

DEVELOPER:  "I was prepared to discuss OUR hardships at THIS meeting but Karly's doggie ate my notes"
image.jpg
Reply

Cathy (Admin)
Joined: 13 Aug 2005, 09:30

06 Oct 2017, 16:33 #638

Thank you for the update, Karly.  I'll be interested in reading the minutes.  The Planning Board is a little slow on getting minutes posted, so I really do appreciate the information.

I did want to go, but - it was a tough decision between taking in a clear, 70 degree, full moon evening in October or a planning board meeting. :-)
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

06 Oct 2017, 16:59 #639

I don't blame you a bit and it will all be coming around to the City Councilors.  It was interesting to get a feel for the Planning Board members though.  I can't go on the 19th so if you get to that one I'd love the update.
Reply

Leland33
Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 03:07

07 Oct 2017, 04:39 #640

I was going to rant/rave the Y's property in Ipawich but maybe later.

The asbestos removal seems to me isn't a hardship and can be more than offset in the city's favor because the Fuller property is increasing in value in today's market.

Hardships IMO are not anything in the domain and very specific definition of "Risk" or "Contigency". I think risk or contingency happens during the entire construction project.

So I assume that there are investors and bank(s) that will back the $62M project and when complete there will be three owners The Y, Sam Park and the developer who will have earned a portion of the $62M in fees, construction management PLUS have ownership in the 200 units AND pays down loans as rents come in.
Reply