Fuller Watch

Leland33
Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 03:07

07 Oct 2017, 05:01 #641

I've researched Powderhouse Village a little more.  "Affordable Chapter 40B" low income housing and 5 of the 48 units are sub-low income.

It's hard (impossible) for a set of good photos or of two videos NONE allowed you a complete picture.

PHV units are mostly two bedroom, but have one and three bedroom with a common room for living room dining room and kitchen.  There are no studios.  The bedrooms are small.

Sub-low and section 8 are in the mix of other low income renters. At rents $900+ includes HW, Heat and Y membership.  On site there is an active new Vets Hall built by the Y.

So four times PHV equals Fuller BUT Fuller will probably be 20-30% more.  

As far as I know there are no concept drawings of Fuller/200 market rate rental units.
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

07 Oct 2017, 12:34 #642

At the Planning Board meeting the developer said their current estimate for the rental price of affordable units there if they were built  market units would be $1550 for a 1 BR and $1895 for a 2 BR.

I believe they are required to include utilities in affordable units, but can charge for them in the market rate units.

*Corrected based on Cathy posting the handout from the presentation.
Last edited by Karly on 10 Oct 2017, 22:47, edited 1 time in total.
Reply

NightStalker
Joined: 15 Apr 2006, 05:02

07 Oct 2017, 12:54 #643

I know someone in the Beverly counterpart to PHV which is also run by the Y and she pays 1200 or so for a 3 bedroom with heat included.    that's what 'affordable' should be.  
You think you know it, but you haven't got a clue!!
Reply

battlingignorance
Joined: 01 Sep 2012, 12:06

07 Oct 2017, 13:38 #644

Karly wrote: At the Planning Board meeting the developer said their current estimate for the rental price of affordable units there if they were built would be $1550 for a 1 BR and $1895 for a 2 BR.

I believe they are required to include utilities in affordable units, but can charge for them in the market rate units.
Said Developer is an utter ass if he/she defines "affordable" that way.
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

07 Oct 2017, 14:06 #645

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) set the guidelines based on a median gross income figure and allowing the affordable housing (AH)  price to not exceed a certain percentage of that.   To qualify for AH your income needs to be a certain amount below that median income.  The highest level allowed is 80%  to qualify for the lower than market rate.  That is the figure the developer used to estimate hardship (presumably if they used a lower % their hardship would be greater but I'd like to see all the numbers presented and am working on getting them.)

Unfortunately the median income figure from HUD is a huge part of the problem because it lumps Cape Ann in with Boston area.  

The offsite proposal by Andrew DeFranza and Harborlight Community Partners would have unit prices based on different percentages of median income, some as low as 30% so very affordable.  That hasn't been presented yet since it is a separate proposal, though based on the YMCA moving and having some money available in the Affordable Trust Fund.
Reply

jasongrow
Joined: 16 Jan 2007, 10:15

08 Oct 2017, 00:20 #646

At the Planning Board meeting on Thursday, the applicants spent a good amount of time explaining just how uneconomic this project would be if they had to comply with 5.11 and include the affordable housing on site. It was pointed out that they've had similar projects in Lawrence that included 25% affordable and is in a less expensive area in terms of the affordability standards, and yet they managed to make that project work. Additionally, the planning board voted to require third party peer review of all the various aspects of the project EXCEPT the financial impact of the affordability aspect. This is a huge mistake and one that needs to be rectified by the City Council. 
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

08 Oct 2017, 00:23 #647

Thanks, Jason. I was there but missed which town the developer's other project was in. That was a point Shawn Henry made at the very end.  He told them they should work some more on their numbers because someone will notice that.  Were you there?  There were very few people.
Reply


harbordog
Joined: 07 Jun 2008, 11:56

08 Oct 2017, 13:19 #649

Have not attended these meetings but maybe someone can confirm or dispel what has been circulating.  
Is it true the sewer infrastructure is inadequate to support the housing project?  Rather than put on the developer the upgrade of the system for adequate sewer outflow, the plan is to approve a holding tight tank which will be pumped every night into the sewer line in the adjacent neighborhood.
Please tell me this is not so.
Is there a sewer betterment fee associated with the project?
Additionally, there are innovative systems being employed for gray water reuse.  Is anyone, Green 2020 or other groups, asking for these water saving accommodations?
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

08 Oct 2017, 13:25 #650

harbordog wrote: Have not attended these meetings but maybe someone can confirm or dispel what has been circulating.  
Is it true the sewer infrastructure is inadequate to support the housing project?  Rather than put on the developer the upgrade of the system for adequate sewer outflow, the plan is to approve a holding tight tank which will be pumped every night into the sewer line in the adjacent neighborhood.
Please tell me this is not so.
Is there a sewer betterment fee associated with the project?
Additionally, there are innovative systems being employed for gray water reuse.  Is anyone, Green 2020 or other groups, asking for these water saving accommodations?
There is no need for a holding tank. Just turn the water off in the apartments during the day.
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

08 Oct 2017, 17:27 #651

That is addressed in the Special Permit App:

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

sewer1.png

sewer2.png
Reply

battlingignorance
Joined: 01 Sep 2012, 12:06

08 Oct 2017, 17:52 #652

Grey Water plumbing not allowed in Gloucester. Probably be another 100 years before they cotton on to that...
Reply

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

08 Oct 2017, 17:56 #653

http://ma.mypublicnotices.com/PublicNot ... Id=4485871

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING In accordance with the provisions of MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Gloucester City Council will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 7:00 PM in the Kyrouz Auditorium, City Hall, relative to the following Special Council Permit Application: SCP2017-012: The Application of Eliason Law Office, LLC, Attorney Deborah A. Eliason, on behalf of Applicant, Fuller Mixed Use Venture, LLC, Owners City of Gloucester and Gloucester Commons LLC, for a Special City Council Permit to construct and allow a YMCA, Retail/ Commercial Buildings and 200 residential apartment buildings pursuant to Gloucester Zoning Ordinance Sec. 1.8.3, and MUOD Sec. 5.29 (including Major Project Sec. 5.7) located at 2,3 & 4 School House Road, Assessors Map 262, Lots 14 & 37, and 7 Gloucester Crossing Road, Assessors Map 43, Lots 4 & 5 in the R-10 (Medium/High Density Residential) and EB (Extensive Business) District within MUOD (Mixed Use Overlay District). At the public hearing, all interested persons will have the opportunity to be heard based on the procedures determined by the Council. All written communications to the Council must be received by the office of the City Clerk no later than 3 business days (excluding holidays and weekends) prior to the scheduled hearing date or any continuation by the Council of such date in order to be considered by the Council as part of the public hearing. By Vote of the City Council Joanne M. Senos, City Clerk GT ­ 10/6, 10/16/17
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

08 Oct 2017, 18:01 #654

I guess the question is if the sewer main to Trask Street is capable of handling an additional 200 units. I would be surprised if it can not do so given the needs of the former Fuller School, but I am often surprised.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

Leland33
Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 03:07

09 Oct 2017, 06:22 #655

What the 200 units rent for remains to be seen. I saw Dolber properties in Boston range from $495 to $3000 so perhaps Dolber will allow much lower rents.

At one fourth a single persons income $1550/month (1b1ba) calculates to a $75K salary The full amount of rent is $1900 or a hardship of $350/mo plus utilities.

I think a more "normal for Gloucester" rent is $1250 x 80% = $1000. There is less hardship $250/month - plus utilities.

Renting from a management company like Dolber is like buying a new car -,the dealer sizes you up an in some cases will sell a car way over retail.

I think that what they're asking for the Beverly Units is a lot more than what people are paying.
Reply

jasongrow
Joined: 16 Jan 2007, 10:15

09 Oct 2017, 12:20 #656

Cathy (Admin) wrote: From the Special Permit App:

http://gloucester-ma.gov/ArchiveCenter/ ... ge-001.jpg

cc_permit_app_affordable2-page-001.jpg

cc_permit_app_affordable2-page-002.jpg
Thanks for posting that Cathy. Sadly, there isn't a ton of specificity in how those numbers add up, but a couple of things crossed my mind while reading. First, the consultant is using the justifications of the 40b regulations which stipulate that 25% of the units be affordable, not 15%. I don't know how that changes things, but it seems to me that we should be comparing apples to apples. Second - he cites a $46M construction cost -- is that only the cost of the construction for the residential units? And where is the breakdown on the site preparation costs and how they're attributed to each of the individual partners etc.  Sadly, I don't think the Planning Board voted to authorize an independent peer review of the financials, which I fully expect and hope the Council will correct and do themselves before granting an economic hardship waiver.
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

09 Oct 2017, 13:32 #657

Thanks Cathy and Jason for helping to clarify the issue. By the way, although anything is better than nothing, 15% or even 25% affordable is not much of a help in reaching the 10% of total units 40B requirement to get us off the list of target communities for inappropriate projects. We really need the Y and other groups to get together and create affordable housing preferably downtown where housing and transportation are available.
By the way defining "affordable" using family incomes 80% of median in the Boston area virtually insures that families taking the affordable apartments will not be Gloucester families making Gloucester median incomes. Our median income is around 60% of the Boston area median.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

flounda
Joined: 05 Jan 2008, 05:22

09 Oct 2017, 16:15 #658

We really need the Y and other groups to get together and create affordable housing preferably downtown where housing and transportation are available.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So were are the people in this downtown Y development supposed to park? It's hard enough to find a space to visit the inconvenient City hall. And I'm sure that transportation could be arranged to service Fuller.
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

09 Oct 2017, 17:03 #659

flounda wrote: We really need the Y and other groups to get together and create affordable housing preferably downtown where housing and transportation are available.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So were are the people in this downtown Y development supposed to park? It's hard enough to find a space to visit the inconvenient City hall. And I'm sure that transportation could be arranged to service Fuller.
I am extremely reluctant to let parking dominate my position on the affordable housing issue. Downtown is the part of Gloucester with most needs within easy walking distance, good bus service, and a short walk to the train. If one can find employment downtown or commute by bus or train, one can save a lot per year by just getting along without the %^$* car. Anyway I seldom had trouble finding free parking near the Y when I worked out there every day. Along Prospect and the side streets between there and the Y there is usually space. I have a hunch that with time and Uber our cultural dedication to a car for every adult will fade in any case. I think it will be tough for youth hockey :)
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

jasongrow
Joined: 16 Jan 2007, 10:15

09 Oct 2017, 19:12 #660

Damon wrote: Thanks Cathy and Jason for helping to clarify the issue. By the way, although anything is better than nothing, 15% or even 25% affordable is not much of a help in reaching the 10% of total units 40B requirement to get us off the list of target communities for inappropriate projects. We really need the Y and other groups to get together and create affordable housing preferably downtown where housing and transportation are available.
By the way defining "affordable" using family incomes 80% of median in the Boston area virtually insures that families taking the affordable apartments will not be Gloucester families making Gloucester median incomes. Our median income is around 60% of the Boston area median.
True, but we need to keep plugging away, ESPECIALLY when there is a project of this magnitude on the horizon. If the city concedes to the developer on a project of this size, we may as well simply kiss the provisions of 5.11 away. I was corrected by someone who knows about these things that it doesn't really matter about the 15% vs 25% that I referenced above, however there is some concern over the methodology of the math, the distribution of the costs/expenses etc. and whether the planning board should have sought third party advice on the economic hardship issue since that's the thing that's driving this whole discussion. My fear is that by not digging a bit deeper and simply accepting the applicant's presentation, the Council might be inclined to punt and not do their own due diligence. This would be a mistake in my view.   By the way, that 80%  is only the upper threshold for affordability -- meaning the very least restrictive on the applicant... and frankly not a terribly high bar for them to achieve, which makes their whining all the more lame. If they/we really wanted to make an impact, we could insist on 60% or 30% -- Even their own representative suggested that 80% wouldn't make that much of difference given the economic band we're in.... if that's the case they should reconsider their protests.
Reply