Link: Copy link
Said Developer is an utter ass if he/she defines "affordable" that way.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.
There is no need for a holding tank. Just turn the water off in the apartments during the day.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?
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 $46M construction cost -- is that only the cost of the construction for the residential units? And where is the breakdown on the site preparation costs and how they're attributed to each of the individual partners etc. Sadly, I don't think the Planning Board voted to authorize an independent peer review of the financials, which I fully expect and hope the Council will correct and do themselves before granting an economic hardship waiver.Cathy (Admin) wrote: From the Special Permit App:
http://gloucester-ma.gov/ArchiveCenter/ ... ge-001.jpg
I am extremely reluctant to let parking dominate my position on the affordable housing issue. Downtown is the part of Gloucester with most needs within easy walking distance, good bus service, and a short walk to the train. If one can find employment downtown or commute by bus or train, one can save a lot per year by just getting along without the %^$* 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 :)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.