Fuller Watch

Joined: 01 Sep 2012, 12:06

13 Dec 2017, 13:38 #721

Windover will screw the City, whatever the public "result".

As for "crowding the city"?  Absurd - there are fewer people living here, and there is plenty of room for growth. More housing is needed.
Reply
Like

Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 03:07

13 Dec 2017, 14:26 #722

The ideal scenario is attracting a young couple in stages of starting a family that want to move back to Gloucester so parents and/or grand parents can take care of their kid(s).  

That saves, in childcare, about 400 to 600 off their rent.  So $1300-$1900 for a 2 BR isn’t so scary - if both have a SOLID income.

I wonder if Dolben will give free family Y memberships.
Reply
Like

Joined: 13 Aug 2005, 09:30

13 Dec 2017, 14:54 #723

Dun Fudgin wrote: One would think.... if you apply common sense.... that a developer would know the city's housing ordinance would have to be factored in any housing plans.
But they made a deal!

GDTimes:  "The city's affordable housing ordinance otherwise requires any project with more than 11 units to include 15 percent as state and federally recognized affordable residences."

The Times puts this in every story.  It is any project with 8 or more units.  Just one little thing that annoys me, lol.

"The partnership — Windover Construction, the YMCA of the North Shore and Sam Park & Company — wants to pay the city $1.5 million in lieu of the affordable housing."

A much bigger annoyance that the GDTimes continues to include in their reporting.  They "want" to pay - not how it works.  And they are not offering to pay $1.5m.  Again - they offered $5.1m for the property, then negotiated with the administration to pay $5.6m when the question of including affordable apparently took them by surprise.  The deal is that the City would put $1.5 of the $5.6m into the Housing Trust for a net sale of $4.1m.  And again - not how it is supposed to work.

I don't think Dolben will give out free Y passes, Leland.  The residential housing plans include a fitness center and clubhouse ...
Reply
Like

Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

13 Dec 2017, 15:13 #724

Perhaps the Times does not understand that a big chunk of what the developer is offering is actually to come out of their payment to the city for the property. At the very beginning they reported it correctly, but then "forgot". If I did twitter I would tweet "fake news".
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply
Like

Joined: 05 Jan 2008, 05:22

13 Dec 2017, 18:40 #725

Damon wrote: Perhaps the Times does not understand that a big chunk of what the developer is offering is actually to come out of their payment to the city for the property. At the very beginning they reported it correctly, but then "forgot". If I did twitter I would tweet "fake news".
Exactly.
Reply
Like

Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 03:07

13 Dec 2017, 19:45 #726

I see the clubhouse in the drawing - is kind of a centerpiece - which includes a workout room. It is nice to be near the Ys pool.

This video reminds me of the shell game of the Fuller MUV negotiations or “how to deal in one dimension”,   They’d say “okay you gave us a Möbius strip and we’re giving back a much bigger Möbius strip ... then a much much bigger Möbius. Strip.”

http://www.videoapt.com/tabid/105/VPID/ ... fault.aspx
Reply
Like

Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

13 Dec 2017, 20:27 #727

That is nice having the workout machines in your building, but really kind of strange with the Y moving in next door and the Fitness Zone around the corner.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply
Like

Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

21 Dec 2017, 21:06 #728

Peer Review of Financial Hardship is in.  No hardship was found that would be based on including the affordable units.  Scroll down to the LDS Consulting Group Review and see the recommendations.  

http://gloucester-ma.gov/Archive/ViewFile/Item/8270
Reply
Like

Joined: 13 Aug 2005, 09:30

21 Dec 2017, 21:32 #729

Thanks!  I did read the entire report (skipped the charts, lol).

The highlights:

fuller_peer_1.jpg

fuller_peer_2.jpg
Reply
Like

Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

21 Dec 2017, 21:43 #730

Wow ! Thanks Karly.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply
Like

Joined: 23 Dec 2007, 03:06

22 Dec 2017, 00:06 #731

So the council wanted a peer review, and now they have one.  So what are they going to do?  Stick it in a drawer and grant the permit anyway?

- peregrine
Reply
Like

Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

22 Dec 2017, 00:29 #732

I don't know what they are going to do but you could attend the meetings, peregrine, and you will find out sooner.  Also you can email or call them if going to meetings isn't possible.  Or do all three if you can. There will be a public hearing as well with full council.  Lots of chance to help them decide.  Many citizens requested the peer review...probably why we have one.
Reply
Like

Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 03:07

22 Dec 2017, 01:02 #733

At the top of the LDS review submittal is a 3D diagram of building locations.

FYI:

1.Up is “West” and “North” is to the right.

2, To the south west is Sargaent Street.  Property is for sale for $1.6M - will road be connected?

3. Bottom (near the word ”residential”) is about where the Vernal Pond is located.  I don’t know what conditions this had under developer Gloucester Crossing/ Parks but probably would carry over to FMU.
Reply
Like

Joined: 13 Aug 2005, 09:30

22 Dec 2017, 02:30 #734

I think what you are looking at, Leland, is a different document - submittals from the developer as part of the Special Permit process are also in the packet.  The property for sale up there is Linsky's.  I did just notice the For Sale sign there yesterday.

Given public sentiment and now the findings and recommendations from the peer review, it really is a no-brainer for the Council to deny the hardship plea and require the on-site affordable units.  You can color me outraged if they don't.  Then it will be on to the next knot.  Do the developers roll and comply, walk or do they try to negotiate a lower purchase price?  In the past the developers have indicated that they may be open to providing affordable on-site - for a price, which is just crazy talk.

I especially liked the part of the report that was in bold and underlined - the part about the developer knowing about the affordability requirement when bidding.  

All of this, again and again, brings me back 2+ years when the developer submitted a response to the RFP and in the response stated:  "in an effort to maximize the purchase price to the City, we have elected to include only market-rate housing in our proposal."  So, yes, they were clearly aware of the affordable requirement, didn't want to, and the administration said ok, give us $500,000. more (and again, not the Administration's call).  The developers reiterated all that at the overlay hearing and claimed that "we have a deal."  And so now here we are ...
Reply
Like

Joined: 16 Jan 2007, 10:15

22 Dec 2017, 04:06 #735

I expect the applicant to take issue with the conclusions, but I have to agree with you Cathy, it seems very challenging for the Council to disregard them. Without the hardship declaration i would concur that they are pretty much compelled to comply with 5.11 and build the units on site.
Reply
Like

Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 03:07

22 Dec 2017, 04:09 #736

Thanks Cathy - yup that’s what I did.  I realize now that I thought the pic was part of LDS.
Reply
Like

Joined: 13 Aug 2005, 09:30

27 Dec 2017, 22:07 #737

I did another read-through and have re-read parts that refer to the acquisition costs.  Am I correct in my reading that it is the opinion of the reviewers that the purchase price is a pretty good deal for the developers?

FMUV is scheduled to go before the ConComm on January 3 as well for some wetlands issues.  ConComm Agenda has not yet been posted but there was a public hearing legal notice posted:

http://ma.mypublicnotices.com/PublicNot ... Id=4535652
Reply
Like

Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

28 Dec 2017, 00:45 #738

How good a deal they thought the acquisition cost was for the developers was not clear to me.  I could not really tell to what extent this was balanced by the higher than normal site costs. I assume that means not only environmental and utility concerns but removal and disposal of the present buildings.
The main thing is that the consultant was charged with determining if the requirement for affordable units defined by our zoning ordinance caused hardship. They say no clearly. The developer better include the units or leave.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply
Like

Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

28 Dec 2017, 01:01 #739

Regarding the site costs...I was told that what was not expected was that the field had boulders buried in it.  They were put there and covered when O'Maley was built and no one involved in the deal was aware of it.  They would need to be crushed.  The developer did account for other site costs that came up.  So my read of the report is that the price was good, the site costs were higher than expected and  the hardship if it exists is not due to building 30 affordable units. Which would seem to mean that under 5.11 this would not be a reason to not build them.   So we will have to see where it goes from here.
Reply
Like

Joined: 16 Jan 2007, 10:15

28 Dec 2017, 01:05 #740

LDS Findings and Recommendations: 
I. Are the financial estimates provided by the Developer reasonable? 

Summary of Projected Development Costs 
i. Acquisition Cost: 
a) LDS believes the acquisition cost is low for both the 100% market and 85% market scenarios. For example, the 260-unit Gutierrez 40B project in Westford has a purchase price of $23,000 per unit, and that includes 25% of its units having an affordability restriction at 80% of AMI, 10% higher than the inclusionary housing requirement in the Gloucester Zoning Ordinance. In fact, there are many similar sized M.G.L. Chapter 40B developments on the North Shore and elsewhere in Massachusetts that have been privately funded and built successfully with a 25% affordability requirement. Most M.G.L. Chapter 40B development seek to increase density over underling zoning. The proposed residential portion of the Fuller Mixed Use Development is 6.2 acres. With 200 units this equates to 32 units per acre and would be characterized as very dense by local standards. 

The 100% market cost allocated to the residential units, according to the Developer is $3,393,000 or $16,965 per unit. This is a low for permitted land since as noted above, LDS typically see prices ranging from $20,000-$30,000 for permitted land per unit. If you have a wholly affordable development, LDS typically see $20,000 per permitted unit. As noted in the chart below, the developer has a purchase price cost savings of $607,000 on the 100% market scenario and $1,867, 000 on the 85% market scenario. 


ii. Residential & Community Building Costs: 
b) General Conditions, Overhead and Fee: It is our understanding that the developer has included 7.2% or approximately $3,200,000 for developers’ general conditions, overhead and fee across the construction costs and general development costs. This revenue will go to Dolben as the developer of the residential portion of the development. 
c) Construction Costs: Building. The hard costs at $162,330 per unit or $148 a square foot seem reasonable. LDS does recognize that we are currently in a very volatile construction environment given the tremendous amount of building going on in Massachusetts and in particular, personnel costs continue to increase. We note that within these costs there is builders profit and overhead 
d) Construction Costs: Site Work. LDS typically sees site work costs at $20,000 per unit. The Developer has provided a site cost of almost 1.75 times that amount or $35,000 per unit allocated to the residential phase of the project. This accounts for $3,000,000 in additional costs to the residential phase of the development. LDS asked the Developer to provide the total site work costs for all three phases of the project and they have responded that “it is an arm’s length negotiated agreement among the three members” as stated in a memo dated December 5, 2017. Since LDS has not seen this agreement, LDS does not know if the $7,072,000 represents 100% of the amount of site costs or 66% of site costs, the percentage used for the purchase price. Therefore, given the break out of costs provided by the Developer and the fact that the residential phase will most likely be the first phase of the Development, LDS can reasonably assume that all site costs have been allocated to the residential phase. We note within these costs there is builders profit and overhead. 
Reply
Like