Fuller Watch

Joined: April 1st, 2011, 11:07 pm

December 13th, 2017, 7:13 am #721

Dolben video.

Beverly Mass.: apartments

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

Joined: September 1st, 2012, 8:06 am

December 13th, 2017, 8:38 am #722

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.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2011, 11:07 pm

December 13th, 2017, 9:26 am #723

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.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

December 13th, 2017, 9:54 am #724

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 ...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 25th, 2007, 6:00 pm

December 13th, 2017, 10:13 am #725

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
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 5th, 2008, 12:22 am

December 13th, 2017, 1:40 pm #726

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.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2011, 11:07 pm

December 13th, 2017, 2:45 pm #727

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
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 25th, 2007, 6:00 pm

December 13th, 2017, 3:27 pm #728

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
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 19th, 2010, 9:12 pm

December 21st, 2017, 4:06 pm #729

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
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

December 21st, 2017, 4:32 pm #730

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

The highlights:

fuller_peer_1.jpg

fuller_peer_2.jpg
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 25th, 2007, 6:00 pm

December 21st, 2017, 4:43 pm #731

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

Joined: December 22nd, 2007, 10:06 pm

December 21st, 2017, 7:06 pm #732

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
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 19th, 2010, 9:12 pm

December 21st, 2017, 7:29 pm #733

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.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2011, 11:07 pm

December 21st, 2017, 8:02 pm #734

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.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

December 21st, 2017, 9:30 pm #735

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 ...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 16th, 2007, 5:15 am

December 21st, 2017, 11:06 pm #736

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.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2011, 11:07 pm

December 21st, 2017, 11:09 pm #737

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

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

December 27th, 2017, 5:07 pm #738

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
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 25th, 2007, 6:00 pm

December 27th, 2017, 7:45 pm #739

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
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 19th, 2010, 9:12 pm

December 27th, 2017, 8:01 pm #740

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.
Quote
Like
Share