Cape Ann Online

I agree.  No one is creepy.   I think it is possible to get an outcome that is good for everyone.

The Administration accepted an RFP response where the respondent stated that they elected to include only market-rate housing in their proposal and the Administration agreed to a payment in-lieu of on-site affordable from the sale proceeds and signed a Purchase and Sale based on those terms.  How does that make the developers the bad guys?

I find it hard to believe that the developers were unaware of the affordable housing requirement. I can easily believe that city officials were unaware of it.

Cathy (Admin) wrote:

Cathy (Admin) wrote:
... the Administration agreed to a payment in-lieu of on-site affordable from the sale proceeds ...

That decision wasn't the administration's to make. That decision belongs to both the planning board and city council.

Which is why this is still an issue 2+ years later and the developers are scrambling to come up with a valid hardship case to justify the payment in-lieu option that the administration had agreed to at the outset, without the authority to do so.  So, yes - both sides were aware of the ordinance.  I'm just not getting it - why the administration would take that route and why the developers have been so adamant about  not including affordable on-site.  I feel like I'm missing something and I don't even have a hint at a conspiracy theory, lol.

Here is what I think.  I think the developer is genuinely surprised at how involved the planning board and city council approval process has been.  I think they thought it would pretty much go as planned after the agreement with the administration.  I think they are surprised to be in this situation.  They certainly understand who makes the decisions now.

I agree.  The developers thought the payment in-lieu was part of the purchase agreement and was a done deal.  They expressed that thought a couple of times at and after the overlay hearing, claiming that they have a deal.  And they would think that because ...

You are convincing me that the city blew it :(

February 15, 2016:

"But Mayor Sefatia Romeo Theken — emphasizing that evaluating the Y's Fuller proposal amounts to eyeing three proposals in one — has noted the housing proposal conflicts with a city ordinance that any new housing construction comprised of more than 11 units must have 15 percent of all units designated as state or federally-recognized affordable housing.

She and Destino have said the Y partnership can cross that hurdle by contributing an undefined amount of money to the city's Affordable Housing Trust so the city could develop its own affordable housing elsewhere.

It's unclear, however, if Y officials are willing to add more cash to the deal or if the city is willing to use any part of the purchase offer to then create those affordable units."

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/loc ... 15f5e.html

March 9, 2016:

"The city has agreed to allow the 170 units of market-rate tenant housing despite a Gloucester ordinance that requires 15 percent of any new housing project of more than 11 units to be affordable. The city accepted the deal once Fuller Mixed Ventures, represented by Windover CEO Lee Dellicker, added another $500,000 — specifically geared toward the affordable housing component — to its sale offer."

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/loc ... eb0c8.html

Feb 26, 2016

"The additional $500,000 extended by Lee Dellicker, the Windover CEO and managing partner for the Fuller Mixed Use Ventures, would have boosted the total in Gloucester’s Affordable Housing Trust to $740,000. But Romeo Theken said Tuesday she wants the city’s investment to meet its own calculated differential of $1.5 million between 170 market-rate units at the Fuller site and the same project with 25 affordable units as defined by the 15 percent ordinance.

“To me, the Fuller sale price with the housing piece is $5.6 million, but $4.1 million for Fuller and $1.5 million for affordable housing,” the mayor said.

“Fuller Mixed Use Ventures said from the beginning that they would give money — $1 million included in the purchase price — to the affordable housing trust,” Romeo Theken said, shedding light on the talks that followed the Fuller group’s answer to the city’s request for proposals last November. “They were always clear about this.

“When we told them the total amount would be $1.5 million,” she continued, “they gave us an additional $500,000 on top of the purchase price.”"

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/loc ... 14ef0.html

“Fuller Mixed Use Ventures said from the beginning that they would give money — $1 million included in the purchase price — to the affordable housing trust,” Romeo Theken said, shedding light on the talks that followed the Fuller group’s answer to the city’s request for proposals last November. “They were always clear about this."

I can't even ...

I expect a through and comprehensible analysis by 3 am :)

From what I have heard, the consultant for the Fuller hardship review is ill so that will not be discussed at P & D tonight (Wed, Jan 3) ...in case anyone was planning to attend specifically for that reason.  It will probably be on the agenda in a couple weeks.

The new P & D standing committee is Val Gilman (Chair), Jen Holmgren (Vice Chair) and Paul Lundberg (member).   For other committee assignments you can check out this link...

http://gloucester-ma.gov/index.aspx?nid=123                                               

P&D minutes for the last several meetings have been posted online.  The November 8, 2017 discussion regarding the affordable requirement and vote to authorize the hardship peer review:

"Mr. Gourdeau asked on behalf of the FMUV the peer review if voted upon to move forward be done expeditiously as possible.” He offered that the FMUV supports affordable housing and have no objection to affordable housing being built on this site as part of their project. He said it would require an adjustment on the purchase price a $2.291 million adjustment to build those affordable units. He said it is purely economics. Both options are on the table should the city want the units built on site.

Ms. Eliason added whether the YMCA project goes ahead it is in the hands of the city, the permit would have to be granted so that the YMCA moves out of the site."

https://gloucester-ma.gov/ArchiveCenter ... /Item/8332

$2.291m adjustment = $3.3m for the property.

In the the second paragraph, the "YMCA project" is a reference to the possibility of a Y/Harborlight housing plan for the old Y.  While that project is not legally tied to the Fuller project in the sense that those units can not be considered as an off-site alternative to satisfy the ordinance, Ms. Eliason (attorney for FMUV) is suggesting that project can only happen if the Y moves out of that location and that would only happen if FMUV is granted the permit.

Great LTE

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/opinion/ ... 52933.html
 

Yes, it is.  Especially for calling out the GDTimes in their reporting of what the developers "want" to "pay" and pointing out the real deal, that $1m is coming out of the purchase price.  The letter was submitted by Francis S. Wright with no mention of a City position - a Francis S. Wright is the chairman of the ZBA.

I'm trying to hold in a major rant about the "if we don't get the permit, the Y can't move and the City won't get downtown affordable units" thing.

And ... and ... and ... an either or from the developers.  "Both options are on the table should the city want the units built on site." Either take $3.3m and get your on-site affordable or take $5.6 and we skate ... "

The only thing we really need to be looking at right now is 5.11.8 of the Gloucester Zoning Ordinance:

5.11.8 Alternative Methods of Affordability

(a)
City of Gloucester City Council or Planning Board, when either is acting as the granting
authority may allow an alternative method of compliance with this section at the formal written
request of the developer. In granting such authorization, the City Council or Planning Board must
find that the developer has demonstrated that building the required affordable units on-site would
create an economic hardship.
Approval of alternative methods of compliance shall be only for
the methods described below in subsection (b).

Given that the consulting expert who reviewed the claims of economic hardship found them to be unsubstantiated, I think the Council will have a challenging time ignoring that report and/or dismissing it.

Oh, I agree with that completely.  But then, the purchase price.  FMUV is apparently suggesting that they will only pay $3.3m if they are required to provide the on-site.

I don't see how that's supposed to work. The bid they submitted was for $5.1M with full awareness of their obligations on the affordable housing issue. They can withdraw their bid if they want and make the city do another round of proposal requests, but that means dumping the money they spent so far on the overlay and the site testing and risking another developer coming to reap those benefits... I don't see that happening. I don't know what the legalities are in a situation like this in terms of disposition of public property -- but I seem to recall that the Council has to accept the final transaction. It would be interesting to know if the applicant can simply drop the price on their side of the equation. I'm kind of thinking not, but I'd like to hear what a municipal attorney would have to say about that...