New Condos at Old Middle School Face Stiff Opposition
Groom Construction describes new 41 condos that would be priced from $300,000 to $2 million.
Photos
The builders of the town's first school in 1894 knew they were giving future students one of the best views of the harbor.
But they probably never dreamed that 120 years later condominiums built to take advantage of that same view might be valued at $2 million.
The 41 condominiums proposed for the old Middle School site at 71 Greenwood Ave. would be priced from the $300,000s with the penthouses being listed at $2 million, Bill DiMento, the attorney for Groom Construction, said Monday night.
That is, if the new condos win approval from two town boards.
About 40 residents showed up for the Planning Board's first public hearing on the proposed condominiums Monday night at the Senior Center. The Zoning Board of Appeals will meet on the same project next week.
Together the Planning and Zoning Boards have broad authority over the design and scope of the condominium building.
Architect Jim Velleco with Grazad Velleco of Marblehead described the four-story, 104,000-square-foot project as "more open to the sky" than the existing middle school building. "It will provide a good feeling," he said.
Neighbor Ellie Miller disagreed. "There are only 41 residents in the whole neighborhood. Another 41 units will destroy us," she said.
Groom Construction's land planner and architect said the new building will be much smaller than the old Middle School. The new linear-style building will be 86 feet wide facing Greenwood Ave., as compared to the long vacant school building, which is 186 feet wide.
The new residential building will be 11 feet lower at its peak and three feet lower at its base than the school building, Velleco said.
20 percent smaller
Its footprint will be about 20 percent less than the school's, and it will be about 100 feet away from the property line abutting the six homes on Greenwood Terrace, Bill Bergeron with Hayes Engineering said.
Ken Shutzer, an attorney for 10 of the neighbors of the project, told the board it did not matter that the new condo building would be smaller or shorter than the old school building.
The school building is going to be razed. The question the board has to decide, Shutzer said, is whether the proposed 41-unit building is compatible with the neighborhood.
Since there are mostly single-family houses in the neighborhood, he said, "There is no way looking at Greenwood Avenue that this building fits the character of the neighborhood."
The neighbors are concerned about the density of the project and the impacts it will have on flooding, traffic and noise.
The runoff water, which now cascades off the rear of the property, would be controlled with catch basins and piping that directs the water into the storm sewer system, Groom's team of experts said. The new drainage system would help relieve some of the flooding issues of the neighborhood, they said.
A traffic study estimates that the 41 units and possibly 82 cars would produce a manageable 25 trips during the morning rush hour and 29 in the afternoon. During weekdays the condos would produce less than 300 vehicle trips per day.
When Bergeron said the traffic study shows there will be "no preceptable impact on traffic in the neighborhood," the crowd gasped.
Most of the neighbors fear that the 41 new units will exacerbate the high volume of traffic in the neighborhood.
Myron Stone, who spoke in favor of the project, said the traffic at the residences could not be worse than it was when the school was operating.
Other supporters said they were tired of looking at the old school building and thought the new project would look fine.
Some neighbors were concerned that half of the parking spaces and the garage entrance to the other half of the 87 parking spaces were on the north side of the building, which abuts Greenwood Terrace. They wanted more trees and landscaping to protect their backyards from the noise and lights of the cars.
The Planning Board, after listening to more than an hour of debate on the project, continued the hearing until its meeting on August 13.
Citizen Swamp
7:09 am on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
"Another 41 units will destroy us," . Typical NIMBY comment. Great to see that Groom came armed with statistics.
Lets move forward.
CS
Nospinicus
9:46 am on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
The lesson that Swampscott has trouble learning is that proposals by developers are just that - proposals. They are not engraved in stone; they do not have the force of the gospels; they are a developers concept of how to maximise profit. Making a profit is not objectionable if the proposal does not overwhelm the neighborhood as does the Groom proposal. Developer proposals are, and should be, subject to negotiation and compromise. Groom is moving into an established neighborhood and he must be aware that his over-the-top project has to be adjusted to make him an acceptible neighbor.
EM
9:03 pm on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Exactly! The town seems to have a propensity to hand over surplus properties to developers for their profit rather than establishing a best long term use that preserves the history of the town and that is in synch with the neighborhoods. The better way to do this is to write requests for proposals for the redevelopment that preserve the community. Rather than going to developers, the requests go to design consultants that specialize in building re-use and preservation that is harmonious with progress! We have a long way to go.
Sandie Bock
10:18 am on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
That old building has some pretty nasty memories for some and wonderful memories for others. Time to tear the old girl down! IF the building architects design the building in keeping with a structure that would be becoming to the neighborhood, I think it would be a big improvement. However, 40 or so units sounds like a lot for that space and for that neighborhood. Cars will be coming and going all day and night long, unlike the school where it was congested at start and end of school and then totally quiet. I am assuming that the people with the money to buy these units are not going to be mostly retired, then they will be going to work and shift workers go at all times of day and night. Also, where do the kids of the condo units play? IF were a house, then they have a yard to play in, or side street, but this is on the road, conceivably 40 units could produce 80 kids or more so..... The character of the neighborhood MUST be adhered to, tone down the numbers of units and tone up the structure to be becoming of Swampscott and think it is a better alternative to that old high school/ middle school rotting away up there. Are the school systems prepared to absorb a bolus of kids into the schools? Sewer systems up to the challenge etc.?
Alex
4:50 pm on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
40 units are nothing. There are 2 condo complexes of more than 200 units each on Vinning Square (facing a busy 1A, BTW) and they are not creating traffic jams or other imaginable nightmares you are talking about. People ready to pay $300K+ tend to be NOT shift workers. At least not to a noticeably greater degree than those who live in this neighborhood. BTW, playing kids (so far) did not create any noticeable problems in either Summit Estates or Crown Point even without having special yards or convenient street (1A being the only street available).
Condo produce tax $$ and Swampscott not in a position to keep ignoring this fact.
EM
9:11 pm on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Hi Sandie, The development is purposely not geared toward families, and I think that the proposal from the developer indicated that 8 children would be added to the school ranks. The idea is to maximize the tax revenue to the town without encumbering it with the costs of added students. This was very purposeful.
Bridget Russo
12:46 pm on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
I grew up in Crowne Pointe and the only traffic problems we experienced were those of the residents of the condos - it was extremely difficult to go in and out of the complex because Paradise road was always so busy. As a kid living there, not having a street to play on wasn't really an issue since there was the indoor/outdoor pool, clubhouse and tennis courts.
Citizen Swamp
11:01 am on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
SB,
Agree that we need to move forward. When built this project will generate at least $250k of tax revenue per year. Where are all of the complainers out there who say we need to pave roads, work on infrastructure etc. Well this is about the only way for this community to add tax revenue. This project in conjunction to the Temple project and the Capn. Jacks condo development will yield a big increase in funds.
As for the schools ability to absorb more kids, check the future enrollment numbers for Swampscott, we are declining in total enrollment at a very serious rate.
Move forward!
CS
William R. DiMento
12:11 pm on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Stewart: I have no idea how much the penthouse will actually sell for. Based on the sales at the Concordia on Humphrey Street I susect 2 million would be a good value. Lets see----- $17.99 times 2 mil is $36,000 . The Fiscal Analysis submitted to the Boards projects $338,000 annual income based on the current tax rate. That amount
will certainly not go down with a new school on the horizon.
Whisky
7:21 pm on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
In the State of Massachusetts, I was appalled when the State Supreme Court upheld the law requiring one to pay a non refundable fee to launch even the first level of appeal of a traffic ticket. Maybe this ought to apply to obstructionist groups, too! Not only must the 'defendant' pile up legal fees and lost revenue from delays, but I, as a taxpayer, also would like to see an additional significant revenue stream for the town, so it's affecting me negatively, too.
Consider this, too: A few $1mil+ properties in your neighborhood, and guess what? Your property values go UP! And nice try with the flooding. EVERYONE tries that.
EM
9:18 pm on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
What are you saying? That the people on Fuller Ave have not experienced flooding as a result of insufficient pipe size from the runoff from the Greenwood site? These people are not abutters, they are down the hill and away from the direct affect of the development. I've been following this development very closely and was surprised to learn last night that the Fuller Ave people have this problem. Hayes Engineering indicated that the water that had been running on the surface will now be forced through these pipes that apparently could not handle the flow that they had previously. The Fuller Ave people had no incentive to mention this otherwise.
Ryan Adams
8:08 pm on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
The old middle school had 500-800 people going in & out of it every day, sometimes several times a day. It had games, shows & town meetings going late into the night, games, meetings & events going early in the day.
The traffic was a disaster -- I speak from three years of experience there, as a former student.
The impact 41 units will have in the neighborhood will be infinitely smaller than what was there before. There will be hundreds less people going to & fro, & those people will be actual neighbors, not students w/little to no investment in the neighborhood. (While the vast majority of students were great, there were always fights & other incidents of boredom going on. A fact of life w/any school.)
This building will be set much further back than the current monstrosity & will add a great deal to the cash-strapped town as a whole. This is a desperately needed project.
NIMBY types complaining about something that'll be far less intrusive than what was there for over 100 years have little to no sympathy from me. The town could have allowed 100 units in that space. 41 is very small compared to the size & scope of the school, or the 16 units in a tiny location going in a few blocks away on Humphrey.
My middle class/working class neighborhood had an entire park and woods ripped from it to house the new HS and moved on. How many Greenwood residents of that area voted for that project? Yeah... I thought so. Build the darn project and let's move on.
EM
9:23 pm on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
From what I heard directly from neighbors who experienced the affect of the old middle school, this disruption was for :20 in the morning and :20 in the afternoon, and at evening events. That is far different than suddenly have 41 homes on a street with 30 homes 24/7. When the school was not in session, nights, weekends, and in the summer, it was very quiet. 41 units fundamentally changes the character of the neighborhood. Everyone welcomed the school and put up with it. Do you think that because the neighborhood was encumbered by the school willingly they should have to deal with 41 new households that they never anticipated when they bought their properties?
Ryan Adams
9:33 pm on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
EM - will those condos cause heavy traffic? No. The difference in the traffic will be minimal. Will those condos be an overly large blight on the neighborhood? Well, the building will be significantly smaller and set further back than the current dilapidated facility. So, again, no.
What, exactly, are these daily "disruptions" going to be? Smiling property owners providing a tax base and landscaped grounds?
"Do you think that because the neighborhood was encumbered by the school willingly they should have to deal with 41 new households that they never anticipated when they bought their properties?"
When the proposed building is much smaller than the current one, and will have far fewer people going to and fro and causes ruckuses than the last one... without a doubt. Yes.
We live in a town and part of being in a community is sacrifice. My own neighborhood sacrificed the only wooded park, a charming beauty that I and other neighbors frequently enjoyed, because of the importance of having a school. Those 41 units are just as necessary to help pay for the teachers employed in that school, tax dollars that will total in the hundreds of thousands a year.
If my neighborhood could sacrifice the entire park and wooded area, then I think a smaller neighborhood could "sacrifice" something which -- by the time it's finished -- will be seen as a relief compared to what was there.
EM
1:52 pm on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Ryan, I happened to live in your neighborhood and my kids went to Machon school. I think it was terrible what happened over there, and I was in favor of renovating the old high school versus taking few vestiges of open space left in town to build on. Every town wants a new school as a status symbol, but really what the town needed to do is focus on the quality of the education (teachers), which went to hell in a handbasket. In that nice new high school, with the mass exodus of qualified teachers, my son went through 5 math teachers in one year. I had to pay for him to go to Sylvan just so he could have his college math background, and then took my younger son out of the school and paid $18k per year as a result of the bad experience. When the kids were little, we walked the woods to the boy scout camp, up into the quarry area, around the tennis courts, etc. It is all gone, and we have the glitz of a new high school, but still not the benefit of a high quality HS education. I empathize with you totally.
EM
8:43 pm on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
It is easy to criticize the neighborhood when you don't live here. If the project were occuring in your back yard, you would have the same reaction. 41 condos on a street that has 30 houses? This is neighborhood that has serious traffic and parking problems already. At Thanksgiving and Christmas are neighbors going to be fighting with the new condo owners over a space for their family to park on the street? Are people who own their own single family homes not going to have parking on the street as a result of visitor overflow parking in the neighborhood? This project is basically a tax money grab by the town to be born on the backs of this neighborhood, as well as a windfall for the developer who will make close to $2 mil in profit. What the town failed to do is sell the project to the people who are most affected, and to involve them in the process. As a result there will be a multi-year legal battle that will not benefit anyone. It was really poor judgement and poor planning, and a few people making decisions that seriously affect a vibrant and cohesive neighborhood that refuses to be trampled.
Whisky
9:29 pm on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
"What the town failed to do is sell the project to the people who are most affected," ??? The "people most affected" failed to place the winning bid. The developer also is taking a risk, and if the economy tanks again before he sells the units, he risks making NO profit or losing money. It's like the folks who abut the rail trail - it's not theirs, and it IS possible for something to happen there despite their NIMBY oppositions.
Ryan Adams
9:47 pm on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
I live near the new high school, which came at the cost of the park I grew up going to and used into adulthood, walking dogs, hiking in the woods, etc. If my neighborhood could sacrifice so much -- I'm glad we did; the high school was that important -- surely Greenwood can sacrifice something much smaller to help ensure we have the tax base to adequately staff that high school (which I'd be willing to bet a maj of Greenwood voted for, decrying Jackson Park residents 'whining' about 'NIMBY').
"At Thanksgiving and Christmas are neighbors going to be fighting with the new condo owners over a space for their family to park on the street?"
Come over to my St. someday. We have those battles *every day.* I think Greenwood can cope two days a year. /facepalm
"What the town failed to do is sell the project to the people who are most affected, and to involve them in the process."
The process has been going on for years. If Greenwood Ave residents weren't involved, that's their fault.
"As a result there will be a multi-year legal battle that will not benefit anyone."
Any big project will foster lawsuits. The town cannot allow itself to be bullied by NIMBY types.
"It was really poor judgement and poor planning." Again, there's been years of planning and public meetings, so I'd say the "judgement." Neighbors were constantly thought of in the process, but can't be the end all be all. The town has services its expected to provide and needs a tax base to afford them.
Ryan Adams
9:48 pm on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
At the end, I meant to say, "so I'd say the 'judgement' was fine.'
Citizen Swamp
10:21 pm on Friday, July 13, 2012
Do us all a favor, run for a Selectmans seat. Your clarity of thought is excellent!
CS
Sandie Bock
10:04 pm on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
First of all, I am assuming that the town is not "giving away this school" to the developer and are getting Market Price for such building and property. I still say anything more than 20 condos in that area is excessive and 20 maybe be too many. The old decrepit building is not helping property prices, it is a blight really. And to the person who said they are not marketed to people with kids, good luck!!! People do as they please and lots of people with kids like condos so... Swampscott needs to LIMIT the amount of condos in town. What they did on Paradise Road cannot be compared to putting that amount of condos in this little neighborhood for goodness sake. Paradise Road had NO houses where they put the condos, it was industrial with Stop and Shop and a liquor store at the time and they took land of the golf driving range and woods to make the condos, VERY different from this situation. Swampscott is becoming Saugus by the Sea, it is a shame. I understand that the town needs tax base but should not occur at the expense of these neighbors on Greenwood and surrounding streets. What is the parking set up for the condos?
Citizen Swamp
10:23 pm on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
SB,
Explain to me why it is OK to have condos on Burrill, Essex, Humphrey but not OK at the old Middle School site. I'm sure the Machon School site will wind up as some sort of housing also.
We seem to have many people in town who feel that their neighborhoods are "special" but don't utter a peep when the same type of development that they protest is permitted elsewhere. Swampscott is a densely populated community. Condominiums will be an increasing part of our housing stock.
Let's next move on to developing the Temple site, (oh I forgot that neighborhood feels it needs special treatment also)!
CS
EM
1:57 pm on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
There is not generally an opposition to condos, but rather the scale and density of the development. Universally, anyone who has seen the Greenwood site agrees that 41 units in this neighborhood is overwhelming. The neighbors would put their support behind a smaller project on the hill.
Amy
10:59 pm on Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Thanks, Ryan Adams, for being a voice of reason. Swampscott actually needs more condos, not fewer. It desperately needs an infusion of young professionals and non-families to revitalize a town that has been resting on its laurels (read: good schools) for years and offering little to nothing for younger people other than an easy commute and nice views. Those opposed clearly think the status quo is great. Respectfully but vehemently disagree.
george depaolo
8:43 am on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Touche to you MR. Ryan Adams, well said......couldn't agree with you more.
Citizen Swamp
5:15 pm on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
EM,
Look at the drawing and read the stats presented at the meeting. That project like others proposed recently in town will look great and will probably enhance the neighborhood.
As for the new HS. The building has never been the issue with the quality of education. I think if you put Peter Sak in the new HS, or Ron Landman in the Middle School on forest Ave the results would have been much different. It's all about leadership, and we've struggled in that area for a few years.
Abutters to the new HS still have plenty of open space, with a wonderful secluded track area for walking and running.
Face it we live in a densely populated town and things to change, nothing stays the same.
CS
Linnea
2:33 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
It's true - a new project may enhance the neighborhood. But as others here point out, scale and density are the issue. This is not a simple case of Not in My Back Yard as some people seem eager to shout out; it's about what is going in and how.
Citizen Swamp
2:50 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
L,
The project that is being proposed meets the standards set forth in the RFP as well as being the highest bid offer. I'm sure the neighbors would love to see a couple of single family homes built, but why should the rest of the community suffer for the wants of a few?
CS
Fiona Barrett
5:22 pm on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Neighbors have NOT been involved in the process until Monday evening's planning board open forum, other than our own initiative to meet with Groom to learn more about the intented construction. None of the abutter's have been informed of any decision's regarding this site or involved in the process until now. If I wanted to demolish my home & rebuild I would be required to share with neighbor's & get approval's. The town needs to do the same with such a large scale project. We need to come together as a community to protect our town and any future projects.
Ryan Adams
5:37 pm on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Fiona,
That is simply not true. There's been public meetings on this property for years now, incorporating what and what not developers were allowed to build. These meetings were open to anyone, including Greenwood Ave residents, every step of the way. I attended at least one of them... years ago.
I deeply resent the notion that when suddenly the project is getting nearer to final approval, suddenly nearby residents are screaming that they haven't been involved in the process. That you don't necessarily like the results doesn't mean nearby residents were somehow excluded from an entirely open process to set the conditions for which developers were allowed to build.
Our town has rushed some proposals forward, trying to push them through (and often failing because they rushed it).... but *this* project, which has been going on for years and years now, is not one of them.
This project has gone on far too long already, allowing the decaying building to become a crumbling blight, costing our hundreds of thousands a year in tax dollars while we're laying teachers, firemen and police officers off or not restaffing positions as people retire.
It's time to move on.
Fiona Barrett
6:34 pm on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
As an abutter I have never been given notice of any meetings public or otherwise regards 71 Greenwood Ave. otherwise I certainly would have been in attendance!
Ryan Adams
6:50 pm on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Public meetings are posted on the town website and often in the town papers (where I generally find out out about them). The days of having to go to the public posting boards at Town Hall are over, though the meetings will be posted there, too.
Look, I get how hard it can be to keep oneself abreast of public meetings, even when posted online for all to (easily) see. We're all busy and have other things to do. But as any cop would say if you get pulled over, "ignorance is no excuse."
It's not exactly a secret that a 40+ unit condo was being planned for the neighborhood -- these were the guidelines being crafted by townsfolk volunteers (at public meetings) since the building was decommissioned, maybe even before then.
Given that this project was no secret, if it was truly that important to you, you would have been there every step of the way. You would have looked at the town's online calendars or called up members of the building committee, informing them that you want to know about any meetings and sub committees regarding the Greenwood Ave site. This isn't rocket science, just a little elbow grease.
We cannot force ourselves to start over again because Greenwood Ave residents were apathetic up to the point where an actual developer put a proposal was on the table, overreacting now to a unit number that's been set in stone for years.
Fiona Barrett
8:57 pm on Wednesday, July 11, 2012
I have been educating myself as to how the town makes decision's, and recently became a town meeting member to be more informed. I do not read the paper and only recently-based on resident's requests, meetings are now posted on the website. My understanding of the process is the planning board & ZBA meetings are in place as open forum for discussion from all parties about proposed plans-this is why I attended on Monday & voiced my feedback to the plans. I agree we need to be proactive & informed, I am learning-however-I never expect for plans to be "approved" without abutter's being included in the conversation! This does not seem fair conduct. Perhaps if we had been included we would not be voicing our concern's now as they would have already been addressed. I am certainly active in communicating with the town and in fact meeting with the town planner on Friday morning at the site to discuss my concerns about the entrance & safety. If you want to join us you are welcome, my intention's are to do what is best for the community and to protect our neighborhood.
Connie
8:29 am on Friday, July 13, 2012
Fiona,
What time on Friday morning? I think all concerned neighbors should be there. Thank you for your information!
Connie
8:25 am on Thursday, July 12, 2012
I have been a direct abutter for nearly 30 years. I've been through the years of the high school, middle school, town meeting, school plays, recitals, cub scout meetings and many other public meetings next door. We have cleaned up the trash in our yard and even had to call the school to get kids to stop smoking in our driveway when it was a high school.I dare say this will happen when residents pay for these condos. When it was a middle school there were at the very least 50 staff members parking in the lot (double parked). Every morning and every afternoon EVERY car in Swampscott went up the hill TWICE a day. I don't see that 41 condos will create nearly this much traffic on a daily basis. Even if there are that many vehicles (or more), they won't all leave and return at the same time of the day.
As the building has remained empty, I have looked out my windows to see abandoned vehicles, boats, boat trailers, and much to my dismay, people using the parking lot as an outdoor toilet as if no one could see them. Unfortunately, I could!
The neighbors have been considered in this design and it would be a great improvement and extra revenue for the town.
Yes, town residents, it is time for a change and change is difficult, but the people that don't want change (and revenue for the town) are the same people that complain about our high tax rate. Let the old, tired building go! It's time for a change!!! That's what life is about......change!
Fiona Barrett
3:34 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
I watched this short movie today as part of a course I'm studying & was inspired to share here: http://youtu.be/CMj9N5Io0ts
Let's find a place of cooperation and happiness for all the projects in our beautiful town of Swampscott. Thanks for watching.
Fiona Barrett
9:29 am on Friday, July 13, 2012
Hi Connie, we are meeting a 9.30am you are welcome to join as is anyone else who is interested. Thx
Sandy Jacobs
6:20 pm on Friday, July 13, 2012
It's not so much the size of the building as the impact of 41 couples, families or even individual residents added into an already densely populated area. Traffic in our neighborhood ( i live around the corner on Rockland st, a nightmare itself) is terrible. Adding this amount of people, cars, visitors, and workers (repair people, house cleaners, cable trucks etc) for units is pure lunacy. We are a town not an urban area . Remember the phrase "an Olmsted community" not Swampscott the North Shore City. Olmsted was about green spaces something Swampscott wants to eradicate.
Ryan Adams
6:47 pm on Friday, July 13, 2012
Sandy, there are three different directions people can take from the top of the hill on Greenwood Ave (either side of Greenwood or King St.), divided by 41 units.
From there, drivers choose streets branching off in seven different directions. From there, the streets branch off in dozens of different streets, taking people basically anywhere in Swamspcott or going into Lynn, Marblehead or Salem, putting people onto streets that all ~13,500 of us use everyday and somehow manage.
You are overreacting. Given that there aren't usually very many more cars than units in condo complexes like the proposed one here, the difference in traffic will be barely noticeable to the naked eye. The extra car length you may have to wait -- on occasion -- to take a turn during rush hour will be more than made up for with the fact that you'll never have to worry about being in a school zone again, in which traffic truly was a nightmare for Greenwood Ave residents.
Sandy Jacobs
7:10 pm on Friday, July 13, 2012
Ryan,with respect for your view please realize I am not overreacting. I grew up in a bedroom community of NYC and saw first hand what increasing density this much can do to good towns. It is not 41 units or nothing (which I personally would prefer). I am a realist and hope that an alternative smaller unit plan could be done. Remember its not the size of the building but the new amount of residents. For those out there who wish for the increased revenue be aware that the cost of providing services for these new residents often exceeds their taxes paid to town. I have seen this in the towns where I previously lived.
Ryan Adams
7:38 pm on Friday, July 13, 2012
What increasing density? We're down almost 1,000 people in town since the last census. Have no fear; 41 units isn't going to turn us into Manhattan. It won't even turn us into Brookline, which quite frankly, I think we should aspire more closely to be.
"I am a realist and hope that an alternative smaller unit plan could be done."
Realistically, what is knocking off 5 or 10 more units going to do, other than costing us tens of thousands of dollars a year in tax dollars? It will make no material difference to the neighborhood, beyond maybe making reticent neighbors feel a little bit better about themselves. A sense of empowerment is a wonderful thing, but I submit it will not help our town, when more tangible things are at stake.
"For those out there who wish for the increased revenue be aware that the cost of providing services for these new residents often exceeds their taxes paid to town."
41 units divided by all the town's services will have almost *zero* impact on town services. It won't cost anymore to patrol the streets, staff the schools or plow the roads. I fail to see one scrap of evidence that that suddenly these condo residents will be costly residents to town.
Connie
8:29 pm on Friday, July 13, 2012
Fiona,
I did watch the video you posted. I appreciate the fact that everyone is entitled to express their opinion and hopefully, in the end, there will be an attractive, functional, safe building at the site that will make everyone (that is willing to accept change) happy. I found the video very inspiring and mind opening! Thank you.
Sandy Jacobs
10:35 pm on Friday, July 13, 2012
Density for Greenwood /Rockland/King St. Area! Not scattered throughout the town with more open spaces. And single family houses were turned into multi family condos and apartments. YES HIGH DENSITY! You don't live here. And I have lived in Manhatten and left it in 03 for North Shore so I understand city living and rural living (NH) and suburban living (NJ and MA). What are your experiences?
Ryan Adams
12:04 am on Saturday, July 14, 2012
Sandy, I just don't see the problem. If you want to talk density, let's talk 500-800 students going to and fro every day, and all the teachers, staff, coaches and deliveries that went with it. The proposal is a significantly reduced "density" than the old school building. This isn't even a question; it's a fact.
And I don't want to hear there's only people coming and going 10 minutes, twice a day. There are parents zooming in and out every day, at all hours, picking up sick kids or dropping off forgotten books. There's deliveries coming and going all throughout the day -- never mind all the sports, town meetings, theater productions, etc., often going late into the night or early on weekend mornings. (Hello, CYA basketball.) There's a lot more people at a middle school, so a lot more activity, all throughout the day.
This is not an increase in density, it's a giant reduction.
I would totally be there with you if the proposal were to build a mini high rise, with upwards of 100 units, but it's not. 41 units isn't all that much in the grand scheme of things, particularly replacing such an overcrowded monstrosity. Every dimension of the new building will be smaller, and the landscaping and home-owner care will greatly enhance the character of the entire area.
Mark my words -- the project will bring up property values and enhance the neighborhood.
This is a win for everyone.
AA
3:42 am on Sunday, July 15, 2012
Ryan Adams, I think I understand your frustration. Your neighborhood sacrificed a park for high school... I hope you understand, that Greenwood residents ALREADY do not have a park. They already had a school, and something requiring MORE sacrifice is going to be built. It is simple - there is just not enough space for 41 units. Also, for discussion and desision process, public posting or hearing (Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, good book, recommend highly)... Abutters must be informed and were not.
Citizen Swamp, Ryan Adams, I understand you are eager to see increased tax revenue. But who can guarantee that? The project will require communication tower to be moved. The increased load will likely prompt upgrading water/sewer lines, there will be new students as well. Who do you think will pay for that? Less units is smart.
Citizen Swamp, Ryan Adams, please understand, there is people who think that destroying neighborhoods or demolishing buildings, that shaped Swampscot character is realy bad. Just as you said, we live in a community -may be preserving a community, not destroying it, is a better way. And Ryan, I will have to agree with Sandy here, you seem to completely miss the point of considering the neighborhood's perspective. Money may not be the only thing that matters...
As to Crown Pointe and Summit - they are MUCH bigger lots and cannot be compared. And no, those dont sell that well and not for $300K...
Ryan Adams
4:05 am on Sunday, July 15, 2012
AA -- you seriously think this project will be "more" of a sacrifice than having the old middle school in the neighborhood? Seriously?
Let's go through a little thought process.
Middle School - 600-800 people using it every day.
Condo project? 50-100.
Middle School - massive monstrosity.
Condo project? Significantly smaller in foot print, height and square footage.
Middle School -- causes massive traffic twice a day, including when most people are trying to get to work.
Condo project? Adds infinitely fewer cars than those used by parents, teachers and staff at the old middle school, having minimal (if any) real impact on traffic.
Middle School -- paved-over ugly, crumbling blight.
Condo project? Brand new building with professional landscaping and upkeep.
Finally, let's address some of your sillier points.
"Your neighborhood sacrificed a park for high school... I hope you understand, that Greenwood residents ALREADY do not have a park."
You are 2 minutes walking distance away from the ocean!!! 5 minutes away from Monument Ave! 10 minutes from Phillips! Less than that from the new(old) middle school and all its park land. Do you seriously want to suggest you don't have parks or any nice public space?
"Just as you said, we live in a community -may be preserving a community, not destroying it, is a better way."
Community requires growth and change. Stagnation and NIMBY = community killers. We need to move forward.
AA
4:39 pm on Sunday, July 15, 2012
Ryan Adams, if you do have a multi-unit apartment complex adjacent to your property and you prefer to live in a densely populated (urban?) environment, my points might seem silly to you. If you need to move forward, grow and change, again, my points might seem silly to you. And if you refuse to consider the other side perspective... Well, this does not seem to be a discussion, you simply keep repeating your points. Greenwood residents do not protest any development of the site. The point shared by most of them - it is too big, there is not enough space. A multitude of other alternatives are possible. Wise people do not make rush decisions. The decision to increase the number of units was hasted through the process and was done at the worst time for real estate. Today we can and should consider better solutions.
And to your point of "Brookline, which quite frankly, I think we should aspire more closely to be". No, I do not aspire to be more like Brookline. If I wanted Brookline, I'd live there. I get cautious when somebody tells me what I should or should not do. Swampscott has a unique and vibrant identity despite being a relatively small community. What I see in your suggestion will erase that identity.
Ryan Adams
5:54 pm on Sunday, July 15, 2012
AA,
1. You can't argue I'm 'repeating points' when I'm a) addressing yours & b) you keep repeating your own. You say the project is too big & too dense. Well, prove it. How would it in any way be bigger or more dense than the effects of the old middle school, when the new building will be significantly smaller and have significantly fewer people using it?
2. If you're worried that condos or density will 'change the character of the town' you're coming a little late to the conversation. Swampscott has hundreds, maybe a thousand+, condo and town house units. Like it or not, condos are already very much a part of Swampscott's character. I fail to see how they've in any way hurt our community.
3. You're taking my Brookline comments out of context. Allow me to add some: Brookline has a bevy of things to do, places to go, and great public transportation and walk-able streets to get people there. Swampscott has these things built into it just like Brookline does, but we haven't fully embraced them -- and that holds us back. Beautiful parks, restaurants, a sense of community, events and businesses that bring people together are all things I want more of in Swampscott. Do any of those things sound bad to you?
Yet, if we're afraid of change, NIMBY when it comes to any projects that go above & beyond single unit housing and continue to bleed population (costing us our tax base and population base for local businesses), Swampscott will continue to struggle just to get by.
Alex
1:14 pm on Tuesday, July 17, 2012
What you are saying does not look reasonable because, besides chanting "41 is too much", you and Sandy are not saying anything.
41 units is a small building and the fears that people ready to pay from $300K to $2M for an apartment will destroy your neighborhood is a little bit strange. Of course, this is a matter of taste and if the neighbors prefer to maintain present situation (there ARE people who sincerely like ruins, flooding and trash in their neighborhood) their wish is understandable.
Citizen Swamp
5:16 pm on Sunday, July 15, 2012
AA,
Once again you are advocating that the good that would benefit a community of 13,000 people should be thwarted by the wants of 20 +/- households.
We need the tax revenue to do the road paving, storm drain work and other projects mentioned on this forum, not to mention the building of schools, parks, fields etc.
Stop the hysteria. Your neighborhood should not be exempt from the change that has occurred or will occur on Burpee Road, Humphrey St, Burrill St., etc.
Move forward,
CS
Note: I didn't say "Lean Forward ala MSNBC"
John B Goode
10:21 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
The neighbors should fight this as best they can, clearly they have resolve. If we can't provide road paving, storm drain work and other projects now, this isn't even close to solving the towns problems and leaves neighborhoods around town feeling abandoned and suspicious of the various government boards and departments.
The zoning for the property should be consistent with what surrounds it and the neighbors shouldn't even have to be making this fight.
brian condon
6:53 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
So many well reasoned arguments for and against. The final determination rests with the review boards that are in place to consider and enforce planning and zoning regulations in a very rigorous legal context. Can anyone identify the rules of the road here? What flexibility do these board enjoy? What legal tests must the project pass? As well pointed out in earlier comments, the proposal is just a proposal, not gospel, not a certainty. So what are the projected benchmarks in this consideration process,beyond these initial public hearings, that all interested parties should focus on?
Whisky
8:05 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
Most well reasoned arguments are those in favor. I believe the scope of what development is / will be allowed was ALREADY hashed out BEFORE this was put to bid. This isn't "Storage Wars", where the bid is a blind gamble of what will be allowed on the property.
Ryan Adams
11:07 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
@ John B Goode
"If we can't provide road paving, storm drain work and other projects now, this isn't even close to solving the towns problems."
$225,000+ in new property tax revenue from these condos will pay for a lot of new paved roads. That said, it should be noted that no one project or solution can fully fix the town's budget problems, but each opportunity we take can be a part of the solution.... and this is certainly one of them.
No one is abandoning Greenwood Ave. The town wants to put a beautiful building on that space to replace a dilapidated, empty blight, that will help everyone in this community -- including neighbors -- in the process.
I know you don't see this project as beneficial -- and that's your prerogative -- but suggesting the town is abandoning you is a step too far. I say this especially because there are going to be a lot of people in the town, both employees and not, who will make sure the developer does its due diligence and obeys all laws.
There is a difference of opinion of what should be put on the site, but that's NOT abandonment. A lot of people are going to be working VERY hard to make sure this goes right -- especially for the neighbors. If you don't agree with the project, please respect that.
Citizen Swamp
5:04 am on Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Few facts about the project at the old Middle School/HS site from yesterdays Lynn Item:
http://itemlive.com/articles/2012/07/16/news/news06.txt
I would think the numbers would also hold true for the Paradise Project on Humphrey and the proposed Temple site project. What the future holds for the Machon property and the old Senior Center is TBD.
If the Town Departments and School Department can refrain from adding headcount I would think this additional tax base could fund many improvement projects.
CS
Jason
10:58 am on Thursday, July 19, 2012
I am all for having these vacant buildings dealt with in one form or another. I'm not 100% sure I am comfortable though, turning them all into residences. We already have Captain Jack's Inn which has been torn down and is now being turned into a large condominium building (granted, that was not a town owned property).
My concern is, we already have a dense commuting situation in the mornings and evenings, effectively only having two main drags in the town (Humphrey and Paradise). Adding more (dense) residences only adds more cars and people to an already highly populated town.
In building these structures we are:
1. Losing valuable, irreplaceable town space that could (in the future) be used for parks, school growth or other community projects.
2. Adding a number of potential children to a school system that we will admit has almost no where to grow should we outgrow the existing buildings.
3. Putting more cars on roads that are already crowded and increasing the need for recreational and business parking.
Don't get me wrong, I am a strong supporter of local businesses and I know how hard it is trying to make a profit. Building this would obviously give Groom some money and the additional (potential) property taxes brought in may help the town that much more. But I am still not convinced that it's what is right for the town as a whole. I just think we need to look at the big picture for the community and decide if it's right.