Thursday, September 25, 2008
The Temple Property Meeting
I went to tonight's meeting on the Phillips Ave. Fire Station and the old Temple property that town's looking to sell. Suffice it to say, Swampscott should be proud of the work the committee did in both weighing the needs of our town with the neighbors. Their proposal will significantly help this town, without a lot of the pitfalls of projects of this size. Some of the specifics below, along with my general thoughts toward the end.
First, for the Temple property, they've considered all the possibilities– office space, single family units, town homes and condos. I played devil's advocate and challenged for some price comparisons on all the various plans and not only does their recommendation make sense from a residential point of view (ex. smaller impact on the neighbors), but also in terms of bringing in the biggest bang for the buck.
Since the town owns the property, it has a large degree of control over what can be built on it – and town residents rejoice, the ugly, completely paved parking lot at street level will be a thing of the past. The proposal is for half the parking to be under the buildings with a small lot in back. Each unit will have two parking spaces, so there shouldn't be any spillover parking.
Furthermore, the height of the proposed zoning will only allow for construction that's almost exactly the same as the current temple's main structures (significantly less than the 50+ foot sanctuary jutting into the sky). Any construction will have to be set back a complete 40 feet from the street, twice the average Swampscott home, and 20-40 feet from the nearest neighbors (maintaining or expanding on the Temple's status quo). Architectural designs will be required to prevent construction from looking like big, ugly blobs - staggered units that make the condos look more like the rest of the neighborhood. Moreover, the maximum mass of the construction will take up only 2-3% more of the grounds of the property than the Temple, with the likelihood being that there would be two small buildings occupying the space. Builders could build less than that, which is certainly possible if they want to go very high end.
So, these buildings are going to be prettier, set further back and be less intrusive than what's already there – and did I mention it's going to rake in the dough? Let's talk dollars and cents. The recommended Temple proposal will net this town $3 million with the sale alone. Of course, it all depends on the market, but according to the committee, their estimates are conservative and it could be more. Anything close to three million, in this market, is fantastic and will allow the town to recoup most or all of its investment in buying the property to begin with. Furthermore, the tax revenue the Temple project would bring in alone would be in the magnitude of $270-300 thousand dollars a year. To put that in perspective, that will pay for 5-8 teachers and account for half of what the state should be paying us in additional Chapter 70 funds.
Some residents were worried about other factors. What if a big developer tries to use Chapter 40B affordable housing laws to build some monstrosity? No worries. The town owns this property, so we get a great deal of control over what can be built there. In a process that's called RFP, proposals can be sent to the town, matching the guidelines set by the town, and the town can then pick and choose which proposal best matches its needs and desires. If we don't like any of the offers, we don't have to accept any. Hence, we're going to get beautiful buildings that will make great additions to the town of Swampscott - in addition to going a long way to solving our fiscal problems.
Some people were a little concerned that we wouldn't be getting much money from the Phillips Ave. Fire Station – which is expected to sell, at a conservative estimate, for around $160,000-200,000, providing $8,000-10,000/year in property taxes. The reason for the low sales figure is because considerable work would have to be done to make the structure habitable for residential use. Rehabbing the old Fire Station would actually cost more than knocking it down and starting from scratch, so whoever buys it will likely be paying for the land more than anything. Yet, who knows, maybe the historical value and the market for unique, architecturally significant homes will drive the price up? It's certainly possible.
I asked how much more we could expect if we allowed developers to knock it down, the committee said the difference wasn't great. So, the committee got it right: better to maintain a historically significant structure that would appeal to someone who would want to restore an old town gem than to allow some ugly McMansion to be constructed that would likely be far more intrusive to the neighbors.
So, here's my general impressions of the evening:
- The committee did a fantastic job, especially considering that they both had to appease neighbors and make sure we do what's right for Swampscott. More green space, less ugly paved, street-level parking and significantly more revenue for the town. This is win, win, win.
- I can't believe we're actually going to be able to recoup most/all of the costs of the Temple when we bought it. I thought we'd lose millions!
- For the few complaints that may come from direct abutters: One section of this town just had to deal with the very real 'change' of losing a beautiful, expansive park and gaining a massive new high school most neighhbors did not want, in a very divisive, close election that pitted neighborhood against neighborhood. They were called NIMBY and cheap. Any complaints from direct abutters now is utter nonsense in comparison.
Given the fact that the Old Temple/Temporary Town Hall had tons of traffic and is a monstrosity, this project will actually be less intrusive on the neighborhood and town, while providing a lot of upside. There's going to be less traffic (IMO), fewer/no children (the Temple had a robust Hebrew School and these are going to likely be 1 bedroom condos) and will remove the unsightly parking mess there. We all have to sacrifice for the town, many sacrificed much more, and the construction of this entirely reasonable and well grounded proposal will go a long ways to solving this town's fiscal problems. As far as I'm concerned, because of effort the committee took in their plans to mitigate neighborhood concerns while honoring this the necessity to act on this town's great needs, NIMBY arguments are not allowed.
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to attend Tuesday's meeting – which discussed the proposals for Greenwood Ave (the old middle school/high school), but more information about that is available at the Reporter. The Reporter, of course, has more on tonight's meeting on the Temple. Suffice it to say, the committee wants to maintain the historical integrity of the original structure, which is nice: this building actually is historically significant. While changes will obviously have to be made (the structure is huge), the original building will be kept and a proposed second building would have to use materials in keeping with the original. While the same number of units will likely be built at Greenwood Ave as the Temple, the value isn't expected to be as high - but combined we're talking about an additional $500,000 a year in taxes and around $5 million infused into our town for infrastructural improvements (likely paying for a new police station).
Slightly off topic comment: I'd much rather live on Greenwood Ave! With its beach views and just a short walk to the water and great restaurants that litter Humphrey Street, they're going to be some of the hottest condos in town. Plus, not only will they be cheaper than the Humphrey St. units, but they'll have tons of history and culture.
Labels: town forum, town news, town projects
