Developer Presents Bradstreet Plans, Asks Town for More Than $700K [VIDEO]
The proposal calls for a couple dozen apartments and 5,000 square feet of retail space.
Videos
Pdfs
Details of the proposal by an affordable housing developer to buy the Bradstreet School are clearer today.
Representatives from Lowell-based developer Coalition For a Better Acre -- which offered $300,000 for the building last month -- attended Monday night's Board of Selectmen meeting and gave a presentation about that organization's plans for the property.
The town would actually be in for more than $400,000, however, since the proposal requests more than $700,000 to come from the town's CPA funds and Affordable Housing Trust as part of the $8 million it wouldneed for the project.
The figure the organization is requesting is based on other projects the town has contributed to, such as the affordable housing development at Stevens Corner.
"What we're asking for from you I think is fair based on what you've spent elsewhere," Coalition For a Better Acre Real Estate Director Madeline Nash said. "It's not like there's a lot of state funding to go after."
Selectmen Chair Bill Gordon said the draw would be the tax revenue the project would generate. And the town would have to spend $9 million to keep and renovate the building itself.
The company's proposal -- which can be viewed on the town Web site or in the PDF attached to this article -- calls for tearing down the school and building a three-story mixed-use building, with businesses on the ground floor and apartments on the other two floors.
"We do a lot of building renovations, so we never take the idea of demolishing a building lightly," architect John Winslow said. "For a proposal for mixed use, we felt after evaluating the school building, renovating it was not feasaible. We might get 10 units, which would not be feasible."
So here is what the current proposal calls for:
- 24 units of residential housing.
- A mix of 1, 2 and 3-bedroom apartments.
- 5,000 square feet of retail space.
- 58 parking spaces.
- Handicap access, including elevators.
- Residential entry from side of building as opposed to Main Street.
- A small building in front, with a larger building in back.
"We're proposing 24 units of housing, and that's a fairly big building, and we felt having a bldg that size right on main street would be too looming," Winslow said.
The apartments would be targeted at moderate income tenants, with both minimum and maximum income requirements. Madeline Nash said the rents -- between $900 and $1,400 -- are aimed at attracting entry-level professionals and others who have income but might not otherwise be able to afford a rental in town.
Gordon stressed that there would be no vote yet on the proposal.
"We're hearing the proposal now and will have public input," Gordon said. "We're certainly not making any decisions tonight. This is informational tonight, and everyne will get an opp to participate."
A local landmark, the Bradstreet School has been closed for several years and has cost the town tens of thousands of dollars each year just to keep it standing, completely vacant. Renovating the building would cost the town millions of dollars.
At Town Meeting last year, residents voted to approve the sale of the school.
Michael Quinlan
8:58 am on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Boondoggle alert!
Bryan McGonigle2
9:01 am on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
"What we're asking for from you I think is fair based on what you've spent elsewhere. It's not like there's a lot of state funding to go after."
Susan Rochwarg
9:55 am on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Why would North Andover consider this? What if?...Let's consider it from our perspective and what value are these developers offering to add to the Town consistent with our Master Plan and not what they are asking or taking from us? I'm not sure that any successful business transaction happens when one party is teling the other what it fair and calling it a deal.
Who knows better what we need than us?
Do we need to attract low rents to a downtown struggling in fits and starts that offers reasonable rentals in many multi family homes already- or should we consider a cohesive downtown district with an upgrade to mixed use with sought after in-town residential units that would attract tenants who value a quality, full-service town like ours and provide an opportunity for new and existing businesses to thrive with this infusion.
Attitude is everything and I don't like the attitude (or proposal) of Coalition For a Better Acre. What are we doing to attract other offers that might add value to our Town? Rather than consider the Bradstreet an albatross, let's commit to make this a win for North Andover and a future buyer!
Bill Callahan
10:51 am on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Let's take a step back and realize that ABC bid on the open market for the property which any other developer could have done. Obviously, as a business proposition, the numbers didn't work for high end housing, so the town didn't get any bids from them. The numbers did work for the affordable housing group, so they did offer a bid, albeit with a CPA request.
I certainly think that the Board of Selectmen need to carefully consider the developer's proposal. But I think having 5,000 square feet of commercial development, 24 apartments that count towards the town's 40B allotment, and a positive cash flow isn't necessarily all bad.
The alternatives are not great: spend $40k per year to keep it vacant; spend several hundred thousand to demolish the building (and more to re-use for parking or greenspace). I don't think waiting for an investor to remodel into high end condos is a viable strategy.
Michael Quinlan
1:17 pm on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
I thought ABC (A Better Chance) was a different government-dependent organization. Do they have a role here? Will the state use the 'retail' space to open a welfare office? We have a proposal from a low-income housing developer to 'pay' $300k for the historic Bradstreet School after they get $700k from North Andover. Prime real-estate in North Andover and $400k profit. I guess 'the numbers did work...' for them. Gee I wonder what the (unbiased not Democrat) Finance Committee will think.
Bill Callahan
2:43 pm on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
The proposal may have merit; it may not. A Better Acre's put together a comprehensive report along with their proposal which is posted on the town website.
It contains extensive detail on the projected property tax revenue and cost-benefit analysis on various uses for the building. It says, for example, that each one of their developments becomes a LLC and is not tax exempt.
But the fact remains that it is the only proposal to come back on the space. That's how the free market works.
The Finance Committee, of which I am a member but by no means a spokesperson, would only offer a recommendation on the CPA article if one was on the warrant.
And finally Mr. Quinlan, the Finance Committee represents a good cross-section of ideological positions, but we manage to work through our issues in a cooperative and productive fashion. You might want to look into that as well.
Jjrm
5:12 pm on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Bill, back up. Do we really need something like this right in our business district. Think about it, there was a reason they included commercial with the housing. I want to know if the town has other property to sell. I'd like also to make a profit buying property.
John Ulyanov
4:40 pm on Thursday, February 14, 2013
If the private sector is not 'getting the job done' of rebuilding North Andover Center then government should step in. People have a right to adequate housing and North Andover should provide it just like all other communities in Massachusetts. We're not special.
Bryan McGonigle2
12:12 pm on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
"What we're asking for from you I think is fair based on what you've spent elsewhere. It's not like there's a lot of state funding to go after."
Bryan McGonigle2
8:55 am on Wednesday, February 13, 2013
I tried to take a step back. I realize ABC has produced a many page bid and is the only bidder on the sale of the Bradstreet School. I further realize that the town and state have passed housing laws that people want to follow.
(Sorry for the strong metaphorical language) But I can't get passed the thought that I'm being mugged, robbed, and raped. It's all legal of course but ABC is proposing taking my Bradstreet School property, robbing me of $400k plus the money I have from the state, and then leaving me with low income housing in my backyard.
"Thank you sir, may I have another" might be a good way to summarize the project from my perspective.
If that isn't enough, the state doesn't have enough money for "transportation" and "pre-pre-school education". So even though raising taxes is the last thing the state wants to do and its making a really, really, really tough choice to propose doing so, local and state money is going towards housing projects.
We should pass on this deal. We should either keep the property or sell it with no strings attached (like when you buy or sell a house). I can envision someone buying the property and some adjoining parcels and putting up something I would appreciate enough to visit downtown more often.
Bill Callahan
1:23 pm on Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Mike: Maybe because I live downtown now; I don't see the proposal in the same light. The housing would count towards our 40B allotment - when we hit the cap; we'd be able to stop 40B developments that we don't like.
The apartments themselves will be professionally managed unlikely a fair percentage of the exiting two and three family homes downtown. I don't necessarily share your view about the desirability of low income housing. A teacher in North Andover living alone would actually come within $140 of the income parameters set up for the apartments. There are lots of hardworking people who live in town who would probably like to live in a new apartment.
I agree that it is not a very good deal, but it is the market for space in North Andover downtown. At $8 psf for commercial space, why would anyone pay big dollars to develop?
I'm not 100% sold, but no white knight is coming to buy and preserve the building. Someone could have thrown in an offer for $100k or even $1, but they didn't.
Bryan McGonigle2
2:33 pm on Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Point well taken that I don't live downtown. And a large(r) apartment complex should be better managed ...
I say work hard at the state house to reduce or eliminate the 40B allotment - so I'm not sympathetic to your argument about getting closer to meeting it. We'll probably never meet it. High housing prices is the result of other government regulation that could be fixed ...
I really don't see why the sale has to so tied to a development plan. The people who sell those two and three family homes downtown don't require a development plan from the buyer. We should accept all kinds of bids.
Can we kiss some more frogs? it won't produce a white knight but I know our prince will come!
Michael Quinlan
4:20 pm on Thursday, February 14, 2013
After filling North Andover with 40B projects (that we don't like) to make the 'cap', no one will want to move to North Andover. There are good reasons commercial space currently only commands $8 psf in downtown North Andover; a Section 8 housing project will drive demand for commercial space even lower.
Jjrm
1:38 pm on Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Give it one more try. Maybe the town will put some effort into getting a viable buyer and maybe doing something worthwhile with a beautiful building.
Michael Quinlan
4:15 pm on Thursday, February 14, 2013
'That's how the free market works...' A government building sold to a 'company' that depends on government funding to operate.
The 'non-government' (i.e. free) funded companies took a pass because they could not make an adequate profit. That's the 'free market'.
The government-funded 'company' demands payment of $700k from local government before 'paying' $300k to town so town call ‘fulfill’ state government (unfunded) mandate. After using local, state and federal government money to qualify and build the project, ‘company’ spins off development into an LLC so profits can be privatized. This is the ‘government market’.
Local government benefits by ‘washing’ $300k of restricted CPA funds for other uses and disposes of an embarrassing ‘white elephant’ foisted on the town by the usual leftist ‘do-gooders’.
Townspeople get fanciful images of ‘entry level professionals’ and ‘teachers’ who could (theoretically) live in the project. What they actually get are Section 8 residents (government guaranteed payments) draining the quality of life out of the downtown and the rest of North Andover.
Bill Callahan
1:35 pm on Friday, February 15, 2013
Michael, why don't you share with us what should be happening with the property?
Specifically, how did "leftists" foist the school on us?
Then, if the building is to be sold, what sort of discounted cash flow analysis supports a high price for this property? What do you know about this property that developers like Mr. Minnicucci who passed on it don't?
What alternate use would you propose?
Bryan McGonigle2
1:36 pm on Friday, February 15, 2013
Didn't a group of homeowners get together to have Waverly road and 114 rezoned? Then, the houses were torn down and Walgreen/Petsmart got built. Not sure what was on the land that became Staples/Burton's grill - maybe it was part of the same or similar deal.
Something like this could happen downtown, A developer and some homeowners might be able to do something similar to determine the best use for the property "if the town wasn't in the way". The town should sell the property "as is" in an arms length transaction or keep it for its own needs. As it stands now, the town is trying to be seller and developer which has all kinds of conflicts that people try to exploit for their own games (like selling the property for essentially a negative amount of money).
kathy Stevens
2:50 pm on Friday, February 15, 2013
Ok so far I accept these premises
Too expensive to renovate into school
Town can’t continue to spend 40K to maintain.
Building doesn’t work financially for anyone.
Building will be torn down. (Very sad about this.)
If we going to spend CPA funds to create a vacant piece of land, why don’t we keep the land, create an urban park in front with much needed parking in back.
Concerts and events in this park might help bring business to the area.
Bryan McGonigle2
3:13 pm on Friday, February 15, 2013
An urban park might be a fantastic idea - especially to those who live in the area (who don't mind the concerts. the loitering ...). A parking lot on that side of main street might improve the traffic situation.
I have some random rhetorical thoughts:
For concerts or ..., maybe we could charge for parking .. not unlike we do at the high school.
Who knew when the CPA was passed that it might be used to tear something down? Am I the only one who thinks this is ironic?
In the further irony department, we could name the park after Dr. H - whose name should never be spoken. If it wasn't for Dr. H., this park wouldn't be possible.
And the question that has to be asked, is this a good space for a dog park?
kathy Stevens
4:21 pm on Friday, February 15, 2013
Park with a cool playground. Day time kids concerts in the summer to attract young families from outcountry to shop there. More green space on Main Street would be appealing.
Good point about CPA funds funding tearing down a building. Sad truth: Historic buildings only survive if they are financially viable.
Michael Quinlan
12:41 pm on Thursday, February 21, 2013
I don't see how you square 'Preservation' with tearing down a building. I can't see any justification for CPA paying for removing the building.