SWAMPSCOTT, MA — Plans for the possible relocation of the Swampscott VFW post as part of a veterans senior housing project on the Pine Street parcel the town purchased for $1.7 million were the subject of a lengthy and, at times, contentious discussion Wednesday after the Select Board entertained a land-development plan that would force the VFW to move off the property.
Critics of the project argued that the developer — B’nai Brith — is proposing a project that did not follow the specifications that were approved at town meeting during the purchase vote and did not live up to the guidelines set forth in the request for proposal — to which B’nai Brith was the only respondent.
Those who urged the town to move on the project argued that the B’nai Brith proposal would bring 42 units of new, affordable housing — with a 55-plus veterans preference — at a time when affordable housing is sorely needed for veterans and other populations in the region.
While the proposed vote on moving the VFW was postponed, the discussion centered around the obligations of the developer to meet the request for the property that town meeting members originally voted for and the process that led to a preferred option that included moving the VFW when restoring the post was part of the RFP.
“If falls far short of what we voted on and what was specified in the RFP,” said Swampscott Planning Board member Angela Ippolito.
Affordable Housing Board Trust member Kim Martin-Epstein countered, however, that: “We obviously have a situation where there is no perfect solution to what we set out to do. We made a town meeting vote, which made a ton of sense. It included a new VFW post. It didn’t actually specify that it was going to be on the same site. But it was a commitment to make sure there was a post. It was a commitment to build the housing.
“Then we put forth an RFP and B’nai Brith responded to it. We didn’t like their response. But they responded to it in keeping with in keeping with (the spirit of) the RFP. They gave us what we asked for and we are now saying it’s not acceptable because we don’t like the size of it. The bottom line is that we didn’t like the response.”
The options include keeping the VFW where it is and building a four-story veterans housing building next door that will loom even higher given that all mechanical has to be on the roof because it is on a flood plain, with little to no parking. Or moving the VFW, which could allow for a lower building (three stories plus the mechanical) built over a larger part of the parcel and include a small parking lot.
Click Here: parramatta eels jersey
“So now here we are with a parcel we purchased, a commitment to build housing, a commitment to provide veterans housing and we’re not 100 percent happy with all the options,” Martin-Epstein said. “But we have to come up with an option because the town spent money on the site, we made a commitment, we want to do this and it feels like everybody is going to have to give a little bit to get something that is more than a little bit great.
“Like really great and not perfect.”
Select Board Chair MaryEllen Fletcher said the preference for the lower building and moving of the VFW came in response to that “we are hearing serious pushback at the size of buildings,” pointing to the height of the Westcott (formerly Elm Place) 40B construction. “A five-story (4+ story) building in that neighborhood is a problem.”
“We’re trying to find a balance,” she added. “That’s what we trying to do.”
Select Board member David Grishman, a longtime proponent of the project, said that the town “made a promise to our veterans” that the VFW would not be moved and should stick to that commitment.
“Last month we said, ‘You can stay, you can stay at your post. We’re going to build around you,'” he said. “And this month the town should follow through on that promise.”
Fletcher said the shift occurred when “we received new information and we changed our opinion” about the viability of the project with the VFW in its current location.
She also said the decision to have those discussions in executive session came at the advice of town counsel because discussions on the size and scope of the project could affect the town’s bargaining position when it came to negotiating with the developer.
“In hindsight, there is some ambiguity from my perspective whether or not we could have, should have, had discussions about these different options in a public session,” Select Board member Doug Thompson said. “That’s water under the bridge, or a violation (of the open meeting law), however you want to look at it.”
Discussion on the land-development agreement, which would not formalize the size and scope of the building but would determine whether the VFW remained on site or was moved to a proposed location at the ReachArts building on Burrill Street, was suspended and to be resumed at a later date.
There was also considerable discussion about the exact nature of the housing and whether it would be, in fact, for veterans.
The building was approved with a “veterans preference” and as senior housing, meaning that veterans aged 55 and over would be given first preference in filling the units. If not enough veterans apply who meet the income and age requirements, then it could be opened to general senior affordable housing, but not open to younger veterans, to fill the space.
There is also a preference that it go to Swampscott veterans, but as had been stated in previous discussions on the purchase state rules do not allow it to be strictly reserved for veterans who already live in the town.
(Scott Souza is a Patch field editor covering Beverly, Danvers, Marblehead, Peabody, Salem and Swampscott. He can be reached at [email protected]. X/Twitter: @Scott_Souza.)
Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.