Forbes Park | Chelsea

[scorpio02150]

Forbes Park Plan Approved by ZBA:

The final iteration of the project includes 590 units of housing, with 60 percent of those units being condos for sale and 59 units being affordable to a range of incomes. There are also 1.6 parking spaces per unit, or 963 spaces. The project also boasts a major public access area to the waterfront of the Chelsea Creek and Mill Creek. The current project also has a very small amount of retail and office uses, with both totaling below 20,000 sq. ft.

City Manager Tom Ambrosino:
“I’m happy with the project even though it’s far from perfect,” he said. “Given all the concessions made since they first showed up here, I think it’s a workable project. There is lots of homeownership, with 60 percent being condos. This is the largest condo project in Chelsea for more than a decade if not longer. They also have really exciting plans for accessing the waterfront along the Chelsea Creek.”

The developer also agreed to contribute $300,000 to the four schools at the Mary C. Burke Complex, which is about two blocks from the Forbes entrance.

It is believed that the developer plans to keep three of the smaller buildings on site and rehabilitate them. The rest of the project will be new construction.

http://chelsearecord.com/2019/03/15/forbes-park-plan-approved-by-zba/

https://boston.curbed.com/boston-development/2019/3/19/18270825/chelsea-forbes-park

 

[KCasiglio]

Mass Audubon scores court victory in quest to turn old Chelsea factory into waterfront park - The Boston Globe

The conservation group hailed the decision that allows them to buy the nearly 18-acre site for $8.36 million — but the current owner isn't going down without a fight.

www.bostonglobe.com

Judge Matthew Nestor approved a court-appointed receiver’s request to sell the nearly 18-acre site to Mass Audubon for $8.36 million, over the objections of its current owner, citing the fact that the structures left on the site, at the confluence of the Chelsea and Mill creeks, have become a public safety hazard.

[...]

Developers have tried and failed to repurpose the property in question, the old Forbes Lithograph Manufacturing site, for years. Most recently, a businessman based in Australia, Ken He, had acquired it in 2014 with the intentions of building housing there. Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit, disrupting his plans. A lawyer for He, John G.F. Ruggieri, called the proposed sale to Mass Audubon an improper taking at a liquidation price; his client filed an appeal the next day. (In a statement, Mass Audubon says the owner had neglected the property and had plenty of time to line up a buyer.)

[...]

“What is needed in this matter is a certain and soon outcome,” Nestor wrote. “This offer will repay the taxpayers of Chelsea, clean up the property, and provide a reasonable development for the site. Defendants have had ample opportunity to suggest a viable opportunity but have failed to do so.”


[...]

“The owner of this property is absolutely apoplectic about this order,” Ruggieri said. “We are very confident that the Appeals Court will not sanction [this] distressed sale. ... We’re not enemies of the Audubon Society. However, they need to pay the proper price. They just can’t take it clandestinely.”

 

[CBCArch61]

Legal question, how is this possible for the court to mandate the sale of privately held land to another privately held entity? I don't disagree that this property owner has very little regard for the property, but this feels like a land grab type of ruling, no? If it was an eminent domain fight where the city was taking a blighted property I could be a little more onboard, but this feels "icky" to me.

 

[KCasiglio]

Legal question, how is this possible for the court to mandate the sale of privately held land to another privately held entity? I don't disagree that this property owner has very little regard for the property, but this feels like a land grab type of ruling, no? If it was an eminent domain fight where the city was taking a blighted property I could be a little more onboard, but this feels "icky" to me.

IANAL but my understanding is that a sale can be forced if there is a present danger to the public posed by the negligence of the property. There was a similar issue in Windham, CT when I was working down that way with an abandoned factory that caught fire. A sale to a community development corp was forced shortly thereafter.

 

[Smuttynose]

Legal question, how is this possible for the court to mandate the sale of privately held land to another privately held entity? I don't disagree that this property owner has very little regard for the property, but this feels like a land grab type of ruling, no? If it was an eminent domain fight where the city was taking a blighted property I could be a little more onboard, but this feels "icky" to me.

The City did request that the property be placed into receivership. The City claims the owner has been non-responsive to their requests for a greater security presence at the site. In November, there was a huge fire at the abandoned building which was ultimately attributed to arson.

City of Chelsea Statement on 9-Alarm Fire at 1 Forbes Street November 18, 2024

chelseama.gov

https://www.mhp.net/assets/resources/documents/receivership_faq.pdf

 

[CBCArch61]

Thanks!

 

[scorpio02150]

The previous owners had defaulted once on their loan then struck a deal to refi ( i think). Shortly after there had been multiple incidents of kids trespassing the dangerous property. The City then boarded up a building or 2 and placed the property on receivership. Then the final straw was the huge fire on the property.