Swampscott residents upset over proposed condo project

SWAMPSCOTT – A group of neighbors of the former middle school on Greenwood Avenue have organized to express their concerns with the plan to replace the old school building with 41 condominium units at the site.”I’m not opposed to redevelopment,” said Greenwood Avenue resident Edward Moll. “I just think the size and scale of (the proposal) is completely disproportionate to the neighborhood.”Developer David Groom pledged to meet with neighbors to discuss the design, but said the proposed number of units and height of the development is unlikely to change.”The best way to deal with scale is with good design and good detailing,” Groom, a Swampscott resident and co-owner of Groom Construction of Salem, said Thursday. “We’re going to show a lot of sensitivity in that area and see if we can come up with a building of this size and scale that shows that.”But several neighbors interviewed Thursday raised concerns about increased traffic, a lack of parking and the loss of what they said is a historical building.The school closed in June 2007 when the new high school was built.Town officials put the property up for sale in 2008 with development guidelines for the site, including that the circa-1895 portion of the school building be preserved.Town Meeting removed that restriction in May 2011. Selectmen in September selected a $625,000 proposal by Groom Construction to build 41 condominium units on the site.Groom said the units would average 1,400 square feet with the price to be determined.No plans have yet been filed in the Building Department or permits requested for construction.Several neighbors interviewed Thursday said they were unaware that the proposal had changed from renovating the school to building a new condominium complex.Moll said he notified neighbors about the Groom proposal and estimated 70 percent of neighbors thought the project was overwhelming in size and scale.But Selectman Jill Sullivan said that members of the neighborhood were well represented at community meetings when the development guidelines for the site were “vigorously” debated beginning in 2008.”Aside from one facade that was going to stay that now isn’t, there isn’t anything in (the) Groom proposal that is any different from what’s in the (planned development district),” Sullivan said. “The issue of changing it to rehab to new construction was vigorously debated at Town Meeting and this was one of the most reported stories in the papers.”The neighbors have formed a Greenwood Neighborhood Association to discuss the project and try to work with developers.”We don’t have facts, we have sketchy information from what we’ve heard,” said Greenwood Avenue resident Ellie Miller.Moll also thinks the proposed height of the structure is too high and endorsed keeping some “vestige” of the original property – possibly the broken pediment over the doorway or the cupola.Greenwood Terrace resident John Callahan agreed.”There has to be some way to keep it so people in town could use it,” he said. “Cap’n Jack’s Inn and views are being gobbled up, Jackson Park was gobbled up for the high school ? Half as many (units) but (units) twice as big,” he said.He said he hoped more expensive and larger units would provide the necessary tax revenue and also keep local families – rather than more transient single commuters – in the neighborhood.Groom said he and engineers have evaluated what he called the “big abandoned building” that “has some pretty ugly additions put on,” and it could not be rehabilitated for the market-rate project they proposed.”The economics of restoring that building for this purpose are just broken,” Groom said. “I would be the first one to try and save that building if we could make it work, but it can’t unless it’s affordable housing with government subsidies and tax credits but we’re trying to do a market project.”He said he was sensitive to the neighbors concerns, however. Like many of those interviewed, he recalled attending the school.”We’re committed to