Council Decides Fate of 40-Unit Bradford Housing Plan Tonight

Site of proposed apartments near the Merrimack River in Bradford.


Click image above to read the full Haverhill City Council agenda.

Haverhill city councilors tonight will decide whether to allow a developer to convert former Bradford industrial buildings into 40 apartments near the Merrimack River.

The 26 two-bedroom and 14 one-bedroom units are proposed by developer James A. Allen for 2  South Grove St.

“The neighborhood character and social structure of the new rental complex is of prime concern to us and we have designed it specifically to blend into its neighboring residences in as non-evasive setting as possible,” according to John Sava, architect. He said the housing will use less space than the existing industrial buildings and views of the river will remain unchanged. There will also be new sidewalks and lighting and access to the proposed city rail trail. Parking will be below the apartments.

One resident has already objected to the plan. Judith A Berezansky told city councilors by email Railroad Street is two narrow to accommodate two lanes of traffic and South Kimball Street is already too congested.

Property is Same City Once Planned to Buy

It is the same land Haverhill city councilors expected the city to buy last spring as part of the rail trail. As WHAV first reported in December, officials backed out of buying the former Pan Am Railways parcel behind 2 South Grove St.

“It was going to be challenging for the city to get those things done in the timeframe that we had. At the same time, however, we had concerns about whether we truly wanted to own the railroad right of way as it veers away from the river and runs into… a corridor that is aesthetically less pleasing than it would be if you were right along the riverfront,” Community Development Division Director Andrew K. Herlihy said.

Last April, councilors approved spending $60,000 to match a developer’s offer for the property. About half of the money councilors set aside was instead used to purchase two other pieces of the abandoned rail bed, Herlihy told WHAV.

7 thoughts on “Council Decides Fate of 40-Unit Bradford Housing Plan Tonight

  1. When you serve your nation honorably , go to college while working in a mill, drag yourself out of poverty, start a business, send two children through college, employ 73 skilled workers , buy a building, own three houses, and share profits with your well- insured employees I’ll be impressed.

    • Write a book, an interesting person like yourself, will sure to make a best seller for sure, especially since no one has done what you have, truly impressive – sans avoid the on-point topic of this thread entirely, which is typical of anonymous trolls.

  2. Wrong Duncan.

    But, we businesses owners who keep people employed and make a difference don’t get detered by minuscule minded naysayers who spit inaccurate trash.

    I wish my friend Mr Allen good luck.

    • Hey Mayor,
      Do you consider yourself competent in math skills?
      Please explain your plan for the city of increasing the housing stock, while at the same time adding outrageous cost to city schools.
      It costs $16,000.00 to educate one student in Haverhill Public Schools. Every time apartments are built, or low incoming housing is created, the city is lucky to generate $3,500.00 per unit, per year.
      If only half of the 26 two bedroom apartments add a child to the school system that will increase costs by $208,000.00 per year. At the same time the city will be “lucky” to collect $20,000.00 in taxes for these units.

      Mayor, this plan of yours is a form of “housing welfare” for low income folks, with taxpayers once again footing the bill.
      You’re further bankrupting this city and the numbers prove it.

    • I challenge you to point out where I’m wrong.


      1. DYS/DCF has a regional office on Ferry Street, as well as at least one DYS/DCF residential home on South Kimball
      2. There is a least one Level 3 sex offender living in that area according to state records
      3. Entire area is congested and densely populated, including narrow roadways
      4. Adding 40 units will ADD to an already congested and densely populated area.

      “keep people employed” – That’s subjective. You could also be the type of employer that sucks, like Walmart where workers need to be subsidized by social welfare safety nets because your pay and benefits suck so badly. So called “market rate” is bullshit for said crap employers scamming their employees and public assistance systems in the name of employing people.

      I don’t live over there, but I have friends who do, and I’ve personally seen the daily struggle they face with the aforementioned crap they already have to deal with.

      Otherwise STFU, as you continue to bring nothing to these pages, sans useless ad hominem attacks, hiding behind an alias as yet another keyboard commando.

  3. Nothing to see here, just a regional DYS office with a couple of DYS group homes in the area. A nice touch is at least one sex offender mixed in the area, and streets already teeming with kids on narrow roadways. Yep, add another 40 units to an already congested area, should work out well. Maybe there’s some Section 8 in the deal to enhance Mayor Jimmy’s vision for the city of prosperity?

    That neighborhood should be outraged.