The Pollard School Building Committee has begun the heavy lift of choosing whether a new town middle school should be sited in the “backyard” of the current Pollard site or at DeFazio Park, a few hundred yards across the commuter rail tracks.
That choice is the most pressing of multiple decisions to be made before the committee can make meaningful progress on establishing the scope, budget and schedule for the project to replace the nearly 70-year-old complex along Harris Avenue.
Both parcels are frequently referred to as challenging, restricted and less than ideal, but they are the only two locations under consideration due to the dearth of buildable, publicly owned parcels within Needham’s 12.7 square miles.
The site selection is one of three key binary options facing the committee. The other two are whether to build a brand new school or opt for an “addition/renovation” of the current property, and whether to keep Pollard as a Grade 7-8 school or expand it to become a Grade 6-8 school with a capacity for 1,335 students.
While the committee is reviewing seven options that mix and match those three binary choices, the site selection is the primary driver at this phase of the project. The weight of that decision led to the rare scheduling of a joint meeting of seven town boards on Sept. 25, held essentially to consider whether DeFazio should remain under consideration.
The School Building Committee voted at that meeting to keep DeFazio in the mix and the pros and cons of each site were discussed at length at its Oct. 6 meeting.
Matt LaRue of HMFH Architects, the project designer, led with three options for the Pollard site. All would require a four-story building which the School Committee has said would be more challenging in terms of implementing its preferred educational program.
By contrast, DeFazio’s flatter topography and more favorable footprint allows a three-story building that better accommodates the School Committee’s preferred plan. However, utilizing DeFazio would necessitate a lengthy process required before public land designated as open space can be used for a different purpose.
This would require a two-thirds approval from Town Meeting, another subsequent two-thirds vote from both houses of the state Legislature and then a review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act ﹘ a process which could add as much as a year to the project schedule.
Regarding the Pollard designs, SBC members expressed numerous concerns related to the need to locate the building at the rear of the Pollard property bordering the commuter rail tracks, a more than 40-foot elevation drop from Harris Avenue. This would be necessary to locate the building as far back as possible from the current complex and to lessen the visual impact of a four-story building.
“I applaud you for coming up with this scheme because it’s a very difficult site,” member Lynne Deninger said after LaRue had presented the Pollard site designs.
“I think those are all really hard things to get past in this site because you’ve basically got two subterranean floors,” she added.
The location also creates major stormwater management and wetlands-related concerns. “The upside is it’s blocking views from other people’s home,” said Deninger. “The downside is you’ve created a giant bathtub, a pool of water you have to deal with that has nowhere to go.”
John Connelly, the Finance Committee’s designee to the SBC, expressed concern about the lack of distance between the current Pollard complex and the new building. “It looks like it’s a matter of centimeters on the drawing,” he said.
He was concerned about safety and how distracting that construction activity would be over multiple school years.
The DeFazio site also presents wetlands-related challenges, but its design was more well-received.
“Many people agree the better option is at DeFazio,” said Alisa Skatrud, the School Committee’s designee to the building committee. She and other committee members were more wary of the bureaucratic hurdle associated with getting the DeFazio site approved, as well as addressing the considerable disruption to the town’s most heavily used playing fields.
The Park & Recreation Commission has already stated its opposition to building at DeFazio and has voted not to cede its jurisdiction over the property.
“Is that a hurdle that we can overcome?” Skatrud asked.
Deninger felt there was an opportunity to frame the use of DeFazio as a vehicle to also alleviate longstanding parking and traffic circulation issues at the multi-park complex. She also advocated for guaranteeing that any damage to fields would be remediated with the estimated costs included in the project budget, which is already estimated at more than $300 million.
She said the net difference might not be that dramatic, given that she foresees millions of dollars being required to deal with water management issues should the Pollard site be chosen. “Do you want to spend it underground or do you want to spend it on useful rec space?”
The committee did not come to a consensus on a site option, but did indicate it could be ready to make a decision on another contested option at its next meeting. The School Committee has been unequivocal in its support for the Grade 6-8 option, which appears to have support among SBC members as well.
“We’re probably ready to look at that issue of 6-8 vs. 7-8 and make a justifiable case for looking at 6 through 8 only,” said member George Kent.
Save as PDF