[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6139924,"mediaKeyId","5579761-45ad75095bca75f8012e2830140006f4","parentId",5579761,"title","Site constraints, parking and air‑quality concerns raised for Finn site; Mooney Field protected by Chapter 97","audioSeconds",561,"startMs",5459000,"endMs",6020000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5579761-45ad75095bca75f8012e2830140006f4&start=5459&end=6020","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5579761-45ad75095bca75f8012e2830140006f4/thumbnail_5459000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6139924/Town-of-Southborough/Worcester-County/Massachusetts/Site-constraints-parking-and-airquality-concerns-raised-for-Finn-site-Mooney-Field-protected-by-Chapter-97","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6139924-fdbd8800010b26700b3ba5944e74a079/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167823&Signature=muaG7~4iU1ELDjZPozX0g3QK04h9HIrSNZcdzZjNZKY0tnQD5P2jxIKgfvvbfyQ-PPoN7UbhkwexiAvBAPUPR6Hkmh~avXNgZwIbtoPjcB0U8CdCzSkW2JIowV~HAk9bCCf4wAaY36I173Nt4Dc97h08Iynw6l5RjezVNEgBQpcyDItAchzRimGQXvmqxIZ5qABZz4Dm9DBo3Iala5951alTEzB7c6qWaDcEy7GPiELB8lQm-ljZheylgFucDxmve-bcAA~0GSyhhoQIjAUFmYT2Zspmt-kdaDNsXEUkO5-wHJsP70eFSy23JYTQLgttiSU9EKd6ObFU~euVSFsK-A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town of Southborough, MA","date","2025-08-14T08:16:53.2Z","article","A working‑group member presented a preliminary site review of the Finn property and nearby parcels on Aug. 12, highlighting land constraints, parking shortfalls for expanded enrollment, wetland areas and a nearby 7.23‑acre parcel known as Mooney Field that the presenter said has protections under Massachusetts Chapter 97.

The presenter said the Finn site includes filled land, limited parking, and recreation fields that would be affected by any substantial building addition. He said the 7.23‑acre parcel (Mooney Field) is effectively protected by Chapter 97 and would be difficult to convert to school use without state legislative action. He recommended consultation with town counsel and with the Board of Health on septic and with conservation staff before assuming the land is available for expansion.

The presenter also raised an air‑quality concern because the school is located approximately 300 feet below and adjacent to a heavily trafficked highway. He said literature and prior studies nationwide show proximity to major highways creates small‑particle exposure risks and recommended an air‑quality study if the committee continues to evaluate the Finn site. Committee members said they would request testing and enforcement of idling rules at pickup lines as mitigation if appropriate.

Committee staff confirmed that additional site‑specific analyses — wetlands delineation, septic capacity, parking capacity and square‑foot construction cost estimates — are part of the working group’s next steps and will feed the room‑by‑room mapping the school department will present to the school committee.

No decision was made on site selection; the presentation was preliminary factual reporting and flagged items for follow‑up.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","PreK - 8 School Building Committee 8/12/25","oneSentenceSummary","A working‑group member reported a preliminary Finn site assessment that found constrained buildable area, limited parking, wetlands and a 7.23‑acre parcel (Mooney Field) with Chapter 97 protections; a committee member urged air‑quality testing because the school sits roughly 300 feet below a major highway.","taxTitle","Town of Southborough, Worcester County, Massachusetts","taxId",56453,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6139929,"Committee debates code triggers: roof/windows work may count toward 30% renovation threshold",463,1452000,1915000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5579761-45ad75095bca75f8012e2830140006f4&start=1452&end=1915","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5579761-45ad75095bca75f8012e2830140006f4/thumbnail_1452000.jpg","/articles/6139929/Town-of-Southborough/Worcester-County/Massachusetts/Committee-debates-code-triggers-roofwindows-work-may-count-toward-30-renovation-threshold","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6139929-39c389eb1cfcc983a69ba2f2fa094b2a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167823&Signature=LfuAFdW7K98wjdPZQdP2oXLZxVv-jh9I50auNbIeeL-SAUjGq4paxyQAhjlCARRks77V1rh4XCr~SyhzwHlAHXj4-B8WI6rBToQNh7bLIn6ZI1GJB2Q9vKtKYnqumu4N1VdnH4N3bjHzhgNMONYGWNaUOOX~2rHekueja9hRu5U-6whi8R2hAYuSEsz2~pMymCY9Zpv6UQbT5zVxKuPOxG5vXGRTYCNuWCjOHZf1bfVKv1r8Dvi3S8ee2GoCLAdIlKQoGxnPuhEfvKGK6rC6SgVX4xqX3fvLZIVEdrhQPQ7XqPnlmo~xlFWKAE58SflEOL68eB4BJYcFG9jcvQag3A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Members discussed state code rules and how limited renovations could trigger broader code upgrades. Committee members and consultants explained that roofs and windows are often treated differently for the 30% renovation trigger but can be calculated into the 30% total if another substantial system (such as HVAC or fire suppression) is later replaced.

Greg explained the working understanding: roof and window replacements are generally exempt from triggering full code upgrades if they alone do not exceed the governing threshold, but if a third project (for example, an HVAC replacement) is later performed, prior investments in the roof and windows can be counted toward the cumulative 30% threshold that forces wider compliance with current accessibility and energy codes.

Committee members highlighted three practical consequences: (1) limited work intended to defer major renovation can nonetheless increase long‑term costs if subsequent projects trigger the 30% calculation; (2) replacement of building envelope components can interact with the energy stretch code and require façade upgrades; and (3) asbestos abatement remains necessary in identified rooms (for example, the music room) regardless of the renovation path.

The committee asked staff to confirm interpretations with the state and with MSBA submittals and to flag where consultant reports already address envelope and energy calculations. Members repeatedly emphasized the need to link any matrix entry that relies on a code interpretation to the specific regulation or MSBA guidance so readers can verify assumptions.

No formal policy was adopted; the discussion identified code interpretation as a point for follow‑up research and for inclusion in the materials the working group will post.","Members discussed how roof and window work interact with Massachusetts code triggers and the 30% renovation threshold; the group heard that roofs and windows can be exempt in isolation but may count toward the 30% total if combined with other projects, potentially triggering additional accessibility, fire‑suppression and energy work.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6139934,"Select Board‑sponsored survey on school building options open through Aug. 18; committee awaits results",153,115000,268000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5579761-45ad75095bca75f8012e2830140006f4&start=115&end=268","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5579761-45ad75095bca75f8012e2830140006f4/thumbnail_115000.jpg","/articles/6139934/Town-of-Southborough/Worcester-County/Massachusetts/Select-Boardsponsored-survey-on-school-building-options-open-through-Aug-18-committee-awaits-results","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6139934-fd114fa91c16c8e27504fbe84ca44879/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167823&Signature=Qi14~kRaaP0NV-gu8OVJ5SAYAim6LRGj7rFUYJzqRRKBW53UH6zPva1zOG3PalAkIyiGvyeVZYT-nmFWHnhzReA3x0BjvwD3xlkFM2L42MvbmIMs1gO3chgMbfpdyi0X1hU-hvzTiN0JMPFxqirtDNbd2LXQswCdtfZ2hElRmql-V0zwTSHegQB3Rg2p~c5fBGl0~~J0KwESIKPKP4MHxFe2yTxWhJYnuCEMN8aEy-Oh1i8DRCNis34H3neAB5b88w44ml8nvpxbxtZqBiHC4pRi7fyjo0OCfMbZ8VNaIu6jkIk49-BayXD-WL27zXNJKWYOnA913zMIScetvbTRiw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The PreK–8 School Building Committee said Aug. 12 that a Select Board‑sponsored survey of town residents about school‑configuration options will remain open through Aug. 18 and that town staff are collecting responses.

Laura Kaufman, who the committee identified as one of the survey monitors, said the survey is anonymous and being run by a town team: “I believe we’re gonna be running it until about August 18,” she said. She and other committee members said Matt Probst and Adam Hamilton are assisting with platform management and data collection.

Committee members said they expect the Select Board to decide the best method to publish survey results. The group discussed posting the working documents and matrices online; they also said the survey results will likely be discussed at the next meeting and at an upcoming Select Board meeting that is overseeing the survey.

No participation totals were available at the meeting; committee members said they will share counts and a summary once the Select Board and IT have processed the data and cleared it for public posting.","Committee members said the Select Board‑sponsored public survey remains open until Aug. 18 and is being monitored by town staff; results will be shared after the town IT and Select Board determine the public posting method.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6139939,"PreK–8 building committee reviews educational \"heat map,\" flags program trade‑offs and next steps",4328,111000,4439000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5579761-45ad75095bca75f8012e2830140006f4&start=111&end=4439","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5579761-45ad75095bca75f8012e2830140006f4/thumbnail_111000.jpg","/articles/6139939/Town-of-Southborough/Worcester-County/Massachusetts/PreK8-building-committee-reviews-educational-heat-map-flags-program-tradeoffs-and-next-steps","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6139939-372f7cda5e26849d52edde2c98295236/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167823&Signature=HxTBl2sq-nfjGKCu6n6~pE4RpsT8PzmQ6Dm7jpFokXJvw~FSFtbWD95ud3PdDL1~zta3hif9rJKXAxWbRjiHbQk3dbk8xoeSdLtHDVOousbLO4vPx3nqqvNExm2d9qrGFu0cfrvgqhJZkqt7JHhWeqpft6GSqXEm6cZFfeYJrTHupELXqqA-EUjCbS98kPNzTRCC9U7NjHQuXITuxK~hX6Zkw-kp8CGKQZk0WYX-He3z7AD9cgDJcUpjoeMpnqELVuGHSLw~3WckIalpAMuZtw0s4~i6EvUMz5FBwLlVcYJ8zC8jfIbAFZKZV9mKDUEWRDxVARKT87ajNYHkVcvAUw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The PreK–8 School Building Committee convened Aug. 12 to review an educational “heat map” that maps how several building‑configuration options would meet district program standards and to set next steps for detailed room and staffing analyses.

The committee’s education working group presented a color‑coded matrix showing where each option meets criteria, where tradeoffs exist and where buildings “do not meet” the district’s stated standards for class size, special programs and services.

The matrix uses the district’s education criteria including class‑size targets (K–2: 20 students; grades 3–5: 22; middle school: 22–24), weekly specials (art, music, PE, world language, library), space for English‑language learners and a range of special‑education supports (speech and language, occupational and physical therapy, school psychologists and BCBAs). The working group said some options would preserve class sizes and specials but others would force programs onto carts, split specialists across buildings or remove designated quiet lunch spaces.

Greg, a school‑department representative, told the committee that the district will provide a detailed room‑assignment mapping to the school committee and that the building committee expects an in‑depth presentation in early September: “We do have an initial meeting with the school committee tomorrow night at 7. . . . probably a more in‑depth presentation of the actual data in early September.”

The working group said Option B (re‑assigning grade spans so Trottier would host older elementary grades) raised multiple program‑space shortfalls: insufficient dedicated rooms for speech and language, behavior support and adaptive PE; art and world‑language classes moving to carts; and likely elimination of one special‑education program unless additional space is provided. The group said adding grades to a building often requires larger structural changes than simply adding a classroom.

Option C, described as a “minimal renovation” at Neary, would focus on a new roof and targeted asbestos abatement in specific rooms but would not resolve programmatic or transition issues, the working group said.

Committee members and members of the public pressed for clarity on how the matrix was produced. Several speakers noted that the district supplied the criteria used in the heat map and that the working group reviewed and filled in the matrix based on those criteria and professional judgment. The committee agreed to seek greater neutrality in language (for example, clarifying subjective terms such as “appropriate”) and to attach source documents to the matrix when it is posted.

The committee also discussed possible new options, including (a) an early‑childhood learning center that would consolidate pre‑K (and possibly kindergarten) in a single facility, and (b) permanent additions in place of the temporary modular classrooms the district previously used during construction. The working group said remodeling plus additions could change many of the “does not meet” findings on the matrix; it is preparing square‑footage estimates to model those scenarios.

Public commenters urged the committee to attach citations and clarify assumptions in the posted matrix. Andrea Hamilton, a resident and parent, noted a state rule affecting consolidated age ranges in therapeutic classrooms and warned that some configurations could require a state waiver: “The state requirements for age consolidation is that everyone in a room needs to be within 48 months of each other. . . . To do four years, you’d need a state waiver.”

The committee approved the July 22 minutes as amended at the start of the meeting and adjourned at the end of the session. The working group expects to deliver the room‑by‑room mappings to the school committee and to post the matrix with linked source documents once the school committee has reviewed the material.

The committee set a near‑term schedule: the survey the Select Board sponsored will remain open through Aug. 18, and the working group intends to present detailed data to the school committee in early September; the PreK–8 building committee’s charge currently runs through September and members said they will ask the Select Board for a scheduling extension if needed.","At its Aug. 12 meeting, Southborough's PreK–8 School Building Committee reviewed an educational 'heat map' of options for reconfiguring grades and buildings, identified program-space trade‑offs in several scenarios and said the school department will supply detailed room‑by‑room mapping to the school committee in early September.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Site constraints, parking and air‑quality concerns raised for Finn site; Mooney Field protected by Chapter 97

Committee debates code triggers: roof/windows work may count toward 30% renovation threshold

Select Board‑sponsored survey on school building options open through Aug. 18; committee awaits results

PreK–8 building committee reviews educational "heat map," flags program trade‑offs and next steps