Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Site Selection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears preliminary Pollard School relocation options; wetlands and stormwater flagged as constraints
Summary
Commissioners discussed conceptual sites for the Pollard Middle School replacement and flagged potential wetlands, stormwater and Chapter 97 hurdles if the DeFazio parking-lot site is chosen; no formal action taken but staff and commission expect future review if that site advances.
Needham Conservation Commission members on Sept. 11 reviewed conceptual siting options for the proposed replacement of Pollard Middle School and identified potential conservation and permitting implications if the town selects the site near the DeFazio parking area.
Commissioners and staff summarized three broad approaches presented by the school planning teams: renovate and add to the existing building; build a new school on the DeFazio/parking-lot area (which would affect playing fields and encroach on mapped wetlands); or build on the lower Pollard field and later restore fields at the existing school footprint. The commission noted that the DeFazio option would require coordination with Park and Recreation and potentially a legislative approval under Chapter 97 to repurpose recreation land.
A staff briefing described the local topography and drainage: "These wetland areas kinda feed into that" drainage ditch that parallels Dedham Avenue and ultimately flows to the Charles River; staff emphasized that stormwater management will be a major constraint. Dave Herrer summarized the schedule pressures: the project team has presented conceptual plans to multiple town committees and is seeking eligibility for up to 25% state funding from the School Building Authority, which requires adherence to its procedures. He said timelines also include potential debt-override votes and town meeting approvals.
Park and Recreation has expressed opposition to using DeFazio because the scheme would remove at least one playing field during construction; commissioners noted that further design detail will be needed before the Conservation Commission would undertake regulatory review. The commission was asked to have one or two members available to attend an evening meeting about next steps; staff agreed to circulate meeting details when available.
No formal commission action was taken; commissioners were asked to monitor the project and prepare to advise on wetlands, stormwater and potential Chapter 97 requirements if the DeFazio option moves forward.
