Andover committee reviews three renovation scenarios for Andover High School; cafeteria, science labs and code limits shape options

Andover School Committee members heard initial concepts for improvements at Andover High School during a workshop on Monday, Feb. 24, 2025, as TBA Architects presented three conceptual scenarios and sought early feedback from the committee and working group.

The presentation, led by Justin Humphreys, principal of TBA Architects, summarized findings from a multi‑month study and community forums and laid out three broad approaches that mix targeted renovations, modular classrooms ("pods") and new construction adjacent to the existing building. "We have been working for the past couple of months on a lot of information gathering and analysis," Humphreys said, explaining the team’s effort to reuse existing plans while identifying where new space would be most effective.

The discussion focused on three constraints that shape what the district can do without triggering large, code‑related upgrades: (1) the Architectural Access Board rule in 521 CMR that can require full‑building accessibility upgrades if renovations exceed a threshold; (2) a state building‑code provision that can trigger full‑building upgrades if work affects roughly half the building; and (3) the Massachusetts sprinkler requirement that can force sprinkling of an entire building if additions push a building above 7,500 square feet. Humphreys summarized the first trigger this way: "According to the Architectural Access Board code 521CMR, if we spend more than 30% of the assessed value of the building within a 36 month period, you trigger having to make the entire building bring the entire building up to current accessibility code."

The architects’ space analysis, drawing on prior MSBA work and updated utilization counts, found the high school short by the equivalent of about eight general classrooms compared with MSBA guidelines for the district’s projected enrollment (roughly 1,700–1,706 students). Humphreys said many individual classrooms are undersized compared with MSBA square‑foot recommendations and that faculty work and collaboration spaces are limited, causing classrooms to be used for teacher prep and other noninstructional activities.

Cafeteria capacity and circulation were a frequent topic. The team noted the school runs four lunch periods while MSBA planning assumes three, and that configuration, fixed servery geometry and existing fixed seating contribute to congestion. Humphreys said furniture and reconfiguration could ease some problems but warned that expanding the cafeteria footprint could trigger the sprinkler and accessibility thresholds.

Site options for new construction were shown on a map the team labeled A–H. The presentation singled out location B — a plaza area adjacent to the cafeteria and mezzanines — as the most promising: the footprint shown there is about 23,000 square feet per floor in the architects’ test fit and could be built as two stories to roughly double usable area. "I can tell you right now, we love B," Humphreys said, noting it would connect readily to core program areas, allow the possibility of an enclosed outdoor dining area and provide room for two stories with an elevator to meet accessibility goals.

The three scenarios the team offered in writing and in discussion were: (1) new construction that houses science labs, classrooms and teacher amenities while the existing building is reconfigured to broaden core curriculum classroom space; (2) new construction sized for 8–12 general classrooms plus special education and flexible group spaces while the existing building is renovated to consolidate and upgrade lab and support areas; and (3) a smaller, targeted new construction focused on larger‑footprint specialized spaces (S.T.E.A.M., Socratic seminar, teacher lounges, satellite dining) with the existing building repurposed for departmental offices, teacher workspace and special education.

All three scenarios assume a modular‑classroom component and a furniture/equipment program to increase flexibility across many existing rooms. The architects described an intervention typology that ranges from minor (finishes, movable furniture) to moderate (moving partitions, doorways) to extreme (major reconfiguration or new construction), and said the project team is mapping which existing spaces could be improved at each level without triggering full‑building code upgrades.

Committee members raised detailed questions about science spaces, plumbing and gas lines, the cost tradeoffs of moving labs to new construction versus upgrading existing lab rooms, and how mechanical (heating/cooling) and security work will be coordinated. Staff said some mechanical and security work can be managed as separate projects — work that, if executed independently, would not count toward the 521 CMR 30% trigger — but added that any area renovated as part of a chosen scenario would include the associated mechanical costs.

Humphreys and the committee also discussed site constraints including wetlands, ledge and utilities; potential impacts to tennis courts and parking; and the desirability of keeping through‑traffic and student circulation separated from drive lanes. The architects noted some sites (for example site D) would require relocation of amenities such as tennis courts and could introduce circulation risks.

Next steps the presentation identified included massing studies and test fits for the preferred options (the team said it will "map" the three scenarios to the A/B site options and produce more detailed pros and cons), additional working‑group review (the committee scheduled a working‑group meeting the following day), and continued community outreach. Humphreys asked committee members to send additional questions to Emily and Shawna or directly to him.

The workshop adjourned by a verbal voice vote. The transcript records the motion to adjourn, an affirmative "Aye" response, and no opposed voices; the meeting chair closed the session. Exact vote counts were not specified in the transcript.