Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Land Swap topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town arranges land swap to open Fano Drive for school access; MSBA briefed on site changes
Summary
Stoughton officials negotiated a memorandum of understanding enabling Fano Drive access for the planned school site; the MSBA was briefed and asked the town to submit revised site documentation.
Town officials negotiated an MOU with private owners to transfer title to Fano Drive and three adjacent lots to the town in exchange for roughly eight acres of the town-owned parcel, enabling the project team to move the school access to Fano Drive without new wetland crossings.
Project presenters said the town manager, Mark Tisdale, and other town officials met with the property owners and reached a signed memorandum of understanding within days of initiating the discussions. The MOU must be followed by standard legal conveyance actions and is expected to require a town meeting vote in the fall to effect the land exchanges in both directions.
Design staff and DRA reported the land swap allowed a revised site plan that avoids constructing new wetland crossings and reduces impervious pavement, moving the project below thresholds that trigger state environmental permitting. Project staff told the committee they quantified over $1 million in estimated site-work savings on the revised option compared with the prior plan.
Tim, Carl and other project staff described a recent call with the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) to introduce the site revisions. MSBA staff asked for updated documentation showing how the project’s site and budget appendices to the existing interim project agreement will change; the project team said it would provide the requested material to MSBA by the next week. Project staff said MSBA indicated it likely would not need a separate board vote for the requested changes but that MSBA could withhold reimbursements if permitting processes remained open.
The committee did not take a formal vote on the land swap or the MSBA update; members asked questions about the MOU timeline and whether the revised access would require future public-road upgrades if surrounding parcels were developed.
