Needham design team presents updated Pollard/DeFazio options; traffic, wetlands and field replacement cited as critical tradeoffs

Design consultants presented updated site, traffic, stormwater and wetlands information for competing Pollard School options and a DeFazio site alternative at the Nov. 3 joint meeting of the Town of Needham Permanent Public Building Committee and the School Building Committee.

The meeting focused on comparing an addition/renovation at Pollard with several new‑construction options on Pollard and at DeFazio. Traffic counts on Harris Avenue and Dedham Avenue, new wetland delineation that expanded the eastern DeFazio wetlands, and stormwater constraints shaped the discussion. Consultants said they will deliver cost estimates for multiple options and phasing sequences to the committee for review before the next decision milestones.

Why it matters: The choice of site and configuration affects the project’s footprint, schedule, field availability during construction, permitting needs (including MassDOT and Article 97/land‑use constraints), and the level of MSBA reimbursement. Consultants repeatedly warned that wetlands expansion and narrow Dedham Avenue shoulders make on‑road queuing or left‑turn stacking at DeFazio riskier and may require substantial mitigation, signalization or right‑of‑way takings.

Traffic and circulation: Todd, the traffic consultant, said counts were collected at multiple times (weekday am/pm, weeknight, Saturday, Sunday) for Harris Avenue, Dedham Avenue and the DeFazio driveway. He recommended that, for any new school location, parent drop‑off/pick‑up queuing be accommodated on site and that bus and parent circulation be separated. He warned that Dedham Avenue lacks parking lanes and has limited sight distance near an MBTA overpass; a school‑site queuing condition that backs traffic onto Dedham Avenue would materially affect local traffic and could require a signal or turn lanes and MassDOT permitting.

Wetlands and stormwater: Civil staff reported new wetland flagging that increased the eastern wetland footprint at DeFazio, reducing developable acreage and increasing potential costs for crossings and mitigation. For Pollard, wetlands were generally consistent with prior assumptions. Stormwater strategies presented for Pollard included distributed infiltration under parking, bioretention/rain gardens, constructed wetland or sand filters, and potential reuse for irrigation or non‑potable uses; high groundwater near the lower tennis court area could require constructed (standing‑water) systems or tanks and has implications for mosquito control and fencing.

Phasing, height and shadows: Designers presented multiple configurations: addition/renovation and several new‑build variants under two grade‑configuration scenarios (6–8 and 7–8). One‑phase taller buildings reduce overall duration but increase perceived height and shadow impacts; two‑phase solutions reduce height but extend the construction schedule (consultants estimated added duration of roughly 12–15 months for some two‑phase options, with associated escalation and phasing costs). The team committed to produce shadow studies next week to help quantify visual and daylight impacts.

Fields, parking and laydown: The team outlined tradeoffs for contractor laydown and temporary parking. Options include using DeFazio parking, Warner Field or portions of Pollard as construction staging. Each choice would disrupt field use or parking for months to years and likely requires restoration at project end; the team noted restoration to an equivalent standard is expected and that replacement field costs and timing must be included in the project budget or town funding plan.

MSBA reimbursement and costs: The consultants will submit option narratives and diagrams to cost estimators; two independent estimators will run numbers. The team said MSBA reimbursement rates vary by scope and eligible items, and demolition/hazmat and other adders could affect final net reimbursement; they estimated a likely overall MSBA participation in a mid‑range (roughly low‑20s percent) but cautioned this is preliminary and depends on final scope and allowable square‑footage inclusion.

Community input and next steps: The design team scheduled additional public and board briefings (community open house, planning board, select board, All‑Board Summit on Nov. 24). Cost estimates are being submitted to estimators Wednesday and the consultants asked for feedback from the school committee, Park & Recreation Commission and select board on the grade configuration and auditorium sizing. The team also requested two volunteers for a CMR (construction manager at risk) selection subcommittee.

Public comment and stakeholder concerns: Cindy Chazner, representing the Park and Recreation Commission, said the commission has not changed its position opposing the transfer of any DeFazio property and expressed concern that reconstruction of replacement fields might not be fully funded by the project; she warned of long‑term disruption to the recreational complex and urged the committee to account for field replacement and associated costs.

What’s next: Consultants will deliver cost estimates and a shadow‑analysis package and continue wetlands and traffic work. The committee will use a decision matrix to score options; consultants said they will provide breakout information where possible (site premiums for traffic, stormwater, wetlands crossings, laydown) to help the committee compare net cost and MSBA reimbursement implications.

Quotes "The existing driveway at Dedham…site distance is substandard," Todd said of the DeFazio entrance, noting the proximity of the MBTA overpass and that "any queuing that were to back up onto Dedham Ave would definitely impact traffic."

"We haven't had any info presented that has swayed us or that has been new to us," Cindy Chazner said on behalf of the Park and Recreation Commission, urging that field replacement and funding be addressed.

Ending The committee requested more detailed, itemized cost differentials tied to traffic mitigation, wetland crossings and field‑replacement scenarios and scheduled additional public briefings in November; members asked the design team and cost estimators to turn those breakout numbers around before the Nov. 24 All‑Board Summit so governing bodies can provide informed input to the PSR process.