Pollard School project update: seven options presented; MSBA, wetlands, parking and Article 97 steps outlined
Loading...
Summary
Design and school officials presented seven MSBA‑required conceptual options for the Pollard School project, including new‑build and add/reno scenarios at Pollard and a larger new‑build at DeFazio, and outlined the zoning and permitting steps needed for each.
Architects and school officials presented a feasibility update on the Pollard Elementary School replacement project and described seven conceptual options required by the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) process: repair (baseline), add/reno variations and complete replacement options sited either at Pollard or at DeFazio. The presentation covered program variations (6–8 vs. 7–8 grade configurations), phasing and constructability, parking, stormwater and wetlands constraints, potential jurisdictional land transfer steps and the MSBA reimbursement pathway.
Presenters said the MSBA process requires multiple options for evaluation and that the committee is working to narrow to a preferred scheme. The DeFazio option would require a jurisdictional transfer of park land and an Article 97 process with the state legislature, potentially triggering additional environmental review; it would also require a 162‑space temporary parking lot and reconfiguration of fields to maintain athletic uses during construction. Pollard‑site new construction options would likely permit MSBA participation in demolition costs and avoid some Article 97 steps, but impose more challenging constraints on the existing site (phasing among occupied spaces, staging, and potential height needs).
Board members pressed the team for traffic and stormwater details; consultants said traffic studies (including drop‑off/pick‑up modeling and sports‑event impacts) and a wetlands‑driven stormwater analysis are underway in feasibility and will be refined in schematic design. The team also reviewed the zoning amendments the Planning Board would need to enable several options: raised municipal middle‑school height (up to four stories/60 feet), a footnote allowing FAR/site coverage increases for public/institutional uses, and a parking standard keyed to building FTE plus 20 percent for visitors. The team indicated costs and reimbursements remain a major differentiator between sites; MSBA unit‑cost caps and what the MSBA will or will not reimburse (for demolition or off‑site improvements) will affect net town costs.
The board and consultants agreed on a tight schedule: the project team expects to refine options through late November and the Permanent Public Building Committee (PBBC) may make a recommendation in early December. If the board pursues zoning amendments to support a chosen option, staff said a December public hearing and a January/February drafting schedule would be required to meet a May town‑meeting warrant.
No site was selected at the Nov. 11 meeting; consultants will return with updated cost estimates, traffic/stormwater analyses and proposed draft zoning language for future Planning Board consideration.
