Developers propose 50‑unit senior‑preference housing and town‑run senior center at Pearson School in Madison

Carla Lindquist, executive director of a regional nonprofit housing developer, told the Town of Madison working group that her organization partnered with co‑developers to respond to a town RFP to reuse the historic Pearson School as a senior center plus affordable housing. “We are a regional nonprofit organization that develops, owns, and facilitates affordable housing,” Lindquist said during the presentation, summarizing the team’s experience with historic adaptive‑reuse projects.

The proposal would keep the town’s front green space and senior program space under town control and convert the school into roughly 50 residential units: “about 30 apartments in the existing building, and then the orange will house about 20 new buildings,” the presenters said. Units would be primarily studios and one‑bedrooms; the developers said they plan a senior preference that gives applicants age 62 and older priority in the initial lease‑up.

Why it matters: the plan combines a town‑operated senior center and independent residential housing in a single historic building. Team members said the design lets the senior center operate separately from the residential portion while allowing the facility to serve as a warming or charging refuge during emergencies.

Financing and costs: the team said its current underwriting projects a purchase price of $500,000 to the town, roughly $18,000,000 for renovation and new construction, and about $7,000,000 in soft costs — a total development cost “just under 26,000,000,” according to the presenters. They plan to use tax‑exempt bonds, low‑income housing tax credits and state DOH/CHFA programs; presenters said applications to DOH and Connecticut Housing Finance Authority are underway. The developers described a proposed pilot tax abatement of $500 per unit for a 30‑year term with 2% annual escalations and zero property tax during construction to stabilize long‑term operations.

Historic preservation and design constraints: because the building’s original 1932 section is subject to historic‑preservation review, presenters said some preservation requirements (notably window replacement consistent with original style) take precedence over some sustainability choices. The project team said it is coordinating National Park Service and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) filings to secure historic tax credits.

Unit mix, accessibility and management: the plan’s affordability targets are currently being refined around 40%, 50% and 60% AMI units, with 60% AMI as the maximum. Presenters said certain units will be required accessible or adaptable and that Elderly Housing Management will be engaged for property management after construction.

Community engagement and approvals: presenters said the town conducted charrettes and public meetings before the RFP and that project materials and FAQ documents are available on the town website. Next procedural steps described in the meeting included submitting financing applications this month, pursuing site‑plan approval with planning and zoning, refining underwriting and preparing a local ordinance to enable the proposed tax abatement. The presenters said they will seek final site control documents and regulatory agreements to support application packets.

What happens next: the development team and town staff will refine the financing application, collect required environmental and site due‑diligence documents, and return to the committee with a revised package for broader review and a planned mid‑November check‑in before presenting materials to the board for consideration.