Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Coggeshall topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines proposed sale of Coggeshall School after debate over affordability and green space
Summary
Council debated a proposed sale and redevelopment of the Coggeshall School into 32 long‑term rental units and, after extended public comment and questions about enforceable rent restrictions and loss of neighborhood green space, the motion to approve the purchase and sale agreement failed.
The council considered a proposed purchase‑and‑sale agreement to transfer the vacant Coggeshall School and adjacent lots to a private developer for redevelopment as multifamily rental housing.
Peter Regan, representing BCM Realty Partners, told the council the plan would "increase the year round supply of rental units by adding 32 new units, which would be limited for long term rentals" and said units would be restricted to long‑term rental use for 30 years with a minimum one‑year lease. Regan and other developers said the project is roughly a $13,000,000 undertaking, with construction costs that drive per‑unit costs above $400,000.
Residents at the public hearing expressed mixed views. Christine Sullivan said the $1,000,000 sale price proposed for the city property is too low: "1000000 dollars for that property is a joke." Neighbors and speakers including Becky Dewitt and Tom Kane pressed councilors on the loss of green space, traffic and safety on nearby Admiral Kalfas Road, and whether the proposal truly delivers "workforce" housing rather than market‑rate rents.
Council members raised legal and enforceability questions about deed restrictions and how to define and hold future owners to workforce‑housing commitments. The city solicitor noted deed provisions and RFP commitments may provide enforcement pathways but cautioned that broad language is harder to litigate. After discussion the chair called a vote on the motion to approve the P&S; the motion failed and no sale was approved that night.
The council did not adopt binding changes to the P&S during the meeting; several councilors urged further clarity on a workforce‑housing definition, deed language and additional community engagement before any future vote.
