Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board appoints two-person working group to evaluate reuse of Wixen school building
Summary
After years of study and more than $300,000 spent, the Select Board appointed Cleon Turner and Jim Plath to lead a two-step review (determine how to safely access the building; if feasible, assess salvageability and costs) for retaining the auditorium, gym, cafeteria and adjacent classrooms of the former Wixen School.
The Select Board voted unanimously July 28 to appoint Cleon Turner and Jim Plath as a two-person working group to evaluate whether parts of the old Wixen School can be salvaged for public use.
Board members and dozens of speakers debated the building's future. The chair said the town has spent more than $300,000 analyzing Wixen’s condition and previously voted to demolish the structure, but several residents and recreation officials urged a renewed, targeted review to decide whether the auditorium, gymnasium, cafeteria and some classrooms could be retained.
Cleon Turner told the board, "The building is salvageable. Any building can be salvaged for a cost," but he added that salvageability should be weighed against cost and feasibility. Town staff and the DPW warned that entering the building now would require full asbestos remediation and an ongoing mitigation plan; DPW representative Mike Lavin said a proper inspection likely requires multiple cleanings and HEPA-level work before consultants can safely enter to evaluate systems such as HVAC and electrical.
Board members described the effort as a two-step process: the working group will first identify what is required to safely access (and, if needed, temporarily re-mitigate) the building so consultants can inspect it; second, if access is practical, they will bring in architects and structural engineers to estimate what it would cost to salvage parts of the building and propose a scope. The motion as approved does not immediately fund consultant work but asks the working group to return with a scope and estimated cost for any recommended third-party assessments.
Public commenters, including the Recreation Commission and former working-group members, urged the board not to delay either removal or a meaningful assessment; some urged immediate asbestos abatement to enable demolition if salvage proved infeasible, while others argued for seeking creative reuses (including potential private redevelopment models). The board directed the two-person team to report back in roughly 30–60 days with initial findings on what is needed to get into the building and cost estimates to retain or remove portions of it.
