01907vol3-small

SCHOOLS Continued from page 6
“From these facts, I find that the
town’s objectives in rezoning the
Greenwood parcel were initially
historic preservation and generating
revenue for the town,” Judge Long
wrote. “When historic preservation
affected revenue, however, this goal
was discarded and the town’s objectives
narrowed to one: the maximization
of revenue from the parcel’s sale
and future tax receipts.”
The decision resulted in the property
being returned to its original R2
residential zoning status, which
means any development that proposes
multi-family housing will require
rezoning. The town at one point
decided to appeal, but then dropped
the appeal in June 2014.
Residents – aware that something will
be built on the property at some point
– have also grown frustrated by the
delays and the steps the town has
taken to secure the property. Younger
said because of liability issues, the
town has blocked entrances to prevent
parking on the property.
“We have secured the site from
parking private vehicles by direction
of our insurer,” he said.
Greenwood Avenue resident Ellie
Miller said she feels the consensus
of her neighbors is that anything
that looks like the former plan is a
non-starter.
“At some point, the town, the developer
and the abutters all have to find
common ground.”
While the redevelopment of one closed
school appears stalled, town officials
are more hopeful about the reuse of
the Machon School on Burpee Road,
which has progressed steadily along
a timeline.
A formal request for proposals for
redevelopment of the school was
issued in February, with the hope
that Town Meeting will decide in
May on the final proposal.
The school was built in 1920 with a
single-story addition in 1963. It closed
in 2007 and in 2012 Town Meeting
approved the sale of the property. In
2013, an initial public meeting on the
future of the school was held, and in
February 2015 a Town Building
Reuse Forum was held that included
discussion of the Machon School. Last
August, the town released a Request
for Ideas to reuse the property.
Town Planner Peter Kane and the
town set parameters for proposals,
which would have to meet all of the
town’s dimensional and zoning
requirements, including factors such
as setback, building height and lot
coverage; all parking needs had to
be met on site; and access to Jackson
Park on the northwest corner of the
property had to be part of the proposal.
Five concepts were eventually
submitted to the town and in December,
selectmen voted unanimously to
narrow down future use to one of
three: residential/housing,
educational or community reuse.
Selectmen did consider open space as
a possible reuse, but Selectman John
Callahan’s motion to keep the possibility
of the property as open space lost 3-2,
supported by Laura Spathanas but
rejected by Naomi Dreeben, Matthew
Strauss and Peter Spellios.
Opponents cited the possibility
that demolition of the building would
require asbestos abatement and could
cost upwards of $600,000.
The building on the 1.029-acre parcel
is assessed at $1.862 million, with the
land assessed for $266,300, and there
is a 2,000-square-foot parking area
already in place, as well as a 15,000-
square-foot lawn area. n
“I think the general feeling is we’d like
to see something that’s neighborhoodfriendly,”
she said. “We’d be comfortable
with something that reflects the
residential nature of the neighborhood
and has the appropriate density.”
Miller said that could include singlefamily
homes built on a cul-de-sac,
but left open the possibility of condos,
preferably on the building’s original
footprint.
“Putting condos in the original building
would be lovely, in my view,” she said.
Town officials estimated the condos
would generate between $122,000
and $200,000 in new property
taxes annually.
Younger said even after the legal
cloud hanging over the property is
resolved, a lot of work lies ahead to
get the property back on the tax rolls.
SPRING 2016 | 21