This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
02/26/2018 11:00 PMFollowing three nights of presentations and debate, the Board of Selectmen (BOS) opted on Feb. 27 to hold off on making a decision on advancing any development proposals forward at this time. After hearing numerous residents speak out against development, the BOS decided there needs to be time for more public comment before any decisions are made.
First Selectman Tom Banisch said he was pleased so many people had come out to all of the meetings, but said rather than starting to narrow down development options now, he wants to more opportunities for public comment on the books.
“I think we are hearing from people that we need to slow down the process and take a look at what is going on and see what we do here,” he said. “I think we are all amenable to that and all want to do the best thing for our town.”
Selectman Bruce Wilson said he is concerned by some comments from the public suggesting the BOS is going to move forward and make a decision without taking public opinion into account.
“The process isn’t over, so now that we have awoken the community, there is time for everybody’s input so this process is not going to roll over anybody’s sensibility or perspective,” he said. “Our goal all along has been to provide a solution to the taxpayers that is reasonable and adoptable. It’s not a personal agenda…We want to make sure we arrive at what is best for the community.”
Selectman Scott Murphy said he, too, is concerned by some of the public comments and said that he doesn’t want to see the town lose the baseball fields behind Academy either.
Selectman Al Goldberg said this process was set up to see what a for-profit developer could do with the building and it’s clear the public wants other options on the table, too.
“I heard the public say that selling this property would be an awfully steep price to pay for the cost of rejuvenating that building and that before we do that, we as town officials and you as the electorate need to proceed very carefully making sure that we have all the information available about the options that are possible,” he said.
Goldberg suggested the town incorporate Academy into a strategic plan so that the BOS can consider all options for the building.
Selectman Jean Ferris said while she understands the public desire to have more options on the table, she said there is one very important thing people need to remember.
“The biggest issue with this building—and we can’t lose sight of this—is the remediation on this is huge, absolutely huge,” she said. “I feel conflicted myself after the two weeks of hearings and I also have a couple of proposals that I think would work well, but again we are a community and we have to decide what we want to do with this property as a community.”
Banisch decided to set another public hearing date and wait before narrowing down any of the developers.
“I think we all have a feeling that it’s not time to do that yet,” he said. “We need to explore this a little bit more and let people have more of a say.”
The Public Hearing: Residents Voice Opposition to Academy School Proposals
After two nights of developer presentations, more than 100 residents packed into Polson Middle School on Feb. 22 to voice their opinions about the Academy School proposals to the Madison Board of Selectmen (BOS). While some residents offered input on the specific proposals, a large majority of people in attendance balked at the idea of developing any of the five acres of the Academy School parcel.
After working with consultant Colliers International, the town had presented four options in two public meetings. Offered by four developers found qualified to complete the project, the proposals called for the addition of 24 and 79 new housing units while possibly retaining some community and recreational amenities. One-time proposed purchase payments top out at $1.2 million.
On Feb. 12, RAL Development Services and Greylock Property Group offered up their proposals and on Feb. 13, Women’s Institute-Hope Partnership and Dakota Partners, Inc., presented their proposals. According to Mark Sklenka of Colliers, potential developers were provided a packet including existing building information like the floor plan, conditions assessment, hazmat survey, and market reconnaissance study. In addition to the details of the building, the developers were also given a list of priorities distilled from the workshop meeting including maintaining some level of open space and the playground, maintaining the shell of the 1921 building, applicable zoning regulations, and a desire for mixed use.
Find details on the proposals at Zip06.com.
In the days leading up to the public hearing, residents turned to Facebook to express their thoughts and opinions. Groups dedicated to saving Academy—both the land and the character of the building—appeared and a movement began, referring to the parcel “the wrong five acres” and calling on people to “save our fields and open space.”
Those sentiments made their way to the Feb. 22 public hearing in force. Before the floor opened to public comment, Banisch reviewed the history of the building, the various studies done, and the process followed to present these proposals. Banisch asked residents to be respectful in their comments and remember that the proposals are just that—proposals.
“The final word on this whole project comes from the voters,” he said. “If the voters don’t want to do anything there, then nothing is going to happen. The building will continue to deteriorate and we have no other plans for it. I am showing a little bit of my bias, but it’s important to me that we do something with this building because it’s a sin that it’s sitting there rotting.”
Expressing Concerns
At the hearing, members of the various baseball communities expressed concerns over the loss of the fields, and residents from nearby Bradley Road spoke about the danger of high-density development in that area. Resident Catherine Ferrante said the town should look at other alternatives, like maybe developing the Island Avenue School property to help preserve the character of Academy.
“Putting aside the building and its disrepair for a moment, I would hate to see losing that open space...I don’t think that little shred of green that these proposals leave behind, I think that just pays lip service to our idea of wanting open space,” she said.
Resident Janet Nicolini, a realtor in town, said she was concerned about developing the land behind Academy for many reasons, but specifically mentioned the fact that the town does not own the land many refer to as the Madison Green.
“The church owns our Town Green, so even though we have had a great relationship with them for however long it’s been and they allow us to have all of our events there, could that ever change?” she asked. “If we can’t be guaranteed that’s our Town Green, what if that goes away? Then we have no Town Green because we have put condos on it, so I think we are being really short sighted to make a few bucks.”
Sklenka said two of the developers said they would walk if they could only develop the building and the other two would have to carefully consider the financials. He said considering the high cost to remediate the Academy building, some development on the land is the only way for developers to make a profit.
Some residents took issue with the whole concept in general. Jack Davis, who founded the Grove School, said any of the options would destroy the character of the town.
“This project is an albatross,” he said. “I wish it never happened. I have looked at these proposals—disgusting! It changes the entire flavor of the community. Think of what you want to do to yourself, changing the whole town...Why destroy it with this monstrosity?”
Kathryn Hunter, who was heavily involved with the Shoreline Arts Alliance proposal for the building, which was abandoned after being considered for several years, was among those handing out flyers and pamphlets at the start of the meeting opposing the project. She said these are the wrong five acres for development and that the initial request for proposals was skewed toward commercial development.
“My main point is that a development-only referendum is not a fair vote,” she said.
Two Proposals Preferred
For those who spoke about the proposals, the two possibilities residents seemed to like best were offered by Greylock and the Women’s Institute-Hope Partnership. Former first selectman Fillmore McPherson said he likes the Women’s Institute proposal best because of its commitment to open and community space, as well as the low-density development aspect.
“I don’t want Madison to turn into Fairfield County,” he said. “I don’t know how many people have come up to me over the years and said boy Madison is wonderful, it’s just like fill-in-the-blank was 30 years ago. If we put in all of the apartments and condos that we can squeeze in, then we are going to be just like fill-in-the-blank in a few years.”
Some residents spoke about the need to get the burden of this building off the town and to think about putting something on the tax rolls. Gus Horvath said he has been a part of committees studying this building since 2004, and that it’s time to do something.
“I think that the proposals that are in front of you are things that are worth looking at and considering for the benefit of the entire town, not some particular special interest group,” he said. “You look here, there are 13,000 members of the legislative body of the Town of Madison and there are probably, what, 125 people here? So that’s one percent of our 13,000 members of the legislative body? Shows how much interest there is in this facility.”