Williamstown Youth Center Location ChosenBy Andy McKeever, iBerkshires Staff
10:41PM / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 | |
 The new Youth Center will be designed based on the depictions of option 3. |
Youth Center Executive Director David Rempell said that construction is expected to begin in October and last eight to 10 months. |
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — It's option three.
Months of contentious debate over a new Youth Center to be built on school land boiled down to a two-hour debate and a unanimous decision on Wednesday.
The new Youth Center will be built south of the school and be oriented in a north to south manner along the parking lot as depicted in the third of six options the architects submitted.
"I think option three is the best option loosely defined. I would say the building on that orientation on that drop-off would be my preference at this point," said School Committee member Huff Templeton.
The committee essentially gave the center an amount of land, up to 15,000 square-feet, in the location of option three for the architect, Black River Design, to develop detailed plans on. Those plans need to pass permitting and a final approval from the committee.
"We're really voting on an approximate sight," Adam Filson, committee chairman, said. "This building could move five feet there or ten feet there. The precise location is really going to be dictated by the building code, the zoning code, all of the codes which we don't have jurisdiction over. We're going to let those codes govern the precise location. Once that's done and they're ready to submit that final plan that's when we can also approve again the final location."
Option three stood out, according to committee members, because it was easiest for the school to use for indoor recess because of secure access on the south side of the school, did not cut off views of the playing fields, did not need a new fire lane and caused only minor impact on the playground.
"I asked our board if there was a preference and it gave us a little taste of how difficult this decision is but there was a preference for option three," Youth Center President Paul Jennings said. "While perhaps option four was a better building for the Youth Center in terms of lighting and energy efficiency, there wasn't that much lost with option three. Overall, in terms of how the two buildings can work together and how that option addresses, as best we can, the concerns of the neighbors."
The motion specified that the center needed to be oriented as depicted on the sample design with the two-story-sized gymnasium closer to the school, in the same approximate location and the overall building can not exceed 15,000 square feet of land.
The committee specified the amount of land the building could be on after a lengthy discussion about the measurements. The Youth Center has submitted plans that referred to the building being 12,000 square-feet but Town Manager Peter Fohlin said the dimensions submitted by the architect are closer to 15,000. Youth Center Executive Director David Rempell explained that the approximately 12,000 square-feet refers to usable interior space.
The committee and the center now has a timetable, developed by Fohlin, to adhere to in order to break ground in October – a groundbreaking date four months later than originally proposed. The Youth Center wanted to break ground in June and complete most of the construction while school was not in session but heated debate delayed the project.
"The construction manager said that construction would take about six months but I'm going to estimate more like eight to 10 months," Rempell said. "We initially wanted to break ground in June as soon as school was out but because of rethinking of the plans and the options, that obviously needs to be pushed back."
Elementary School Committee Chairman Adam Filson said the committee just gave approval to move forward and will still need to approve the final plans. |
In December, the committee ruled out two options that were developed to attach the center to the school because it would essentially require the school to be divided into two structures to adhere to fire code. In January, the committee ruled out two other options that positioned the center south of the school but in an east-to-west orientation. Those options were ruled out because they would require a new fire lane and would bisect adults' views of the playing field while supervising students.
Option four to position the school in the northeast corner of the campus remained a possibility but it would have required uprooting the drainage system, making it more difficult for the school and the center to share because of secure access to the school. It would also have required a new fire lane.
"It's only been four months since last September when we first presented the site plan. For some of us I suggest it seems like it's been four years," Rempell said. "The options that we sent the school committee came as a result of the public forum and the input we received from the community."
In 2009, the School Committee approved a new center to be built on the property after they reviewed an outline for a two-story building located south of the current school. Last October, Youth Center officials returned to the board with a more specific plan to create a single-floor structure that would nearly double the building's footprint.
The increase in footprint caused heated debate in the community regarding a reduction of green space and invasion of the playing fields. Additionally, the design submitted in October would uproot the playground; the committee formed a 13-member panel to develop options to keep the playground intact. The panel developed three options that centered around repositioning the playing fields.
Concurrently, the center's architect developed six other options that included changes in location and orientation.
The committee then met twice with town officials to discuss permitting restrictions and develop a timetable for decisions.
The proposed 12,000 square-foot building will replace the current center, which is in deplorable condition. The center has raised more than $3 million, including a $100,000 donation from Greylock Federal Credit Union two weeks ago.
|
|
|
MEMBER SIGN IN
