An architect’s rendering from The Residences at the Rogers School proposed by Lanagan & Co. and Arch Communities shows a refurbished park area with the new four-story apartment building on the south side of the Rogers School property that the town of Fairhaven is looking to sell. Artist’s rendering from submitted proposal.
Jean Perry, Neighb News Correspondent
Residents had the chance to ask questions and voice concerns about the latest proposal for preserving and developing the Rogers School on March 1 during a public forum-style Fairhaven Selectboard meeting with developers and members of the Rogers School Re-Use Committee.
Jason Lanagan of Lanagan & Co. Inc. and Rich Relich of Arch Communities, LLC addressed questions and emphasized their willingness to work with residents on designing a plan that the public could support; however, despite their answers, almost all the residents who participated that night concluded their communication with a definitive statement of opposition to the project.
Mr. Lanagan said he reached out to the town six months ago to gauge its interest in his and Mr. Relich’s proposal, “And that was welcomed with open arms.”
Over the course of their development analysis, he said, he shared his findings with the Re-Use Committee.
Project Size and Feasibility
Mr. Lanagan compared his study’s findings with a third-party market and feasibility study the town funded several years ago that found a 100-unit housing project to be an economically viable proposal to save Rogers School.
“In looking at that, we knew that that would be too much,” said Mr. Lanagan. “[That] would definitely take up the entire site, eat up all the green space, and would be too big for the neighborhood.”
He said they would have liked to go with even fewer units, but that would require scaling back on the quality of the building materials and would not sustain long-term maintenance and professional property management. He noted that saving the school building will be expensive, so the project needs to be large enough.
Parking and Traffic
Parking overflow onto the street was a top concern, Selectboard Chairperson Daniel Freitas said, referring to the slew of emails he received from concerned residents.
Mr. Lanagan said parking would be part of the compromise he is willing to negotiate, but adding further on-site parking spots would decrease the remaining green space while increasing asphalted surfaces, affecting the aesthetics, especially on Center Street.
Mr. Relich said the town would require at least 68 parking spots, but in response to resident feedback, they increased it to 79. One space per unit would be allocated for each of the 56 one-bedroom apartments, two for the six two-bedroom units. Mr. Relich said seniors often do not own a vehicle. In that case, apartments with multiple vehicles could be accommodated with an extra parking spot.
Resident and member of the Re-Use Committee Doug Brady took issue with the “massive overflow” of parking onto the surrounding streets and cited a prior Town Meeting vote providing a “preservation allowance” to reduce the parking requirement at the site to allow for “building this stuff” outside regular parking requirements. The design, he said, would also eliminate the baseball diamond to provide parking. The roads are too narrow for two-sided parking, he added, creating a public safety concern.
Theresa Fletcher said there was “no way” there could be enough parking for both visitors and residents, and insisted there would be a “steady flow of traffic.”
Andrew Marshall insisted that 62 units could mean 100 cars with an additional 40 parking along the street. He lives on Chestnut Street near Our Lady’s Haven (OLH) and said parking is certainly an issue, especially before the pandemic.
Mr. Lanagan, who lives across the street from Mr. Marshall agreed that parking is a concern and would be “worked out in great detail.”
“There are solutions to parking [but] we don’t have them today,” said Mr. Lanagan. “It’s impossible for us to solve those problems definitely at this stage, but we’re certainly aware of them, and we certainly want to address them…”
An architect’s rendering from The Residences at the Rogers School in Fairhaven, proposed by Lanagan & Co. and Arch Communities, shows the proposed building from the corner of Center and Chestnut Street. Artist’s rendering from submitted proposal.
He said the Site Plan Review with the Planning Board would nail down parking, but off-street parking would require a compromise on green space.
“People do not want to see the Rogers School turned into a parking lot,” said Mr. Lanagan, adding that a parking study and traffic study will be done as part of the permitting process.
Selectboard member Keith Silvia agreed about the difficulty of a traffic study at this stage.
“It comes down, basically, it’s pretty simple: it’s numbers,” said Mr. Silvia. “These men are in business and they have to have these [62] units to make it work, and that, basically, it’s plain and simple. But the neighbors have their voice, and we have to listen to [them] too and try and keep everybody happy.”
Mr. Relich said the project is 90% one-bedroom units for seniors: “It’s probably the lowest-impact use you could come up with.”
55+ “Senior” affordable housing
In response to various questions, Mr. Lanagan confirmed that the age would be restricted to a minimum of 55, but grandchildren under legal guardianship could be considered allowable. Income guidelines would be between 30-60% of the median income for all but a small number of units, which would be rented at market value. A deed restriction would carry the age requirement in perpetuity.
All tenants will be screened by a professional and undergo credit and criminal background checks, reference checks, and CORI checks.
Funding
In response to questions, Mr. Relich described the mix of funding sources from the state Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) and Affordable Housing Trust funds, and said the rest would be funded by conventional financing and equity investment. No funds would come from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. In order to avoid a lengthy process, the project would not seek funding through the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The project would be seeking $250,000 in Community Preservation Act money from the town, which would need Town Meeting approval.
Mr. Brady stated that the Community Preservation Committee had already made it clear that it would not be giving any CPA funding to the project.
“We’ve yet to receive any correspondence from the CPC stating that they would not give us any money,” said Mr. Lanagan. “So perhaps you know something that we don’t.”
Building Design
The project will follow the Secretary of the Commonwealth Chapter 40C policy for establishing historic districts, although the following those guidelines would be voluntary because they are not seeking related funding.
The public’s design preference could be accommodated, said Mr. Lanagan, such as with façade materials like cedar shingles, and called for a committee of residents with design and historical experience to assist the developer.
Mr. Freitas interrupted to add, “I think people are more concerned that we’re going to throw up a cement slab … and it’s just not going to be — look like that type of area…”
The developers confirmed that renovated windows and doors would reflect the historical style in the old school, but explained why it would not be built to look original.
“It comes down to cost,” said Mr. Lanagan, “but it also comes down to … [how] folks like to see an addition look different from the initial structure.”
The addition should look different yet historical in essence and complement or blend into the original structure.
Developer Experience and Integrity
“Our experience is in working in historic districts,” said Mr. Lanagan, and they would follow 40C guidelines whether tax credits are involved or not. He said he owns 250 affordable units in seven buildings. Both developers stated that they have never walked away or not completed a project. Resident Kathryne Moniz asked to put documentation in place to avoid any eventual changes, which Mr. Freitas said the town could prior to selling the property.
Water/Sewer Utility Concerns
Any water or sewer line upgrades to accommodate the 62 units would be the responsibility of the developer. Mandated testing and analysis would determine the scope of utility upgrades surrounding the site.
Green Space Versus Project Footprint/Height
Mr. Marshall said the playground is a “pretty sensitive matter” for the residents, and Mr. Lanagan said renovating and maintaining the green space has been the plan since the beginning.
Ms. Estrella asked if the developer could prevent the community from being cast into a shadow “tunnel” from the height of the addition.
The footprint, Mr. Lanagan said, would fit over the existing school addition and “doesn’t take up the entire site by any means.”
He also said the building had to be four stories in order to provide 62 units and not occupy the entire site. The roof height does not exceed the original school.
Ms. Fletcher called it an “enormous building,” and Mr. Brady said the height would “black out the entire block” and it would be “sun out” for abutting homes.
“If you want to build that kind of a project, then I say find another place,” said Mr. Brady.
Impact on Community
Mr. Freitas said that a senior housing development would likely increase the demand for emergency response services, especially medical.
Resident David Roy shared the concern, saying, “It’s going to tax” emergency response departments..
“Like it or not,” said Mr. Roy. “The town will have to foot the bill…”
Mr. Relich noted that the 55+ housing is not like a nursing home, and most people, when they start requiring more medical services, usually move.
Selectboard member Bob Espindola suggested seeking input from the fire and police chiefs, recalling similar concerns with the Oxford School development.
Resident Stacey Burr worried about property values decreasing and asked about the communities where they have built affordable housing.
“That’s an impossible question to answer,” said Mr. Lanagan. “But historically, based on my experience, housing projects like this do not hurt housing values.”
He pointed to a similar development in Padanaram, saying that property values there are currently higher than they have ever been.
Resident Elizabeth Delano asked about the proposal encompassing a lot she identified as #68 and not included in the RFP. She asked if it is common practice for an RFP response to include the use of a lot not identified. Mr. Freitas said the board would have to search for that information, and Mr. Espindola asked Interim Town Administrator Wendy Graves for her input. Mr. Freitas intervened on her behalf and said Ms. Graves could be reached later at Town Hall, and then she would respond.
Resident Karen Vilandry said the proposal was “far too big” and “half a dozen” residents could own motorcycles.
“No one can tell me that property values are not going to decrease as a result of this monstrous building that visually impairs people because you don’t have a good site over there,” said Ms. Vilandry. “It’s not a good idea. I strongly oppose this building at this site.”
Next Steps
Mr. Silvia, the board’s representative on the Re-Use Committee, said that when he met with the developers at the site weeks ago, “Right away, I knew that they know what they’re doing.”
He called Mr. Lanagan and Mr. Relich “a class act” and commented that they were trying to make concessions while still meeting the feasibility number.
Still, 62 units was “a little bit too big” for Mr. Silvia, and all the “give and take” will not be enough to make the project feasible, he said.
He said he did not want to approve the project in vain and have the developers waste their money, but the board must make a decision either to sell the site or keep paying to mothball the school building.
Mr. Espindola said he understood why residents opposed the project, and thus far in the process, he said, “I think this is telling us that this is not going to be an ideal situation.”
However, if the town does not opt for the project it has to do something with the site.
He said they had to think of the alternatives and their impacts on the town. He noted the School Department had planned to spend $7.4 million on the Tripp School, but that plan will not happen.
“I don’t see why we can’t put it into the Rogers School,” said Mr. Silvia.
“That’s exactly my point about context,” said Mr. Espindola, adding that the assumption is that the town cannot afford to convert the Rogers School into a park. “But the thing is, it’s a matter of choice.”
Demolition of the building is estimated at $1.5–2 million.
Mr. Freitas said no decision had to be made that night but lamented leaving the developers “hanging in a lurch.”
Before adjourning, Mr. Espindola asked Mr. Freitas for an update on the progress toward hiring a town administrator in light of Ms. Graves issuing a Cease and Desist Order to Mr. Espindola for alleged defamatory remarks.
“Is there anything you can share with us at this time?” Mr. Espindola asked.
“No,” is all that Mr. Freitas replied.
In a follow-up email Mr. Freitas told the Neighb News that the board would be rescheduling Ms. Graves’s interview for TA after its March 8 meeting. When asked about the meeting that he said on 2/23 he would be holding with town counsel and hiring consultant Bernie Lynch, he replied that the meeting had not taken place.
“My schedule has been very full,” said Mr. Freitas.
To see the latest revision of the plans, visit https://www.fairhaven-ma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif3131/f/uploads/residences_at_the_rogers_school_plans_3d_sketches.pd
•••
Support local journalism, donate to the Neighb News with PayPal.
Click here to download the entire 3/4/21 issue: 03-04-21 RogersSchool
