Selectmen: No secret deals exist to sell off East School
Published on October 8th, 2008
STONEHAM, MA - Selectman Paul Rotondi lashed-out at School Committee members for claming that local officials were trying to negotiate a shadowy deal to sell off the East School property without public input.
According to Rotondi, despite recent characterizations by several School Committee members, he had approached Schools' Supt. Dr. Les Olson about the possible land sale before he listed the idea as a potential new revenue source in a newspaper column.
The Selectman also insisted that no formal proposal exists to develop the land, although Rotondi has suggested that the field areas at the educational facility might be an attractive space for residential uses.
"I want to emphasize that talk [had nothing] to do with the school," Rotondi said during the Selectmen's meeting last week. "We would like to investigate the possibility of relocating the three little league fields and subdividing the property."
"Contrary to what was said at the last School Committee meeting, the superintendent was told that we were thinking about this," the Selectman added.
According to Selectman Robert Sweeney, education board members also erroneously declared that a handful of local officials actually met with an interested developer to discuss the land sale.
Sweeney insisted that no such discussion had taken place and that to date, the Selectmen have only informally pitched the idea as a potential way to bolster local revenues.
"One of the comments that was made was that a couple of Selectmen actually met with a developer. Nothing could be further from the truth," said Sweeney. "It didn't go any further than what was just said. No developers are involved in the project and no Selectmen are having meetings to proceed with that."
Currently, the East School is one of several old educational facilities in town that the School Committee leases to generate revenue.
The money, which can only be allocated to offset maintenance expenses, goes directly into the school system's budget, instead of through the general fund where it could be shared between both sectors of government.
Last week, several School Committee members insisted that it was not privy to the initial discussions on the town level about future of the East School property.
According to School Committee member Shelly MacNeil, who lives in the neighborhood abutting the facility, she had serious reservations about developing the parcel, as any residential uses cause a redistricting of the area.
"At some point, we will have to discuss that property and the North School property...but it should be a more inclusive process," said MacNeil, who also worried about the loss of open-space in the area.
If the town were to pursue the development option, the School Committee would have to endorse the measure. In particular, the school board would have to declare that the property was no longer needed to carry out the district's educational mission.
The land would then revert to the town's control, but the Selectmen would need to seek Town Meeting approval in order to sell the site to a private developer.
Any development deal would also likely require the support of the state Legislature, if the field areas are officially designated as parkland or open-space.
If Beacon Hill approval is necessary, Stoneham would need to replicate any such parkland by slating another area as open space in order to adhere to Article 97 of the State Constitution.
Last week, Rotondi asked that a meeting be scheduled with the School Committee in order to further evaluate whether the East School should be sold and subdivided.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!