LONGMEADOW — Members of the Middle School Building Committee hosted a meeting for the abutters of Williams Middle School on Aug. 15. The property at 410 Williams St. has been selected by the committee as the preferred location for the town’s future combined middle school. About 40 people attended the meeting, nearly all of whom were opposed to the project being built at the site.
School Superintendent M. Martin O’Shea began by running down some of the benefits of a new, combined middle school.
“It offers us an opportunity to expand economic offerings,” and “for teachers to have collaborative opportunities,” O’Shea said. “Having staffing and scheduling flexibility” is good for students “academically and socially.
Longmeadow began working toward a solution to their aging middle schools in 2007, however, the need for a new high school took precedence. In 2015, the school department once again began efforts to enter into an agreement with the Massachusetts School Building Authority to address either Williams or Glenbrook Middle School. That agreement did not come to fruition until 2023. Dorrie Brooks of Jones Whitsett Architects said that of the nearly 1,800 schools in the state, only about 12 are chosen for funding by the MSBA each year.
Brooks noted that if the project funding is voted down in November 2025, Longmeadow would need to reapply to the MSBA. When resident Bill DeGiulio disputed this, Colliers International Project Manager Adam Dalessio explained that if the vote were close, the MSBA can give the town a chance to tweak sticking points and revote. If there were an overwhelming vote against the project, however, it would be a death knell for the middle school. Brooks added that the schematic design could be adjusted, but the town would not be allowed to start from scratch with a new site, without exiting the MSBA process.
Some of the abutters said they had not heard that a new school was going to be built or that it would be built at the Williams site. One person asked when abutters were first notified and said, “this was pretty much done on the down low.” O’Shea explained that the topic had been discussed at multiple School Committee and Select Board meetings. When people retorted that they did not attend the meetings, School Committee Chair Nicole Choiniere said residents had voted to fund the feasibility study at a special town meeting in 2022.
Several abutters asked O’Shea if the site decision was final. “The Williams site has been identified by the school building committee as the most advantageous site,” the superintendent said. Not satisfied with that answer, the neighbors asked if the decision could be changed. O’Shea said, “Not really.”
One resident responded, “Do you think it’s fair to all the neighbors around to not be told about that decision?”
O’Shea responded, “I think we’ve been very transparent,” and noted the Middle School Building Committee meetings are open to the public, aired on LCTV and posted to the town’s YouTube page. Despite this, many in the crowd muttered in disagreement and one person was heard calling out, “Lies. Lies. Lies.”
Abutters questioned how the Middle School Building Committee had been selected. Choiniere explained that the MSBA requires the School Committee and the Select Board to each select two community members to serve on the building committee. There are also representatives from both bodies and additional stakeholders. The voting members of the middle school building committee are O’Shea; community representatives Armand Wray, who serves as chair, Carissa Rosenblum, Christopher Legiadre and David McGrane; School Committee representatives Nicole Choiniere and Julie Morgan; Select Board member Josh Levine and Town Manager Lyn Simmons. Other town and school department employees serve in advisory roles.
One resident asked if the Middle School Building Committee would be willing to add two abutters to the committee to give input into the design, but Choiniere repeated that the roles on the committee are determined by the MSBA. That said, Brooks added that it is “not uncommon” for working groups to be created to advise the committee of different aspects of the project. The composition of working groups was not limited.
Brooks said that while the site has been chosen by the Middle School Building Committee, the school had yet to be designed. O’Shea pointed out that the preliminary proposal for the school has a footprint that is a maximum of 12,000 feet larger than the existing Williams Middle School. Brooks said the preliminary plan allows for sunlight in classrooms without the use of a central “courtyard,” which would save space.
Choiniere sought to find common ground, saying, “Ultimately, the reason we’re here is because the schools are very important to us.”
A resident said, “The kids need a new school, we understand that,” but added that the location was the issue.
Site
“We encourage districts to look at if there are other sites,” Brooks said, explaining that the committee had undergone this process in April. The water levels, wetlands and other topographical issues at the Glenbrook site would require the school be demolished and a new one built in the same location as the existing school. While an abutter suggested the school could be built in sections, Choiniere said the cost of the necessary modular classrooms would be more than $2 million.
The main reason Russell Field was eliminated as an option is the traffic congestion an additional school would cause in a neighborhood that already houses the high school and Blueberry Hill Elementary School. Additionally, Russell Field was found to have limited room for parking, outdoor recreation and future expansion. The rubric used to rate the sites at Williams, Glenbrook and Russell Field is available at tinyurl.com/yc4a94sf.
Brooks said that the Turner Field site contains wetlands and that there are questions about the deed to the property. She acknowledged that the building committee did not spend much time considering the water tower as a possible location. She noted that MSBA would not reimburse the town for site preparation at Russell Field, Turner Field or the water tower because they are undeveloped. Neither would it cover the demolition of current middle school buildings. By choosing to locate the new school on the campus of an existing middle school, site preparation and demolition on that campus are reimbursable.
Traffic
The most prominent objections abutters voiced were concerns about traffic and pedestrian safety. “There are already traffic issues without the students that there will be,” a resident said. Williams has 311 students, while Glenbrook has an enrollment of 332.
DeGiulio read from the town’s zoning bylaws regarding traffic safety and site plans and said the Middle School Building Committee was “ignoring” them. He pointed to projected traffic issues at nearby intersections.
Brooks explained that engineering consultant Tighe & Bond had performed a preliminary traffic feasibility study assuming Woolworth Street would be closed to traffic entering the school. Brooks explained that when the high school was designed, abutters wanted an adjoining road closed off and the team assumed the neighbors around Williams would feel the same way. Instead, neighbors had indicated they would prefer Woolworth Street to remain a throughway for school traffic. This would allow for improvements to traffic circulation, Brooks said. Instead of a maximum of 59 cars being able to queue, as it is currently, she said 100 cars would be able to queue. Additionally, buses and passenger vehicles would use different traffic lanes and there would be dedicated left and right turn lanes. She said a portion of the street work would be reimbursable. The traffic study would be completed again during the schematic design phase.
An abutter with experience as a traffic engineer took issue with the number of passenger vehicles estimated to drop off and pick up at the school. He said “common sense” dictated that there would be 50-100 additional vehicles based on the number of parents who drive their children to Glenbrook Middle School.
George Dole of Jones Whitsett Architects explained that Williams is within 100 yards of Glenbrook’s “catchment zone,” meaning Williams is close to the line that determines which students attend each school. Because of this, a portion of the students that are driven to Glenbrook will be close enough to walk to Williams. Further, Choiniere and O’Shea said incentives for students to walk and bike to school are being considered.
Dole added that the existing Williams Middle School is set too far off the road to make that section of Williams Street a school zone. By moving the building closer to the street, the area will become a school zone and require reduced speeds.
One abutter spoke in favor of the school, admitting it was an unpopular opinion among the neighbors in the room. He recalled that in 2003, there were 467 students at Williams. “No one complained then,” he said.
Mike Kallock, the leader of the newly formed ad hoc group, Educational Advocates for Responsible Spending, disputed the financial feasibility of the site and asserted that the new school would lower property values. “This is not a proposal that goes down easily with some residents,” he said. Another person agreed that their property value would drop. Brooks asked why he believed that, and he responded, “You’re talking about a two-story behemoth.”
Brooks said a bioswale and buffer on one side of the site would be protected and a buffer would be added to the opposite site of the property.
Dalessio commented that he is a Longmeadow resident abutting the site with two children attending Williams. He said the project would also affect him and if there were any issues during construction, he would be there to address them.
When asked if the vote to submit the schematic plan, scheduled for Aug. 27, could be delayed, O’Shea said he would check with the MSBA to see what impact that might have. He later explained that delaying the submission vote could push the funding vote passed the November 2025 Town Meeting.
