One of seven options for a potential building site on the Mount Greylock property is shown in red. The existing school is in white. The north-south running Cold Spring Road (Route 7) is at the bottom.

WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The Mount Greylock Regional School Building Committee on Thursday began narrowing down the options of where to build a new school building if it ultimately decides to go that route.

 

Although not close to making a decision on whether to repair, renovate or rebuild the junior-senior high school, the committee needed to give some direction to the architects looking into options for the school.

 

Design Partnership of Cambridge will present the committee with about 10 different options at its May 14 meeting.

 

Less than a month later, the committee will have to decide on which building option to include among a set of four options to relay to the Massachusetts School Building Authority.

 

"At the June 4 meeting, we will pick three items: one new building scenario and two renovation/addition options," Trip Elmore of design firm Dore & Whittier told the committee on Thursday night.

 

Those three concepts, along with an analysis of a "base repair" (i.e., just bringing the building up to current codes) will go to MSBA.

 

And after hearing back from the state authority, the committee will pick a preferred design and send it to Boston by Aug. 6. Assuming final approval by the authority, the district's member towns of Lanesborough and Williamstown will hold up-or-down votes on the building project as soon as spring 2016.

 

On Thursday, Kris Bradner of Providence, R.I.'s, Birchwood Design Group laid out seven scenarios for potential building sites on the district's land.

 

Elmore, representing the owner's project manager hired to advise the Building Committee, recommended that it try to narrow down the building sites so that the architects could devote their time to  the more promising locations.

 

"When we're at June 4, we're going to be picking one new building option only," Elmore said. "That's why whittling [the list of options] away is somewhat helpful."

 

Although none of the options were taken off the table on Thursday, it was clear that three of the options were favored by the majority of the committee members present.

 

Those three received six or seven "aye" votes in an informal straw poll of the nine members at Thursday's meeting. The other four options received favorable votes by either one, two or no members.

 

The least popular alternative was a site directly on Cold Spring Road (Route 7). Bradner advised that it would create maximum visibility for the school, solving a "low profile" problem often expressed about the school's current location. On the other hand, Bradner said the location on the side of the road did have potential drawbacks, like difficulty designing traffic flow for pickup and dropoff lanes.

 

The committee members identified another problem: road noise. None of the committee members raised their hand when asked whether they liked the location.

 

Only slightly more popular were locations in the northeast corner of the property (currently athletic practice fields) or the south end (currently the varsity baseball field). Although each generated a single "yes" vote, the majority of the committee thought the two spots were too remote and necessitate an excess of infrastructure — including blacktop.

 

Two committee members favored a spot just to the south of the current parking lot, roughly where the current JV baseball and varsity softball fields are found. 

 

By far the most popular options were three that more or less surround areas currently developed: on the north side of the main parking lot, the main parking lot itself and the area just west (or at the back) of the current school.

 

But even those sites had issues.

 

Co-Chairwoman Paula Consolini pointed out that using the current parking lot could be "unneighborly" to the district's abutters on Cold Spring Road. Committee member Chris Dodig asked whether the potential for noise pollution during construction might make it more logical to use sites further from the current school.

 

All seven of the "sites" looked at on Thursday are highly preliminary, meant to show what kinds of building "envelopes" on the site might accommodate a new Mount Greylock. Engineering work is in progress to get a better idea which areas of the property would be the best building sites.

 

In other business on Thursday night, the Building Committee adopted a set of goals meant to be guiding principles for the group as it continues in the process of developing a new or better Mount Greylock.

 

The goals approved on Thursday read:

 

"The goal of the Mount Greylock Building project as set forth by the School Building Committee is a well-designed, site-specific project:

 

"1. That supports the educational program; creates collaborative, flexible spaces; and incorporates technology for continuing the educational excellence that is Mount Greylock;

 

"2. That is transparent, collaborative, and comprehensive in order to provide the best project option that will be financially acceptable to the District's member towns;

 

"3. That provides a safe, comfortable, and energy efficient building for the students and staff using appropriate systems, layout, and materials for lighting, heating, ventilation, and security;

 

"4. That is fiscally responsible for the communities: incorporating durable, low-maintenance cost materials, and right-sizing the school;

 

"5. That creates an aesthetically pleasing, energy efficient building through use of systems, materials, and building techniques.

 

"The School Building Committee is committed to provide stewardship for a project that will be an asset for the communities of Lanesborough and Williamstown."