Medford High School building committee hits snag with DCR deed restriction
A state deed restriction from 1967 has caused a snag in the plans for a new Medford High School building. Officials are currently trying to find options to keep the project moving forward.
Medford High School building project officials are working quickly to find a solution to a 999-year deed restriction that just came to light.
Medford High School Building Committee Chair Jenny Graham said the document was discovered last week when project managers and committee members were talking with the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) regarding various aspects of the project.
“They were the ones who brought it to our attention,” Graham said. “We did not previously know it existed.”
Graham said the document was a definite surprise.
“That was not on my Bingo card, for sure,” she said. “We are working with our team to figure out how we did not know about that sooner.”
Graham said the project team is now working to see what the deed means and how it will affect the project.
“We really don’t know yet,” she said. “For perspective, the deed restriction on the site overlays three of the six designs. The code upgrades are fine and option A is just upgrades and we don’t want to pay for that.”
What’s in the restriction?
The five-page deed restriction was recorded with the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds on May 18, 1967, a day after it was signed, as an agreement between the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) and the City of Medford for 13 acres of land spread over two parcels.
The MDC is the predecessor to the DCR.
The deed names the two parcels as Parcel 3 and Parcel 5 and says that the Grantee (the City of Medford) “agrees to relocate the bridle path presently located on Parcel 5…to a location satisfactory to the Grantor.”
The deed also subjects the land to the following restrictions “for the benefit of the remaining land of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts abutting the land herein conveyed” for a period of 999 years from May 18, 1967, onward.
The first restriction is that the land be “used only for recreation and athletic purposes except that portion set aside for an access road.” The deed goes on to say that if the land “shall cease to be used for recreation and athletic purposes, it shall revert to the Grantor” (the state) or any other authority that has control of the land.
The second restriction says that “no buildings or structures, or parts thereof, shall be erected, placed or maintained on said land.”
While that seems pretty straightforward, the issue stems from Parcel 3, which is roughly where Edgerly Field and the high school’s practice fields are.
What’s it affect?
Graham said three of the six designs currently being floated for a new high school would overlay the deed restriction. The other three have problems of their own.
For example, B1.2 is an option that doesn’t overlay the restriction because it reuses the existing building. However, it’s also the only one that requires between 56 and 59 modular classrooms.
And because the two-story classrooms are ADA accessible, Graham said, they have elevators. Medford would have to pay all the costs for the modular classrooms, which is quite expensive.
Option D1.2 also doesn’t hit the overlay. But the building would be constructed on the current parking lot, and it’s also the most expensive option on the table, Graham said.
“We lose a lot with that option,” Graham said. “We lose the extra gym space, and it would also require a new pool via a separate debt exclusion.”
Graham said both options C2.2 and C3.2 have some overlay, while D2.1 would be a new building squarely built on the current Edgerly Field site.
“It’s significant overlay,” Graham said. “If we go with that, we lose the gym and the pool space.”
She added the C options allow for the renovation and preservation of the gym and pool, and they’re options the committee wants to keep on the table.
What’s next?
Graham said she believes there are a series of options to explore, but as quickly as possible because everyone is sensitive to the timeline the project is on. Especially since June 10 is the date set for the selection of a final design, and that’s less than a month away.
One of those options could be a land swap with the DCR, where the city and state exchange land for land, Graham said, or even some other alternative.
“They could agree to just lift the restriction because this is another public good,” Graham said. “This is more common that people think. Another option could be a tradeoff similar to the restriction that’s on the site. It’s a matter of the right people talking and agreeing to what the possibilities are.”
She also said that while it’s no one’s first choice, the building committee can agree to delay its June 10 decision and still be within the time-frame set with the Massachusetts State Building Authority.
Graham said the building committee is hoping to have an update to share with the community by its May 20 meeting.
Meanwhile, Graham said, the committee did address the restriction issue on May 11 during its fourth community forum. She said it was important the public be aware of what’s going on with the project.
Graham encouraged residents to pick up the phone and call her or email the project team if they have questions about the project, not just rely on rumors or social media.
“It’s fair and reasonable that people are invested in this project,” Graham said. “This is the biggest project in Medford in 50 years. If you have questions, the project team is the place to get those answers. If we can’t answer a question, we will tell you, or we will find the answer for you.”
