DEERFIELD — With $3.8 million in Community Preservation Act money approved, the 1888 Building rehabilitation project can move forward.

While the big-ticket project was approved with no discussion, it was a housekeeping article regarding the St. James Church parcel that drew the most discussion during a two-hour special Town Meeting that brought out 363 residents to pack the Frontier Regional School auditorium on Monday.

With the funding in hand, the 1888 Building project will bring all municipal offices under the two roofs of the building and its addition, and will include a meeting room with a 49-person capacity. Rehabilitation work on the historic portion of the building includes brick repointing, ivy removal, repair of gutters and the removal of all exterior structures that were added over the years.

Inside, there will be a full renovation, as all contaminants will be abated, mechanical systems modernized and the building made accessible.

The $3.8 million in CPA funding will supplement a $4 million congressional earmark from U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern that will be used to construct the addition on the west side of the building.

St. James Church

Article 6 requested residents give the Select Board the authority to “convey, sell or otherwise dispose” of the St. James Church property on North Main Street, as the town plans to issue a request for proposals to solicit ideas from private, and likely nonprofit, developers who want to build subsidized senior housing.

“This article is not a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote on senior housing; this article is a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote on who is going to pay for it,” said Lili Dwight, chair of the ad hoc Senior Housing Committee. “A ‘no’ vote means the town is left holding the bag because the property was purchased specifically with CPA funds designated only for subsidized senior housing.”

The church was bought using $420,000 in CPA money, appropriated at the 2023 annual Town Meeting. The purchase was then completed at a special Town Meeting in October.

The process for developing this parcel would likely mimic what Sunderland did to bring about Sanderson Place, which was done by Rural Development Inc., a nonprofit developer under the umbrella of the Franklin County Regional Housing and Redevelopment Authority.

Over the course of an hourlong discussion, several residents said they were by no means against senior housing in Deerfield, but felt there were too many unanswered questions about the process.

Jason Clark, a direct abutter to the church, said he was concerned about the Bloody Brook and its wetlands, which could hinder any sort of development.

Dwight said impervious surface covers approximately 34% of the parcel, which means development can continue to be built on that portion, as it already exists.

Clark added that it seemed the town was just charging ahead on the project and he didn’t want to see years of work washed away by wetlands issues— as was the case with a proposed Dollar General — or by not doing due diligence, which resulted in a lawsuit preventing construction of a proposed North Main Street park.

“We don’t have a plan on this property. We’re going down this road a third time,” Clark said. “This isn’t about shooting down senior housing, this is about going about it properly so we don’t end up in the same mess.”

Several residents also cited senior housing proposals that were shared at an open house in March, but Select Board member Trevor McDaniel emphasized that open house was about “spitballing ideas” for a project that would extend across several town-owned parcels, while the matter at hand was only about the St. James Church.

Ideas, he said, would be brought forward by developers during the RFP period.

“We’re way early in the process. We have zero proposals,” McDaniel said. “There’s absolutely no plan at all on the table; [developers] would need to come up with a plan. … We could go out to bid or have proposals and nobody bids on it.

“All those questions that you have get fleshed out in the process. All this does is say we’re taking a property that we purchased for senior housing and allow developers to come in and make proposals.”

An amendment to the motion was made that would have required another Town Meeting vote to approve a proposal resulting from the RFP process, but residents shot it down. Ultimately, the original motion came to a vote and was approved by the required two-thirds majority.

Other articles

Other measures voted on included Articles 1, 3 and 8, which were passed over. Articles 2, 4 and 7 were all approved, as they requested transferring rebate money for Deerfield Elementary School, transferring $300,000 in free cash to the General Stabilization Fund and protecting a parcel on Pine Nook Road, respectively.

Article 9, a citizens petition requesting the town begin taking steps to buy electronic voting tabulators, was ultimately shot down, as residents said this went against the spirit of New England town meetings and could cause more confusion among voters.

The petition was modeled after Conway’s purchase in 2021 and petitioners said it would allow folks to vote without fear of being judged, while also making the voting process more efficient, according to resident Paul Olszewski, who spoke in support of the proposal.

“I have the honor of going to all your Town Meetings over the last seven years … so I really know Town Meetings well. … I’ve been in Conway and I’m gonna say, I’ve witnessed it — it’s a disaster,” said Frontier Regional and Union 38 Superintendent Darius Modestow, who attends all four communities’ meetings. “You can improve counting in this room. Other towns swear in counters, two per each section. They count together, they confer they got the right number. That’s accurate counting.”

Chris Larabee can be reached at clarabee@recorder.com.