LINCOLNVILLE – The Lincolnville Central School will be demolished to make way for a new K-8 school, residents decided Monday night.

At a special town meeting, an article that gave the town’s school committee the authority to raze the building passed in a 127-84 vote. In an earlier article, residents gave their support by a 3-1 margin to officially close the old school.

The school has been closed since April when mold, fungus and asbestos fibers were found in the air of the building. Pupils are now attending a temporary school built for the town by MBNA New England at the company’s Northport corporate conference center.

Demolishing the school was an emotional issue for many in town. Though support for a new building seems strong, many thought the old school could be saved for another, noneducational use. Had residents defeated the article that gave the school committee the power to raze the school, the next article asked whether residents would spend $10,000 to investigate further uses of the old building.

The school committee’s architects have identified two sites for a new school: on a four-acre parcel in the woods behind the old school, and on the site of the old school.

At the outset of Monday night’s meeting, questions about the merits of the two sites dominated discussion. School committee members favor using the current school site for several reasons: it would not require a long access road; the existing septic system could be used; and the development costs are less, because the other site has ledge and some wetlands.

School officials estimate it will cost between $150,000 and $250,000 to demolish and remove the old school.

Former Selectman Swiss Hardy asked whether a new school built on the site of the old school might become contaminated by the same mold. Will Brown, who served on a school committee investigating the issue, said, “This is not a Stephen King novel. The mold is in the structure,” and would disappear when it is demolished.

Resident Reed Mathews said he originally favored the site behind the old school but changed his mind when he learned that there was more room for expansion at the existing school property.

“All things considered, it’s better to stay right where we are,” he said. “I support tearing the school down and doing it right.”

Selectman Ernie Littlefield, who has argued that the town ought to investigate keeping the school, noted that it is insured for $1 million.

“I personally feel it’s worth much more than that,” he said. “To me, it doesn’t make sense to tear down a building we already have.”

Laura Greeley, who served on the committee studying the old school, said building a new school away from the current school site would cost as much as $400,000 more. Restoring the old school to a shell devoid of contaminants would cost about $350,000, she said.

Paul Sampson, chairman of the building committee, said, “It just comes down to a dollars and cents item. It’s more expensive to build” away from the old school.

Resident Jackie Watts argued that the old school could be used for an expanded town office, for a library, and for programs for teens and senior citizens.

Resident Andy Young, a builder, said only 5 to 10 percent of the school was contaminated, so it does not need to be gutted to be used again.

“To me, it’s an asset sitting up there,” he said.