Town Hall, Chenery Meeting Room, 2nd floor Tuesday April 15, 2014 @ 7:00 PM

AGENDA (SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
If necessary the Medfield Board of Selectmen may need to meet in Executive Session (closed session) at the close of the meeting to discuss pending litigation

Appointments
7:00PM Public Hearing-All Alcohol License Application from Pedro Laredo, Antara Peruvian Cuisine, I Green Street

7: 15PM Public hearing-Earth Removal application; Medfield Investment LLC, Robert Borelli (61 Dale Street)

7:30PM Economic Development Committee; discuss Warrant Article pertaining to Lot 3 Ice House Road

7:50PM Attorney Ted Cannon; discuss proposed plan for Willis Building, 5 Janes Avenue

8:05PM Jean Mineo, Medfield Cultural Council; discuss Warrant Article pertaining to Straw Hat Park, North Street

8:15PM Town Planner, Sarah Raposa; discuss 2014 Citizens Institute on Rural Design (CJRD) application to Host Local Design Workshop focused on the MSH Chapel to be redeveloped as Community Arts Space

8:25PM Medfield Energy Committee; Marie Nolan Chainnan; Discuss Warrant Articles/overlay district for solar PV; Stretch Code

ACTION
Schedule meetiug with Town Counsel to discuss his by-law review memorandum

Discuss Council on Aging facility rental policy [NB – I asked that this item be added, and it really should be captioned “Discuss Council on Aging failure to follow town counsel advice”]

Assistant Town Administrator Kristine Trierweiler to discuss letter to Department of Housing and Community Development regarding Statement of Need for Local Preference in Medfield

Other business that may arise

================================
TOWN OF MEDFIELD
EARTH REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION
To: Board of Selectmen
From: Robert Borrelli
I hereby apply for a seven day earth removal permit
OWNER OF PREMISES Medfield Invt’stment, LLC
LOCATION ____ …..:6:.;:l_D:;;a:::l:..:e;…..=.S”‘tr:..:e:.:e:,::t’–_…..;.. ___________ _
TYPE OF PREMISES (single lot, existing residence, subdivision,
etc) SUBDIVISION
ESTIMATED AMOUNT TO BE REMOVED (cubic yds) ___. ..::6′””,.:::.80~O~Cc:::ub:;:.;1.::.:c· ~Y.:::;a=.;rd:!;s~ __
NUMBER OF LOADS _~3″”,0″,9 __ _ QUANTITY PER LOAD—“2~2 _______ _
. TYPE OR TYPES OF EARTH TO BE REMOVED Sand & Gravel
~~~~~~—————
REASON FOR REMOVAL To construct roadway
NAMEOFHAULER _ ~J~&~L~M=u:.:s:,::t=o_C:::o:.:n:.:s=tr:..:u:::c:.:t:.::i:..:on:..:,~I:.::n:..:c.~ ________ _
ADDRESS, _____ ~B~o~x~2~0=.;1,~R~e~ad~v~i~1~1~e~MA~~0:.:2~1~3~7 _____ ~ __ _
TRUCK SIZE TO BE USED Mack Model 116000 REGISTRATION #.. . :.K:.:6.::.;52:::0:.:1c..· ____ _
NAME OF TRUCK DRIVER””‘T””o””n. y.”.” ‘M'”‘u”‘s”‘t.:::.o ________________- —–
LOCATION TO WHICH MATERIAL WILL BE HAULED U”SC,4 8~5. AI/lId 4A. –~~~~~–~~~~-
Note: up to SOO cubic Vds, Fee: $50.00
Over 500 cubic yds, Fee: $100.00, Public Hearing Required –!I!$”,l 0~0,:..,.c!:0~0 __ -,-____ _
NAME OF NEWSPAPER, ____________ _
DATE OF PUBLICATION _____________ _

================================

Straw Hat Park March 25, 2014
Design, Construction, & First Year Maintenance Budget
CONTRIBUTED GOODS AND SERVICES
Design & Engineering (Donated Services)
Norfolk County Engineering – Donated Site Survey, Utility, & Wall Specifications
The Garden Continuum – Donated Design & Construction Oversite
Medfield Department of Public Works
DPW to provide labor and materials to install the following scope of work.
Work specifications will be provided by the design & engineering team.
Tree work – Removal of one double Norway Maple
Site work – Site demolition, grading, & drainage
Utlily work – Electrical trenching & water access
$
$
Foundation work – Preparation of walk base, wall footing, patio foundation, & fountain base
Planting bed creation – Supply & install loam for planting
Accent boulders – Supply & placement
Masonry – Construction of the fieldstone retaining wall
Park Features to be Donated or Purchased through Fund Raising Efforts
Fencing – for noise management & screening – permanent installation
Bike Rack – set at back near parking lot – permanent installation
Granite Globe Water Feature & Mechanicals – permanent installation
Chess Table & Chairs – permanent installation
Movable Table & Chairs – 1 set
Movable Benches – 2 units
Trash Cans – 2 or 3 units
Signage – 1 or 2 signs
PROJECTED TOWN INVESTMENT
Scope of work to outsourse to Professional Contractors
$
$
Patio construction – Installation of interlocking concrete pavers – per ICPI construction standards
Concrete – Installation of ADA compliant walkway through the park
Safety railings – If needed at retaining wall
Electrical wiring & fixtures – per final design, licensed electrician to install line voltage system
Low Voltage Lighting – per design, LVL specialist to install low voltage system
Plantings – per design, certified landscape professional to supply install plants per plan
7,500
57,000
12,750
80,000

====================================

Mar 28,201410:06 pml7l
Subject: RE: Follow Up: Pocket Park
Good morning, Jean,
Barbara asked me a couple of days ago to provide some additional information to you on the town’s budget status and how that might influence the decisions your committee is making in regard to submitting a plan and funding request for the Pocket Park. I was on the road for the past couple of days and didn’t have much of a chance to respond before today.

Following up on our conversation last Tuesday night, I would emphasize the point I made then that I think your committee will want to come to the town with a plan that is defined before you request funding. You want to let people see what it is that you’re planning to do with the money you’re requesting. This doesn’t have to be a “specification level” detailed plan, or something you would use in establishing a contract with someone, but it should be something that lets people see what they can expect when the park is developed. If you have tentative plans for the “programming” aspects of the park that Greg Sullivan brought up on Tuesday, so much the better. I just don’t think you’re going to have a lot of luck going to the town asking them to provide your committee with funding before you can tell them what you have in mind for how you’ll use it. My view on this is independent of whether or not the Warrant Committee recommends approval of the funding request. So, I think the number one factor in your committee’s consideration of the timing of your funding request should be this issue, even more than the issue of affordability.

Having said that, I think that right now, the issue of affordability is a critical one for this upcoming fiscal year. In your earlier email to Barbara, you asked if we could provide some insight into exactly what is driving the austerity pressures this year. You also asked if we could project if and how the situation next year might be different. I think your point behind those questions may have been anchored to an internal question for your committee about why you all should have confidence that a delay accepted this year won’t turn into a further delay next year for the same or similar “budget pressure” reasons. I think that’s a reasonable question for your committee to have on its mind. While I can’t give you any firm assurances of what the financial picture will look like next year, let me at least share what I know (or what I at least think I know).

1. What has caused the budget pressures to be so great this year that the Warrant Committee suggested this request be delayed until next year? – The FY15 town budget this year is shouldering a number of new or increased financial burdens.  On the recurring annual expense side, budgets in the insurance category have gone up 10.6%. Town debt and principal expenses have gone up 8.8%. For the past couple of years we have been experiencing favorable increases in these categories that made it easier to support growth in other town budgets. That is definitely not the case this year – the chickens have come home to roost in this area. D DOn the non-recurring expense side, the biggest funding allocation we are trying to absorb in the FY15 operating budget is an $850,000  expenditure to fund the design work that needs to be done on the Public Safety Building. This is being partly funded out of the tax levy, with both the Stabilization Fund and Free Cash contributing to make up the balance, but that is still money that we can’t apply to anything else. Beyond that particularly large expense, the town also approved $150,000 to cover the first six months of maintenance  and security for the State Hospital property purchase on the assumption that we will close on the purchase of that property from the state by the end of this calendar year. Those two expenditures alone represent $1 M in expenses that we don’t normally have to deal with through our operating budget. Taking all budgets, as currently submitted, into account, the Warrant Committee is currently faced with the task of figuring out how to cut over a half million dollars from the town’s budgets in order to avoid putting a Prop 2 % operating override up for a vote Given the number of debt overrides the town has already pursued this year, and the additional overrides the town is likely to pursue in the next couple of years, an operating override just isn’t in the cards this year in the opinion of the Warrant Committee.

2. How do we know that next year’s situation will be better? – The short answer to this question is that we don’t. If the purchase of the State Hospital property is completed by the end of this calendar year (which will require relatively swift action by the state between now and the end of July), we will pick up a full year’s worth of maintenance and security expenses for the State Hospital property during FY16. Based on the article that was approved at the special town meeting in March, our estimate for a half year of these expenses in FY15 was $150,000.  That would suggest that a full year’s expenses would be on the order of $300,000. Added to that is the $310,000 annual payment due the state for the purchase of the property and we’re looking at a $610,000 expense, half of which will be counted toward the town’s operating expenses (the $310,000 payment to the state is actually a debt override, so it doesn’t impact the Prop 2 % tax levy limit, but it does represent a real expense to the taxpayer). Beyond that, we expect that there will be an article requesting approval of approximately $19 million in funding to construct the new Public Safety Building. This would be a pretty big addition to the town’s debt level, but the impact of this new debt will be softened somewhat by the retirement of debt for the Town House and Library in FY16. Also on the positive side, the $850,000 expense we incurred in the FY15 budget for the design of the Public Safety Building was a one-time expense. This potentially frees up that amount of money for application to other budgets or warrant articles in FY16. A further positive factor may be the introduction of a local meals tax that has the potential of generating $ 70K – $ 80K in additional tax revenues for the town. Because that money is coming from commercial activities in Medfield, it might be easier to make the case that revenues from this source of town income should at least partially be directed toward initiatives that are likely to enhance the commercial attractiveness of the town. I suspect that the Pocket Park would meet the criteria for that type of “business friendly” improvement. The bottom line for me is that the combination of these factors suggests that the budget environment for FY16 will be a bit more flexible than it is for FY15. 0 0 Beyond the numbers, I think you have another factor that will potentially work in your favor. It is my understanding that the Selectmen are supportive of what you are trying to do with the Pocket Park. If they are willing to go on record endorsing the concept for the development of the park, along with its projected cost, I think you will be in a favorable position to get the funding that you request approved. The Warrant Committee’s role in all of this is to advise the town on the affordabi/ity of the proposed expenditure, not the advisability of the expenditure – that’s the Selectmen’s job. If the Selectmen want it, and the Warrant Committee feels that the town can afford it, then I think your chances of getting funded in FY16 are good.

I would be happy to talk further with you on any of this if you think it would be helpful. As I mentioned at the Warrant Committee meeting last Tuesday night, we think your committee, along with the Cultural District Committee, has been doing a lot of good things for the town. The roadblock for FY15 has been fundamentally due to affordability concerns, not concerns about the directions that you are trying to take with your efforts.

I hope this is helpful!

Gus Murby
Chairman, Medfield Warrant Committee
==================================

Pocket Park Committee Summary
April 9, 2014

Background
The Straw Hat Park Committee has met 6 times between jan. 13 and March 31, 2014 and reviewed public input, established the mission statement and priorities for park elements, applied for free engineering services, and developed a detailed and realistic budget after meeting with DPW and discussing fund raising initiatives. The
budget request for Town Meeting is $80,000.

Warrant Committee
The Park Committee met with the Warrant Committee (WC) on March 25. Given the current budget considerations, the WC did not express support for this initiative at 2014 Town Meeting. Gus Murby provided a detailed explanation of budget considerations for this year and next. The Warrant Committee also recommended implementation of programming, development of a conceptual design, and endorsement from Selectmen.

Next Steps
The Park Committee meets with Selectmen on April 15. Given that the committee is tasked with design of the park, Selectmen are asked for input on programming and strategy for Town Meeting to either

o Keep warrant article as is

o Reduce warrant article and meet with WC again

o Withdraw the warrant article until next year

Submitted by Jean Mineo on behalf of the Park Steering Committee:
1. Monique Allen, Garden Continuum
2. MintaHissong, Community Rep.
3. Bobby Kennedy, DPW
4. Tim Larkin, Business Rep,
5. Matt McCormick, Downtown Study Comm,
6. jean Mineo, Cultural District
7. Sarah Raposa, Planning
8. jim Snyder, Park & Rec

================================

MEMORANDUM
TO: Medfield Board of Selectmen
FROM: Mark G. Cerel, Town Counsel
RE: Review and Amendment of Town Bylaws and Regulations in Anticipation of New Development, including Former State Hospital Site

DATE: April 3, 2014

You have asked me to ”take the lead” in reviewing existing Town bylaws and regulations and proposing revisions and/or additions in anticipation of new development, including the former Medfield State Hospital site. As you know, I have discussed this project with you at several recent Board of Selectmen meetings. During those discussions, I pointed out that while I can provide legal guidance, the decisions as to the subject-matter and contents of local bylaws and regulations are largely ones of policy which need to me made by the Town’s residents and/or their elected and appointed representatives.

The areas for regulation include land use (development) and “quality of life”. Land use includes both zoning bylaws and general bylaws ( conservation, stormwater management); examples of “quality of life” include anti-noise, littering, and property maintenance bylaws. The land use regulation is more effectively enforced because compliance can generally be a condition to issuance of a building permit; on the other hand, enforcement of “quality of life” regulation is generally limited to monetary fines with a statutory maximum of $300 per violation.

In addition to the Town’s ability to enact bylaws and regulations, the local Board of Health has broad statutory authority to take action to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. This includes both the ability to enact regulations and to take specific actions. Regulations are enforceable by statutory-authorized fines up to $1,000 per violation; specific action includes statutory .oversight over siting of certain activities (noisome trades) and authority to abate “public nuisance”.

With this background, I have recommended a workshop and/or working group of the Town’s professional staff and/or representatives from Town’s elected and appointed boards and committees (Board of Selectmen, Planning Board, Conservation Commission, Board of Health, Water and Sewage).

Memorandum to Board of Selectmen
April 3, 2014
Page 2
I have already met with the Planning Board; our discussion focused on the land use regulation within their jurisdiction and included:
• Special permit criteria
• Site plan approval process and criteria
• Transfer of “special permit granting authority” from ZBA to Planning Board for development-related special permits
• “Over 55” or “Adult Retirement” housing development
• “Mixed use” development

Based upon the preceding, I am requesting to meet with the Board of Selectmen at your earliest convenience to determine the most effective way to move the process forward.
MGC:ce

====================================

TOWN OF MEDFIELD
(508) 359-8505
(508) 359- 6182 Fax
April 15, 2014
TOWN HOUSE, 459 MAIN STREET
MEDFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 02052-2009
Department of Housing and Community Development
Division of Housing Development
100 Cambridge Street, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02114

RE: Statement of Need for Local Preference in Medfield

The purpose of this letter is to demonstrate the need for a local preference in the selection of
residents for The Parc at Medfield. Medfield’s strong schools, small town character,
conservation lands, and historic resources, combined with its close proximity to Boston, make it
a desirable suburb for families. This desirability is evident in the town’s high property values.
Most households in town are homeowners, and large, detached-single family homes are the
predominant housing stock in town. Very little multifamily housing is available, with almost
none built in the past 15 years. In addition, the rental housing units that are available are
typically quite small.

As evidenced by the comprehensive permit issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals in December
2012, the affordable housing proposed for The Parc at Medfield is consistent with local needs
within the meaning ofG.L. c. 40B, § 20, and Section 56.02 ofDHCD’s Chapter 40B regulations
(760 CMR 56.02). The Parc at Medfield’s proposal is for 92 units of family-style rental units,
which serves to fulfill the needs of current Medfield residents, employees of the Town of
Medfield, employees of local businesses, and households with children attending local schools.
As indicated in the comprehensive permit, Medfield has determined that a local preference is
appropriate for households in these categories. As support for this determination, we provide the
following evidence:

Very Low Percentage of Affordable Housing in Medfield

According to the Department of Housing and Community Development’s Subsidized Housing
Inventory dated as of April 30, 2013, Medfield’s eligible affordable housing represents only
4.6% of its total housing stock (well below the 10% threshold established under M.G.L. Chapter
40B).

Long Waiting List for Pnblic Housing Units in Medfield

Tilden Village is a 60-unit development for seniors and disabled persons managed by the
Medfield Housing Authority. It is the only public housing available in Medfield. The waiting
list for these units typically varies from 20-25 applicants (there are currently 18 on the list), and
there are relatively few turnovers per year (typically only about 9 or 10). The 60 Housing
Authority units are only available to seniors (except for a few units rented to non-elderly
individuals with a disability or handicap). Moreover, the Housing Authority units are primarily
one-bedroom apartments, with a small number of two-bedroom units. As a result, the Housing
Authority units are not intended to serve as a viable housing option for the workforce or families.
The Parc differs from Tilden Village in that it is not age restricted and 68 of the 92 units are twobedroom
or three-bedroom units.

Limited Choice of Housing Options for Medfield Residents

Medfield’s housing stock is relatively homogenous, consisting primarily of aging single family
homes, and there is a need for more diverse housing options in town suitable for households of
all ages, sizes, and incomes. Medfield has very few available rental units, and most of those
units are aging and very small.

);> Wilkins Glen is the only existing multifamily property in Medfield that provides a rental
housing option comparable to The Parc, in that it may enable seniors, younger adults, and
extended family households to establish and maintain long-term residence in the
community. Wilkins Glen is a 103 unit, one, two, three, and a few four bedroom
apartment community located near downtown Medfield. There are currently
approximately 200 people on the on the waitlist with only approximately 6 turnovers per
year. The Parc supplements the supply at Wilkins Glen by offering 20 three-bedroom
units that create a rental option for larger families. The Parc is also new construction
featuring modern amenities and efficient “green building” design.

);> While Tilden Village provides a rental housing option, it is limited to seniors (and a few
non-elderly individuals with a disability or handicap), provides only a limited number of
two-bedroom units and does not have any three-bedroom units. Like Wilkins Glen, it is
also an older property that does not feature the efficient modern design and amenities of
The Parco

);> According to the u.s. Census Bureau’s 2010 Census, only about one out of five homes in
Medfield (20.71 %) is a rental home.

);> The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
(the “ACS”) estimates that only about one out of twenty Medfield residents (5.64%) lives
in rental homes.

> Medfield’s housing stock is aging (the median age that housing units were built is 1969).
The proposed development offers a new construction alternative for those residents who
prefer to live in a new construction community featuring an energy-efficient modem
design to save on household utility costs, and offering modem amenities such as a
business center and fitness center.

> The ACS estimates that more than three-quarters (77.81 %) of Medfield’s housing units
were built prior to 1990.

> As a professionally-managed apartment home community, the proposed development
offers a much-needed rental housing choice for those Medfield residents and local
employees who would simply prefer the convenience ofliving in a well-maintained rental
community to the responsibility of maintaining their own homes.

Limited Availability of Rental Housing for Medfield Families

There is a need for affordable rental units suitable for families, including single parents.
Medfield has a large population offamilies and large family sizes.

> Conversations with social service providers in the region suggests that there is a need for
rental housing for all types of households, including young adult households, single
parents, traditional families, seniors, and single individuals.

> Most Medfield families are homeowners as there are few rental options for families in
Medfield. There is a need for a rental housing option for those Medfield families who
would prefer to rent in Medfield but do not have that option available to them.

> The ACS estimates that renters occupy only about one out of ten occupied housing units
in Medfield (10.53%). Perhaps even more striking, the ACS estimates that only about
one out of twenty Medfield residents (5.64%) lives in a rental home, indicating that the
few homes that are occupied by renters are not occupied by families.

> The Medfield Housing Authority receives 1-2 calls every day from families in the region
looking for rental housing.

> Medfield’s existing rental units are very small-the median number of rooms is
only 3.4-which suggests a need for larger units suitable for families.

> 9.7 percent of Medfield households are categorized as “other families,” which include
single parents

> Of all the family types in Medfield, single fathers have the lowest median family income,
followed by single mothers.

)- The small size of Medfield’s existing rental units suggests that there may be a lack of
rental housing in town suitable for families, while the drastically different sizes of the
owner- and renter-occupied units reinforces the divide between Medfield’s renters and
owners.

Limited Availability of Rental Housing for Young Adults. Town Employees and Employees of Local Businesses

Single family homes in Medfield are very expensive. Demand for the existing rental properties
in town is high, suggesting a surplus demand for rentals in town. In addition, many of the
available rental units are in older single family homes. There is a need for more affordable
opportunities, especially a multifamily option, for younger adults, people who work in town, and
lower income households.

)- Conversations with social service providers in the region suggests that there is a need for
rental housing for all types of households, including young adult households, single
parents, traditional families, seniors, and single individuals.

)- Medfield has a very small renter population and only 375 rental units, or 9.5 percent of
the town’s housing stock.!

)- The renter population is mostly non-families (including singles living alone and nonrelated
individuals living together). However, approlj:imately 114 families in Medfield
live in rental housing and interviews with stakeholders suggest that there is a need for
more affordable rental housing for families.

)- The ACS estimates that the median price for a single-family home in Medfield is
$574,700. The median listing price for Medfield homes for January of2014 (obtained
from Redfin.com) was $800,000.

)- The ACS estimates that the median income for non-family households in Medfield
(including singles living alone and non-related individuals living together) is only
$42,054. Moreover, close to half of Medfield’s non-family households (42.70%) have
earned less than $35,000 in the last 12 months.

)- According to the Massachusetts Department of Labor and Workforce Development
(DLWD), in 2010 Medfield had 368 employers (public and private) that employed 2,779
people, primarily in service related jobs. The average weekly wage was $802, lower than
the metropolitan and state levels.
1 ACS estimates 424 renter occupied units, 145 renter occupied units occupied by family households.

Limited Availability of Rental Housing For Medfield Seniors

Medfield’s homes are large, and there are few options for seniors and empty-nesters to downsize
and remain in the community. Smaller single family homes or condominiums would allow
residents an opportunity to stay in Medfield as they age. Medfield households headed by seniors
have significantly lower incomes, only $48,646. Given the high cost of housing and limited
affordable options in Medfield it is often difficult for older residents on limited incomes to
remain in the community, and affordable housing options for seniors is an important housing
need in town. This need was corroborated during interviews with stakeholders and service
providers, who also noted that there are few options in town for empty nesters and seniors
looking to downsize.

The Medfield’s Council on Aging Director noted that many older Medfield residents have
moved to a development in Norfolk, dubbed “Little Medfield” by residents, that has smaller onestory
homes

Medfield Residents Need Relief From High Housing Cost Burdens

Housing costs in Medfield are relatively high, which translates into housing costs burdens for
many Medfield residents:

>- The ACS estimates that well over half of the households in Medfield (61.24%), whether
owners or renters, bear monthly housing costs of $2,000 or more. This represents a fairly
sharp increase in the percentage of homes carrying monthly housing costs in excess of
$2,000 in recent years. (The 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
had estimated that 50.73% of occupied housing units in Medfield carried housing costs in
excess of $2,000.)

>- The ACS estimates that over a third of Medfield homeowners with a mortgage (35.08%,)
are burdened with monthly housing costs of 30% or more of household income, and that
well over a quarter of them (25.24%) are burdened with monthly housing costs of35% or
more of household income.

>- The ACS estimates that over half of Medfield renter-households (53.25%) are burdened
with gross rent of 30% or more of household income and that nearly four out of every ten
renter-households in Medfield (39.48%) are burdened with gross rent of35% or more of
household income.

In summary, The Parc at Medfield will help alleviate the shortage of affordable homes in
Medfield. As demonstrated by the evidence cited above, there is considerable need for a local
preference for this affordable housing. Medfield residents, Town employees, employees of local
businesses and households with children attending local schools face a shortage of available
affordable housing, limited choice in housing options, and in some cases, the need for relief from
high housing cost burdens.

It is important to note that while the evidence listed above that demonstrates the need for a local
preference, the implementation of the local preference will not have a disparate impact on
protected classes.

Sincerely,
Board of Selectmen