Lot 3 on Ice House Road


Lot 3 on Ice House Road –

TAX RELIEF –
Everyone likes the idea of reducing property taxes, as they should, but I fear that goal may sell  the opportunities at lot 3 short, just because someone has put one particular opportunity so directly in front of the town.  At the moment it an easy path of least resistance to follow up on what has been put so directly in front of the town, and it also mimics what we already did with the Kingsbury Club.  The Economic Development Committee may well feel a mandate now to issue an RFP for uses of lot 3, but to me that is putting the cart before the horse.

MASTER PLAN –
I think a town wide master plan is essential before the town go off in any particular direction on any one piece of land.  We want to first know how lot 3 fits into the town’s overall needs and plans, before we irrevocably commit to any one use of lot 3.

Historically, the town had a narrow focus when it pursued the development of the Kingsbury Club, responding to that owner’s request to site something on that land, rather than first deciding by planning what would be the town’s best use.  The town even gave the Kingsbury Club more land when Kingsbury Club asked for it, apparently without considering what that extra land did to lot 3.  Now Lot 3 is therefore sized such that the current proposal needs to lease land back from the Kingsbury Club to make the project work.  This is due lot 3 having a combination of the 200′ setbacks from the stream on the west side per the Rivers Act, the wetlands, the 150′ setback from the residential zoned lands, and the detention pond. Mike Sullivan told me that there are really only 2-3 usable acres on lot 3.

The problem the Town of Medfield has historically had with doing a master plan is that the town administration has not much believed in its need.  However, that master planning project is on top of my agenda of things to start on now that the annual town meeting (ATM) is behind us.   I fear that it will get delayed because we did not fund the needed consultants at the ATM to do a town wide master plan.  Perhaps we can start with the master plan for the Medfield State Hospital site, and move town wide in a year’s time.

LOT 3’S SITUATION NOW DIFFERS FROM LOT 2 THEN –
Please consider that Lot 3 is also in a much different posture now that the other two adjoining lots have been built out with the Kingsbury Club and The Center, so it is not the same as when the Kingsbury Club was proposing to locate on what was then an undeveloped, roadless gravel pit.

PROPOSED SPORTS COMPLEX –
LARGE BUILDING – With the current iteration of the sports complex proposal for lot 3, I was first struck by it being 50% bigger than Forekicks.

LOTS OF PARKING – Then I noticed the project had 307 parking spaces (about double the existing spaces at the Kingsbury Club and The Center combined) and that struck me as a lot.  I then assumed that was what was probably sized to provide for each shift of users.

VEHICLE TRIPS – In the past I found the traffic at Forekicks in Norfolk both a mad house and a big deal when I used to take Kristen there (and we were always rushing because I was the coach and like almost everyone else we were cutting it close).  I then realized that each parking space really represents two vehicle trips per hour at the turn over time because there is one trip in for people arriving and one trip out for the people who just finished.  So, for the currently proposed  sports complex there are really 600+ vehicle trips on the hour.  By contrast, the traffic study done for the Kingsbury Club, when it was proposed, expected 1200 trips per day, and at times the Kingsbury Club’s traffic seems busy to me.   600 vehicles at each shift change is a lot of traffic to inflict on any neighborhood, and the town needs to seriously factor that adverse neighborhood effect every hour of the day into its decision.

DIRECT ACCESS TO MAIN ROAD – My other random thought about a sports facility in town, now that I appreciate the large number of vehicle trips better, is that if the town were to endorse that use in town, that such a complex would be best located where it had direct access from a major road, such as Rte 27 or Rte 109.

ALTERNATIVES –
The town needs to do something to make lot 3 productive, or at least decide how it fits in with its master plan (perhaps that decision would be to hold the land in reserve for a future school or  town need).  The decision on what to do with lot 3 will now be made initially by the Economic Development Committee, and then by the Board of Selectmen, as will any decision on whether to hold off on doing anything with lot 3 while a master plan is done.

HOUSING – If an RFP is to be pursued before getting a master plan, perhaps if the RFP is broad enough to include all uses, including housing, then perhaps we could at least get some interesting housing concepts to examine from developers.  The land is zoned industrial, but the town can change the zoning if it likes the housing proposals.

Where Ralph Costello has built the paradigm of housing that generates profits to the Town of Medfield, I would hope that Ralph would be interested in sharing with the Economic Development Committee how replicating his development elsewhere in town could be an engine for property tax relief.  I think Ralph told me that he copyrighted the designs they created, just so that they can build it all again.

When the Board of Selectmen wrote the mandate to the Economic Development Committee, it included housing as part of what should be considered.

I have personally concluded, after years of trying to attract businesses to Medfield and hearing that no one wants to locate businesses in town, that housing can and should be the business of Medfield, because people do want to live in Medfield.  We just need to build the right type of housing, like Ralph Costello did at Old Medfield Square that has only one school child in the then twenty-seven occupied units the last time Ralph gave me the figures.  Ralph said the town will be getting $600,000 in property taxes when his Old Medfield Square is fully built out, and if the ratios hold there may be two or three school children at a cost of $12,000 per year each.  Medfield can make lots of money from building the right form of housing.

4 responses to “Lot 3 on Ice House Road

  1. Chris McCue's avatar Chris McCue

    Hi Pete,

    How does the senior center’s desire to create housing on Ice House Road fit into this, if at all? Is that still a consideration? I was at the ZBA meeting when Roberta spoke, and I found her pitch very compelling and easy to support.

    Also, you might want to be careful touting Ralph’s design too strongly. When it originally went in front of the ZBA, the board and abutters were not happy about the density of the project, and there was quite a bit of debate about whether it complied with the number of stories as stated in the zoning bylaws. Now that most of the units have been completed (especially the ones that back up onto Curve Street), I really wished all of our neighbors had united to push for a reduction in density and a larger setback.

    I’ve been told by a couple of knowledgeable people that the units were built too close to the houses across from us on Curve St. and that if there was a fire in that development, it could easily spread to our neighbor’s houses. One or two of the units also has a balcony off the back that looks directly into the backyards and houses on Curve St. I’m not sure why anyone in Old Medfield Square would want that kind of view.

    Overall, density issues aside, I actually like the architectural look & general layout of the project, but I’m not thrilled with how Ralph went about buying up lower and moderately priced homes on & off Rte. 27 to build it, effectively wiping out more affordable housing that is getting more difficult to find in town. Medfield may gain tax revenue, but does the total revenue surpass what we would have received from the single-family homes that were there previously? All and all, I honestly feel like Medfield lost more than it gained with Ralph’s project, and there are a number of people around town who aren’t too crazy about Old Medfield Square.

    Thanks,

    Chris

    Like

  2. Select Board member Osler "Pete" Peterson's avatar Selectman Osler "Pete" Peterson

    Chris,
    Thanks for your input. You clearly have way more information than I on how the development occurred.

    On the density, I will just say that starting with the Brook Street townhouses, I have wondered whether our zoning allows too great a density in the downtown, and I think that may be a discussion the town may want to have. Personally, I do like the look of Old Medfield Square, and think it has great curb appeal, so I am not offended by its high density. I may feel differently if I had originally lived next door to the earlier much less dense neighborhood that was replaced. However, it is probably that high density that has made it undesirable to families with school children.

    I generally cite Old Medfield Square for the proposition, that I had originally learned from other sources, namely that the town can make a profit from new housing, as housing can be built that adds to the town’s property tax base without increasing town costs, i.e housing can be the “business” of Medfield. That we do not just have to build businesses and industries to increase our property tax base.

    Roberta Lynch was originally looking at lot 3 for her recent project to create 55+ housing, but when last I spoke with her about the topic she had dropped lot 3 from consideration because it was not zoned residential and was just looking to the Hinkley land next to The Center.
    Pete

    Like

  3. Phil Tuths's avatar Phil Tuths

    Hi Pete,
    I wanted to support all the points that Chris made and especially wanted to comment on Olde Medfield Square.
    As a neighbor of Olde Medfield Square I do not feel it is good model on which to base future development in town. It is too dense and does not fit the character of what Medfield should be. Despite abutter’s pleas to decrease the number of units to be built Mr. Costello chose to build out to the maximum square footage allowed under current zoning laws.
    After construction started Mr. Costello went back to the ZBA to ask that occupants be allowed to finish their basement spaces. This was denied because the development was already at the maximum footage of habitable space.
    Stand on Spring Street and ask yourself “Why are those condos built on a hill behind a retaining wall/” Why? Because this allows you to “hide” an extra floor to the condo and skirt the height regulations of the zoning law. These units may be well constructed but most feature tiny outdoor seating areas where the occupants face the blank wall of neighboring units. Hardly what I would think of as the spirit Medfield or a model of future development. And yet if this were to be the model the entire center of Medfield from Curve Street to Dale Street could look like this or the Brook Street condos.
    Fewer units and more open space could have made this a development to emulate in other parts of town. It would have been more respectful of the neighbors, more in the spirit and character of Medfield, and still could have provided Mr. Costello a reasonable profit.
    Come on out and walk the development with Chris and I some time.

    As for Ice House Road. Where is the indoor/outdoor pool that the Kingsbury Club was going to build and allow the High School to use? Wasn’t that why they were given a very favorable long term lease on the property?

    Thanks,

    Phjl Tuths

    Like

    • Select Board member Osler "Pete" Peterson's avatar Selectman Osler "Pete" Peterson

      Phil,
      Sorry for my delay in approving your comment. I had read it while home over a week ago, and then forgot to pull it up to approve it once I was back a the office.
      Pete

      Like