Category Archives: Development

Public Safety Bld variance approved by ZBA

Posted on July 11, 2014 | Comments Off on Public Safety Bld variance approved by ZBA

The Zoning Board of Appeals today issued its decision approving the variances sought by the town to construct the proposed public safety building. The variances granted were as follows:

  • Section 6.3 for the increase in lot coverage from 54% to 68%
  • Section 6.2.3 for construction of a driveway greater than 24 feet
  • Section 8.1 for provision of 50 parking spaces instead of the required 60 spaces
  • Section 8.3.2.e for construction of an entrance within 140 feet of the centerline of an intersection
  • Section 8.3.2.f to provide more than one egress to the site with all driveways exceeding 24 feet in width
  • Section 16.8.2 for construction of 40% impervious area on a nonresidential lot

The decision follows:

TOWN OF MEDFIELD
Office ofthe
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN HOUSE, 459 MAIN STREET
MEDFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 02052-2009
(508) 906-3027
(508) 359- 6182 Fax
PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
Instructions following the receipt of a decision;
• Your decision was filed with the Town Clerk on: July I I, 2014
• Your 20 day appeal period ends: July 31,2014
• On August I, 2014 or thereafter you should contact this office for the decision with
original signatures as well as a letter from the Town Clerk that no appeals have been
taken regarding the Board’s decision.
• Take the Town Clerk’s leiter & the decision to the Registry of Deeds in Dedham and
record them. (There is a fee of around $75 according to recent filings.)
Norfolk County Registry of Deeds
649 High St, Dedham, MA
(78 I) 46 I-6 I0 I norfolkdeeds.org
Directions from Town Hall, Medfield:
• Take 109 East to Dedham
• Bear Right on High Street
• Destination will be on the left in approximate Y, mile
• Note: On street meter parking or parking in rear (wi fee)
• Save the numbers they will give you as proof of recording. Call or email the office
and give us the Book and Page numbers. This is a required part of the process!
• When you apply to the Building Department for a permit, you will also give them the
Book and Page numbers.
Sarah Raposa
Town Planner
(508) 906-3027
sraposa@medfield.net

TOWN OF MEDFIELD
Office of the
Board of Appeals on Zoning
TOWN HOUSE, 459 MAIN STREET
MEDFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 02052-2009
(508) 906-3027
(508) 359- 6182 Fax
NOTICE OF DECISION
ApPLICANT: Town of Medfield
DECISION DATE: July 11,2014
DATE OF FILING DECISION: July 11, 2014
DECISION NUMBER: 1209
The Town of Medfield Zoning Board of Appeals, acting in the above referenced malter, grants with
conditions the Application of the Town of Medfield for variances from the following sections of the
Zoning By Law so as to permit the construction of a new public safety building at 114 North Street,
Medfield, Massachusetts:
• Section 6.3 for the increase in lot coverage from 54% to 68%
• Section 6.2.3 for construction of a driveway greater than 24 feet
• Section 8.1 for provision of 50 parking spaces instead of the required 60 spaces
• Section 8.3.2.e for construction of an entrance within 140 feet of the centerline of an intersection
• Section 8.3.2.fto provide more than one egress to the site with all driveways exceeding 24 feet in
width
• Section 16.8.2 for construction of40% impervious area on a nonresidential lot
An appeal of this decision of the permit granting authority may be made by any person aggrieved
pursuant to MOL Chapter 40A Section 17, as amended, within 20 days after the date of filing the notice
of decision in the Office of the Town Clerk.
Copies of the decision may be obtained at the office of the Board of Appeals in person or via email.
Sarah Raposa
Town Planner
(508) 906-3027
sraposa@medfield.net

TOWN OF MEDFIELD
Office of the
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN HOUSE, 459 MAIN STREET
MEDFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 02052-2009
(508) 359-8505 ext. 645
(508) 359- 6182 Fax
No. 1209
July 11,2014
Decision o/the Board 0/Appeals on the petition of Town o/Medfield
Property owned by: Town of Medfield
Location of Property: 114 North Street, Medfield, Massachusetts
Norfolk County Registry of Deeds: Book: 2823 Page: 35
Medfield Assessors’ Record: Map: 49 Lot: 084
Zoning District: RU

By application dated April 2, 2014, which was filed with the Board of
Appeals on April 3, 2014, the Town of Medfield, 114 North Street, Medfield,
Massachusetts 02052 (the “Applicant”) seeks a variance from Sections 6.3 (lot
coverage), 6.2 and 6.3.l.a (height), 6.2.3 (driveway width), 8.1 (parking spaces),
8.3.2.e (entrance distance from intersection), 8.3.2.f(multiple egress) and 16.8.2
(impervious area) of the Zoning By-Law and a Special Permit under Section II of the
Zoning By-Law in order to allow construction of a new public safety building at
114 North Street, Medfield, Massachusetts (the “Property”). Notice of the
Application was published in the Medfield Press on April 25 and May 2,2014 and a
public hearing was held on May 14,2014. Notice of the Application and hearing was
provided to the Applicant, to abutters, to appropriate Town boards and officials and to
the planning boards of abutting towns. The hearing was called to order by
Public Safety Building – page I –

Stephen M. Nolan, Chainnan, on May 14,2014 at 7:50 p.m. The Applicant was
represented at the hearing by members of the Permanent Building Committee
(“PBC”), including one of its co-chairs, John Nunnery.
Mr. Nunnery explained that the Applicant wishes to construct a new public
safety building on the Property (the “Proposed Building”). Mr. Nunnery went on to
explain that the project would require Town Meeting approval and an operational
override. If approved, the project could begin in Spring 2015 and would take 16-18
months to complete; the Proposed Building would be up and operating in 2016,
according to Mr. Nunnery.
Richard Almeida, the architect for the Proposed Building, said the height of
the proposed tower on the Proposed Building would be 51 feet, 6 inches. He said the
top of the clock would be decorative. Mr. Nunnery said the roof beside the tower is
an area they need for mechanical equipment. Mr. Peck inquired about the bulk of the
Proposed Building to which Mr. Nunnery said they were trying to provide an
“anchor” to the downtown district. Architect Almeida indicated that the increased
height is required to use the mechanical units on the roof which otherwise would be
exposed to the neighbors. By keeping them inside, they will not be seen, there will be
less noise and the units will last longer.
Thomas Perry with PARE Corporation, the civil engineer for the Project,
reviewed the variances being sought:
6.3, Lot Coverage: Section allows for 35% coverage but the proposed project is 68
percent.
6.2.3, Driveways: Section prohibits driveways wider than 24 feet, but the proposed

Public Safety Building – page 2 –

driveway is 135 feet in width.
8.1, Off-Street Parking: According to the Applicant’s calculations, the number of
required spaces would be about 100, which is “far in excess” of what the Applicant
needs. There are 50 spaces provided.
8.3.2.e, Center Line Distance: The entrance to the Propeliy is within 140 feet of the
centerline of Dale Street, the closest intersection, though the requirement is 150 feet.
The current building is 85 feet to the centerline, so Mr. PelTY said the Applicant will
be reducing the nonconfolmity.
8.3.2.f, Driveways. Two wide driveways are needed, one to North Street, and one to
Dale Street, although this Section limits each propeliy to one driveway.
16.8.2, Impervious lot coverage. This Section allows for 40 percent impervious in the
Aquifer Protection District, while the Applicant proposes 68 percent, the Current
building is nonconforming at 54 percent.
Mr. Boyer asked what type of outreach has been made to the neighborhood.
Mr. Nunnery said there have been four public meetings and the Chief of Police has
handed out notices to the neighbors. Police Chief Meaney said the feedback was very
good, the neighbors have seen the plans, and he suggests shrubbery to buffer the
building from neighbors.
Mr. Almeida said there will be PVC fence all the way around the south side of
the Property and there will be a landscape tree buffer at the Property line between the
neighbors and the Proposed Building.
Chairman Nolan asked for questions from the public, there were none. No one
spoke in favor of the project or against it.

Public Safety Building – page 3 –

The members of the Board, being very familiar with the Property, elected not
to take a view of the Property. The hearing was closed at 9:40 p.m.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board makes the following
Findings of Fact:
I. The Property is situated at 114 North Street, Medfield, Massachusetts
and is located in the residential urban (R-U) zoning district.
2. The Property is shown as Lot 84 on Assessors’ Map 49. The Propeliy is
located at the corner of North and Dale Streets and is a through lot, the
rear lot line being on Adams Street.
3. The Property cUlTently contains the Town’s public safety building
serving the police and fire departments.
4. The Proposed Building is to be located as shown on plans entitled
“Medfield Public Safety, 114 North Street, Medfield, MA 02052” dated
May 2,2014 drawn by Dore & Whittier Architects, Inc. and PARE
Corporation (the “Plans”), consisting of six sheets.
5. The Propeliy is located in a neighborhood consisting mostly of singlefamily
dwellings.
OPINION
With respect to the issue of height, following are the relevant provisions of the
Medfield Zoning By-Law:
6.3 Table of Height and Bulk Regulations – Maximum height in an RU district
is 35 feet.

Public Safely Building – page 4 –

6.3.1a) Notes to Table of Height and Bulk Regulations – Community facility
and public utility structures, provided that the side yards, rear yards and
setbacks required in the district for the highest permitted principal structure
shall be increased 2 feet in width for each foot by which the height of such
structure exceeds the height pennitted in the district.
6.3.1b) Notes to Table of Height and Bulk Regulations – Necessary
appurtenant structures such as church spire, belfry, cupola, dome, smokestack,
monument, derrick, conveyer, flag pole, communications tower, mast,
antenna, aerial, airplane hangar, roof tank, building service equipment, roof
structure other than a penthouse, chimney or parapet wall, or any similar
appurtenance provided that the side yards, rear yard and front setback be
increased one foot horizontally for each two feet that the height of such
structure exceeds the height permitted in the district.
The Table of Height and Bulk Regulations at Section 6.3 of the Zoning By-Law
requires a maximum height of 35 feet in an R-U zoning district. Under Section
6.3.la), the height of the Proposed Building would be permitted to be 41 ‘-6″. Under
Section 6.3 .1 b), the height of the appurtenant structures, including roof structures
containing building service equipment, would be permitted to be 61 ‘-0″. In reviewing
the plans, the height of the Proposed Building is 59’-7.5″ to the peak of the
ornamental clock tower. If, however, the ornamental clock tower and the roof
structures containing the building service equipment for the Proposed Building are
excluded, the height is less than the 41 ‘-6″ allowed under Section 6.3.la). We believe
it is appropriate to apply the provisions of Section 6.3.1 b) to the ornamental clock
tower and the other roof structures, which contain building mechanical equipment and
to apply Section 6.3.1 b) to the balance of the Proposed Building. Accordingly, we do
not believe a variance is required with respect to height and that portion of the
petition is therefore denied.
As to the requested relief from Section 6.3 for the increase in lot coverage

Public Safety Building – page 5 –

from 54% to 68%, from Section 6.2.3 for construction of a driveway greater than 24
feet, from Section 8.1 for provision of 50 parking spaces instead of the required 60
spaces, from Section 8.3.2.e for construction of an entrance within 140 feet of the
centerline of an intersection, from Section 8.3.2.f to provide more than one egress to
the site with all driveways exceeding 24 feet in width and from Section 16.8.2 for
construction of40% impervious area on a nonresidential lot, we believe that the
requested variances are necessary to proceed with construction of the Proposed
Building. Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 10 governs the power
of this Board to issue variances. The relevant portion of the statute reads as follows:
The permit granting authority shall have the power after public hearing
for which notice has been given by publication and posting as provided
in section eleven and by mailing to all parties in interest to grant upon
appeal or upon petition with respect to particular land or structures a
variance fi’om the terms of the applicable zoning ordinance or by-law
where such permit granting authority specifically finds that owing to
circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape or topography of
such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures,
but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located, a
literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or by-law would
involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or
appellant, and that desirable relief may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially
derogating from the intent or purpose of such ordinance or by-law.
Section 14.11 of the Medfield Zoning By-Law simply notes that the Board’s
power to grant variances is governed by Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A.
Accordingly, the Applicant cannot obtain a variance in this proceeding unless the
requirements of the statute are satisfied.
Variances are not a matter of legal right. Ferrante v. Board of Appeals of
Northampton, 345 Mass. 158 (1961) and the Supreme Judicial Court has made it plain

Public Safety Building – pge 6 –

that variances are to be granted sparingly. Planning Board of Springfield v. Board of
Appeals of Springfield, 355 Mass. 460 (1969). Thus, this Board must apply
conservatively the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A,
Section 10, which sets fOlih the statutory conditions for the grant of a variance. It is
also impOliant to note that all of the conditions of the statute must be found to exist
before this Board can grant a variance. Blackmon v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable,
334 Mass. 466 (1956); Bottomley v. Board of Appeals ofYallliouth, 354 Mass. 474
(1968).
In our judgment, the Applicant satisfies the threshold requirements of the
statute. The shape of the Property is irregular, with a rather wide portion along North
Street of approximately 260 feet in width, but a more narrow rear half with a width of
only about 190 feet. Furthermore, the shape of the lot is unusual due to the frontage
along three sides on Adams Street, Dale Street and NOlih Street. This unusual lot
shape appears to affect the Property in patiicular and does not affect generally the
land in the neighborhood or in the R-U zoning district in general.
A denial of the requested variance would involve substantial hardship to the
Applicant in that without the relief, the re-use of the Property for a new, updated
public safety building would be prohibited. For instance, without the extra width of
the driveways, the fire apparatus could not safely enter and exit the site. Similarly,
the two means of egress are important to allow safe and efficient circulation of the
fire and police vehicles on the site. As to parking, the site currently includes a
community basketball court and without the requested variance, the court would
likely have to be eliminated. As to the distance of the driveway openings to nearby

Public Safety Building – page 7 –

intersections, this requirement is made difficult by the frontage along three sides of
the Property and the need for two means of egress as noted above. In fact, the
driveways are being moved fUliher from the intersections, so the proposed condition
(140′) is actually less nonconforming that the existing condition (85’). Finally, as to
the impervious area, a strict enforcement of the requirement would mandate removal
of the community basketball court and would interfere with the proper circulation of
fire and police vehicles due to a narrowing of access ways and parking areas.
The desired relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifYing or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of
the Zoning By-Law. The construction of the Proposed Building on the Property will
replace an existing public safety building on the Propeliy with a significantly
modernized and aesthetically improved structure. There was no neighborhood
opposition to the Proposed Building, further supporting our conclusion that the
purposes of the Zoning By-Law are not being violated.
DECISION
Based on the foregoing, the Board grants the Application of the Town of
Medfield for variances from the following sections of the Zoning By-Law so as to
permit the construction of a new public safety building at 114 North Street, Medfield,
Massachusetts: Section 6.3 for the increase in lot coverage from 54% to 68%; Section
6.2.3 for construction of a driveway greater than 24 feet; Section 8.1 for provision of
50 parking spaces instead of the required 60 spaces; Section 8.3.2.e for construction
of an entrance within 140 feet of the centerline of an intersection; Section 8.3.2.fto

Public Safety Building – page 8 –

provide more than one egress to the site with all driveways exceeding 24 feet in
width; and Section 16.8.2 for construction of 40% impervious area on a nonresidential
lot. This relief is conditioned upon the following:
1. The Proposed Building will be developed as shown on the Plans.
2. PVC fencing will be placed along the southerly lot line and a buffer of
trees will be planted and maintained along the southerly side of the
Property.
THIS DECISION WAS UNANIMOUS.

RUSSELL 1. HALLISEY, MEMBER AND JOHN J. MCNICHOLAS AND NEAL J.
O’CONNOR, ASSOCIATE MEMBERS DID NOT SIT ON THE BOARD AT THE
PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THIS MATTER NOR DID THEY
PARTICIPATE IN THE DELIBERATIONS OF THE BOARD OR IN THIS
DECISION.
APPEALS FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHOULD BE MADE PURSUANT
TO GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 40A, SECTION 17, AND SHALL BE FILED
WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK.

Public Safety Building – page 9 –

Comments Off on Public Safety Bld variance approved by ZBA

Posted in Development, Downtown, Fire Department, Permitting, Police Department

EDC meets Thursday on Ice House RFP

Posted on July 8, 2014 | Comments Off on EDC meets Thursday on Ice House RFP

This from Town Planner, Sarah Rapoa, about the Economic Development Committee dealings with the Ice House Road’s Lot 3 this Thursday evening at 7 PM –

 

Subject: EDC this Thursday at 7 pm

Hi all,
Just a reminder about the Economic Development Meeting this Thursday at 7 pm in the second floor meeting room for the purpose of public comments on the draft RFP (attached).
See you then,
Sarah

TOWN OF MEDFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

FOR

LONG -TERM GROUND LEASE

 

OVERVIEW

The Town of Medfield is seeking proposals for a long-term ground lease of 11.2 acres of undeveloped land located off Ice House Road in the northwest quadrant of the Town (Parcel ID: Map 56 Lot 044, IE zoning district). The preferred use for the site is for the development of a facility that is consistent with current zoning and complementary to the surrounding existing establishments. Competing uses such as senior center, health club, spa, restaurant and/or function facilities will not be considered. The Town acquired this land as part of the purchase of 30 acres of industrial and residential land in 1995 and the Bay Circuit Trail passes over a portion of the property.

The Medfield Town Meeting has given the Board of Selectmen approval to lease this land for a period not to exceed 99 years. The land is serviced by town water and sewer. Electric and gas lines are in public ways proximate to the site. Ice House Road was constructed to Town standards by the Town in 2006. The developer selected will be responsible for payment of real estate and personal property taxes on the building and contents, in addition to lease payments on the land. There will be no property taxes on the land as the town will retain ownership. The developer selected will be responsible for obtaining and paying for all permits, licenses and approvals required to proceed with the development.

 

QUALIFICATIONS

Proposers should have completed development of other projects of similar type, size, scope, and complexity to the project described above and must demonstrate the ability to obtain financing for such a project. In addition, they should have at least three years experience with the operation of the proposed facility and/or a completed business plan and pro forma.

 

 

 

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

All proposers must submit following information:

  1. Description of the corporate background, including a description of the firm’s experience with particular attention to identifying projects in which similar development was undertaken and/or completed. If the facility will be operated by another entity, this information should be provided for that entity as well.
  2. Identification of the project team, including the developer and specific individuals who will be charged with overall responsibility for design and construction of this project, as well as the specific responsibilities of all other members of the development team. Provide a resume for each of these members. The resume shall outline the individual’s educational and professional achievements including the number of years of experience dealing with similar projects and tenure with the firm. If the facility will be operated by another entity, this information should be provided for all individuals who will be charged with overall responsibility for the operation of that entity, as well.
  3. A list of all development projects, which the firm has undertaken in the past five years, highlighting experience in the development of projects similar to the planned proposal for this project, which the firm has designed, constructed, financed or operated.
  4. A preliminary pro-forma, which details the projected income and expenses for at least the first five years of the lease period.
  5. The proposed term of the lease and options to extend, if any.
  6. Total estimated value of proposed improvements to the property.
  7. A preliminary financing schedule, including financing commitments, if available, from any lending institutions from which construction or permanent financing is proposed.
  8. Evidence of corporate stability as evidenced by providing detailed corporate financial information that can be used to evaluate and ascertain the firm’s ability to undertake, complete and operate the facility.
  9. Identification of any firms or individuals not part of your firm who will be collaborating on this project and a detailed description of their role in this project. A complete resume and description of the length and substance of their experience as it relates to this project shall be provided.
  10. A detailed description, including approximate size, layout, type of construction and exterior appearance of the proposed facility to be built on the site and facilities which will be included within this project.
  11. A description of the business, which will be operated at the facility and the proposed hours of operation.
  12. The average and peak estimated water and sewerage demands for the proposed facilities.
  13. A description of energy conservation measures beyond minimum Massachusetts Building Code standards or use of renewable energy systems.
  14. The estimated total employees and depending on the service or product, the user-ship and peak usage (number of users and time of day and seasonally).
  15. Average weekly peak traffic and vehicular attendance.
  16. A schedule of lease payments that will be paid to the Town of Medfield for the use of the land. If any non-monetary consideration is to be provided to residents of the Town, such as, reduced fees or coaching and/or sponsorship for youth sports teams, this should also be included with the schedule of lease payments.

 

PROPSAL SELECTION CRITERIA

The Board of Selectmen, in consultation with the Economic Development Committee, will review the responses to this Request for Proposals and rank the proposals that have been submitted. Once the proposals have been ranked, the Committee may select firms to be interviewed. Firms may be asked to provide further detail regarding their proposals, qualifications, and/or finances. The Selectmen and Economic Development Committee may select one firm with whom a contract will be negotiated. The final negotiated contract shall be approved by Town Counsel and awarded by the Board of Selectmen.

The ranking and selection of the finalists will be based upon the information provided in the proposals. The selection of the finalists will be based primarily on the following criteria:

  1. Value of lease payments, tax revenue and non-monetary considerations;
  2. Demonstrated experience in designing, constructing, financing and operating the proposed facility
  3. Demonstrate expertise and relevant experience of key support personnel from the firm(s), and consultants who will be assigned to the project, such as architects, engineers and heath and other consultants, as well as the management team;
  4. Financial stability;
  5. Capacity to finance the proposal;
  6. Demonstrated ability to complete development projects on time and within estimated project costs;
  7. Demonstrate understanding of the project requirements;
  8. Potential for the project to be built and operated;
  9. Consideration given to Medfield residents who may be elderly, disabled, or low-income; or the youth and school systems in town.
  10. The degree to which the proposal addresses the aesthetic and operational concerns of the Town and, in particular, the surrounding neighborhood;
  11. The degree to which the project affects the residents of Medfield in positive manner.
  12. Whether the Town’s infrastructure can service the proposed development.

 

SCHEDULE

Questions regarding the project may be submitted in writing to the Town Administrator. Questions should be faxed, and should be submitted any time prior to noon on ____, _____ __, 2014. Questions can be sent to:

Michael Sullivan, Town Administrator

Medfield Town House

459 Main Street

Medfield, MA 02052

msullivan@medfield.net

 

The Town will receive, through the Office of the Board of Selectmen, responses to this Request for Proposals. Ten copies of each response, plus one electronic copy, must be delivered to the Office of the Board of Selectmen by noon on _____, ____ __, 2014.

 

TOWN OF MEDFIELD

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

LONG TERM GROUND LEASE

 

The Town of Medfield is seeking proposals for a long-term ground lease of 11.2 acres of undeveloped land located off Ice House Road in the northwest quadrant of the Town (Parcel ID: Map 56 Lot 044, IE zoning district). The preferred use for the site is for the development of a facility that is  consistent with current zoning and complementary to the existing establishments. Competing uses such as senior center, health club, spa, restaurant and/or function facilities will not be considered. The Board of Selectmen has Town Meeting approval to lease this land for a period not to exceed 99 years.

All firms/individuals interested can retain a copy of the Request for Proposals from Mr. Michael Sullivan, Town Administrator, 459 Main Street, Medfield, MA 02052 or by calling (508) 906-3012.

The deadline for submitting a proposal is ___ at 12:00 noon. Ten (10) hard copies of the proposal must be submitted to Michael Sullivan 459 Main Street, MA 02052, by this date and time. Please also include one (1) electronic version of the proposal on a disc. All submissions must be clearly labeled “Lot 3 Long Term Ground Lease” on the exterior of the envelope/package. Late proposals will not be accepted. The Town reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and/or limit the scope of this project or as deemed in the best interest of the Town.

 

Comments Off on EDC meets Thursday on Ice House RFP

Posted in Development, Planning

Lot 3 on Ice House Road

Posted on May 1, 2014 | 4 comments

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 Comments

Posted in Development

People needed to plan MSH uses

Posted on April 11, 2014 | Comments Off on People needed to plan MSH uses

Now that the town voted to buy the Medfield State Hospital site, the town needs to plan what to do with the land.  The Board of Selectmen will soon be creating a committee to do that planning work for the MSH site.  If anyone has an interest in working on that committee, they should submit their interest and relevant credentials to the Board of Selectmen as soon as possible.

Comments Off on People needed to plan MSH uses

Posted in Development, Medfield State Hospital, Planning

MAPC housing study

Posted on January 17, 2014 | Comments Off on MAPC housing study

The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) is our regional planning agency, and the MAPC has released a study about our area’s expected changes over the next several decades.  Medfield is not projected to add much in the way of housing units.  What did interest me most was

  • Medfield is not expected to add housing units, and may even lose some, despite the region needing to add 400,000 units;
  • Medfield was rated in the highest category for household size, but even we are expected to drop in size to 2040; and
  • generally the sort of units needed will change with more units needed for smaller households.

The need for all those new housing units may indicate an opportunity for the Medfield State Hospital site.  The following is from the introduction to the study –

New projections describe the challenges facing Metro Boston

To help the region and its communities plan for a changing and uncertain future, MAPC has prepared projections of population change, household growth, and housing demand for Metro Boston and its municipalities. The projections confirm that the aging and retirement of the Baby Boomers will have profound implications for the region, and that our economic future depends on attracting more young workers. More than 400,000 new housing units–mostly multifamily, and mostly in urban areas–will be needed by the year 2040 if the region is to keep growing its economic base.

LINK TO THE STUDY

Comments Off on MAPC housing study

Posted in Development, Medfield State Hospital, Planning

MSH visioning

Posted on January 15, 2014 | Comments Off on MSH visioning

Last Saturday the State Hospital Advisory Committee (SHAC) held a visioning session to engage residents in a discussion about the future of the Medfield State Hospital.  Attached is the Agenda and Handout from that session.  The session was spectacularly successful, far exceeding my expectations.  There were many, many ideas floated and discussed, and the final report should make for fascinating reading.  These were my favorite take aways  –

  • per DCAMM, demolishing the building would run the town $11-14 per sq. ft. (all in) and there are about 658,000 sq. ft. of building, so $724K to $921K for the town to demolish all the buildings, including all costs.  Demolition would be cheaper if as planned it was done by the developer, who does not pay prevailing wages.  Everyone agrees the Lee Building should be saved.  The rest could be saved, but probably only at such high costs that Medfield residents will be unlikely to want to pay to save them, as residents would have to do via property tax increases
  • housing for older residents was a common theme
  • much open green space was a common theme, especially the square in the midst of the campus development.
  • include an outdoor public amphitheater – I suggest we locate the gazebo in Medfield at the back of the property so that the guests would actually be seated in the Dover on land that will not otherwise be used
  • Tom Sweeney’s idea to relocate Hospital Road to where it was formerly located (the current access road to McCarthy Park), so as to enlarge the grass expanse and vista at the front of the site

Below is the preliminary report on Saturday from SHAC visioning subcommittee member Ros Smythe, one of the primary planners of the event –

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

Visioning Session write up

 

Over 100 residents, including Medfield Selectmen and the Town Manager, and State Senator James Timilty, attended a Visioning Session hosted by the State Hospital Advisory Committee (SHAC) on Saturday, January 11 from 10 AM to 3 PM.   The purpose of the meeting was to educate townspeople on the issues and opportunities surrounding the potential $3.1 million purchase of approximately 137 acres of the hospital property, and to hear what the participants envision for the use of the land, if purchased.  Professional consultants, Ted Brovitz of Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates and Peter Flinker of Dodson and Flinker ran the session.

 

The morning was comprised of many presentations about different aspects of the history of the property, the condition of the land and buildings, and current considerations regarding the possible purchase of the property.  Participants formed into break-out groups in which they voiced the issues and opportunities they saw regarding the possible purchase of the land.  The overriding and major opportunity identified was the Town’s ability to control the re-use of the property.

The major issue was the uncertainty over additional costs to the Town beyond the purchase price.  The main expenses identified were: renovation or demolition of the structures; asbestos and lead paint removal; and maintenance and security costs until disposition.

 

The afternoon was devoted to scenario-building and at the end of the session each group presented a “vision” for the property, if purchased by the Town.  Although every plan was different. some common ideas were apparent. Consistent themes were: a Park and Recreation building on the approximately 37 acre sledding hill parcel; a desire to keep the view across the sledding hill as open space; height limitations of any reuse to allow the continued appreciation of the natural setting; the use of legislation to guarantee that the parcels adjacent to the core campus, which are to be retained by the State, remain as open space in perpetuity; paths and walkways throughout the whole parcel allowing connectivity between the various parcels of land and to adjacent open space properties;  maintaining the core campus village square feel; the development of a community space, utilizing the Chapel Building if suitable, for cultural activities; development of some commercial/professional space; and, fulfillment of 40B housing requirements and construction of “empty nester” homes through a mixed use development.

 

The SHAC would like to thank all the participants who attended the session.  We are grateful for your time and thoughtful comments.

 

For more information regarding the Medfield State Hospital, please go to mshvision.net or www.facebook.com/MSHVision.

Comments Off on MSH visioning

Posted in Development, Medfield State Hospital, Open space, Planning

POCKET PARK NAMING CONTEST

Posted on January 15, 2014 | 3 comments
This from Jean Mineo –
POCKET PARK NAMING CONTEST
Deadline: Thursday Jan. 23, 2014 at 5 pm
The Town of Medfield owns a small 5,352 square foot parcel of land between Zebra’s and Starbuck’s that has affectionately been called the Pocket Park for lack of an official name. The Pocket Park Steering Committee was appointed in Oct. 2013 to initiate a public planning process to both propose a design for the park and establish its name.
Naming Contest
Medfield residents are invited to vote on, or propose, a name for the Pocket Park by completing an on-line survey here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PocketPark
History of the site is included in the short survey.
As an added incentive, Woodland Theater has generously donated two tickets to a Jan. 24 – 26 performance of Spelling Bee, one of Broadway’s most buzzed about Tony award winning musicals. The winner for the tickets will be selected at random from among all entries. The performance takes place in the Lowell Mason Theatre at the Medfield High School and additional tickets may be purchased at www.Woodland-Theatre.com.
The Pocket Park Steering Committee will select the name from among the entries and forward for approval at Town Meeting. Thank you for participating in this exciting opportunity to name our Pocket Park!
For questions or more information, please email JeanMineo@aol.com

3 Comments

Posted in Cultural, Development, Downtown, Open space

MSH visioning this Sat.

Posted on January 8, 2014 | Comments Off on MSH visioning this Sat.

The town’s State Hospital Advisory Committee (SHAC) is holding a public visioning session this coming Saturday from 10 AM to 3 PM at The Center, to get input from all residents about what to do with the Medfield State Hospital site.  There will be a special town meeting (STM) in February or March for the town to decide whether to buy the MSH site for the $3.1 m. price the selectmen recently struck with DCAMM, so all residents are encouraged to attend to learn more and to give the town the benefit of their thoughts.

Buying the MSH site allows the town to control the ultimate uses of the site, and DCAMM has offered easy financial terms – they will finance the purchase over ten years, so that we only need to pay $310,000 per year.  In a worse case situation, the town would have to pay about $10 m. to demolish all the buildings, but it would be preferable to develop the core campus and have the developer do the demolitions, where they can do it less expensively since they do not have to follow prevailing wage law requirements so they can do it cheaper.

The scenario and time constraints are such that the town will need to first make the decision to buy, before the town can decide upon the ultimate uses of the land.  This inverted process results because:

  • the town would like to respond to the pending purchase opportunity before Governor Patrick and his administration leave office in a year (when that opportunity may disappear),
  • the required special legislation will need to be crafted and passed by July when the legislative session ends.
  • Semator Timilty opines that the legislation will need to be submitted by April to have any chance at passage in the legislature by July, and
  • the town has to have made the decision to buy the MSH site at the special town meeting (in February or March) before the legislature will even consider that needed legislation.

Hence the need to have a special town meeting (STM) in the next two months.

POSSIBLE USES

The SHAC recently circulated a survey to the residents, and got 258 responses.  The most popular suggested uses were for open spaces, trails, recreation, farming, and housing, more or less in that order.  The good news is that the site is sufficiently large that all of those uses can be accommodated along with the development that will provide the appropriate economic returns to the town.

OPEN SPACES & TRAILS – The town would be buying 134 acres that is surrounded by hundreds of other acres of land that is currently open space and will continue to be open space.  Those other lands that the town will not purchase contain many fields and trails that will continue to be open to the public to use, just as they are now.  All the lands along the river and the large fields to the east and west of the MSH buildings will continue to be public lands, open to all, just as now.

The 134 acres being bought by the town consists of two parcels, the 40 acres that surround the sledding hill and the 94 acres where the buildings are currently located.  While there are 40 acres around the sledding hill, only twelve of those acres on that side of Hospital Road will be able to be developed, due to state restrictions against development of lands containing agricultural soils.  Hence, 28 acres on that side of Hospital Road will not be developed and will remain open land.

I can today go out the door of my house (adjoining the MSH area) and jog or cross country ski for miles and hours, without ever being on roads, except to cross them, and there is so much open spaces in the area that fact will not change.

FARM – DCAMM has indicated that the town can discuss with the state’s Dept. of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), the state entity that will acquire ownership and control of the fields to the east and west of the MSH buildings, about farm and/or CSA use of those lands.  I personally like exploring having a farm and/or a CSA operation in town, and I think the DCR lands at the MSH could be an excellent location, just as the town’s Holmquist lands would be as well.

RECREATION – As noted above, there will always be much open space available for passive recreation uses in that general vicinity.  The town can also opt to have any of the rest of the lands it buys made available for recreational uses.  One of the suggestions for development at the site is as a regional recreational facility.

HOUSING – There should be plenty of land on which to develop housing of the sort that is lacking and therefore needed in town, housing that which will not entail large municipal costs, such as housing for the elderly, housing for empty nesters, and/or dense developments such as Olde Medfield Square which has only one school child in its first 27 occupied units.

I have suggested that the town should develop a master plan to look at all our options for locating affordable housing and other town needs throughout the town, and I hope that we can integrate the MSH site into a town-wide plan that addresses all our future needs in a well thought out and integrated manner.  Planning the development at the MSH could then become part of our plan for the development of all the rest of the town.

Bill Massaro has been a close follower of and participant in the MSH clean up and development process.  His email this week does a nice job of summarizing our current situation –

=======================================
Sent: Saturday, January 4, 2014 7:15:34 PM
Subject: State Hospital Property Reuse Visioning Workshop 1-11-14 : What Would You Like To See There?

 Hi Everyone,

Because of your continuing  concern and support,  after 5 years of struggles we were able to reach agreement with DCAMM on the cleanup and restoration  of  the 100-year old hazardous landfill  alongside and in the Charles River at the former State Hospital.

So 2013 will be remembered as the year we not only protected the Town’s main well, but  left another  priceless gift to the future generations who will  take advantage of the safe recreational opportunities you have made possible, and who will forever appreciate the restored beauty on this stretch of the Charles.

The next few months present us with the opportunity to decide what gift we will leave for future generations on the rest of the Hospital  property .

After the Hospital closed  in 2003, DCAMM’s refusal to sell any of the property to the Town led to the 2008 Legislation authorizing  2 parcels for Developer sale and their reuse for 440 housing units.

As part of the new cooperative relationship, the current administration at DCAMM has offered to sell these 2 parcels to the Town.  The Board of Selectmen have accepted DCAMM’s offer and have begun defining a detailed purchase and sale agreement, and sometime within the next few months a Special Town meeting will be called to give residents the opportunity to approve or reject the purchase.

On Saturday January 11 at 10:00 a.m. at the Center on Ice House Road, the State Hospital Advisory Committee (SHAC) will hold a Visioning Workshop to get your views for potential uses of the property.  SHAC members will first present background information on the parcels  being offered,  provide details on the proposed terms of sale, and provide a summary of recent resident surveys and consultant studies on potential reuse of the property.

You will then have the opportunity in small break-out groups to discuss issues and opportunities.  Lunch will be provided and afterwards you can join in developing  scenarios for alternative future use of the property.

The attached invitation  provides additional information on the meeting time and a link for further information.

This meeting will give you the opportunity to have your voice heard in deciding how 2014 will be remembered by future Medfield generations.

I hope you can  attend.

The RSVP address is sraposa@medfield.net

Thanks

Bill

Enhanced by Zemanta

Comments Off on MSH visioning this Sat.

Posted in Affordable housing / 40B, Development, Medfield State Hospital, Nature, Open space, Planning, Select Board matters, Sports, Town Meeting

Survey on MSH

Posted on October 28, 2013 | Comments Off on Survey on MSH

The State Hospital Advisory Committee’s subcommittee on the visioning process has a robust website and has also created and circulated a survey of residents’ desires with respect to the Medfield State Hospital site.

Alec Stevens says that the subcommittee wants people to answer the survey, and have them sign up on facebook or on the mailing list that is on the website so that the subcommittee can get a good contact list established to keep people informed as to the subcommittee’s progress, which they feel will be especially important as they soon get the word out about their visioning session.

Comments Off on Survey on MSH

Posted in Development, Medfield State Hospital, Open space, Planning

Election Monday 10/21

Posted on October 17, 2013 | Comments Off on Election Monday 10/21

Medfield has an election this coming Monday, October 21, 2013 to determine  whether to purchase the 31 acre Red Gate Farm property for the price of $1.4 m. that was negotiated by developers with the owner, Robin Kenny.  The purchase passed at the special town meeting (STM) last week, but the purchase only happens if it also has passed at the election ballot on Monday.

I support the town’s purchase, and wanted to explain why.

The town has a right of first refusal to buy the property because of the fact that the property for years paid little real estate taxes because the Kenny family had placed it in G. L. c. 61 designation as forest lands – the state encourages forest holdings by providing for lower real estate taxes.  Then, in exchange for the lower real estate taxes, the town gets a right of first refusal when the property comes out of forestry designation, and that is what is happening now.

The developers have fully permitted a seven lot subdivision on the property.  I find it to be a nicely crafted and a sensitive development, but I have decided that the town will be better served by buying the property for the following reasons:

  • town residents will get greater rights of access to the whole 31 acres if the town owns the land, than if we only have the right of way across the land.
  • it is more important to me that the town own and control this land where it is adjacent to the 25 acres scout lands to the South.
  • the price seems remarkably reasonable to me, for what the town will get.

However, town ownership does come at a cost, and voters will have to determine for themselves whether they are so interested in the town ownership that they are willing to personally pay, albeit at a great price, to acquire the land.  For me, the benefits outweigh the costs.

I hope that everyone will vote on Monday.

Comments Off on Election Monday 10/21

Posted in Development, Elections, Environmental, Open space