Category Archives: Medfield State Hospital

MSH purchase – my conclusions

Posted on March 4, 2014 | Comments Off on MSH purchase – my conclusions

The Town of Medfield is at the cusp of one of its most momentous decisions ever, whether to buy the former Medfield State Hospital site.  Given that in my role a selectman I have gone to literally scores of meetings about the MSH over twelve years, I thought that I should share what I learned and what I have concluded.

First I conclude that the town absolutely should buy the MSH site.  Buying is all about the town controlling the choices, rather than the state or others choosing the development that will happen in our town, since development will happen there whether we buy it or do not.

Second, the $3.1m. price is not too high, especially if compared to the possible costs for municipal services to the site’s residents for generations if the town does not control the ultimate development.  The state will finance the $3.1m. price, with the interest baked in, over ten years, so that we pay $310,000 per year

Town control gets us the type of uses and development the town both needs and wants.  There is so much open space and recreational lands in that area that will remain in state control, that those uses will continue to be available in spades – town development will only be on the areas that are already built upon.  While any town development will be decided upon by residents later, in my mind it should be a mixed use development, mainly residential, with small amounts of retail and commercial space, with the housing being small attached units for one or two person households, empty nesters, or older residents looking to down size.  Importantly, this is the sort of housing that the town generally lacks, but also, more importantly, it is housing that can make money for the town, because such housing will not require expensive town services.

The time is right to make this deal, as no one can predict whether the new Governor who takes over in January 2015 will continue to let the town buy the site.  In the past the town has been refused the purchase option.

After purchase, the town’s cost to own the property until redevelopment occurs should not be too high.  I suggest doing without the 24/7 security the state employed, in favor of limiting access to the site by physical barriers, install monitoring cameras, and having the Medfield Police do limited patrols.  Beyond that I would have our DPW keep the buildings sealed up.  The lands the town is buying have already been environmentally cleansed.  The only remaining hazard issues on those lands are the asbestos and lead paint in the buildings, and those will be removed when the buildings are demolished.  Ideally the town will let the town selected developers demolition the buildings.  DCAMM, who contracts for similar demolitions all the time, says developers pay $6 per sq. ft. to do demolitions, all in, whereas prevailing wages mean the town would pay $11-14 per sq. ft.  There remain about 600,000 sq. ft. of buildings at the site.

Lastly, the development gives the town the opportunity to both get the development it most desires, but also perhaps to make some money.  The state’s partnership model has the state getting a 30-50% share of any resale.  The site will be improved by the state’s river clean up and the new park area to be built on the adjoining state lands.

In sum, for short money we gain control and we get what the town wants, with an outside chance to make some money.

Osler L. Peterson, Selectman

Comments Off on MSH purchase – my conclusions

Posted in Medfield State Hospital, Town Meeting

SHAC info meeting

Posted on March 4, 2014 | Comments Off on SHAC info meeting

The State Hospital Advisory Committee held an informational meeting about the Medfield State Hospital purchase decision last night.  About fifty residents attended the two hour long session at the Blake Middle School auditorium, to hear SHAC chair Steve Nolan and committee member Gil Rodgers explain the purchase status and issues.  the time was about equally divided between the presentation and a questions and answer period.

Comments Off on SHAC info meeting

Posted in Medfield State Hospital, Town Meeting

MSH interviews of me / Richard & Bill

Posted on February 28, 2014 | Comments Off on MSH interviews of me / Richard & Bill

Medfield.TV had me in last week to talk about the Medfield State Hospital purchase decision with Jack Petersen and Josh Perry, Editor of the Hometown Weekly.

Below is the link to that video, as well as an earlier interview by Jack Petersen of Selectman Richard DeSorgher and Bill Massaro about the Medfield State Hospital issues.

NB – the special town meeting (STM) is 3/10, not 3/4 as I misstated near the beginning.

Medfield.TV ‏@MedfieldTV Feb 22

Selectman’s Update: Pete Peterson (2/14): http://youtu.be/KuC8NP88HZc?a  via @YouTube

====================================
Selectman’s Update: Richard DeSorgher (2/14): http://youtu.be/x_xQwPB8WwA?a  via @YouTube

Comments Off on MSH interviews of me / Richard & Bill

Posted in Medfield State Hospital, Town Meeting

W&S – state $ & impact fees

Posted on February 28, 2014 | Comments Off on W&S – state $ & impact fees

This from the State House News service, via John Nunnari.  This could be helpful both with respect to the new water tower and with respect to the redevelopment of the Medfield State Hospital site –

SENATE ADDS LOCAL OPTION WATER SURCHARGE TO INFRASTRUCTURE BILL

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, FEB. 27, 2014….After agreeing to a plan allowing a new local option water surcharge, the Senate unanimously passed legislation Thursday aimed at addressing some of the unmet funding needs for water infrastructure projects in Massachusetts.

Senate President Therese Murray, who has several communities in her district facing water infrastructure challenges, pushed the water infrastructure needs as a priority this session, along with Sen. James Eldridge – who headed up a two-year-long commission studying the issue.

Rep. Carolyn Dykema, a Democrat from Holliston, has been pushing the issue in the House, where the bill heads next, and co-chaired the Water Infrastructure Finance Commission along with Eldridge.

A Senate Ways and Means version of the bill (S 2016) passed 37 to 0, with several amendments adopted that were filed by both Democrats and Republicans.

“This bill that was debated today is a really strong bill that will not only create investments in water infrastructure but better protect the environment, and create incentives for green infrastructure,” Eldridge said after the bill passed.

The bill authorizes low-interest loans for water infrastructure projects and establishes criteria for the loan process. It requires the Massachusetts Clean Water Trust – the new name for the Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust – to create a sliding scale interest rate, from 0 to 2 percent on loans for qualifying projects.

The bill increases a contract assistance ceiling from $88 million a year to $138 million per year and requires the Massachusetts Clean Water Trust to commit 80 percent of that limit and report to the Legislature in any year that the threshold is not met.

The bill also authorizes cities and towns to collect impact fees to help offset environmental impacts caused by developments requiring new or increased water and sewer system withdrawals. The bill calls for fees to be assessed in a “fair and equitable manner” and allows separate fees for residential and commercial usage.

On a voice vote, senators rejected an amendment to the bill that would ban hydraulic fracking to extract natural gas, filed by Sen. Kathleen O’Connor Ives (D-Newburyport).

Environmentalists applauded the bill’s passage.

“I think it is great this bill does a lot to level the playing field for green infrastructure,” Steve Long, government relations director at the Nature Conservancy said.

Incentives for green infrastructure – which uses nature to help provide clean drinking and stormwater – are embedded throughout the bill, Long said. The legislation allows for reduced financing for green infrastructure projects, which will go a long way to help achieve clean water goals, he said.

Senators adopted an amendment establishing a local option water surcharge for communities. Cities and towns that vote to adopt the program could levy a water infrastructure surcharge up to 3 percent, similar to the way the Community Preservation Act works. The amendment passed 31 to 5.

“Now we are creating a mechanism if communities so choose to use the same method for water infrastructure,” Sen. Michael Rodrigues (D-Westport), who filed the amendment, said referring to the CPA.

Communities that vote in favor of adopting the water surcharge would be allowed to assess a fee on new uses for water. It would apply to new residential and commercial development, according to Long, from the Nature Conservancy. The money would be deposited in a water infrastructure fund.

“That fund could be used to find ways to replace water that has been taken out of the system. It could be used for conservation, fixing leaky pipes, making infrastructure repairs, anything that helps save water and also mitigate the extraction of water,” Long said.

Sen. Michael Moore, a Democrat from Millbury, was successful in getting an amendment passed, by two votes, that would allow communities that are too far away to join the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority to be eligible for a one-to-one match for infrastructure needs.

Moore said it would create parity for non-MWRA communities to have access to state aid that is dedicated to the MWRA. Eldridge spoke against the amendment, which passed 19 to 17.

“Given the fact that we don’t have new revenue in this bill, the question is where would the money come from?” Eldridge said after the session.

Communities outside the MWRA district feel there is too much attention directed to the MWRA, Eldridge said.

“I think that vote reflected that we do need to provide more investments in infrastructure in every city and town,” he said.

Sen. Bruce Tarr proposed an amendment, which passed unanimously, that creates a municipal impact fee. Tarr said there needed to be some emphasis on water conservation in the legislation. The amendment incentivizes conservation by offering individual ratepayers a fee reduction of up to 25 percent if they install any low flow fixtures or water efficient appliances in their home.

END
2/27/2014

Serving the working press since 1910

http://www.statehousenews.com

Comments Off on W&S – state $ & impact fees

Posted in Medfield State Hospital, Town Meeting, Town Services, Water & Sewer

Water tower legislation expected to pass by Thursday

Posted on February 21, 2014 | Comments Off on Water tower legislation expected to pass by Thursday

John Harney, a member of the State Hospital Advisory Committee’s legislation subcommittee and also a close friend of Senator Timilty, reports that the Senator expects the Medfield State Hospital water tower and well fields legislation to finally be passed by next Thursday.  Under the terms of the mediated clean up settlement, DCAMM agreed that the town should get at no cost land at the MSH site on which to construct a replacement water tower, and the former tubular well fields off Colonial Road.

This emailed update from John this afternoon:

Pete,
Thank you for the accurate summary of the points you made at Tuesday’s meeting.  I did, notwithstanding the CANCELLED notice on the web, watch the [Board of Selectmen] meeting.
I had another long talk with Senator Timilty last evening.  He is, like we are, frustrated by the “one more inquiry” tact that is apparently being taken on the water tower and well-field legislation but is determined to see it through all the hurdles including engrossment and enactment in both chambers and signed by the Governor before 3/10.  He now looks to action in the Senate on Tuesday and in the House on Thursday.  Let us devoutly trust that matters so work out.
It is good that you are keeping a very sharp eye on all that is involved.
peace,
John

Comments Off on Water tower legislation expected to pass by Thursday

Posted in Medfield State Hospital, Water & Sewer

Ralph Costello on MSH

Posted on February 20, 2014 | Comments Off on Ralph Costello on MSH

Unique Homes’ Ralph Costello, who serves on the Medfield Economic Development Committee and is the developer of Old Medfield Square on Rte. 27 (which will pay $600,000 per year to the town in property taxes versus $50,000 per year in cost of municipal services) recently summarized his thinking about the Medfield State Hospital site in an interesting letter to the town planner, Sarah Raposa –

January 29, 2014
Sarah L. Raposa
Town Planner
Town of Medfield
459 Main Street
Medfield, MA 02052

Dear Sarah,

The well-organized January 11th MSH Visioning Meeting was very helpful and informative. It gave those in attendance a free flow of ideas and a clear picture of what the MSH development could mean for the town — the preservation of natural resources and filling community needs, both current and future.

I believe the afternoon presentations made it clear to most in attendance that common sense and vision should prevail over caution and limited horizon. Seldom does a mature town like Medfield, with little developable land, have the opportunity to purchase 130 acres at a bargain price with easy payment terms. And then, control its development to serve the conservation, housing, recreational and cultural needs of the community. The Town of Medfield has that opportunity and should purchase the property.
In the event the town moves forward with the purchase, a Master Site Plan needs to be finalized. And, a strategic plan for its implementation needs to be completed. With the MSH vision in mind, solid planning is needed to address important issues that impact the makeup of the Master Site Plan. The subdivision of parcels of land, the configuration of housing and a timetable for site improvements, funding, marketing, and sales are factors that could determine the makeup of the Master Site Plan. After the vision, the challenge begins. It is one thing to create a vision, it is quite another to execute it.

This letter outlines some of the critical issues that need to be considered in the Master Site Plan and the strategic planning.

What Drives all Real Estate Development?
All real estate developers, me included, always need to be thinking about which “end user” will purchase the developed product. And, what does the “end user” need and want? And, what will the “end user” pay? Even though the Town of Medfield does not intend to develop the site it must create a plan for the development which will be subdivided into parcels, sold and developed by others. Identifying “end users” is very important in the planning process. “End users” want different size lots, housing units, building styles, amenities, density, and prices and need to be considered in creating the Master Site Plan.

Importance of Housing!
Of all the proposed uses, housing stands out as the most important because: Housing is . the highest best use of the land. And, housing will fill the growing need and expanding market of several demographic groups. And, Housing can help preserve the quadrangle buildings by reusing them as apartments and condos. And, Housing parcels can be sold to developers which will bring in revenue sooner, entitling the town to a greater share of the revenue split with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And, housing will produce more post development property tax revenue for the town than other proposed uses.

And, housing designed and built for different demographic groups will have separate generations living side by side with trails and walkways connecting the separate parcels, open spaces, and recreation areas. This will create a wonderful sense of place and further add to the Medfield community spirit. All are important considerations in developing a master site plan. So, special attention must be focused on the housing component.

In general, the housing concept is to plan for the development of market rate housing to fit the needs of the four demographic groups listed below:

• Housing for Seniors
o Independent living
o Assisted living
• Housing for Baby Boomers
o Attached/detached Condominiums
o Multi attached Condominiums
• Housing for Generation X
o Single parent households, Condominiums
• Housing for Generation Y , Millennial
o Rental Apartments
o Condominiums

In Addition, a 408 Affordable Housing component should be available in apartments to obtain the maximum credits toward the minimum 10% affordable requirement. Also, a portion of land should be set aside for a future location to move historical homes slated for demolition or to build a Habitat for Humanity project.
A first step in finalizing the master site plan is to subdivide the MSH site into parcels suitable for each demographic group. The location, boundaries and size of each parcel would be determined by the design needs for the demographic group. The parcels would then be sold to private real estate developers to build housing for the target market. This plan has one distinct advantage: two or more real estate developers/builders can be developing parcels simultaneously without competing with one another. The homes built by each developer would be marketed to an entirely different group of buyers. Marketing to different developers at the same time will result in the project being built and completed sooner.

To accomplish these goals strategic planning must consider the design for the whole site, each parcel, and the housing units within each parcel. Listed below are some of the considerations and decisions to be made in the process of creating a final site plan.

To Be Determined:
• The optimum number of housing units to be built on the site
• The number of housing units designated for each demographic group
• The location on the site for each demographic group.
• The optimum size of a parcel to accommodate the designated number of units
• The size and number of parcels to be subdivided.
. The balance of open space with the configuration of buildings and improvements on each parcel
• The scale and design of the housing units to fit into the needs of the target market and at the same time fit architecturally into the site already defined by the chapel, the quad building facades and the country environment.
• The access roads to each parcel
• The availability and access to utilities for each parcel
• The market value of each parcel created
• The means by which the market value of each parcel could be enhanced
• The marketing plan for the sale of the parcels
• The rollout timetable that best meets the financial goals of the project

Zoning
Under the existing Medfield Zoning Bylaw the MSH site cannot be developed as envisioned.  Changes to the Zoning Bylaw must be a part of the strategic planning.

I recommend the following changes:
• Rezone the entire MSH site to include:
o Flexibility on use, density, and dimensional regulations
o Changes in the procedures and process for review and approval of plans

o A design review committee

A rezoning of the entire site is the best method of making the necessary changes. Since zoning bylaw changes require a vote by town meeting, proposed changes should be a priority.

In the execution of the MSH master plan many changes will be required; hence the new zoning should give the town broad guidelines and lots of flexibility to accommodate those changes. Changing the procedures and process for application and plan review is very important to the success of the project at MSH. The process of plan review has to be more of a collaborative effort between developers and the Town of Medfield, with both sides working towards a common goal.

The first step in the approval process should be a design review. A design review committee should be established to review the site plan and unit plans submitted by the developer. Prior to the submittal of any plans the. review committee should go over design concepts with the developer to establish design guidelines and direction. The town and the developer should work together to find the best plan for the parcel. Control over design is very important for the town as the overall appeal and value of the remaining parcels and the entire site is affected by what is built.

In conclusion, the MSH vision is all about community —- a place where different generations can live side by side and share in the experience of a vibrant community.

The Town of Medfield has the opportunity to transform this vision into reality and help create such a community. When completed, it would not be an imitation of another development, but unique to Medfield, and a model for others to follow.

Sarah, I hope these ideas are helpful in your strategic planning for the site.

Sincerely yours,
Ralph
Ralph Costello
Unique Homes and aide Village Square Corp
503 Main Street, Medfield, MA.

Comments Off on Ralph Costello on MSH

Posted in Medfield State Hospital, Uncategorized

$2.5 m. to remove all asbestos from MSH in 1998

Posted on February 18, 2014 | Comments Off on $2.5 m. to remove all asbestos from MSH in 1998

At the State Hospital Advisory Committee committee meeting last Thursday, John Thompson, chair of both the State Hospital Environmental Review Committee (SHERC) and the MSH Environmental Cleanup Mediation Committee, reported on a 1998 study done for the state on asbestos at the Medfield State Hospital  site.  He indicated that the study was performed by an exceedingly reputable company, and that it had concluded that it would cost $2.5 m. to remove all the asbestos from all the buildings at the MSH.  John provided the SHAC the two notebook binders that contained the survey materials.

Since that survey had been done,

  • the state did remove all asbestos from the R Building at the rear of the site and the building also renovated at that same time directly in front of the R Building.
  • the state demolished three or more of the buildings

In order to reuse the site, the building will most likely have to be removed, due to the advanced state of deterioration to which they have sunk, and at that time any asbestos would have to be removed.

DCAMM has supplied to SHAC what it has to pay, using the prevailing wages the state must pay, to demolish buildings similar to those at the Medfield State Hospital, and that figure was $11 to $14 per sq. ft.  DCAMM also says that if the demolition is done by a private party, as the town envisions would happen at the MSH redevelopment, that in DCAMM’s experience the cost is $6 per sq. ft.   Those DCAMM figures are “all in” figures, which include the cost to abate things such as asbestos and/or lead paint in the buildings.

Any deteriorated building can be saved, but those at the MSH site can probably only be saved by the expenditure of such large sums of monies that most observers suggest that it is economically not feasible to save them.  The economics derive from the fact that someone must pay the extra costs required to rehab such deteriorated building, and that extra cost must either come out of and redevelopment or from the town’s residents’ property taxes.  That decision of whether to pay the larger amounts required to save the buildings, or not, will ultimately be another of the town’s decisions, if the town first opts to purchase the property.

My guess is that the town will opt to save only a very few buildings, perhaps the iconic Lee chapel and two to three more that are in good shape, and to demolish the rest.  I am also guessing that most of us are not going to be willing to pay more in property taxes to save the rest of the MSH buildings and will prefer any redevelopment to have less density than might be required to create the extra monies to rehab any more of the buildings.

Comments Off on $2.5 m. to remove all asbestos from MSH in 1998

Posted in Medfield State Hospital

MSH site walk 11AM on 3/8

Posted on February 18, 2014 | Comments Off on MSH site walk 11AM on 3/8

John Thompson and Richard DeSorgher will lead a site walk of the Medfield State Hospital property at 11 AM on 3/8/14 to give interested residents a look at the property that the town will be asked to buy at the special town meeting (STM) on 3/10/14.

Comments Off on MSH site walk 11AM on 3/8

Posted in Medfield State Hospital, Town Meeting

Water tower legislation delayed

Posted on February 18, 2014 | Comments Off on Water tower legislation delayed

John Harney of the legislation sub-committee of the State Hospital Advisory Committee reported at the last SHAC meeting last Thursday, that Senator Timilty had said that the town’s pending water tower and well fields legislation (to acquire about 5 acres on which to site a new water tower at the former Medfield State Hospital and the well fields), has been delayed because the state decided to surveyed all state departments to make sure that none of them wanted those lands.

Mr. Harney reported that Sen. Timilty expected the legislation to be enacted in about two weeks.  Originally that legislation had been expected to be passed by last Thursday.

The legislation would transfer to the Town of Medfield about 5 acres of land surrounding the present water tower, along with access to Hospital Road, and the almost 20 acres of land comprising the former tubular well fields that are accessed off Colonial Road and that lie between Colonial and the Norfolk Hunt Club lands along North Street.  The plan is for the town to get the lands at no cost, as one of the concessions negotiated as part of the successfully mediated clean up of the Medfield State Hospital site, due to the risk to the town’s well 6 by the C&D dump next to the river below ground water levels and the VOC plume from the former laundry building at the MSH site.

Comments Off on Water tower legislation delayed

Posted in Medfield State Hospital, Water & Sewer

Shared concept plan for MSH

Posted on February 17, 2014 | Comments Off on Shared concept plan for MSH

The town’s consultant for the State Hospital Advisory Committee’s visioning session has put together the first draft of he calls a “shared concept plan” for the re-use and re-development plans for the Medfield State Hospital site developed by the participants at the recent visioning session.  At that visioning session, the 100+ participants broke into groups of ten or fewer, and as small groups articulated our own visions for the reuse of the site.  The consultant then took all the ten or more groups’ responses and synthesized those into his version of a consensus plan for the ultimate uses of the site, based on the input from the 100+ participants. That consultant’s plan is attached.  20140216-shared concept plan

The SHAC has yet to review this plan to make sure t conforms with their sense of what was decided.

The town residents will have the ultimate say on how the site is re-developed, and there needs to be much more work done to come to any final conclusions about what the developments should include.  With that caveat in mind, it is interesting to see the general agreement upon many of the uses.

Comments Off on Shared concept plan for MSH

Posted in Medfield State Hospital, Town Meeting