Category Archives: msh

Deer vs dog at MSH

FYI:  This email from Chief Meaney about a deer being aggressive behind the Medfield State Hospital came this afternoon –


In case it comes up tonight, a deer went after a dog in the Dover section of the hospital property this afternoon around 2 PM. The dog and owner were beyond the fields behind the hospital on a path that leads to the Dover-Sherborn soccer fields and eventually to the school.


Jenny checked and learned that this is typical behavior this time of year. There are many baby deer around. Most likely the doe had a baby bedded down in the vicinity and felt threatened by the dog.


The dog was taken to the vet clinic Jenny will come up with some wording for a sign which we will post on that particular gate and also by the boat launch.


While this is typical behavior, Jenny has not had this occur before.

MSH-MPC status report

Below is the status report received last night from the Medfield State Hospital Master Planning Committee updating the selectmen.

It did not OCR well so better to see a pfd of the report here 20150804-MSH-MPC-report to BoS

Medfield State Hospital
Planning Committee
For internal committee review only – not for publication
AUGUST 4, 2015
• Meets twice monthly on the first and third Wednesday at 7 pm in the Town Garage meeting room
• Received mission statement from Board of Selectmen
• Established internal goals and objectives (attached)
Stephen J. Browne
Patrick Casey
Ralph Costello
Teresa James
Randal Karg
Stephen M. Nolan> Chairman
David Perini
Kenneth J. Richard
Gil Rodgers
Subcommittee Reports:
1. VHB/RKG Project Liaisons
2. Communications Subcommittee
3. Survey Subcommittee
4. Financials Subcommittee
5. Developers Roundtable Subcommittee
6. Lightning Strike Subcommittee
John Hamey
Bill Massaro
Jean Mineo
Frank Perry
Ros Smythe
Alec Stevens
John Thompson
7. Committee Outreach Reports (Council on Aging, Cultural Visioning, Medfield Energy Committee)
Appendix A: Agreements Log
Page 1 of 10
Mission, Goal and Objectives of Medfield State
Hospital Reuse Master Plan – 2014
Board of Selectmen Mission Statement:
The overall goal of the Committee is to present to the Board of Selectmen a
comprehensive and coordinated vision for the sustainable redevelopment and reuse of
the former Medfield State Hospital.
The goal is to create a Master Plan for the former Medfield State Hospital whose initial
phase covers reuse of the core campus but also suggests compatible uses for the
adjacent town- and state-owned properties. Alternative reuse designs will be based on
balancing the competing uses and following set of objectives.
• Preserve the natural resources and rural character of the site.
• Conserve when feasible the architectural and cultural history of the site.
• Consider and select reuses that are informed by the underlying values and
character of the Town of Medfield.
• Consider housing needs for multiple economic and demographic segments of the
Medfield population.
• Create and integrate open space with easy access throughout the site.
• Create economic value to the overall site and serve the needs of the community.
• Establish a sense of place and destination.
• Provide recreational, learning and cultural opportunities to support Medfield’s
diversity of talents and interests.
• Consider retail and commercial space within the context of the campus reuse plan
and supportive of ongoing economic development in downtown Medfield.
• Achieve acceptable long-term economic, environmental and financial impacts on
Medfield residents and town services.
December 17, 2014

• Teresa James
• Randal Karg
• Sarah Raposa
The Committee held an initial meeting for the master planning process on May 6, 2015 with VHB and
RKG to kick-off a year-long planning process that will over the following objectives:
o Maintain and enhance the character and values of the Town of Medfield and its residents
o Upgrade Town housing inventory and address underserv~4 housing needs
o Achieve reasonable economic and financial impacts .on Medfield residents and Town
A Public Involvement Plan (PIP) was created for the ptμ;pose·of identifyμtg opportunities to gain
community and stakeholder involvement at optimal PPnl~ during the pf.(j9ess. The PIP is a dynamic,
evolving document that identifies goals for each ofthe(4) public meetings,;potential time:frames for the
public meetings, and a draft format and outreach tools anticipated for use d~g ~ach event, and
opportunities for the town to consider in advertising’. tliese events. –
Phases and Elements of the Planning Pro¢~~s; . .
o Public Meeting # I: “Shapillg. the Altematives”-m1 June 11, 2015
o Developer’s Roundtable onA,ugustl!,::2015
o Public Meeting.#7: “Altemativ~s” on Sep#mber 16, ~zq1~5 at the High School Auditorium
o Public MeetiAg<#.3′: .’Wxeferred Pl~” Targ~tJ.>ate,: TBD/November 2015?
o Public Me_etffig #4: ”Zoning and Impl~nie:ritation’; _: (includes disposition strategy) Target
Date: TBD~e}:Jruary 2016? . . . . . .
Current status .~~hμp~p:Qiing I11~¢tings_:~’.~’~–<-._~·~<~- :-.”
• On J~~;~ill:7″-ttlie. C9μunittee.m~t witll”Vl@.8? RKG where three high level re-use scenarios were
crea~’based on.committee and.public inputfrom the 6/11 public meeting. The methodology
inclb<!~ drawing ‘bubble diagrams’ on site maps and capturing elements and key points for each
case: -r;:X~:·· · ..
o Alte.roCl:tive #1 -C6~unity Asset Resource (value balance of cost/benefit)
o Alternattye #2 – Bal@;riced Smart Growth (mix of uses, retain “village” feel)
o Altemative .. #3 – Market Driven (residential heavy and/or business campus)
• On August 5th the CQ~ttee will have a meeting with VHB & RKG to review progress thus far,
identify and capture lri$ights discovered from the current scenario development process (major
cost drivers, benefit sources, revenue/cash flow opportunities and constraints), develop strategies
for development implementation, review updated market information.
• On August 19th the Committee will hold a housing workshop sponsored by the Massachusetts
Housing Partnership. The focus will be on the various types/styles and affordabilities of multifamily
housing, state programs, ie ”the 40s” (B, R, S) and other zoning tools.
Page 2of10

• Ralph Costello • Lucille Fisher
• Randal Karg • Ros Smythe
• Gil Rodgers • Alec Stevens
• Brandie Erb • Sarah Raposa
Media Efforts
1. Website,, is constantly updated with current news on the property
2. Weekly email updates to a list of 467 interested people and_J~ groups and organizations
3. Medfield TV interviews, available on YouTube, the Medije1dTV website and,
are approximately 25 minutes each and cover issues re\~y@t to the property
4. Press releases for local news media · :, 3.<<). ·
5. 357 Facebook followers and 47 followers on Twitter~,-. ,-:~_,~;:t.
6. links to the web site and notifications of all plibfic· meetings prd~ici~d in the Thursday school
packets .. ::·i~~\:i.. · <.\~-,.
7. @MSH~ Vision is following all the princi~al~!~m the school system aii&?:\9cal and regional media
outlets ‘.”.::/:. . A~ . , ·;~.y~~\ ..
8. Medfi~ld Professionals group on Linkedln is a~tiv~ly Ul,Qfiit6red for MSH;r~(e,:{ences
~;:: –~: .. ‘ ‘. . •.. \.’. : :~:~~~i~:~-;: ‘ ;~ ;.
Subcommittee Outreach ·<~ ··~>.:;;:=,: . … · ·:>Y~:-
1. Information sessions with local orgaJjJzaiit>~_:::-;:Qpen Sp~~~:~~d Recreation; Conservation
Commission; Warrant.Q.gμunittee; Board ofWat¢r·~aD:d Sew~i~g~; Housing Authority; Energy
Committee, Parks a,na.~~~ci.~~ion; Boy··ati~ GirL~~btttll.&~der~;~<New ‘N Town, Board of
Assessors; and, 9B’HP~1i on A~~ . :-:~’.;;?:~<\.< )~- . .,::~~~t};~. ‘.
2. Participation in MEMQ’S Dis~qy~r Medfie\~~f-Iistory Day Trolley Tour. Provided Committee
member on each ofthe/~~x to~~/tq __ answer qu~~tions and encourage community participation.
Set up mi~PJ!~tjJ?..~ table~~t:~~9J!~y”·$fc)p to educa~~,_and create discussion.
3. Set.” . ;: ~:·_,.drm~ti:’Q{t~~ple af.~lJ’Astle Ait’illStaJla.tionto answer questions and encourage
co :-~~~ty partidp§~~,, ‘(‘./~¥~~h. “~:y-::,~~;,
4. Boo’1g~t}v1edfield Daf'(iq14 &20;1~)
-:-~~0/:.!.. -.;·
Page3 oflO

• Patrick Casey
• Teresa James
• Jean Mineo
• High School interns: Olivia Taylor, Marykate McNeil, & Dana Cruickshank.
Surveys intend to start broad and subsequently explore topics raised in more detail, determined by
responses. They are intentionally short with a goal to expand input to the planning process. We expect to
issue a new survey every 2-3 weeks. Notification through the email blast, Facebook, Selectmen biogs,
etc. Sign up through
Survey #1 June 28 – July 12
• Responses from 1,073 people, 95% from Medfield and in demographics roughly corresponding
to Medfield in ages
• 86% hadn’t attended the June 11 workshop= great outreach!
• We asked for “dreams” and “nightmares.” Under dreams – most commonly mentioned categories
were Recreation/Sports (programs & facilities), Open Space/Park (passive use), and Housing.
Under nightmare, housing was mentioned by 75% of those who wrote in a response.
• These will be explored in Survey #2
• Survey notices to planning boards and board of selectman from adjacent towns
• Executive Summary and full report is available online (MSH Vision?)
• People were asked if they’d like more communication and of those who responded, 61 % said yes.
Therefore the committee is planned 2 walking tour I discussion groups.
Walking Tour/Discussion Group #1July22
• About 45 attended the walking tour led by John Thompson
• About 22 attended the discussion group at DPW Garage
• Looked at questions of <use>+ <benefit>+ <stakeholder(s)> and <use>+ <issue>+
<stakeholder( s )>
• Written summary forthcoming
• Special note: we even had some young adults who are interested in architecture, photography
and state hospitals (their passion) from RI who participated and shared some historical
photographs of the property in their possession and are active users of the property as it is today.
Survey #2 Open NOW through Aug. 9 -this Sunday
• Explores topics of Recreation and Housing raised in Survey # 1
• Response is currently under 150 – HELP NEEDED TO PROMOTE and encourage response
• Survey link on homepage of
Walking Tour/Discussion Group #2: Tues. Aug. 18
1. We have about 45 signed up already for the tour (RSVPs are to help with supplies/planning)
2. Attendees can come for one or both (tour and discussion)
3. Sign up link is through and use the search box to type in Medfield Walking Tour
Page 4of10

• Stephen Nolan • Bill Massaro
• Ken Richard • Mike Marcucci
• Gil Rodgers
The FAS is composed of Steve Nolan, Ken Richard and Gil Rodgers; Bill Massaro attends meetings as
resource support; and Mike Marcucci attends meetings to coordinate with Warrant Committee. Its
purpose is to develop accurate and realistic assumptions to enter into financial analyses of MSH
alternatives, review and comment on the financial model structure ~d analytical approach, and to
review results of financial analyses. . · ‘: :· .. ;:.· :
Action items: . . .. . -,~:<··· .
. · .. .”‘; -‘.y .. ·.,
I. Coordinating financial modeling and analyses \\j~fr:Wfu-ranfQ~μ,imittee through Mike Marcucci.
2. Obtained copy of preliminary financial mod~l{ftgm RKG and ·r~Yi~~ed model structure.
Sending RKG/ VHB list of comments. Scb:~~itfing working sessic>ri,:~th RKGNHB to discuss
model and provide feedback. ·o:·:~~tJ~::::.. ~s:·:\::~ .. c
3. Obtained updated data from Superintendent ‘6f.{$gpools o~:~W,dent popill~tjgp. projections and
total costs per student, current and projections fdH;t_q,Q.~~j~ars. ·:>_~}>:.
4. Obtaining estimating factors fod1timber of students·.:~.~rfliriusehold and numb-er of students per
number of bedrooms. · ·. · :._.r.: ‘c. · ::\’;.i ..
5. Obtaining updated assumptions on:iulμn~l~~J~~sts per ~~j~t~~~t (current and projection for IO
years) from Medfield T9.wn officials.}’,:· .. : ·c:.;:~>.:.::-.:,:… ‘\:·:{~~>
6. Develop!ng RFP t9:;~~~Pk~g;e ~ccura~;·~d re\~!~~i~~~~Iiffqn and ~bate~e~t cost .
assumptions bas~g·’.gn·· four b~4mgs (Cl;·:~~4.;’:and 27:[§.>·~f.ood Service Bwldmg, representmg
142,000 ft2 ) requiwg dem0Hti9p. AsseniQl~~fCD of all previous studies of these and
comparable buildings~,!Q~-provi4~:t~etailed dat~;for respondents. Working jointly with Building
and Groμμ.4&.~C.QmmitteeLL , .:~:2/7( T>:. . … . . “‘7 ~’.:·.
7. Obt~J:l~’.i~~~h~s~.s~st, ili4~~ysi~~-sti~;~~~ptions from: (I) Parks and Recreation, (2)
Axt~~μ,Iture centef~;~~/3) Otli.~r InstitutiohsAQlealth, high-tech, bio, industry)
8. Ref~~;~d documerit~pj:~.OB ho:q~i~~ gap numbers in Medfield.
9. Org~g ,and schedulirig~’d.esigner/¥chitect roundtable to expand inputs and assumptions in
developrtl~ntqf alternatives~<‘·: .,
, . .:·’·~· .. : ~-. ~- ·’.’_”‘ ~ ‘•
Page 5of10

• Stephen Nolan
• Ralph Costello
• Ken Richard
The VHB team recommended an outreach process to invite qualified development interests to
potentially participate with the Town in the redevelopment of the MSH campus. Using an approach
that has been successful in comparable projects, this will include an initial “developer’s roundtable”
wherein real estate developers and other interested parties are broμgμt together to see and discuss the
project, accompanied by a suitable marketing effort to attract q\l~J{ffod professionals. This approach
includes a controlled site visit, an introduction and presentatj.°-~j~1e Subcommittee and VHB regarding
the process and draft alternatives, followed by a roundtab.l~:Q:iScussion or Q&A session. The purpose
of this initial outreach step is to create awareness of aiit(tlie opportunities presented in the
Master Plan, and to refine the plan in response to inp#t from the development community received.
The VHB team is organizing this step in concert:~;·the Town earlier intq~ process than originally
anticipated (it was part of the Phase III scope) .. ·:::~:\.’ –‘):
?, Hall Keen
Acqμisition, deveiopm,~n{~d management i5fiMf ordable,
coP,:\rentjonal, and miX¢if #.lcome housing (Bal(er Chocolate
Fact9cyitip9;rchester, Ke~~dy Biscuit Lofts in Cambridge)
Brian Goldson & Peter Roth, New Midway in F6tf~()il;lt, ArtBiO.~~ in S End, Brookside Artists Lofts
Atlantic Development in JP · · · · –,. · .. ··::
.. ‘ .. ·.•····–··. . .. –
Peter Daly, Homeowner~s.Reh~b – :•. :~on-profithQusip:g:(PufuarrtGreen & Chapman Arms in
·Q~bridge}~<:· , .. · ·
Kevin Burke, North Hill Qpn~inuing ear.e;)~etirement community
Emily Rei~~,n, Greentowni.3.bs_-: , ~ergy and cieah technology entrepreneur incubator
Josh Cohen, B:e~p Communities, … Mixed:income housing . .
··::x)”‘.·-,. ‘.·’ c:·: … • ..
Tony Green, The Piij.~1.,lills -:Housing developer . ·-···’ ,_, :-.
Torben Arend, Gilbane·~,;-~. .z .. Housing construction
Ron Bonvie, Southport . _ .. . . ::, ·Senior housing developer
Ron Roux
;_.- <
Housing developer
Page 6of10

• Stephen Browne • Gil Rodgers
• Ralph Costello • Stephen Nolan
The subcommittee’s mission is to reach out, and not wait for lightning to strike, to identify potential
institutional users for MSH, including educational (e.g., universities), non-profits, bio-tech, and sports.
Impressions of First Meeting with North Hill:
Key Messages from the Meeting:
-‘ ,· :· ~: .• ,:,,~ >
North Hill is a successful non-profit with a vertically integrat~~;:~~i~~ss model for seniors, offering
owner-occupied independent living condos, enhanced livin,g:(~~if’9¢ation on assisted living), and
nursing home care, operating on a large campus in NeecJ.hru:μ::Witha~~~~ 600 residents in various
components of their model (more than 80% are in th~{~?#pos). ·:+~;~:\.
Expressed interest in locating in the Core Campu~,~~~~~{not Hinkley/Ice HQu~e Road)
• They are attracted to the campus atmosp~~~~i4djacent co11~ervatio~-‘J’.~Cr~ation areas, the views
– all of which also are elements of their campu~=1~tNee$’ ·,’.:>:f),:,
• They are looking for a place to eiRAA4_, because th~~~~~am campus is filif
In Medfield, they would provide only Ind~~¢.fia~~t~k~ving ucit¥t~~~., owner occupied condominiums)
• They would not replicate the full bdi~~~~~di~~~tQf their~~a~~am campus
• They would not buij¢.::~~~~ed living·::~t\nursillg}h~e. fadliti~, even though they do provide
those facilities inN~&lliiirtF’~ · < •. ~:;;::.. ·<:.· ·d- ~. ‘~:·.\:~–~” ‘·
o They wotil~i~rovid~ ‘~~e servi~~~;~~~ ~~:fil1fu campus and/or outsource to local
Medfield proY.,i4~rs of ~.~isted living~I~ nursing home services
North Hill’s p~q4,μ,S~;;~g\)..~d b~~;~*P~~(~6;~:~g,i:~~uld!~l~qμ buyers to pay for a full package (purchase a
condo plus,e”11’1~~:~rm ~~progriilii)\}:}~} .. ·.· ”;’.’•
• It Wli~ be . an a~tY~t d~~~!:9£:1Ilent f~rMSH and would appeal to one segment of the
Med:fmtd~semor markef · \>. · .’.: »,·:.
{:.;~-…; :},·~. .· – – :~.~·~)’~_-.’;”._ ‘ ..-:···-~ ,- ~
• Because ~&iit~ high price, 1fW:ill not ‘lll¢et all the needs expressed by seniors (who want Moderate …’ :)… .. ?;,. … ;:-, -_._;-.·.~’ -‘ ·’
Price Housing)~,~-\ I~;;;’:’.”-.
• It would be hl~:X~ comple~~*tary to more moderate priced senior housing at another “MSH”
location (Hinklefat,,~ly Ice House Road, as requested by the senior community)
o Two differenfi~~4~9fu serving two different market segments
North Hill will engage strongly:lb-~ursue the potential at MSH
• Anne Orens of North Hill, who was at the meeting at North Hill, later attended the MSH walking
tour on July 22, and was very impressed with its potential
• Kevin Burke (CEO of North Hill) will attend the August 11 Developers Session (as invited),
along with assisted living invitee Michael Stoller (CEO ofLCB)
Page 7of10

Based on outreach to the Council on Aging Board of Directors and separate discussions with Roberta
Lynch and members of the COA
Outreach representatives ofMSH MPC: Browne, Costello, and Rodgers
Key Messages from the Seniors:
• Seniors want “Moderate Price Housing”
o They want housing available similar to what is ayaifable in Norfolk now — $300,000 –
$350,000 units, designed for senior needs (.one -level living. with possibility of additional
bedrooms and bath on the same level or seconditoor) . etc.)
o This is distinguished from 40B-style defu¥tiort~ .of ~”Afr.ordable Housing”
• Seniors do not want 40B housing
• Seniors want owner occupied housing, not rengtls
• Seniors want a range of housing-related servide~tor seniors~ in Medfield,.in~*1ding
–~ . ‘ ‘
o Moderate price housing .. ·. ·
o Moderate size housing, (1,200 s.f. to 1,800 s.f)
‘• • ·~ <·. -~: ~T
o Walkable neig11.~~~hood
. : : -… ~
o Opportunities-:·for::soc~aj. interaction
o Low or ni~tenance fre~:housing :
o Assisted Living.
• Th~9,8..( reconlltiencls IJlacilliModerate PriGPHousing for seniors near the CO A
.6(:~~H,inkley parcel · ‘ . .
–.~:·::-:-;;-.;._ ~:-:.-.
o Lbij·1ce House Roitd
·__::~ _ _::;-~~~– ·: _’..
• Seniors feel
o They have· b,~:~n i~qr~d I shortchanged, and that although much has been said they think
little has been·do~eto· address their needs in Medfield
o They are a growing segment of the population in Medfield
o They should not have to leave Medfield as they seek housing and other services as they
Page 8of10

MSH: Cultural Community Update submitted by Jean Mineo
The cultural community embraces the unique challenge of transforming the historic MSH property into a
beehive of activity for creativity, discovery, inspiration, and education for residents and visitors to the
region, while creating linkages to downtown.
Research to date:
Fall, 2014: MPC members visit 5 arts organizations, presented sμipfuary report
Dec. 2014: ArtsMarket consultant Louise Stevens presents to.MP:C,’and meets with cultural leaders,
teachers and artists. ~–c’Fi.;? · < }L,·
Jan-Feb: MA Cultural Council facilitates two commt1Wcy::¢eeting~:~tQ.,develop cultural plan
::(~~~x~=;: f’· · .,,. ,~:i~~f :’,:
April, 2015: Cultural community presents a 32 pag~:Jisibn report detailillgj>9tential facilities, programs,
resources and partnerships, capital, models, and a:·d~tWled case study of the1fopl<lnton Center for the
Arts located in a community with similar demographfc$’.Jo Medfi~lq (see
Cultural development offers: ,. -~~-:~~ii~k. . ,.· ~~ti>i:~f .; ,·\~~~t::(<,
• Programs: multi-generational art{f~~ti-disciplinafy~it~~s-fc, culinary, visuaf’Mt, history,
horticulture, etc.) ·,::rt>>:.::i’ i:!:,, \1_~:\’.:
• Strengthen Schools: provides tools/ijiaterifils~~:~~ experli~e·:~o. enhance curriculum
• Open Space and Passiy~: Recreation: ·~ward~hlp,~ibrQUgh u~~With public art, outdoor
amphitheater, gar~~@Z~b,’.pr~tμm, comi~2tions tsb~~~.J~sset§~ittc.
• Preservation: de~#’.~;fdr. re~il§~~,·~f existing~i§~.l~gf wlief~j~p~sible
• Scale: flexibility fo~~Ark with .. c9~e plan/ii}~iitain rural ·character
• Economic Developtrle~~;_:.~rea~y¥~{~RferpriseS.~~ up/move to town, increase property values,
direct ®.Pf~Y!.c;lii;e~t ecorioWJ.c:~~~i;iefits;~:~.~flle td~~ community
• ~~~-~~:~;%r:~i~%~12:,~~~~~ese ~h6:’~~~~~gt~ts~rvatio~ and culture; support Medfield’s
his~Rf properties; ~~;:m-res~~~l.lce brmgs,n:~w perspectives
“”‘”:. ~. ·.. -~.””‘”” ··· ..· ~···
• Land~~~ol: typically·:WiP.i a cilli\traj development project, a municipality provides a long-term
lease to’a:~μJ.tural organizalj9.n(s) tch~s~a building/property to provide community programs.
Organizat16~~s). maintain th~/p~opertY·’at their expense, the town retains ownership and flexibility
for future use’mthout ongoing~ftnancial burden.
-~-;~~~~;f..~.. )~h<:
Next steps: ·~·J;~}’.<:._A’.£\(‘
A successful plan will seek p~~f§· and mix mutually supportive creative industries (film, publishing,
gaming, design) and fine art disc’iplines (visual, music, drama, literary, culinary, public art) spread over
several MSH buildings, and be fully integrated with open space, landscape and housing plans.
Identifying both what is possible and what is right for Medfield, along with synergistic partners will
determine related capital and operating needs. Professional arts-based specific market research is a
critical and unmet need. Estimated expense: $10-20,000. We remain very concerned that the current
process will not adequately address this issue.
Page 9of10

To: Ros Smythe and Stephen Browne
Medfield State Hospital Reuse Master Planning Committee
From: Medfield Energy Committee
Date: July 8, 2015
Dear Ros and Stephen,
Thank you for talcing the time to present the current status ofthe Medfield State Hospital Reuse Master
Planning Process to the Medfield Energy Committee oq Maj/t2th~ 20.l5. Your work is vital to the Town
and will help insure the most effective use of the prop~rty~ –
,.- . –·
You had requested that the Medfield Energy Conln.#~ee (MEC) consider it~ ‘~4~pes and desires” on how
the property would be developed and what things shoij.19 be includ~~ in the planning process.
: .. ·
In the realm of “How to develop” the ~~CJs vitally concei;iied::th~t the standards f~t :development and
construction include the best practices in ei\efgy:use and eneigy,·~onservation. Energy Star qualification
and adherence to the Massachusetts Stretch.’J~nergy~G9des are co~Wered must-haves by the MEC. A
plan for achieving net zero, and even net + energy corl~μμiption f&::piJil.dings should be included in the
evaluation process. Further,,,.j;.tiw~,;s.:uggested th~ta consici~ra,tip~ of LE~D certification be part of the
design and construction:pr9;·:· · .. ,.,· ..- : :. -:>; _: ~ • ·., ·.. -:~·’ .:>.;;._ .-, . ,.
Regarding the overall plan J~~:.What tq . develop”, MEG.strongly recommends that appropriate space be
allocated to sol~ ~~!~Y genent~9D..· Per: qie .de_ed resttl9tion from the Commonwealth, the open area
around the ~~t~rJower:~~-ot be b@t on .wiles~ t4~ directly related to the water tower. This could
be an ideaj~:~~l~:~for a solar~~y to at-1¢,ast offset the~l~ctric cost of operating the tower.
“.~~~~~’:,,,, ~~{f:t. . .:,,:_·~:,: · ..
Again thank yo4Jor presenting -f4ttplans tCH:Jle MEC. Please let us know when we can be of help in the
planning process; · · · · ·
Sincerely, .. ~: : .. ::’.:
Fred Bunger, Chairman, M~eld_Energy Committee
Page 10of10
MSH Master Planning Committee Agreements Log Page 1of4
Date p :J . ·. Agree.ment
The capital assessment report document was distributed. Members agreed to keep
05 Nov 14 findings confidential until it is reviewed and accepted at the next meeting.
Current site security plans presented by Bob Meaney appear to be adequate.
05Nov14 Additional measures such as a ‘citizen’s watch’ or contract security staffing will be
pursed if experience warrants.
A communications sub committee of Gil Rodgers, Ralph Costello, Ros Smythe, Alec
05 Nov 14 Stevens and Randy Karg was formed.
Lucille Fisher and Brandy Morris were approved by unanimous vote as
05Nov14 communications resource members.
A draft project goals and objectives document prepared by Gil Rodgers and Ros
05 Nov 14 Smythe was accepted as working document
Agreed to have Frank Perry approach two real estate developers attend a meeting to
05Nov14 share their point of view on potential re-use concepts as input to our deliberations.
05 Nov 14 Agreed to have a historic tax credit expert attend a meeting to review this subject.
Unanimous acceptance of revised Goals and Objectives. Document included as
17 Dec 14 Appendix 1 in meeting minutes.
Unanimous acceptance of Communication Policy Document. Document included as
17 Dec 14 Appendix 2 in meeting minutes
The approach for evaluation and selection of the preferred Master Planning consultant
07 Jan 15
will be determined at the 21 January meeting after all proposals are received (due 16
January) and the size of the effort is known.
Article 27 as shown on the handout ‘DRAFT 2015 ATM Warrant Articles relating to
07 Jan 15 MSH’ is inappropriate at this time. Approval of this Article will obviate the mission
determined by the Board of Selectmen for our team.
Follow up with the Park and Recreation Commission by Steve Nolan will be pursued
07 Jan 15 as to whether the Warrant Article should be pursued
Consultant Proposal Ranking:
Good – Community Opportunities Group, Dodson & Flinker, Gateway Planning
Better – Architerra, DEi, Principle+ Group, Touloukian Touloukian
Best – Cecil Group, VHB
Follow Up Activity
1. The follow up approach for interviews will be:
Four consultants, the two ‘Best’ and two selected from the ‘Better’ group, will
08/04/15 RWK
H:\Medfield State Hospital\Master Planning Committee – Spring 2014\Minutes\Agreements Log File MSH Planning Committee – as of 08-
04-15.docx Final 2:39 PM
MSH Master Planning Committee Agreements Log Page 2of4
Date Agreement
be invited to interview with the Committee on this schedule –
February 4 at 06:30 and 08:00
February 5 at 06:30 and 08:00
2. The selection of the two consultants from the ‘Better’ group will completed
offiine. Each Committee member will submit their individual forced rank
selection of the ‘Better’ group to Sarah Raposa for compilation by 25 January.
1. VHB was selected as the best firm to assist in our planning efforts by
unanimous affirmation.
DEi presents a credible alternative if contract negotiations with VHB are
2. Ken Richard and Sarah Raposa will represent the committee at the New in
04Mar15 Town group meeting April 16
3. Steve Nolan, Ken Richard and Ralph Costello will conduct contract
negotiations with VHB
4. A single point of contact or subcommittee from the committee will be identified
to manage the relationship and coordinate activities with VHB during project
execution. Interested committee members should contact Steve Nolan.
1. Modifications to the VHB services agreement were made and will be forwarded
to VHB for their consideration and approval.
2. A request for $200k of additional funding will be made in Warrant Article #24 at
this year’s town meeting.
3. Randy Karg and Teresa James were approved to serve as liaisons to VHB
18 Mar 15 along with Sarah Raposa as Town Planner.
4. Bill Massaro will initiate collection of documentation to support the planning
5. Bill Massaro will investigate the potential to conduct a tree maintenance
service day at the site.
1. Steve Nolan will take the lead in answering any questions regarding ATM
Article 24 at Town Meeting
01April15 2. The April 15 meeting will be canceled if the Parks and Recreation Board is not
available to meet with us. (Post meeting update – the April 15 meeting will be
held as previously scheduled. Sarah has posted the agenda.)
VHB and Town of Medfield have formally signed contract for master plan
15 April 15 development.
1. The schedule and project plan as presented by VHB was approved by the
06 May 15 2. A Motion was proposed by Stephen Nolan, seconded by Steven Browne and
approved unanimously:
The Board of Selectmen to write a letter to the Division of Capital Asset
08/04/15 RWK
H:\Medfield State Hospital\Master Planning Committee – Spring 2014\Minutes\Agreements Log File MSH Planning Committee – as of 08-
04-15.docx Final 2:39 PM
MSH Master Planning Committee Agreements Log Page 3 of4
Management and Maintenance requesting Town participation and input on the
design of the Parcel A-2 access road and parking facility for the Charles River
Canoe Livery on the former State Hospital land. The design of the
parking facility should be done in a manner that facilitates early phase access
via existing central campus roadways as well as later phase access via parcel
A-2. The design of the long term access on parcel A-2 should be done in a
manner which preserves the valuable soils on that parcel for agricultural use.
1. All prior meeting minutes approved unanimously.
2. All files posted to VHB extranet will be handled by Sarah Raposa. She will
provide guidance on process to be followed. See Action Item #1 below.
3. Use Survey Monkey for public input.
4. Committee desires to be an active participant in selecting developers who
participate in the Developers Roundtable event.
5. Definition of “Base Case” for analysis prior to 11 June meeting is:
• Demolish all buildings
20 May 15 • Keep roadways
• Leave underground utilities in current state
• Backfill foundations
• Maintain mowing and landscaping activities as currently conducted
• Security by routine police patrols
6. Approved $500 to Sarah Raposa for preliminary project expenses. Later
amended to increase to $1000. Motion – K. Richard; Second R. Costello
7. Minutes of May 20, 2015 meeting were approved unanimously.
8. Agreed that suggestions for additional “Did You Know” items will be completed
and submitted by the end of the week of June 5th.
9. RKG will provide Committee Members with a copy of the Proforma for the No-
03 Jun 15 Development Scenario prior to the date of the first Public Meeting.
10. Teresa James had prepared a draft of questions for the upcoming Public
Survey Questionnaire, (Survey Monkey), and, together with Pat Casey, they
will submit an update to the Committee for comments. The hope is to be able
to send out the Survey as soon as possible after Public Meeting #1.
1. 03 June 2015 meeting minutes approved. Motion – Randy Karg; Second-
Ken Richard
2. Financial review sub-committee formed with Ken Richard, Gil Rodgers, Steve
Nolan members; Bill Massaro Resource Member
3. Survey sub-committee formed with Pat Casey, Teresa James , Jean Mineo
17 Jun 15 and Richard Scullary citizen resource member
4. Developer Roundtable sub-committee formed with Ralph Costello, Ken
Richard and Steve Nolan members.
5. 16 September is the date for the next Public Involvement Meeting
6. Next regularly scheduled committee meeting will be 01 July
08/04/15 RWK
H:\Medfield State Hospital\Master Planning Committee – Spring 2014\Minutes\Agreements Log File MSH Planning Committee – as of 08-
04-15.docx Final 2:39 PM
MSH Master Planning Committee Agreements Log Page4of4
Date · 1 Agreement
1. Hard copies of the survey need to be posted at the Library, Town Hall and
Senior Center to enable those without computer/online voting capability to
2. Decisions on re-naming the property and conducting a ‘Blessing Event’ at the
site were deferred.
3. A “Lightning Outreach” effort will be conducted to leverage network contacts
that committee members have with key people in academia and targeted
industries. Timing is urgent for this activity. A sub-committee of Steve Nolan,
Gil Rodgers, Steve Browne and Ralph Costello was named to drive the effort
with substantive results by the end of August.
4. A site information packet to support the “Lightning Outreach” should be
5. The Warrant Committee was identified as a key stakeholder for our group. A
member of the Warrant Committee will be invited to the next meeting of the
Finance Sub-committee.
01 Jul 15 6. The issue of demolition costs remains unresolved. This information is vital to
accurately assessing the financial impact of various re-development scenarios.
We unanimously agreed to pursue an RFP for demolition of Buildings C-1, C-2,
B-4 and 27B to resolve this issue. These buildings are appropriate for
demolition as they have been identified as being dangerously deteriorated
and/or highly risky attractive nuisances. There are no issues or opposition to
demolishing these buildings from the various Historical Commissions. The
exact process for gaining funding approval for this work will be investigated.
See Action Item #5 Below.
7. Delegation of Authority to appropriate an additional $2, 000 for two additional
meetings with VHB was unanimously granted to Sarah Raposa, Randy Karg
and Teresa James. Moved: Gil Rodgers, Second: Ralph Costello.
8. The Finance Sub-committee will respond to a request from the School
Committee for a student population forecast resulting from any re-development
08/04/15 RWK
H:\Medfield State Hospital\Master Planning Committee – Spring 2014\Minutes\Agreements Log File MSH Planning Committee – as of 08-
04-15.docx Final 2:39 PM