BoS annual calendar

Below is Mike Sullivan’s latest iteration of the annual calendar for the Board of Selectmen.


 Proposed Calendar for Board of Selectmen

May 20, 2014 to December 31, 2014

Selectmen’s Meetings: May 20 & 27, June 3 & 17, July 1 & 15, August 5 & 19, September 2, 16 & 30, October 7, 21 & 28, November 4, 18 & 25, December 2 & 16

May 20 – Mike Francis from Trustees of Reservations to discuss policy on mosquito applications on Trustees land. Open Space & Recreation Committee five-year plan & survey update.

May 27 – State Hospital Advisory Committee to discuss composition and skill set of Hospital Committee going forward, mission statement for hospital committee, hospital master plan and time frame for acquisition and redevelopment.

June 3 – Mission Statement and Appointment of Hospital Redevelopment Committee

June 17 – Water & Sewerage Board, Supt of DPW & Cemetery Commission to discuss role of Water & Sewerage Board in policy & budget oversight, DPW Supt to explain Chapter 90 Highway Fund, sidewalk & road maintenance and construction and sidewalk from Robert Sproul Road to Medfield Shops Plaza, Tree City program, and Cemetery Commission to discuss role in policy & budget oversight and cemetery expansion. Discussion of FY15 budget goals, review Selectmen’s and Town Administrator’s goals and evaluate Town Administrator.

July 1 – Medfield State Hospital Redevelopment Committee give mission statement and discuss goals; Medfield Energy Committee update on Energy Manager position and goals

July 15 –August 5 – Aesthetics Committee, Downtown Cultural District, Dwight-Derby House Trustees, Historical Commission, Historical Society , Historic District Committee and MEMO Planning Board, Sign Bylaw Committee & Zullo Gallery Committee to review downtown redevelopment progress

August 9 – Tour new public works garage.

August 19 – Town Accountant and Treasurer/Collector to review FY14 year end revenue and expenditure results and to discuss borrowing plans. Update from Selectman DeSorgher on meetings with area Boards of Selectmen to discuss regionalization

September 2 – Economic Development Committee to discuss RFP for Lot 3, Ice House Road and other potential economic development initiatives.

September 16 – Permanent Town Planning & Building Committee to discuss Public Safety Building

September 30 – Water & Sewerage Board to discuss Water Tower construction program & Supt of DPW to discuss road and sidewalk maintenance & construction

October 7 – Personnel Board & Asst Town Administrator to review Personnel Bylaw update progress

October 21 – Council on Aging to review Respite Care Program and rental polices

October 28 – Senator Timilty, Representatives Garlick and Dooley & State Hospital Committee for update on hospital acquisition and redevelopment

November 4 – Warrant Committee, Capital Budget Committee, Dept. Heads, Boards and Commissions for Initial Budget meeting FY16 budgets

November 18 – Conservation Commission, Park & Recreation Commission, School Department & Bay Circuit Committee to discuss field usage, trail development & Open Space & Recreation Plan implementation

November 25 – Board of Health, Lyme Disease Committee and Norfolk county Mosquito Control District to discuss deer culling, beaver control & mosquito control.

December 2 – Submission of budgets for FY16. Schedule budget meetings with Departments. Update from Outreach Director

December 16 – Open Warrant for Annual Town Meeting and request submission of warrant articles

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

BoS goals (draft)

The selectmen annually designate their goals, and to that end about a month ago the three selectmen each individually penned his goals for our board for the next year.  Richard DeSorgher then took the three versions and combined them into this composite.


Draft Board of Selectmen Goals for 2014-2105

I. Communications

  1. Promote and encourage a collegial and supportive atmosphere for all volunteer committees and boards, ensure that their voices are heard and their work recognized. Promote and encourage supportive atmospheres with the Board of Selectmen and our Town Administrator, Superintendent of Schools and all department heads and employees
  2. Implement a push system to get residents town government information
  3. Improve the town’s web site

 

II. Planning

  1. Develop a town master plan, and review and/or expand what was called for in the Vision and Action Plan for the Downtown, adopted in 2006 by the Downtown Study Committee
  2. Work with the Town Administrator and Assistant Town Administrator to look at the future make-up of the management staff of the town
  3. get a five-year plan from department heads and committees
  4. Implement an affordable housing plan
  5. Get by-laws concerning future development of the former Medfield State Hospital
  6. Adopt Green Community Act
  7. Install solar PV sites, issue RFP’s to buy solar power and look at ways to develop power purchase agreements for PV power
  8. Work with the Solid Waste Committee to explore ways to increase recycling rates

 

III. Medfield State Hospital

  1. Continue to provide direction and leadership as the town and the re-development committee move forward with the clean-up and redevelopment of the former Medfield State Hospital.

 

IV.  Finances

  1. create a business office for the town
  2. Support the annual budget process and implement a three-year financial forecast
  3. Implement property tax relief for senior citizens
  4. Explore financial saving potential and pro and cons of ways to increase additional revenue including adopting the Community Preservation Act, selling town water and encouraging the Economic Development Committee to work towards bringing clean industry, business and housing (Old Medfield Square example)to the town, including development of Lot #3/Hinkley Lot off Ice House Road.
  5. Complete union contract negotiations before contracts expire and analyze all overtime expenditures.

 

V. Downtown

  1. Work to develop a robust, business-friendly and pedestrian-friendly downtown
  2. Meet with and review all boards overseeing downtown development and analyze and combine if necessary similar committees.
  3. Explore with the Planning Board the formation of a Design and Review Committee.
  4. Work with the Chief of Police on traffic and parking issues concerning
    1. Traffic and lights along RT 109 and RT 27 (RT 27 at both RT 109 and at South Street)
    2. Sidewalk expansion
    3. Upham Road
    4. Potential future parking sites

 

VI. Support for the new public safety building, through, hearings and town meeting action until final completion

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 -

BoS 7/15 agenda updated

Board of Selectmen

July 15, 2014

Agenda

Executive Session at the End of Meeting: Pending Litigation, Red Gate Farm and Clarke Tavern

ANNOUNCEMENTS

  • This meeting is being recorded
  • We want to take a moment of appreciation for our brave servicemen and women serving in Afghanistan

APPOINTMENTS

7:00PM           Invited to Attend

Downtown Study Committee, Cultural District, Cultural Council, Historic Commission, Historic District Commission, Dwight Derby House, Pocket Park, Aesthetics Committee, Planning Board, Sign Advisory Committee

 

ACTION

Town Administrator FY2014 Review and Goals Discussion

Request by MEMO to use the Town Seal for Medfield Day

 

LICENSES AND PERMITS

 

MEDFIELD STATE HOSPITAL STATUS UPDATE

  • Coordination meeting held on Tuesday, July 8th with DCAMM and DPW
  • MSH Redevelopment Committee meeting TBD

 

INFORMATIONAL

  • IRA Status Report for Cumberland Farms to the DEP
  • TMobile notification of extension of the lease at Mount Nebo Water Tower
  • Resignation of Elizabeth Loveless from Youth Outreach

Water ban

Errin Chapin asked me a question about water ban issues, to which I did not know the answers, and so I asked Mike Sullivan to respond – Mike gave a great explanation -


Subject: RE: Water question

Errin & Pete, If we stopped supplying water to the Dover Sherborn schools tomorrow, we would still be under a water ban. The conditions for determining a water ban are set the the Division of Environmental Protection (DEP), a state agency When the flow in the Charles River at the Dover metering station falls below a certain level we must declare a water ban. We have plenty of water, in part, because over the years we purchased land to protect our water supply. The problem is that the state views the Charles River as one river system and bases it decisions on the entire Charles River basin. The communities that did little to protect their water supply and allowed wide-scale development are treated the same or in many cases better than the communities that acted to protect their water supply. The state views Medfield residential water customers as “water hogs” because our average daily residential water consumption is greater than 65 gallons/person. The Water Department has to submit a plan to show how it will reduce residential water consumption until it falls below the 65 gallon/person/per day level. I believe the national average is about 90 gallons’/person/day and New England is considered one of the water-richest areas of the country. But that doesn’t matter to DEP and to the local watershed associations; they want consumption to go down to 50 gallons/person/day. Commercial, industrial, educational and recreational water consumption is excluded from that calculation, so it doesn’t matter whether the Dover Sherborn schools are getting water from Medfield’s water supply. The water ban is in place and will stay in place as long as the river flow is below a certain level. I could go on at length about how unfair the DEP water regulations are, but it wouldn’t change things a bit.

One additional point, the Dover Sherborn schools are treated as a commercial customer and so they pay a higher rate for their water than Medfield residential customers. The Water & Sewer Commissioners are always looking for ways to raise revenues to pay for the capital improvements that we need to make to keep the system adequate. While not a huge revenue generator, the Dover Sherborn schools do contribute to the revenue stream and help somewhat to reduce the water rate increases.

Mike Sullivan


From: “Osler L. Peterson”
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 9:40 AM
To: “Errin Chapin”
Subject: RE: Water question

Errin,

I am embarrassed to say that is an issue about which I know little, so I will copy Mike Sullivan on my reply and ask him to let you know why the water to DSHS has been handled the way it has in the past and his plans for the future.

Best,
Pete
—– Original Message —–
From: Errin Chapin
To: “PETERSON | Law – Osler \”Pete\” Peterson”
Sent: 7/09/2014 4:29PM
Subject: Water question

Good afternoon!

I was wondering why we continue to sell Dover Sherborn high school water when we ourselves in the town are consistently faced with summer water bans.  Do you think that that issue should be readdressed on a yearly basis? Once our town absorbs the 40b complex and the state hospital development, I would think that selling water to Dover would cease altogether.  We do not have an unlimited water supply.

Is this something that needs to be addressed at  town meeting? And if so, how do we get that on the docket?

Thanks!

Happy July!

Errin

BoS on 7/15 (draft)

Board of Selectmen

July 15, 2014

Agenda

ANNOUNCEMENTS

  • This meeting is being recorded
  • We want to take a moment of appreciation for our brave servicemen and women serving in Afghanistan

APPOINTMENTS

7:00PM           Invited to Attend

Cultural District, Cultural Council, Historic Commission, Historic District Commission, Dwight Derby House, Pocket Park, Aesthetics Committee, Planning Board, Sign Advisory Committee

ACTION

 

LICENSES AND PERMITS

 

MEDFIELD STATE HOSPITAL STATUS UPDATE

  • Coordination meeting held on Tuesday, July 8th with DCAMM and DPW
  • MSH Redevelopment Committee meeting TBD

 

INFORMATIONAL

  • IRA Status Report for Cumberland Farms to the DEP
  • TMobile notification of extension of the lease at Mount Nebo Water Tower
  • Resignation of Elizabeth Loveless from Youth Outreach

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.