Category Archives: Development

Proposed Child Care Center

Proposed Child Care Center

A child care facility has been proposed for 75 High Street, a fairly narrow lot on which the land slopes up steeply from Rte. 27.  The area is zoned residential, but under the state statute, child care facilities are exempt from local zoning, just as are religious and educational uses, so the facility can locate there subject to reasonable health and safety strictures imposed by the Planning Board on site plan review petition.

Today I was provided a copy of the plans, and I thought that there will be many who will want to see those plans, so I uploaded them here.

75HighSitePlan8-9-17

MHC on LCB

The Massachusetts Historic Commission wrote the letter below to the Medfield Historic Commission about the LCB proposal –


20161014-masshc-ltr2lcb120161014-masshc-ltr2lcb2

MS4, stormwater regulations, appeal status

ms4

MS4 Appeal Status

This email was forwarded by Mike Sullivan this afternoon, which email explains that the coalition of towns appealing the new federal stormwater regulations is entering a  litigation phase.


Dear MS4 Contributors,

 

The following update was provided to MCWRS members via our newsletter. I also wanted to share the latest information with those of you who have contributed to the appeal or plan to.

 

On August 24, 2016, MCWRS and the Town of Franklin jointly filed a Petition for Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Final MA Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) General Permit with the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. Prior to the MCWRS/Franklin appeal, the Center for Regulatory Reasonableness (CRR) filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Washington, D.C. Several events have occurred since these two initial filings. Three additional appeals were filed in the First Circuit – by the City of Lowell, the National Association of Home Builders/Home Builders Association of MA, and the Conservation Law Foundation/Charles River Watershed Association (CLF/CRWA).

The U.S. Department of Justice (on behalf of EPA) has filed a motion to transfer the appeals filed by MCWRS, Lowell, National Association of Home Builders, and CLF to the D.C. Circuit. The transfer request was triggered by the CRR appeal first filed in the D.C. Circuit, and EPA’s submittal of the Administrative Record Index to that court. The appeals are expected to be transferred. Meanwhile, in the First Circuit, MCWRS/Franklin filed a motion to intervene in the CLF/CRWA appeal on the ground that other parties in that case (i.e. EPA) would not protect the municipalities’ interests in that case. CLF/CRWA’s position is that the MS4 Permit does not go far enough. CLF/CRWA have filed motions to intervene in all of the pending appeals.

Our attorneys are prepared to submit briefs and oral arguments in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. We will continue to keep you apprised of events related to this critically important action to protect Massachusetts communities’ interests. Read the full press release on the MCWRS website for complete details on the announcement.

 

Going forward, now that the appeal is filed all communications between MCWRS and its attorneys are privileged and confidential. Additionally, since as public agencies you are all subject to public records laws, we do not want to supply updates via email that may include sensitive information and strategies. Instead, we think a periodic conference call may be the safest and best way to provide our supporters with updates. Of course, we would also not want you to share details of the call content via email with anyone else in your department or other town staff as they would be subject to the same public records regulations. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns about our planned approach to keeping you updated.

 

As always, we greatly appreciate your support in this important matter!

 

Best regards,

Kate

 

 

 

Kate Barrett

Vice President for Public Involvement

Regina Villa Associates, Inc.

51 Franklin Street, Suite 400

Boston, MA 02110

Mosquito spraying ceasing

mosquito

This from Mike, in turn from Nancy Bennotti of the Board of Health this morning –


Good Morning,

Please be advised that due to the low mosquito counts in the traps along with the on-going drought; the final spray application will be on Thursday (night), September 1, 2016.  Trapping for virus will continue through September into October.

 

If you have any questions, please contact the office.  Thank you.

 

 

Elizabeth Donnell

Norfolk County Mosquito Control District

61 Endicott Street, Suite 66

Norwood, MA  02062

 

781-762-3681

781-769-6436

LCB filing with MHC

LCB

LCB filed materials dated 8/25/2016 with the Massachusetts Historical Commission, which I understand to be part of LCB’s appeal to the DEP of the Medfield Conservation Commission’s decision that Vine Brook is a perennial stream.  I understand that the ConCom determination that Vine Brook is a perennial stream, combined with the 200′ setback mandated by the Rivers Act from perennial waterways, effectively prevents the construction of the LCB 78 unit assisted living facility on the proposed site behind the Clark Tavern.  To see the 8/25/2016 filing click here 20160825-LCB-filing with MHC.

 

 

Hospital Road 40B documents

40b

To review the documents related to the Larkins’ proposed 40B project on Hospital Road, see the link provided below in an email this morning from Sarah Raposa.


Kristine is in the process of making a page on the town website. In the meanwhile here is a link to a Dropbox folder containing the submission to MassHousing.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fb96y2sphx3g6ht/AABEyorFXzg5edO7fTk920uTa?dl=0

 

Sarah Raposa, AICP

Town Planner

Hospital Road 40B

40b

Hospital Road 40B filed with State

The Larkin Brothers of Reading and Fred Santucci of Needham filed with the state to start their permitting process for their planned 40B development off Hospital Road adjacent to the former Medfield State Hospital site.  Below is a draft of the current town response, which the selectmen will seek to finalize at the meeting tonight.

The Larkins shared with me last Thursday that they were willing to start meeting with the town representatives again, meetings they broke off to focus on their state filing.  The real question will be whether they will be willing to make real changes to their project to make it more acceptable to the town, to the point that the town would be willing to seek to help them facilitate their permitting.

The big sticking points are the current density, the costs, and the target buyers not matching town needs.


July 23, 2016

Mr. Gregory P. Watson, AICP
Manager of Comprehensive Permit Programs
Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency
One Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108-3110

Re:     Application for Project Eligibility Determination/Site Approval Country Estates
Municipal Comment Letter; Due July 29, 2016

Dear Mr. Watson:
In response to an application for Project Eligibility Determination/Site Approval (the “Application”) submitted to the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (MassHousing) by Country Estates of Medfield, LLC for a proposed development of forty-eight (48) units on Hospital Road in Medfield pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40B, Sections 20-23 (Chapter 40B), the Medfield Board of Selectmen submits the enclosed material as written comment pursuant to 760 CMR 56.04 (3). The correspondence contains comments from Town department heads and officials. It is our understanding that some Medfield residents will be submitting their own comments.

I.    Introduction
The proposed project (the project) would include forty-eight (48) units on 7.34 acres, 0.02 acres of which are wetlands. The breakdown of the development is proposed as follows: twenty-eight (28) three bedroom units and twenty (20) four bedroom units; 24 single family units with attached two-car garages (24 buildings) and 24 duplex units with attached one- or two-car garages (12 buildings). The existing property is adjacent to conservation land owned by the Town of Medfield and open space land owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The property fronts on Hospital Road, a well-traveled public way that connects North Meadows Road (Route 27) to Harding Street.

II.    Previous communication with developers
Prior to submittal to MassHousing the Applicants had a series of meetings with town staff, officials, and residents on the general concept and layout of the project.
•    December 1, 2015 – Applicants, Michael Larkin and Patrick Larkin, expressed their intent to submit a 40B on Hospital Road to Sarah Raposa, Town Planner.
•    February 3, 2016 – Applicants, Michael Larkin, Patrick Larkin, and Fred Santucci, met with Michael Sullivan, Town Administrator, and Sarah Raposa, Town Planner, to discuss the proposed project. The Applicants were informed of the Town’s draft Housing Production Plan and were recommended to meet with the Council on Aging to understand the needs of the Medfield’s aging population.
•    March 14, 2016 – Applicants, Michael Larkin, Patrick Larkin, and Fred Santucci, met with Osler Peterson, Selectman, Michael Sullivan, Town Administrator, Sarah Raposa, Town Planner, Frank Perry Member, Board of Assessors, and Ralph Costello, Resident. The Applicants proposed sixty (60) units with a mix of duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes. The Applicants were provided feedback about density, price points, site design, and connection to open spaces. The Applicants were also queried on their ability to provide “reasonably” priced homes suitable for seniors.
•    April 4, 2016 – Applicants, Michael Larkin, Patrick Larkin, and Fred Santucci, met with Osler Peterson, Selectman, Michael Sullivan, Town Administrator, Kristine Trierweiler, Assistant Town Administrator, Sarah Raposa, Town Planner, Frank Perry, Member, Board of Assessors, and Ralph Costello, Resident. The plan was reduced to forty-eight units comprised of singles and duplexes all with the ability to have first floor master bedrooms.
•    April 20, 2016 – Applicants, Michael Larkin, Patrick Larkin, and Fred Santucci, Jon Studebaker, Architect, and Bradley McKenzie, PE, met with Osler Peterson, Selectman, Michael Sullivan, Town Administrator, Kristine Trierweiler, Assistant Town Administrator, Sarah Raposa, Town Planner, Frank Perry, Member, Board of Assessors, and Ralph Costello, Resident. The elements of the site plan and design elements were presented by Studebaker and McKenzie. Feedback was given on utilities, infrastructure, stormwater, mature trees, stone walls, and open space connections. Town staff remained concerned about the proposed unit size and affordability.
While the Town was assured there would be an additional meeting to better understand the pro forma prior to submission to MassHousing for Project Eligibility, we were disappointed when communication ceased.

III.    Comments from Town Staff and Officials
Based on the conceptual, un-dimensioned, un-detailed plan that was submitted with the Application, the Town offers the following comments, hopefully useful in developing the plan set for application to the Medfield Zoning Board of Appeals:
A.    Environmental, Historical, and Archeological:
•    The former use of part of the subject property was a gas station/garage, Ford dealership, and a small business making street sweeping brooms in the back of the garage.
•    A large portion of the property is shown to contain Prime Farmland Soils
•    Add vegetation to property boundary – do not rely on State-owned fields as buffer
•    Keep large trees (and protect during construction). Any loss of significant vegetation within 10 years of project completion will require replacement (same location, substantial height and caliper size).
•    Add additional substantial vegetation along Hospital Road to buffer new construction.
•    About half of the property is in the Well Protection District, Aquifer Overlay Zone
•    Retain and enhance the stone wall along Hospital Road.
•    Retain any historical site features (gates, fences, stone walls).
•    Use drought tolerant lawn grasses and vegetation throughout the site.
•    The proposed project is not in an Archeological Protection District.
•    The proposed project not in Hospital Farm Historical District.
•    Hospital Road is not a Scenic Road.

B.    Infrastructure:
•    Water and Sewer connections were made as a courtesy to the former residents who sold their land to the developers. Otherwise, a 5-year moratorium would be in effect.
•    The Board of Water and Sewerage agrees with the Fire Chief’s proposed hydrant locations as sketched on concept plan.
•    Mega lugs will be necessary at all hydrants.
•    Six (6) inch ductile iron pipe and six (6) inch gates must be used at all hydrants.
•    The Medfield Water Department requires a looped water system with eight (8) inch ductile iron pipe.
•    It will be necessary to place one gate valve at each roadway and one gate valve at approximately halfway into the subdivision circle. All valves will be eight (8) inch.
•    One (1) inch Type K, copper service, piping will be required at each house.
•    The Medfield Sewer Department requires manholes to be installed 300 feet apart and at all turns.
•    Provide four (4) foot sumps and catch basins.
•    Proposed infiltration basin design to the standards of the July 1, 2017 EPA standards (PE stamps required).
•    Ensure that the detention area appropriately sized to handle run-off; not too sloped so that it may appear as an amenity rather than necessary infrastructure. Alternatively, provide adequate safety provisions to prevent residents from entering/accessing the drainage structures.
•    Provide operations and maintenance agreement for stormwater system
•    Inclusion of LID Best Management Practices (bioretention, rain gardens)
•    Provide draft homeowners association agreement with submission for maintenance of stormwater system (roadways, common areas, vegetation)
•    Provide operations and maintenance agreements
•    Provide dark sky compliant site lighting / street lights (include photometric plan with cut-sheets for submission)
•    Provide traffic impact report with submission
•    Provide estimated water and sewer usages for proposed units
•    Natural gas service exists in road, in front of 21 Hospital Road
•    Upgrade sidewalks, ADA compliance
•    Provide underground utilities
•    Snow storage areas have not been designated. Lack of planning for this could result in reduced visibility for drivers and pedestrians in the development.
•    Provide earth importing, movement, and removal information that will be required to establish grades that will accommodate the dense development in this site.

C.    Fire Protection and Life Safety:
•    Building setbacks should be at least 8-10 feet apart
•    20’ wide one-way road circulation with Cape Cod Berm instead of vertical granite curbing
•    Use vertical curbing on Hospital Road and at curved radii.
•    No parking on street (with enforcement via Homeowners Covenant) or provide wider streets
•    Install three (3) fire hydrants on loop around Road A (locate at access points and mid-way around Road A)
•    Ensure ability to flush hydrants but locate hydrants so they are useful in fighting fires
•    Shaft liner for duplex units

D.    Overall Site Plan:
•    The site plan is aggressively dense.
•    The density and alignment of the units around the ring road does not respect the street view or country road.
•    Provide more differentiation in the unit design and face them in a purposeful direction not just vehicular (the way the decks and backs of the houses face the center circle does not create much of a neighborhood).
•    Eliminate one of the structures at the end of Road C in order to free up space for visitor parking (also removes Conservation Commission jurisdiction).
•    Eliminate one of the structures in the northwest area in order to free up space for visitor parking.
•    Create bus stop and mail locations.
•    Include fully dimensioned detailed site plans showing setbacks, FARs, lot coverages, etc.
•    No further expansion of dwellings allowed.
•    Provide for third party building inspection.
•    Provide for third party road and infrastructure construction inspection.

E.    Municipal Planning and Affordable Housing Comments:
•    Housing goals articulated in Medfield’s 1997 Master Plan Goals & Policies Statement  remain applicable today:
o    Protect Medfield’s environmental quality, town character and fiscal condition as growth continues. (LU-2)
    Decisions affecting land use should be guided by an understanding of the environmental, social, and fiscal implications of development.
o    Medfield will accommodate residential development that is consistent with the Town’s character and its ability to provide high quality services. (H-1)
    Residential development should be concentrated in areas that can accommodate development without jeopardizing the environment and town character.
    Ensure that densities reflect infrastructure and natural resource constraints.
o    New housing development will include the variety of lot sizes, unit sizes and housing costs that contribute to Medfield’s diverse community. (H-2)
    Plan for and support development of a wide range of housing options in order to accommodate households with diverse housing needs, as well as changing family structures.
    The Town should take a direct role in provision of affordable housing in order to protect the character of the community while meeting identified needs and targets.
o    These goals formed the basis for the housing vision stated in Medfield’s 2004 Community Development Plan:
    Medfield will accommodate residential development that is consistent with the Town’s character and its ability to provide high quality services while ensuring that units that are affordable to a range of incomes are also developed.
•    The Town has completed a draft Housing Production Plan and intends to submit it to DHCD by the end of the year. One of the promising strategies for providing broader types and affordabilities of housing in Medfield is in the redevelopment of the nearby former Medfield State Hospital. The Town purchased the property from the State in December 2014 and is currently undergoing a master planning process.
o    The size and price of the of units do not meet the needs of the community as evidenced by the following key findings for the HPP:
    Medfield’s housing stock is relatively homogenous, and there is a need for more diverse housing options in town suitable for households of all ages, sizes, and incomes. Increasing the diversity of housing options in Medfield will enable seniors, younger adults, and extended family households to establish and maintain long-term residence in the community.
    There is a need for affordable rental units suitable for families, including single parents. Medfield has a large population of families and large family sizes. Even though most families are homeowners, there is a population of families in town who rent. Medfield’s existing rental units are very small – the median number of rooms is only 3.4 – which suggests a need for larger units suitable for families.
    Medfield’s homes are large, and there are few options for seniors and empty-nesters to downsize and remain in the community. Smaller single family homes or condominiums would allow residents an opportunity to stay in Medfield as they age.
    Single family homes in Medfield are very expensive. There is a need for more affordable homeownership opportunities for younger adults, people who work in town, and care providers. Medfield will have an increasingly difficult time recruiting quality candidates for municipal, school department, service, or other private sector jobs as employees cannot afford to live within a reasonable commuting distance.
    Demand for the existing rental properties in town is high, suggesting a surplus demand for rentals in town. Conversations with social service providers in the region suggests that there is a need for rental housing for all types of households, including young adult households, single parents, traditional families, seniors, and single individuals.
•    Medfield’s Subsidized Housing Inventory is approximately 6.7%
•    Provide potential school impact estimates

IV.    Conclusion
Overall, our suggestions about this project relate to the density and unit sizes proposed which seem to be somewhat excessive given the surrounding residential neighborhoods and the interest in providing affordable housing for families of modest means. The variation of pricing between the affordable units and the market units appears to be excessive. The Town would like to see some of the market units priced at a more reasonable level to accommodate the needs of residents who are being priced out of the local housing market as prices skyrocket. In addition, it would seem that the disparity in price between affordable units ($200,000) and market units ($500,000 to $720,000) may not be the most advantageous arrangement. The site has water and sewer in the adjacent street, substantially reducing development costs, which should permit unit housing costs to be reduced to a more reasonable level for the market units. We have discussed this with the developers and suggested scaling back the size and the amenities in the market units to put them within the price range of moderate income families, e.g., reduce square footage of the units, eliminate granite countertops and high end appliances, offer lower priced options in flooring and bathroom fixtures, etc. Medfield currently has six 40B developments, including a recently completed 92–unit rental complex. It has never turned down a 40B project and is proud of its track record of welcoming a variety of housing types. Three of these developments are for families, two for senior housing and one for developmentally disabled individuals. Recent housing surveys have indicated a strong demand for affordable housing for older individuals, whose children have left home, who would like to downsize and would like to stay in the town where they have lived for all or most of their lives. Presently, we have seen an outflow of older residents to surrounding communities because the type of housing they would like to purchase or rent is not priced within their means. The vast majority of Medfield’s housing stock consists of large single family homes, not suitable for an aging household. In supporting a 40B project we would hope that it would serve people of modest means, both low and moderate incomes. We do not consider the purpose of a 40b development is to maximize a developer’s profit margin.  Given your mission we are confident that you will concur with this position by requiring that both the affordable and market units be reasonably priced and not be priced at levels well beyond the reach of average citizens. We would also ask that, given the diversity of our existing 40B projects, that the need in Medfield for housing options for aging families be incorporated into this project.
In addition to the above observations, we do have some concerns about the lack or suitable parking spaces proposed within the development. Given the number of bedrooms and of dens, and family rooms suitable for conversion to bedrooms, as well as the proposed street widths of 20 feet, we do not feel that the proposed parking is adequate. Keep in mind that this is a somewhat rural site with no public transportation and that Medfield, with a population of just over 12,000 issues some 12,000 motor vehicle excise tax bills each year. Finally, we are concerned that the building designs seem to be based more on how many units can be configured than on how the development will look and function as a neighborhood. When we made suggestions about placement of garages and decks, we were told that the design was based on minimizing the asphalt surfaces. A well-designed neighborhood should be based more on how it works for the residents than on how asphalt is measured. A little creativity in design could do wonders for both.

Signed,
____________________
Chairman, Board of Selectmen

cc: Jessica L. Malcolm, 40B Specialist, MassHousing