Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 09/14/2022Town of Mansfield RECEFk1tW,ning Board TOWN CLERKS OFFICE Meeting Minutes zon on 14 A & 31 September 28, 2022 MANSFIELD MASSACHUSETTS' MEETING HELD IN PERSON IN MEETING ROOM 3 AB AND VIRTUALLY USING GOTOWEBINAR PLATFORM Present: Beth Ashman -Collins, Chair; Sharon Friedman; Adrian LeCesne; Brendan Roche; Michael Feck Alternate and Mark Corsillo, Alternate Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Joseph Cerretani, Clerk; Michael McClanahan; and Ralph Penney Motion to appoint Ms. Friedman as acting clerk for the meeting. (Roche-Corsillo) Four (4) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Meeting Minutes — September 14, 2022 *to be submitted the next meeting. Mr. Corsillo asked if committee member would be ineligible to purchase land. Ms. Ashman -Collins replied that if on the committee, they should not be able to purchase land. Mr. Burke noted that it would fall under the Conflict of Interest law. He then briefly explained the process of Town owned land sales. Mr. LeCesne expressed interest in also being an alternate. Motion to nominate Mr. Cerretani as Ad Hoc Committee Member with Mr. McClanahan and Mr. LeCesne as alternates. (Friedman- Roche) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, One (1) abstained PASSES Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/28/22 Page 1 of 4 Non -Action Item Ms. Friedman read a letter submitted by Kohl's dated September 28, 2022 in to record. The letter was written to the Police Department requesting permission to allow Kohl's to open for extended hours on Friday, November 25, 2022. Ms. Ashman -Collins noted that they have been granted this in the past and no action is required by the Board. Mr. Burke apprised the Board of the objective for the upcoming second community workshop tentatively scheduled for either October 12th or 261h. The second workshop will focus more on zoning, where the first workshop was more detailed oriented relating to form and function. BETA's contract calls for two workshops as the first was broader based and the second will narrow things down. Mr. Burke spoke of the collaboration with SRPEDD Housing Production Plan (HPP) in conjunction with BETA and that it provides a variety of housing options. SRPEDD will also be meeting with the Board to share their survey results, that was previously shared with the Board, and discuss the HPP in more detail. Mr. Burke explained that SRPEDD has already presented to Mansfield housing Corp. then they meet with the Planning Board and after present to the Select Board. The Board concluded that October 261h would be preferred for the second workshop. Mr. Roach expressed that he felt there was confusion at the workshop as to what was happening and confusion of different areas of work and what the Town is trying to do. Discussion ensued to create a timeline for the project and Special Town Meeting (STM) and Annual Town Meeting (ATM). Ms. Ashman -Collins suggested sorting things out relating to the separate work at Route 106 and Chauncy Street. Important to relay to the public what the opportunity is and public participation at the Planning Board level. Mr. Burke said that he had been asked when to anticipate zoning articles, either STM or ATM. He said that it was not a problem to create a draft for STM. He expressed concern that he witnessed confusion at the workshop as to what was happening. He said that the public and the Board have an education process to go through together. He does not want to try to meet an artificial deadline without Board consensus and without an understanding by Mansfield residents, where if brought forward may not stand a chance of surviving. Mr. Corsillo inquired if there is a deadline to meet state approval for the MBTA zoning. Mr. Burke noted compliance deadline is 2024. The Board agreed they did not feel pressure for a deadline to bring this forward for town meeting. Mr. LeCesne suggested written clarification for the public of the different decisions for TOD & MBTA and the Route 106 and Chauncy Street intersection. He felt that was not apparent at the public workshop. Mr. Burke explained that the Route 106 to Copeland drive is already in the mix through MassDOT and allocated in the state transportation improvement plan. Completion is estimated for 2024-2025. That does not have to go through town meeting to fund the Route 106 improvements. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/28/22 Page 2 of 4 Route 106 Phase II from Copeland to N. Main Street does involve the recommended TOD access option. Completion is estimated for 2026. BETA pointed out that Phase II is included in their process. It should be designed and included in the MassDOT project. Ultimately it is the Select Board to approved the decision. Ms. Ashman -Collins noted that the TOD development should not precede the roadway improvements. Ms. Friedman expressed that she likes the ideas of creating a public fact sheet for the projects explaining the MBTA overlay interfacing with the TOD. She asked if the Town has enough resources such as water and wastewater, for this buildout. How many units currently exist and how many would be part of the provision to meet MBTA overlay requirements. She also noted traffic flow would be important. Mr. Corsillo asked how much grant money would the Town lose if they are not compliant. Mr. Burke suggested potentially 10 million dollars over thirty years. He also noted that there are some communities that decide to be grant limited than take such an intense level of development that it changes the character of their communities. Mansfield would be required to create zoning for approximately 1,400 units under this new economic development plan and what can be counted toward that goal from existing structures. He expressed would the Town want to comply in exchange for potential grant money at approximately $300,000 per year and does that make sense as a policy question. Ms. Ashman -Collins spoke of the Master Plan and that economic growth is a Town priority. Ms. Freidman noted there is an issue with the general perception of what is happening and people don't want Mansfield to become a city. Mr. Feck noted it is important to know density and scale down from downtown to residential areas. Mr. LeCesne spoke of importance of scale, frontage and setbacks. Mr. Burke clarified that the MBTA is seeking for towns to create the zoning framework and let the market determine when and if the units get built. He referenced the Chocolate Factory units and when they are completed; will they all get leased or will they remain vacant to an extent? Market value will determine that demand for housing units. Ms. Ashman -Collins referred back to density and felt that the Board consensus does want setbacks and does not want to continue to expand the area with zero setbacks allowed. Mr. Corsillo asked about the density is for West Village and that type of building could be considered in lieu of taller structures. Mr. Burke noted that the West Village community is a 40B and did not have to comply with building density restrictions. Ms. Ashman -Collins said the current zoning does not dictate architectural style. BETA referenced making changes to the Bylaw for consideration of community conformity and uniformity. Mr. LeCesne referenced a 2014 Train Station Final Access Area Study and asked the Board's opinion. Ms. Ashman -Collins said showing the different levels of service and scenarios was useful and helped to lead the Board toward certain options. Mr. LeCesne asked for further clarification of how the numbers in the matrix were achieved. He noted that primary goals were to get traffic out of the neighborhood and revitalize or incentivize the west side of the tracks because they are underdeveloped. Mr. LeCesne expressed concerns that traffic will not completely be taken away from the nearby neighborhood. Brief discussion ensued relating to neighborhood traffic and potential changes with importance of new intersection at County Street and that BETA has provided good options. Potential increase of tractor trailer traffic and what is the consideration for new traffic study. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/28/22 Page 3 of 4 Ms. Ashman -Collins asked to get the Housing Production Plan draft before they meet with SRPEDD. She also asked if a density chart could be created for what is needed for compliance. Ms. McGill noted several documents posted on the Planning Board web page for public access relating to the MBTA overlay project. Ms. Friedman noted that CIP is meeting on October 26 at 6pm before the Planning Board meeting. Ms. Ashman -Collins said that the Downtown Committee has been awarded a grant for a pavilion at Harry Chase Place. She expressed the importance of public understanding of the history of the site. Town Fall Festival Saturday, October I". Motion: To adjourn at 8:28 p.m. (Feck-Friedman) all in favor PASSES Date of Next Planning Board Meeting: October 12, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. Signature of Clerk Date of Approval Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/28/22 Page 4 of 4 Town of Mansfield RECEIVED Planning Board TOWN CLERKS OFFICE Meeting Mi,AJt Fl 14 A 8r 3'1.. September 14, 20241ANSFIELD'< � �r1 YO T ME + + U{ �OOM ETING HELD IN PERSON IN 3 AB AND VIRTUALLY USING GOTOWEBINAR PLATFORM Present: Joseph Cerretani, Clerk; Sharon Friedman; Adrian LeCesne; Brendan Roche, Michael McClanahan; Ralph Penney and Michael Feck Alternate Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Beth Ashman -Collins, Chair and Mark Corsillo, Alternate Motion to appoint Nh•. McClanahan as acting chair for the meeting. (Feck-LeCesne) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Craig Cygawnoski of RIM Engineering and Mr. Schilchte were present. Mr. Cygawnoski explained the history of the parcels including a previous land exchange. There is an easement between the properties with a stockade fence along the easement. The applicant has direct access to Parcel B shown on Form A plan and is seeking to purchase that parcel from the owner at 960 East Street. The existing buildings are in the R-2 zone requiring 30,000 SF. The Property at 960 East Street will still have 39,000 SF, more than what is required. The property at 946 East Street will be 23,576 SF and will not be any more non -conforming than it currently is. Both lots are pre-existing since the houses were built in the 1950's. Mr. Burke expressed that having reviewed the plan, it warrants endorsement. Motion to sign the Form A. (Feck-Cerretani) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES i Craig Cygawnoski of RIM Engineering was present on behalf of the owner. Mr. Cerretani read the submitted letter from RIM Engineering dated September 8, 2022 explaining that pursuant to a previously approved Site Plan the owner is seeking an expansion for the construction of a second -floor addition increasing the building size from 988 square feet to 2,527 square feet with a new parking lot Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/14/22 Page 1 of 6 located at the rear of the property. The site is located in the Business 4 (B-4) zone requiring one parking space for every 200 square feet of office space. The previously approved design included 18 spaces plus one handicap space for a total of 19 parking spaces. The revised design requires 18 parking spaces and 19 will be provided. Mr. Burke explained that he requested that Mr. Cygawnoski present the changes to the Board. They meet the required parking space requirement and are not proposing to change the footprint. Mr. Burke expressed his opinion that the changes do not warrant a new Site Plan review, but felt that the Board should be aware of the proposed changes. Mr. Penny noted that the applicant previously offered to fix and extend the sidewalk beyond the property and add a natural barrier between that property and the gas station property. The existing trees were retained per the residential abutter's request. Mr. LeCesne asked if the new second floor space is at the street side or recessed. Mr. Cygawnoski explained that it will be over the new portion of the building and setback. Ms. Friedman asked if the materials being used are consistent with the other portions of the building. Mr. Cygawnoski said they will be the same. Mr. Burke said that the change is informational only and no vote is required. Mr. Cerretani read the applicant's withdrawal letter into record. Mr. Burke said that the Board shoulc vote to accept the withdrawal and close the public hearing. He also recapped the previous public hearing discussions and that the application was not well received by the public. Mr. Penney noted street width, limited traffic access on Gilbert Street, surrounding bridges, and numerous other reasons that this parcel was not a good place for a large warehouse. Mr. Burke noted that the applicant took that under advisement and chose to withdraw the application without prejudice, which means they could resubmit a new plan for a hearing. Mr. Burke recommended that the Board vote to accept without prejudice. Motion to accept the applicant's withdrawal without prejudice. (Penney-Cerretani) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Mr. LeCesne expressed the applicant's potential to seek other types of uses for the land and that the Board would not be opposed to other uses of property in the future. Mr. McClanahan noted that the property was previously approved for a residential subdivision. Mr. Cerretani expressed that the proposed property use with anticipated high truck traffic was not a good fit for the location, Mr. Burke also noted that the driveway truck turning radius did not conform to the Zoning Bylaw and would have required a variance. Motion to close the public hearing. (Feck-LeCesne) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/14/22 Page 2 of 6 Arek Galle of BETA Group was present. Mr. Burke explained that there are two separate concurrent projects. One is the MBTA zoning which applies to all MBTA communities as a result of legislation enacted in 2020 that now have to allow multi -family by right. Have a density of 15 units per acre within a half mile radius of the train station with the intention of more people riding the commuter rail. This would increase ridership and decrease the amount of vehicle trips per day for environmental benefits, development benefits adjacent to the train station and reinvestment. The Town developed Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in 2014 and not many changes on the underdeveloped sites. Mr. Penney noted that there have been access issues. Mr. Burke agreed and noted that the Town would not move forward until there was access from Route 106 and County Street with two means of egress and neither going through the existing Highland Avenue neighborhood. Mr. Cerretani stated that the reason for the State's legislation is to create more housing and more affordable housing as a sub -component in the greater Boston area. Mr. Burke said that this is an MBTA goal, but not a requirement. Some discretionary grant finding would not be available to the Town if they choose not to comply with the MBTA changes. Mr. Galle began his presentation for the Mansfield Station Revitalization District and noted that BETA has been working with the Town for a few years. Partly for the Route 106 and Chauncy Street improvements working with MassDOT, which is separate from the MBTA development. They will be working on the transportation aspect and the MBTA overlay district and how the TOD fits within that initiative. This work is taking place through a Housing Choice Grant. Meeting Agenda: • TOD District Overlay, Geometry — Map I I • Alignment of MBTA Zoning Objectives and Station Revitalization District Bylaw • Comparative Ordinances/Potential Bylaw updates • Format and Objectives for 9/22/22 Public Meeting Mr. Galle said that the overarching objective is can we get the MBTA overlay to match up with what the TOD overlay may be. He presented the Overlay Map I 1 and changes that have been made working with GIS to identify parcels for MBTA requirement. There could be areas with increased density and others with less density or subdistricts. A new map would be ready for presentation at the public meeting. Discussion ensued for recent project density, such as 194-196 Rumford Avenue and use of FAR versus units per acre. Mr. Penney noted that the TOD is currently 20 units per acre and recent discussions have been for more units per acre. Mr. Feck expressed that he would like to see more synergy between FAR and units per acre. Mr. LeCesne suggested that FAR may be more appropriate in areas where the average parcel size is less than a fill acre. It helps gauge scale and maintain consistency throughout the area. Mr. Galle suggested the addition of graphics to the Zoning Bylaw to support changes that could be made. He further spoke of land development to the West of the tracks with giving of land for access with density bonus to offset that and add language to the Bylaw for this. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/14/22 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Penney asked how the Bylaw would be crafted or worded for the West area. Mr. Galle said that the Bylaw would just need to be amended to include elements as part of the vision for the Station Revitalization. There may be more value in building a bridge for connectivity access, bike and pedestrian access, walking trails, dog park, and open fields that are framed by woods. Discussion ensued to existing lots and current access between MBTA, Town, and private owned land parcels. Mr. Galle noted that they should have unit breakdowns by the next meeting. He referenced an outline of areas of the existing Bylaw Section 230.5.12 for future review. Mr. Burke noted that some of the items that are considered to be eligible or part of the density bonus and requiring those as part of the design and then adding more such as a boardwalk, bridge, walking trail and/or other specific examples from other communities. Mr. Galle suggested asking the public at the workshop what things would they value and what opportunities may come from redevelopment of the areas. Mr. Penney referenced a study suggesting it would be better to build high and conserve more greenspace, but also have transitioning levels to abutting neighborhoods. Mr. Galle also suggested increasing to include two- and three -bedroom units for family inclusion. Mr. Cerretani asked how the height would be controlled. Mr. Galle spoke of subdistricts that could control that with different transitional zone areas for height. Ms. Friedman spoke of by right zoning and agreements with developers where the developer can buy- out the affordable units. She would like to see the affordable as an absolute requirement to accommodate affordable housing and the Town should be mindful of that. Mr. LeCesne asked what the caped and remediated substances are on the Hathaway parcel. Mr. Penney replied that it was substances used to make pressure treated lumber. Mr. Galle reviewed additional considerations for possible incorporation in the Bylaw such as FAR to more closely align with B-1 and B-2 methodology; subdistricts with TOD/MBTA overlay (height, other); development vision; delivery zones/drop-off pick-up/short and long-term parking; open space/public realm/public common space; energy efficiency/environmental objectives. Mr. Galle reference the current Mansfield Bylaw Stated Purpose and expressed that overall it is good and works going forward. He presented a comparison for other towns and general profiles of other towns and how they look as MBTA communities comparing similarities in building density, heights, setbacks, and frontage. Mr. Galle suggested a revisit to the Town's sidewalk requirement language for future incorporation to the Bylaw with requirements for different areas. Mr. Penney asked if there would be on street parking would be incorporated. Mr. Burke replied that on street commuter parking may not be feasible. He expressed that on street parking is dependent upon the width of the street, posted speed limit, and where the sidewalk goes would dictate width. Mr. Galle suggested further work on the design for sidewalks and on street parking for the different areas based on traffic and area use. The Board requested revised comparatives based on communities more similar to Mansfield. Mr. Burke explained the parking per unit based on bedrooms is not feasible as a three -bedroom unit more likely does not have three licensed drivers. Therefore, the calculations are based on units and is more equitable. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/14/22 Page 4 of 6 A resident in the audience suggested a comparison to Franklin. Mr. Cerretani spoke of Melrose being denser but having a very walkable downtown and a very active city. Ms. Friedman suggested other comparative social, economic areas as Mansfield for walkability. Mr. Guile presented comparatives for shared parking, bike parking, reduction in required parking, building facades, streetscapes for being more defined, open space requirements, and energy efficiency requirements. Mr. Burke noted that being "green" is on the Town, such as saving energy at the schools and municipal buildings. Mr. Galle highlighted other notable ordinance requirements from other communities and presented suggested considerations. Train Station Revitalization District preliminary timeline • September 22, 2022 Community Workshop • October 12, 2022 Planning Board meeting • November 9, 2022 Public hearing I Bylaw Amendments • November 23, 2022 Public hearing 2 Bylaw Amendments Mr. Galle presented Resource Slides drone imaging of the overlay district and topics for the workshop discussion including the 2020 Master Plan. Mr. Cerretani said some communities are walking away from the new zoning. Mr. Galle agreed that for some communities it is not a good fit or more challenging to meet the requirements. Ms. Friedman suggest more maps and visuals to share at the community workshop. Mr. Penney said they should talk about train station traffic. Public Comments — no comments Meeting Minutes — August 24, 2022 Motion to approved the minutes as submitted and amended by Mr. Cerretani. (Friedman -Roche) Four (4) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Three (3) abstained APPROVED Mr. Feck referenced an email he distributed relating to zoning regulations and how they can affect at a local level and suggested it be looked at for Mansfield. More promotion toward entry level and more affordable new construction housing. Carol Kaplan of 154 York Road spoke of adding housing and how it would affect the schools. Mr. LeCesne noted that class sizes have been decreasing with a slight increase more recently. The Master Plan did take that into consideration with population changes. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/14/22 Page 5 of 6 Motion: To adjourn at 8:51 p.m. (Friedman-LeCesne) all in favor PASSES Date of Next Planning Board Meeting: September 28, 2022 at 7: 00 p. m. Signature of Clerk Date of Approval Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/14/22 Page 6 of 6 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS - STANDARD CONTRACT FORM This form is jointly issued and published by the Office of the Comptroller (CTR), the Executive Office for Administration and Finance (ANF), and the Operational Services Division (OSD) as the default contract for at Commonwealth Departments when another form is not prescribed by regulation a policy. The Commonwealth deems void any changes made on or by attachment (in the form of addendum, engagement letters, contract forms or invoice terms) to the terms in this published form or to the Standard Contract Form Instructions and Contractor Certifications, the Commonwealth Terms and Conditions for Human and Social Services or the Commonwealth IT Terms and Conditions which are Incorporated by reference herein. Additional non -conflicting terms may be added by Attachment. Contractors are required to access published forms at CTR Forms: mws.nwww.inawniouoner.oranorms, roans are arso posum arusu Forms: rumOwww.mass.0owusrsim-forms. CONTRACTOR LEGAL NAME: Town of Mansfield COMMONWEALTH DEPARTMENT NAME: Exec Office for Administration and Finance and drbla): MMARS Department Code: ANF Legal Address: (W9, W42): 6 Park Row., Mansfield MA 02048 Business Mailing Address: 24 Beacon St., Room 373, Boston, MA, 02133 Contract Manager: Michael Ahern Phone: 508-922.8387 Billing Address (if different): E•Mail: mahern@manerieldma.com Fax: Contract Manager: Debora Collins Phone: 817413.1301 Contractor Vendor Code: VC6000191867 E•Mail: Debora.colllns3Qmass.gov Fax: Vendor Code Address ID (e.g. "AD00111): AD001 MMARS Doc ID(s): FY23TOWNOFMANSFIELD2 (Note: The Address ID must be set up for EFT payments.) RFRIProcurement or Other ID Number 1599.0026 Earmark X NEW CONTRACT _ CONTRACT AMENDMENT PROCUREMENT OR EXCEPTION TYPE: (Check one option only) Enter Current Contract End Date Prlorto Amendment_, 20_ _ Statewide Contract (OSD or an OSD-designated Department) Enter Amendment Amount: $(or "no change°) Collective Purchase (Attach OSD approval, scope, budget) AMENDMENT TYPE: (Check one option only. Attach details of amendment changes.) _ Department Procurement (includes all Grants- 815 CMR 2.00)(Solicitation _ Amendment to Date, Scope or Budget (Attach updated scope and budget) Notice or RFR, and Response or other procurement supporting documentation) _ Emergency Contract (Attach justification for emergency, scope, budget) _ Interim Contract (Attach justification for Interim Contract and updated scopeNudgel) Contract Employee (Attach Employment Status Form, scope, budget) _ Contract Employee (Attach any updates to scope or budget) 2L Other Procurement Exception (Attach authorizing language, legislation with _ Other Procurement Exception (Attach authorizing languagelustificetion and updated spedfic exemption or earmark, and exception justification, scope and budget) scope and budget) The Standard Contract form Instructions and Contractor Certifications and the following Commonwealth Terms and Conditions document are Incorporated by reference Into this Contract and are legally binding: (Check ONE option): X Commonwealth Terms and Conditions_ Commonwealth Terms and Conditions For Human and Social Services Commonwealth IT Terms and Conditions COMPENSATION: (Check ONE option): The Department certifies that payments for authorized performance accepted in accordance with the terms of this Contract will be supported In the state accounting system by sufficient appropriattons or other non -appropriated funds, subject to intercept for Commonwealth awed debts under 815 CMR 9.00. Rate Contract. (No Maximum Obligation) Attach details of all rates, units, calculations, conditions or terms and any changes if rates or terms are being amended.) X Maximum Obligation Contract. Enter total maximum obligation for total duration of this contract(or new total if Contract is being amended),$25,000 PROMPT PAYMENT DISCOUNTS (PPD): Commonwealth payments are issued through EFT 45 days from invoice receipt Contractors requesting accelerated payments must identify a PPD as follows: Payment issued within 10 days _%PPD; Payment issued within 15 days _ %PPD; Payment issued within 20 days _ %PPD; Payment issued within 30 days %PPD. If PPD percentages are left blank, identify reason: Xagree to standard 45 day cycle _ staluloryfiegal or Ready Payments (M.G.L. c. 29, 4 23A); —only initial payment (subsequent payments scheduled to support standard EFT 45 dav Davinent cvde. See Prompt Pay Discounts Policy.) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CONTRACT PERFORMANCE or REASON FOR AMENDMENT: (Enter the Contact life, purpose, fiscal year(s) and a detailed description of the scope of performance or what is being amended for a Contract Amendment Attach all supporting documentation and justifications.) This contract supports the earmark on line -item 1599- 0026 which states "provided further, that not less than $25,000 shall be expended for a feasibility study, conversion costs and general Improvements related to the conversion of the Mansfield police station into a center for the council on aning In the town of Mansfield" ANTICIPATED START DATE: (Complete ONE option only) The Department and Contractor certify for this Contract, or Contract Amendment, that Contract obligations: 1. may be incurred as of the Effective Date (latest signature date below) and no obligations have been incurred Prior to the Effective Date. 2. may be incurred as of a date LATER than the Effective Date below and no obligations have been incurred prior to the Effective Date. X 3. were incurred as ofAunust f. 2022 a date PRIOR to the Effective Date below, and the parties agree that payments for any obligations Incurred prior to the Effective Date are authorized to be made either as settlement payments or as authorized reimbursement payments, and that the details and circumstances of all obligations under this Contractare attached and incorporated into this Contract. Acceptance of payments forever releases the Commonwealth from further claims related to these obtriations. CONTRACT END DATE: Contract performance shall terminate as of June 30, 2023, with no new obligations being incurred after this date unless the Contract is property amended, provided that the terms of this Contract and performance expectations and obligations shall survive its termination for the purpose of resolving any claim or dispute, for completing any negotiated terms and warranties, to allow any dose out or transition performance, reporting, invoicing or final payments, or during any lapse between amendments.. CERTIFICATIONS: Notwithstanding verbal or other representations by the parties, the "Effective Date" of this Contract or Amendment shall be the latest date that this Contract or Amendment has been executed by an authorized signatory of the Contractor, the Deparlmenl, or a later Contract or Amendment Start Dale specified above, subject to any required approvals. The Contractor certifies that they have accessed and reviewed all documents incorporated by reference as electronically published and the Gontraclormakes all certifications required under the Standard Contract Form Instructions and Contractor Certifications under the pains and penalties of perjury, and further agrees to provide any required documentation upon request to support compliance, and agrees that all terms governing performance of this Contract and doing business in Massachusetts are attached or incorporated by reference herein according to the following hierarchy of document precedence, the applicable Commonwealth Terms and Conditions, this Standard Contract Form, the Standard Contract Form Instructions and Contractor Certifications, the Request for Response (RFR) or other solicitation, the Contractors Response (excluding any language stricken by a Department as unacceptable, and additional negotiated terms, provided that additional negotiated terms will take precedence over the relevant terms in the RFR and the Contractors Response only if made using the process outlined in 801 CMR 21.07, incorporated herein, provided that any amended RFR a Response terms result in best value, lower costs, or a more cost effective Contract. AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE FOR THE CONTRACTOR: AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE FOR THE COMMONWEALTH: � X:J,Zi/llllLf Date: oamm,mu X:t„w 25,; Dale: oU13.2022 (Signature and Date Must Be Handwritten At Time of Signature) (Signature and Date Must Be Handwritten At Time of Signature) Print Name: Kevin J. Dumas Print Name: Olivia Graham Print Title: Town Manager Print Title: Chief Financial Officer (Updated 6/30120) Page 1 of 1 MMARS DOCUMENT ID: FY23TOWNOFMANSFIELD2 COMMONWEALTH OFMASSACHUSETTS SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE [THE VENDOR/CONTRACTOR MUST COMPLETE ONLYTHOSE SECTIONS PRECEDED BY AN"-)".] Issued 2004 4VENDOR/CONTRACTOR NAME: TOWN OF DEPARTMENT NAME: A&F MANFIELD 4CONTACT: MICHAELAHERN CONTACT: OLIVIA GRAHAM ->PHONE: 508-922-8387 PHONE: 617-960-6019 4FAX: FAx: 617-727-2779 4E-MAIL: MAHERN@MANSFIELDMA.COM E-MAIL: OLIVIA.GRAHAM@MASS.GOV 4LEGAL ADDRESS: AS LISTED ON IRS W-9) 6 PARK LEGAL ADDRESS: 24 BEACON ST, BOSTON, MA, 02133 ROW., MANSFIELD MA 02048 The Vendor/Contractor and Department have reached agreement that performance was made by the Vendor/Contractor to or on behalf of the Department and the performance was accepted without benefit of a Contract. The performance included the following goods or services (describe in detail what was performed. Attach additional supporting documentation): The Geophysical Subsurface Survey was performed by Thielsch on 8/1/22 and 8/22/22 as part of the earmarked project for a feasibility study, conversion costs and general improvements related to the conversion of the Mansfield police station into a center for the council on aging in the town of Mansfield The claimed performance was made and accepted by the Department on the following dates (identify either specific dates if available or a range of dates of performance. Attach supporting documentation.): August 1, 2022 to executed contract The Department and the Vendor/Contractor have agreed that the total value of the performance to be compensated under this settlement agreement and release is: $ 5,550 In consideration of the settlement amount paid by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, acting by and through the Department, the Vendor/Contractors authorized legal representative being of lawful age and having the authority to execute this Settlement Agreement and Release hereby releases, acquits and discharges the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Department and its officers and employees from any and all claims and demands of whatever nature arising out of the claimed performance and circumstances. 4AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY FOR VENDOR/CONTRACTOR: AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY FOR DEPARTMENT: 4X,('vvrA,7,ZIrnr¢r X: (Signature) (Signature) ->DATE: Oct 11, 2022 DATE: Oct 13, 2022 (Date must be handwritten at time of signature) (Date must be handwritten at time of signature) 4NAME: KEVIN J. DUMAS NAME: OLIVIA GRAHAM 4TITLE:TOWN MANAGER TITLE:CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Departments are required to comply with the Office of the Comptroller Contracts Policy "Contracts - Amendments, Suspensions and Terminations" policy when using this form. The record copy of this Settlement and Release must be attached to the record copy of any related contract, or if there was no contract, to the relevant supporting documentation related to this settlement and release for records management and auditing purposes. Town of Mansfield SCF 1599-0026 Final Audit Report 2022-10-13 Created: 2022-10-11 By: Debora Collins (debora.collins3@mass.gov) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCMBAA400rq-Vo6ek61W82mMf51b72MEPg8c "Town of Mansfield SCF 1599-0026" History f) Document created by Debora Collins (debora.collins3@mass.gov) 2022-10-11 - 2:49:40 PM GMT 04 Document emailed to kdumas@mansfieldma.com for signature 2022-10-11 - 2:52:02 PM GMT Email viewed by kdumas@mansfieldma.com 2022-10-11 - 4:49:00 PM GMT b® Signer kdumas@mansfieldma.com entered name at signing as Kevin J Dumas 2022-10-11 - 4:49:58 PM GMT d® Document e-signed by Kevin J Dumas (kdumas@mansfieldma.com) Signature Date: 2022-10-11 - 4:50:00 PM GMT - Time Source: server cw Document emailed to Olivia Graham (Olivia.Graham@mass.gov) for signature 2022-10-11 - 4:50:01 PM GMT Email viewed by Olivia Graham (Olivia.Graham@mass.gov) 2022-10-13 - 2:32:18 PM GMT b® Document e-signed by Olivia Graham (Olivia.Graham@mass.gov) Signature Date: 2022-10-13 - 3:19:19 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2022-10-13 - 3:19:19 PM GMT Adobe Acrobat Sign