Category Archives: Seniors

Hinkley land RFP

Good article in the Medfield Press this week on the next steps for the proposed senior housing on the former Hinkley land – it starts with a request for proposals (RFP) – see the full article here.

The town purchased about ten acres from the Hinkley family for $1.1 m. and is looking to have private developers bid to build moderately priced senior housing on about half of that land, the southern section abutting Lot 3 and The Center.  The balance of the town’s Hinkley land is off Harding Street is not included in this RFP.


Medfield seeks Hinkley senior housing

MEDFIELD – The town is seeking developer proposals for senior housing on the Ice House Road land known as the Hinkley property.

The Board of Selectmen, at its Oct. 15 meeting, approved a request for proposals on the about 5.5-acre parcel, in the hopes of creating more affordable living options for the town’s seniors. The town had purchased the property in 2000 for $1.1 million.

Safe Harbor claimed for Rosebay

The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Medfield notified the Rosebay applicant at the initial August 15 hearing last Thursday that the Town of Medfield was claiming its safe harbor rights, but that the ZBA would still proceed with the hearing to see if the applicant and the ZBA could get to an acceptable compromise on the project that the ZBA can support.

Below is the town’s special counsel’s notice to the Rosebay developer.

BLATMAN, BOBROWSKI & HAVERTY, LLC ------ATTORNEYS AT LAW------ PAUL}. HAVERTY HAND DELIVERED Brian J. McMillin, Manager Newgate Housing LLC 61 Blueberry Lane Westwood, MA 02052 9 DAMONMILL SQUARE, SUITE 4A4 CONCORD, MA 01742 PHONE 978.371.2226 FAX 978.371.2296 August 15,2019 RE: The Rosebay At Medfield - Pound Street, Medfield, MA Notice of Safe Harbor Pursuant to 760 CMR 56.03(8) Dear Mr. McMillin: Please accept this correspondence as formal notification on behalf of the Medfield Zoning Board of Appeals (the "Board"), pursuant to 760 CMR 56.03(8), that the Board has determined that the "Housing Production Plan" Safe Harbor, pursuant to 760 CMR 56.03(4), is applicable to the comprehensive permit application filed by you on July 19, 2019. The Board timely-opened its public hearing on August 15, 2019. Pursuant to 760 CMR 56.05, the Board has fifteen (15) days from this hearing to provide you written notice of any Safe Harbor claims it may have pursuant to 760 CMR 56.03(3) through (7). Please accept this correspondence as written notification that the Town of Medfield has the benefit ofthe Housing Production Plan Safe Harbor pursuant to 760 CMR 56.03(4). Pursuant to a letter of certification issued by the Department of Housing and Community Development ("DHCD") dated June 10, 2019, the Town has a one-year Safe Harbor which commenced on May 10,2019 and which runs through May 9, 2020. A copy ofthe DHCD certification letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. While the Board has determined that the Housing Production Plan Safe Harbor is applicable, the provision of such notice does not constitute a determination on the merits of the Project. This notice is provided to protect the Town's rights with regard to the Housing Production Plan Safe Harbor, which would be lost if notice was not provided within the fifteen (15) day period proscribed by the Regulations. The Board remains open-minded about the development that has been proposed, and intends to conduct a thorough review to determine whether legitimate issues of local concern may be adequately addressed through changes to the project design. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please feel free to contact me. Cc: Phil DeMartino, DHCD Sarah Raposa, Town Plmmer 2 Commonwealth of Massachusetts DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Charles D. Baker, Governor + Karyn E. Polito, Lt. Governor + Janelle L. Chan, Undersecretary June 10,2019 Mr. Gustave Murby, Chairman Medfield Board of Selectman Town House/ 459 Main Street Medfield, MA 02052 Housing Production Plan- Certification Approved Dear Mr. Murby: The Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) certifies that the Town of Medfield is in compliance with its Housing Production Plan. This certification is effective for a one year period beginning on May 10,2019 to May 9, 2020. This Certification of Municipal Compliance is based on the following findings: 1. Medfield has provided evidence that the required number of units described in its request is eligible to be counted towards certification. 2. The 27 Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHJ) eligible units in this project (Medfield Meadows SHl ID # 10290 meet the number (21) necessary to satisfy a one year certification threshold~ 3. The housing development is consistent with the production goals outlined in Medfield Housing Production Plan. Please note that all units must retain eligibility for the SHJ for the entire certification period. If units are no longer eligible for inclusion on the SHI, they will be removed and will no longer be eligible for certification. This action may affect the term of your certification. I have included an updated list of SHI eligible units. Medfield's current SHI stands at 8.29%. If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Phillip DeMartino, Technical Assistance Coordinator, at (617) 573-1357 or Associate Director, DHCD cc Senator Paul Feeney Representative Shawn Dooley Representative Denise C. Garlick Sarah Raposa, Town Planner, Medfield Michael J. Sullivan, Town Administrator, Medfield John J. McNicholas, Acting Chair, Zoning Board of Appeal 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 300 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 617.573.1100 Medfield DHCD ID# 1890 1891 1892 1893 4360 9953 10062 10063 10221 10222 10290 6/10/2019 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CH408 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING INVENTORY Bulltw/ Total SHI Affordability Comp. Subsidizing Project Name Address Type Units Expires Permit? Agency Tilden Village 30 Pound Street Rental 60 Perp Yes DHCD Allendale Dale Street Ownership 17 Perp YES DHCD DHCD The Village at Medfield Turtle Brook Way Ownership 6 Perp YES DHCD DHCD ~~------- Wilkins Glen Wilkins Glen Road Rental 103 2042 YES MassHousing DHCD DDS Group Homes Confidential Rental 5 N/A No DDS The Pare at Medfield One Gateway Drive Rental 92 Perp YES DHCD Country Estates 21, 25, & 29 Hospital Rd Ownership 8 Perp YES MassHousing Cushman House aka Cushing 67 North Street Rental 8 Perp YES DHCD House 71 North Street 71 North Street Rental 8 Perp YES DHCD Hillside Village 80 North Meaovvs Road Rental 16 Perp YES DHCD Medfield Meadovvs 41 Dale St Mix 27 Perp DHCD Medfield Totals 350 Census 2010 Year Round Housing Units Percent Subsidized 4,220 8.29% Medfield Page 1 of 1 This data is derived from information provided to the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) by Individual communities and is subject to change as new information is obtained and use restrictions expire.20190815-BBH-Safe Harbor Notification 08-15-19_Page_220190815-BBH-Safe Harbor Notification 08-15-19_Page_320190815-BBH-Safe Harbor Notification 08-15-19_Page_4


Rosebay – Hobson’s choice

Rosebay at Medfield

First, the Medfield Press’ Mike Gleason did a good article on Rosebay this week, available here

Second, I answered a query from a neighbor this morning that I thought others might find useful, so I am inserting it below.


Rosebay, which is technically not an expansion of Tilden Village, proposes to provide 45 units of income restricted housing for seniors on Pound Street land owned by the Medfield Housing Authority next to Tilden Village, which project has been initiated and pushed forward by the Medfield Housing Authority.

The Board of Selectmen have for years asked the Medfield Housing Authority to move forward with such a project. The current Director, Candace Loewen, and her board have been the ones to actually get it done, and for that the town needs to thank them. However, I think the town was surprised by the size and scale of the end product.

The only way to create such a project at this time is by using low income tax credit financing, where the tax credits for such projects issued by the state get sold to pay for the building of the project. The rental income would not be great enough for such a project to get regular financing. The Parc was also built using this method.

There seems to be universal agreement that more such senior housing is needed in Medfield, with the point of disagreement being whether the size and mass of this current proposal is disqualifying.

The decision of what to do with that project rests entirely with the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Medfield, in response to the application for a comprehensive permits that was recently filed. There will likely be several nights of hearings, the first of which is scheduled for August 15, 2019. The ZBA will retain, at the developer’s expense, its own experts to peer review the application and to make recommendations to the ZBA. In the usual circumstance, the ZBA has a Hobson’s choice, since if they deny the application the developer will merely appeal to the state Housing Appeals Committee (, which tends to always allow almost all developer appeals. Therefore the usual ZBA task is to thread the needle of approving the application, but with conditions that make it more palatable for the town while not making it “uneconomic” (statutory term) for the developer.

In this instance, the ZBA has the additional decision to make, namely as to whether to invoke the town’s current “safe harbor” status under G. L. c. 40B, which allows the ZBA to deny the application outright.

So the ZBA decision will need to be a political balancing act by the ZBA members between a desirable, needed project that can apparently only be economically done with all 45 units, versus a project that many seem to feel is generally out of scale with the existing neighborhood. It would be a much easier decision if the project was only two stories tall – I spoke to the developer about reducing it to two stories, and was told it cannot be done.

Further complicating the decision is the fact that the project is used by the Affordable Housing Trust’s projections as what is both necessary to keep the town within the 40B safe harbor while we get to the ultimate 10% affordable housing and to achieve the 10% affordable housing number that then provides ongoing safe harbor to the town. Therefore, denying this project would put the town back at risk in several years of unfriendly 40B projects, such as the Mega-B, and as long as the town if below the 10% Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) level by even one unit, we are at risk from an unfriendly 40B of up to 200 units..

The Rosebay developer has already reduced the size and scale of the project some, as the result of a series of meetings with an ad hoc group of residents, mainly from the Planning Board and the Affordable Housing Trust. The recent positive memo from that group to the Board of Selectmen can be found on my blog.

The Medfield Housing Authority Director and board members were active and strong proponents for the project when it was discussed at the Board of Selectmen meeting Tuesday evening, making the points about how long their waiting list are for seniors seeking affordable housing and now much the 45 units of housing are therefore needed in town. That is an argument and a constituency that will be hard for the ZBA to ignore. Similarly, the neighbors have valid concerns about the size and scale of the proposal, as it would not be allowed there but for being a 40B project.

This presents a true Hobson’s choice for the ZBA – does is disappoint the neighbors, or does it disappoint the seniors, the Medfield Housing Authority and put the town at risk for unfriendly 40B’s. Perhaps the ZBA can craft an acceptable compromise.

Rosebay update

Yesterday I had an informative telephone call from Brian McMillin, the developer of Rosebay, about my prior blog post wherein I stated that he preferred to make design changes to the project within the ZBA comprehensive permit process, and then in response to my outreach to her for a status update on the ad hoc group, an emailed MEMO from Town Planner, Sarah Raposa.

  • Brian outlined for me the many project changes that he had made to accommodate the concerns expressed by the town and the ad hoc group with whom he meet over concerns about the size and scale of the design.
  • Sarah shared her 7/22/2019 MEMO to the Board of Selectmen about the work of the Rosebay Ad Hoc Design Review Group (copy attached below).

Contrary to my prior understanding, I learned that the ad hoc group had made substantial progress in getting changes made to the design, which are enumerated in the MEMO.  I also learned from Brain McMillin that none of my own personal suggestions from having studied the plans this week for how to make it a two story project would work, if it is going to remain a 45 unit project.

This is the conclusion stated in the MEMO:

  • Conclusion:  . . . The group has worked to openly review the design and make recommendations that allowed the developer to put forward the best version of their proposal, and conversely Newgate has been open to the recommendations suggested and have made improvements to their proposed development.

Finally, I note that our fellow residents who so kindly served on this ad hoc group, Greg Sullivan, Todd Trehubenko, and Jim Brand, have tremendous professional experience in the real estate development and design area, so our town got truly first rate, high quality professional input in this process.

Town of Medfield 459 Main Street Medfield, MA 02052 (508) 906-3027 Memorandum To: Board of Selectmen From: Sarah Raposa, Town Planner Date: July 22, 2019 Re: Rosebay Ad Hoc Design Review Group Recommendation In August 2018 DHCD and the Town of Medfield received an application for a 45- unit senior rental development called “Rosebay at Medfield” submitted by Newgate Housing LLC / Brian McMillin. The Board of Selectmen were specific in their municipal comment letter in that the Board is in support of the concept (providing affordable senior rental units as articulated in both the 2016 Housing Production Plan and the Medfield Affordable Housing Trust’s Action Plan) but may opt to not support the project because of the current design and recommend that the ZBA deny the project, as is their right due to the Town’s position in Safe Harbor. Despite the process being a traditional 40B, the Developer agreed to meet, informally, with a few members of town boards that may be helpful in working through some of the massing, height, and bulk issues associated with the proposal. Rosebay Ad Hoc Design Group:  Greg Sullivan Planning Board  Brian McMillin NewGate Housing LLC  Jim Brand AHT/PB Assoc.  Mark Major VMY Architects LLC  Todd Trehubenko AHT  James Koningisor Project Manager  Sarah Raposa Town Planner  Courtney Starling COG Meeting #1 (January 10, 2019): In assessing the major factors influencing the development; the size of the lot, the number of units proposed by the developer, elevator requirements, and the desire to utilize rooftop mechanical systems while maintaining a proportionate roofline, the group felt that that it would be difficult to substantially reduce the massing without reducing unit count. The group challenged Newgate to evaluate additional design changes that might reduce impact. These included recommendations to reduce roof pitch, removal of even taller roof elements, increasing setbacks from road and abutters, continuing character of street frontage with a stone wall, trees and other vegetation, aspects of lighting, and other related changes. The group suggested the applicant create a contextual elevation or graphic showing adjacent buildings, providing neighborhood context, and a site plan showing all site-specific elements such as trees, other vegetation and landscape elements, lighting levels, and their proposed pedestrian path through the site. The Newgate team was proactively engaged and open to the comments of the group. Town of Medfield 459 Main Street Medfield, MA 02052 (508) 906-3027 Meeting #2 (May 2, 2019): The Newgate team presented revised plans, elevations and neighborhood context graphics that included design changes that addressed in actuality or the spirit of the comments of the Design Review Group. The following changes and clarifications were made to the proposal: 1. The front setback from Pound Street was revised from 30.5’ to 60.4’. This is twice the required setback in the RU zoning district. 2. The building height was reduced by 10’ to 40’. The zoning bylaw allows a height up to 35’ for multifamily use in the RU district so this would be a 5’ waiver request. 3. The gross building area was reduced by more than 2,000 square feet (from 50,670 sf to 48,524 sf). 4. The distance to neighboring buildings is shown on the revised site plan indicating compliance with the side setback requirements in the RU zoning district. 5. The walking path from Pound Street to the High School/Middle School is proposed as stone dust. 6. An 8’ privacy fence is proposed between walking path and the adjacent historic property at 58 Pound Street. 7. As requested, the Developer submitted landscaping and lighting plans. The landscaping plan provides context on the preservation of existing vegetation and proposed additional screening. The lighting plan confirms no unnecessary light-spillage over the property line. 8. Additional handicapped parking spaces were provided based on comments from the Fire Department. 9. An outdoor trash enclosure was eliminated from the plan because this building has interior trash and recycling facilities on each floor. 10. Certain exterior architectural elements were added or enhanced to improve the appearance of the building, maintain visual interest, and create character on the building’s elevations. 11. Interior changes include a revised layout of the first floor front and rear entries, lobby area, and amenity spaces to improve the flow of foot traffic and to provide for flow through from front entrance to rear entrance; as well as corrected unit plans. The developer provided additional renderings that provided context with the neighborhood. This area is transitional and includes single family dwellings, multi-family dwellings and institutional structures (high school/middle school complex). The viewpoint looking down Pound Street from South Street still reflects a significant development, but is an improvement considering the previous building. From the other direction, the building is closely abutted to Tilden Village. Conclusion: The Ad Hoc Design Review Group recognizes the position decision that the Board of Selectmen need to make relative to this project, senior affordable housing, and the impacted neighborhood. The group has worked to openly review the design and make recommendations that allowed the developer to put forward the best version of their proposal, and conversely Newgate has been open to the recommendations suggested and have made improvements to their proposed development. We appreciate the BoS taking this into consideration as they assess the current design as this moves forward with the Zoning Board of Appeals process.20190722-Memo_re Rosebay ad hoc design group 07-22-19_Page_2


Rosebay filed with ZBA

Rosebay-comphensive permit appl

See the full comprehensive permit application the town website, via this link.

The Select Board will need to decide soon whether to invoke our safe harbor where the developer, Brian McMillin, has refused, to date, to reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed development.  We need to claim that safe harbor at the outset of the ZBA process, if we want to claim it at all.  I understand that Brian McMillin wants to deal with any such such size and bulk changes within the context of the comprehensive permit application process.  I expect that to be an agenda topic at our July 30 meeting.

Property tax relief for seniors


Many towns are now providing some property taxes relief for seniors.  I think Sudbury was the first to initiate doing so and got special legislation to allow the town to help its economically more needy seniors by shifting part of their taxes to the rest of the residents.

At the Massachusetts Selectmen Association meeting I attended Saturday I spoke with Jonathan, a Wakefield Select board member (it is a 7 member board), learned they are doing so too, and he got me information on their program from their Assessor (copy attached below).

First, below are my notes from when I spoke with the Sudbury Assessor and got its system.  This is their PowerPoint from their town meeting:  2018 ATM Article 15 Senior Means Tested Exemption Presentation


Telephone call to Cynthia Gerry, Assessor – | (978) 639 – 3393
a. 2012 special legislation
b. Renewed a couple of times
c. In place through FY21
d. Senior means program
e. Linked to circuit breaker
f. Long time resident who qualify for circuit breaker can qualify for property tax relief
g. Well received
h. FY14 was first year
i. Average of about 110 applicants
j. Not funded by overlay, so residential exemption funded
k. Benefit cap was at 0.5% of total levy
l. The Board of Selectmen can increase it to 1%, but have not gone that high
m. $400K last year, about 0.5%
n. Pay about 10% of circuit breaker income plus 10% of circuit breaker income
o. Asset component to legislation, but vague and up to the board of assessors to use
i. No set limit
ii. Do get a financial statement
p. Deferral of RE taxes
i. Age 60
ii. Income matches circuit breaker ($86K)
iii. 2% rate
iv. Mortgage companies will not agree, as town becomes first lien holder
q. She will email me info


Second, this is the email from the Assessor for Wakefield, who appears to also be the Asessor for Reading, describing his program  –


Hey Pete and Jonathan,


Yup, I did this in Reading and we’re going to do it in Wakefield.  I can’t count the number of friends and colleagues that have reached out to me on this important topic.


Reading plan is simple:


Senior must receive the Senior Circuit Breaker Income Tax Credit.  Pls see state guidelines.

Senior is 65 and co-applicant at least 60

Own and occupy home in the town for 10 years.

No other significant assets (tough to define as it’s one of those ‘I’l know it when I see it’ things, second home, etc)


In Reading, the benefit is anywhere from 50% to 200% of their CB credit.

Cost is shifted onto the Residential class of property


Wakefield is similar except that the credit is simply a 100% match.  No disrespect intended but politics and taxes don’t mix


My models rely on receipt of the CB Credit.  I did this because it’s already a state sponsored means test.  Any changes like house value, assets, etc. would result in a local means test like a couple of towns have.  I have about 650 people that receive the CB credit in each town.  In Reading for FY 2018 195 applied and 183 were approved at 200% relief but, too much relief has an unintended consequence whereby some folks lost their CB credit the following year.  FY 2019 Reading did 150% and 177 received it. I anticipate more folks being eligible for Fy 2020.  Moreover, since it involves a shift in the tax rate, the application time is the month of August to allow me enough time for tax rate computation.


Hope this helps and feel free to email any further questions that you may have.





Town to DHCD on Rosebay

MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN Town Admmislralor TOWN OF MEDFIELD Office of BOARD OF SELECTMEN TOWN HOUSE, 459 MAIN STREET MEDFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 02052-0315 (508) 359-8505 November27,2018 Catherine Racer, Associate Director Division ofHousing and Development Department ofHousing and Community Development 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 300 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 RE: Chapter 40B Comprehensive Permit Project Name: Location: NumberofUnits: Subsidizing Agency: Applicant: The Rosebay at Medfield 30 Pound Street, Medfield, MA, 02502 45 Units (45 affordable) DHCD Newgate Housing LLC Dear Ms. Racer, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Project Eligibility Application under the Chapter 40B program for a proposed Low Income Housing Tax Credit ("LIHTC") development. The Rosebay at Medfield, a 45-unit senior housing rental development proposed by Newgate Housing LLC contains 37 one-bedroom units and 8 two-bedroom units as well as programming space for elder services. The project site is currently in partial use as a Medfield Housing Authority senior housing property ("Tilden Village"). Tilden Village includes 60 units within six two-story buildings and is served by existing municipal infrastructure. As Tilden Village is not served by elevators and none ofthe upper-story units are accessible, and as the proposed development includes programming space for elder services, it is logical to locate new senior housing on the undeveloped two-acre portion ofthe site. There is very limited available land in Medfield that is served by public water and sewer - including most undeveloped Town-owned land and the former Medfield State Hospital Site. This presents significant challenges to the provision ofaffordable housing on other Town-owned sites. In order to increase the supply of handicap accessible affordable senior rental housing which would provide a modest number oftwo-bedroom units to accommodate households with authorized home care workers the site at 30 Pound Street is ideal given its proximate location to the Town Center, existing senior housing, and local services. The Medfield Board ofSelectmen has reviewed the application and is in support ofthe concept to construct affordable senior housing on this site but has some reservations about the design and potential traffic impacts ofthe proposed building. Having recently completed a Housing Production Plan which underscored the need for more diverse housing units in terms ofunit size, tenure, and cost, the Plan specifically identified both Tilden Village and the Town Center as a target area for affordable housing. The Townled effort to allow further development at Tilden Village has been a partnership between the Board ofthe Selectmen, the Medfield Affordable Housing Trust, and the Medfield Housing Authority to develop and issue an RFP for this site, and then to select the most responsible proposer [Newgate LLC]. The applicant has worked with the Town to develop a development program to create additional senior housing. The building, which has not yet undergone local permitting, has generated concem from neighboring residents and within the Town government. Although the applicant states that much ofthe design issues could be worked out during the Zoning Board ofAppeals ("ZBA") process, the Town would prefer the applicant to revise their design program prior to appearing before the ZBA as incomplete applications could potentially undermine concerted efforts on the Town's part to make the plan review process as transparent as possible. The applicant's permitting strategy to wait until after the commencement ofa hearing at the ZBA could damage newly formed public trust and lead to confusion and the spread ofmisinformation, which could be detrimental to an already sensitive proposal for much needed housing and add considerable time and acrimony to the process. Due to these factors, the Board of Selectmen may opt not to support this project unless the applicant changes approach and becomes more responsive to community concems regarding design and traffic impacts, and consequently, they may recommend that the Zoning Board ofAppeals deny this project, as is their right due to the Town's position in Safe Harbor. In addition to the Town's efforts to improve public perception regarding affordable housing, the Town has made significant strides to increase the actual production of affordable housing opportunities within the Town. Since the completion ofthe Housing Production Plan, the Town has authorized the fonnation ofan Affordable Housing Trust ("Trust"), passed a $lm bond to capitalize the Trust, and adopted an aggressive Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw at Annual Town Meeting in 2017. The Town has been involved in further planning efforts including the Trust's completion ofa Five-Year Action Plan and Strategy and a Master Plan for the State Hospital site, which features provisions for affordable housing opportunities. Since the adoption ofthe Housing Production Plan, the Town has met their targets to reach Safe Harbor by approving the following developments: Cushman House at 67 North Street (rental, 8 units, 2 affordable), 71 North Street (rental, 8 apartments, 2 affordable), Chapel Hill Landing (ownership, 49 units, 13 affordable), Hillside Village (rental, 16 apartments, 4 affordable), and is currently reviewing Medfield Green at 41 Dale Street (mixed tenure, 36 units, 27 SHI eligible units). The Medfield Planning Board took the opportunity to comment on the proposal early in concept at their August 28, 2017 meeting and again at their September 17, 2018 meeting. The Planning Board is concemed about the design ofthe building; in particular with respect to the roofline and the massing. Although the school complex is a large institutional building, Tilden Village consists ofmodest two-story structures and the surrounding neighborhood contains single family homes. The Planning Board is concemed that the proposed building is not in keeping with the architectural vemacular ofthe area and would like to see more effort to appropriately mass the building so as to minimize impacts on neighboring properties. Medfield's local design standards discourage long unbroken facades, and they should be avoided and broken up with recesses and projections, changes in materials, and complimentary landscaping; although these standards are not applicable to a development pursuant to Chapter 40B, they do offer insight as to what the Town might consider appropriate design. The Planning Board also requested a traffic report and recommended the Zoning Board ofAppeals consider obtaining technical assistance for the design review ofthe proposed building. A site visit with DHCD was conducted on November 6, 2018. During the site visit, the following issues were discussed: • Identification ofproject in Housing Production Plan • Services and amenities offered and available in the community near the project site • Amount ofaffordable family housing available in Medfield • Level of support from the Town and residents • Comments related to the school, such as retention ofan existing path • Minimum age restriction (55 versus 62) • Bedroom counts; necessity for two-bedroom units • Height, bulk, massing and architectural context • Lockbox gate in rear • Absence ofwetlands or natural heritage areas Following the site visit, Town Officials have submitted the following comments: TOWN ADMINISTRATOR The Town Administrator is not supportive ofthis proposal. The Town Administrator believes that the proposed neighborhood has faced a lot ofrecent development, including the 2005 renovation ofthe Middle and High Schools (originally constructed in 1961),a recent multifamily conversion resulting in the preservation ofthe historic Cushman House and resulting in 8 units including two affordable handicap accessible units, and a proposed adjacent multifamily project, also resulting in an increase of8 units including two affordable units for a total of 16 units within a halfmile radius ofthe project site. Further, Pound Street is currently used as a commuter cut through which would be impacted by this project. The Town Administrator would prefer to focus development at the former State Hospital Site. BOARD OF HEALTH Due to the project site's location within the Aquifer Protection Zone [which covers much ofthe Town], the applicant is requested to infiltrate, at a minimum, the first one-inch of run-offfrom the entire site, and that run offfrom impervious surfaces be treated to the highest regulatory standard prior to infiltration. The Board ofHealth believes this will help ensure that the Town can maintain a clean and adequate supply ofdrinking water to its citizens, including those who reside and/or work at this project site. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Although the Department ofPublic Works (DPW) anticipates that all drainage, water, and sewer utilities will be shown on future plans as the project progresses, there are still some concems about other missing elements. The current plans do not address snow removal for the planned development. It is unclear ifthere will be snow storage areas dedicated for winter operations or ifthe snow be removed from the site. DPW notes that ifthe snow is planned to be removed from the site, accommodations for larger removal equipment such as, loaders, trailer dumps or large blowers should be considered. Parking vehicles within the right-of-way while snow removal in the development takes place should not be entertained as the town enforces parking bans throughout the winter months. In addition, the applicant shows a driving lane and two parking spaces located within a 20' wide drainage easement held by DPW. Further discussion between the applicant and DPW will be required regarding the easement. In addition, details for handicap accessibility should be shown for each ofthe sidewalk approaches to the main entrance driveway on Pound Street. Lastly, DPW notes that all permits should be obtained before any work has commenced for street opening, trenching, and water and sewer connections; and believes the applicant should satisfy concems related to increased traffic. COUNCIL ON AGING The Council on Aging is supportive ofthis proposal but has some concems about the appearance ofthe building, as well as the size and height. MEDFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS The Medfield School Department is concemed by how close the building and parking is to adjacent Middle and High School complex. Many students at both the middle school and high school walk to school, and use an existing path that runs through the site to access the school. Maintaining the safe pedestrian access through the site for students should be a priority. There is also concem that the current road on the school side will be used as an emergency egress into the property. The school property has consistent traffic from 7am -llpm from Sunday-Saturday for the period of September - June, and could be impacted by this project. Finally, the School Department notes that part ofthe Housing Authority property is currently in use as a playground for the School's daycare. MEDFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT The Medfield Police Department is supportive ofthis proposal, but would like to see more details related to site illumination and traffic impacts. MEDFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT The Medfield Fire Department would prefer the applicant use a lockbox at the gate for emergency egress in lieu ofOpticon, a barcode scanning system. RESIDENT COMMENTS In addition to those comments by Town Officials, a number ofneighbors and residents have also submitted comments on the proposed project. Most comments related to concems related to the Aquifer Protection District, the appropriateness ofthe building, the design ofthe building, and traffic impacts; however, not all letters spoke in opposition and several residents did issue letters ofsupport. GENERAL COMMENTS Finally, the Town has reviewed the development budget and operating pro forma for the proposed project. The Town recognizes that there are real challenges with respect to finding income eligible tenants who can afford LIHTC rents without a rental subsidy but notes that the proposal calls for 8 apartments to be "Low Income, Rental Assisted" units. The Town would like to better understand the anticipated source, amount, and duration of this partial rental subsidy as part ofits assessment ofproject viability. While it is premature to expect the development team to stipulate a recapitalization plan for the end ofthe tax credit period at this very early point in the process, the Town seeks reasonable assurances regarding the long-term feasibility ofthe development including potentially following a transfer ofcontrol to the Housing Authority or another party ifthe original partnership is dissolved after the initial LIHTC compliance period ends after 15 years. Understanding the availability and likelihood ofrental assistance for some ofthe project's units, both during and after the LIHTC compliance period, is important in this respect. The Town also notes that the fair market rents for 2019 have been issued and should be used in Newgate LLC's pro forma calculations. Due to long-term funding challenges, the Town also recognizes that the affordable units in this development are smaller than those required by DHCD but believes this will assist with future affordability. As the project consists ofthree fully handicap accessible units and two hearing impaired accessible units, and the building is served by an elevator, the Town is satisfied that the units will provide significant housing opportunities for lower income senior households. Although DHCD has advised against the inclusion oftwo-bedroom units, the Town would like to see the two-bedroom units to remain so as to allow for the occupancy of an authorized home care worker and believes such units would provide a significant benefit to the Town. In consideration ofthe above comments, and those enclosed, it is our expectation that you will agree that the Rosebay at Medfield is eligible for funding by DHCD so they may proceed with applying for LIHTC credits. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions that you may have. ^ [ichaerMardiicci, Chairman Medfield Board of Selectmen20181203-SR-Rosebay - Medfield Municipal Comment Letter 12-03-18_Page_220181203-SR-Rosebay - Medfield Municipal Comment Letter 12-03-18_Page_320181203-SR-Rosebay - Medfield Municipal Comment Letter 12-03-18_Page_420181203-SR-Rosebay - Medfield Municipal Comment Letter 12-03-18_Page_5