Category Archives: Seniors

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




Dear Board of Selectmen,

As your Area Agency on Aging and Aging Services Access Point I wanted to share HESSCO’s latest reports. Attached please find the 2018 Annual Report for HESSCO and a Medfield-specific Community Impact Statement. We are making a new effort to ensure that our community leaders are aware of our efforts within their town. Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions or comments.


Sheryl Leary

Director of Planning and Community Development

One Merchant Street
Sharon, MA 02067
781-784-4944 (TTY)
Fax: 781-784-4922

FISCAL YEAR 2018 COMMUNITY IMPACT STATEMENT TOWN OF MEDFIELD – ALL SERVICES Sources: HESSCO Agency Summary Report; 2018 Client Satisfaction Survey of Case Management 98 Visits Assessing needs and coordinating services in Medfield in Fiscal Year 2018 4,408 Hours Homemaker, Chore, Personal Care or Companion Services provided to Medfield residents in Fiscal Year 2018 $179,394 Cost of all services provided to Medfield residents in Fiscal Year 2018 97% HESSCO survey respondents who say that the Care Management Staff involves them in discussing and planning for services 96% HESSCO survey respondents who say that their situation has improved because of the services their Care Manager has arranged Keeping the Consumer at the Center of All Care What do HESSCO Consumers say about our services… “I'm very impressed with (Care Manager) in the way she looks out for my well being. She looks ahead to determine future needs I may need or require. She has a willingness to listen and discern.” “HESSCO care with the guidance of (Care Manager) has absolutely changed the quality of my mother's life. The excellent care she receives in services is outstanding. Everyone is so professional and kind. They treat her and our family like their own family!! Thank you so much HESSCO and (Care Manager)!” “Great Team!” 9,758 Meals Provided to Medfield residents in Fiscal Year 2018

Care 1,562 Seniors Received 327,251 Hours of Homemaker, Chore, Personal Care or Companion Services Hot Meals provided to homebound or isolated seniors in the community Visits Made to assess care needs and coordinate services 162,988 3,146 Support 781 Volunteers gave 40,226 Hours of Service Calls came into HESSCO for information and to connect to services 5,295 Solutions SHINE Counselors had 3,779 Contacts with Seniors and spent 3,103 hours providing health insurance counseling HESSCO protective services responded to 606 reports of abuse and neglect 2018 Annual Report REVENUES EXPENDITURES Total Revenues $14,756,668 Total Expenditures $14,358,593 Contracted Client Services $7,998,935 State Contracts $11,548,674 Federal Contracts $540,207 Private Contracts $2,040,484 Client Fees and Donations $460,099 Fundraising $148,518 Other Revenue $18,686 Client Related Program Costs $4,082,735 Nutrition & Subgrants $1,218,683 Administration $1,058,240 One Merchant Street Sharon, MA 02067 Phone: 781-784-4944 V/TTY Email: Website: HESSCO is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization funded in whole or in part by contracts with the Massachusetts Executive Office of Elder Affairs and the US Administration on Community Living. HESSCO Mission and Board of Directors As the Aging Services Access Point (ASAP) and Area Agency on Aging (AAA), HESSCO’s mission is to provide South Norfolk County elders, caregivers and individuals with disabilities the opportunity to live life with dignity, independence, self-determination, and to achieve the highest possible quality of life. DONORS: David Adams Kelly Andre Anonymous Beverly Barbell Norma Barr Robert Barry Carolyn Baxter Linda Beaulieu Karen Becker Martin Becker Tina & Bill Belanger Marilyn Benjamin Ellen & Michael Bergeron Judith Black George Blumental Bridget Boles Anthony Bowser Lois Brown Al Bugeau Mitchell Burek Eunice & John Cadorette Cynthia Cheek Bo Clark Mary Ellen & Warren Cobb Susan & Leonard Conlin Susan & Bruce Creditor Lois & Philip Czachorowski Vera Dashkevich Mary & Dan Davis Jayne & William Davis Marcia & Richard Defanti Timothy Dineen Janice Dolan Richard Donovan Dennis Donovan Tom Driscoll James Duggan John Feist Sandra & Samuel Fish Sharon Fishbein Dennis Flaherty Bill Flemming Elvin Fowell Merle Franke Sharon Gallagher Chandra Ganapathy Constance Geiger Sheila Pallay & Herbert Glickman Gloria Greenfield Joanne Grossman Whit Hall Anne Heller Eunice Hildebrandt Gunta Hirsch J. Chuck Hrenchuk Vicky Hunt Marjorie Huse Dana Hyland John Jamieson Judy John Madhav Kacker Lakshimi Kailasam Frances Kenney Jerilyn & Joseph King Richard King Phyllis Kivi Bonnie & Laurence Klane Joan Klaus Karen & Dennis Kraez Enid Kublin Resa Kuhne Alice Kumer Linda Lacke Sheryl Leary Arkady Leon Rosamond & George Leonard Christopher Leong Gloria Lind Roy Lockhart Janet & Paul Logan Valerie Lomus George & Lyne Loomis Barbara Lund Lauren Lynch Eileen & Richard Mackey William Macphee Kathryn Maguire Elia Marganella Nancy & John Martin Mary Jean McDermott Marsha Medalie Lisa Meomartino Paul Meskonis Mary Ellen Morency R & S Nachowitz Diane Needle Maura Neely Maria & James Neville David Norton Susan & Howard Novick Lorraine Nye Anne & G. Russell Nykvist Elinor & Norman Ober Loretta O’Brien, JD Maureen Osolnik Heidi Fieldstone & Howard Ostroff Daniel Paolino Beverly Perkins Asnah Perlman Robert Pierson Dorothy & Robert Pike Kathleen Powell Florence Preisler James Quinn Marjorie Readdy- Sullivan Marie & Dennis Ross Elissa Royal Wendie Salisbury Paul Samuels Eileen Morgan & Alfred Sanders Richard Schantz Heather Scott-Wisehart Mary Shea Brian Shea Linda & John Sheehan Kathleen Sherbrooke Ann Marie Sheridan Liz & Dick Shiers Brian Silver Delores Somerville Barbara Stavros-Lynch Steven Steckel Deborah Terry Alexandra Tingus Andrea & William Traut Paula Trieger Russel L. Tupper, II Susan & Jim Warram Nat Weiner Gail White Annette White Donald Wightman Elaine Winer Ann Wood John Young Jane & Richard Zoppo IN HONOR OF: Steve & Lauren Adams Lenora Culley Margaret C. Duggan Margaret Marder Peggy McDonough Norwood Meals on Wheels Norman Ober Peg & Dick Patty Pomerleau’s 40 years with HESSCO Judy Rice Renee and Stuart Rotman Jane Shea The Generous Staff at HESSCO Westwood Meals on Wheels Volunteers IN MEMORY OF: Ralph Baker Sr Ellen Cobb Aldo D’Angelo Jackie Grosser Bruno Hirsch Rose Hrenchuk Barbara Hyland Vijai Kacker Donald King Bill Kivi Arnold Kublin Richard Lind, Sr. Ruthie O’Callaghan Howard Pierson Lillian Samuels Barbara Soares Helen Stavros Anita Sullivan Evelyn Thompson Herb and Micki Tobin CORPORATE DONORS: 2Sisters Senior Care Advisors Abbott Care Accelerated Performance Rehabilitation Amada Senior Care Anodyne Corporation Associated Home Care, Inc. Brigham & Women’s Mass General Health Care Center Bank of Canton Bateman Senior Meals BAYADA Home Health Care Be Safer at Home Best of Care Brian F. Mahoney, Attorney at Law Bridges by Epoch at Westwood Brightview Canton Central Auto Team CertainTeed Roofing Products Group Charles D. Sheehy, Inc. Charlwell House Charm Medical Supply Community Rehab Care Community VNA Cornerstone at Canton Cornerstone at Milford Dedham Institute for Savings Deutsches Altenheim Douglas A. King Builders, Inc. Ellis Nursing & Rehab Center Emerson Auto Service Corp Foxboro Lions Club Friendly Care, Inc. Friends of Foxboro Seniors Gillooly Funeral Home Greater Boston Home Health Care Hellenic Nursing & Rehab Center Hockomock Area YMCA Home Healthsmith Home Instead Senior Care Hope Health Insurance Advice & Advocacy for Seniors Julia Ruth House Koopman Lumber & Hardware Maples Rehabilitation & Nursing Center Medical Resources Home Health Members Plus Credit Union Middlesex Savings Bank Natale Company & Safety Care Needham Bank New Outlook Homecare Next Monitoring Inc. Norfolk Lions Club Norwood Bank Norwood Hospital Norwood Hospital Medical Staff Old Colony Hospice & Palliative Care Optimal Home Health Orangetheory Fitness - Walpole Original Congregational Church of Wrentham O’Sullivan & Connolly P.C. Pawtucket Credit Union Philips Lifeline Pipefitters Union 537 Plan of Mass & Rhode Island Pond Home QRGA, LLP Certified Public Accountants Rea-Craft Press, Inc. Rehabilitation Associates Right at Home Boston Southwest Rockland Trust Rotary Club of Foxboro Rubin, Hay & Gould Salmon VNA & Hospice Samuel, Sayward & Baler LLC Scituate Boat Works Senior Aerospace Metal Bellows Senior Whole Health Sharon Credit Union Steward Homecare & Hospice Sunrise Senior Living The Arbors at Stoughton The Branches at North Attleboro The Dedham Exchange The Doolittle Home The Julia Ruth House United Church in Walpole Vision Care Specialists Walpole Co-operative Bank Wegman’s Supermarket Company Whitney Place at Sharon Windrose at Weymouth Wingate at Norton Wingate at Sharon Wingate Residences at Boylston Place Wingate Residences at Needham Wingate Residences at Norton Wingate Residences at Weston Wizard Computer Services Zalkin Law Firm GRANTS/TRUSTS: Community Health Network Area 7 Fidelity Charitable Grant Joan Gallivan Fund Katharine C. Pierce Trust T/U/W Mansfield Bank Charitable Foundation Metrowest Health Foundation, Inc National Association of Nutrition & Aging Services Programs The Saint-Gobain Corporation Foundation Washington Trust Co Charitable Fund BOARD OF DIRECTORS Maria Neville, President Valerie Comes,Vice-President Jamie Brenner Gutner, Treasurer Helen M. Rice, Clerk Paul Bergeron Gerald Calhoun Jeanne Callahan-Lydon Debra Connolly ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBERS Paul Bergeron, Chairperson and Board Liaison Paul Dumas,Vice-Chairperson Rebecca Annis Emily Conrad Paul Dumas Pat Gavin Kathryn Maguire James Fitzpatrick Caitlin Gibbs Doris Ann Gladstone Anne S. Heller Vicky Hunt Julia Irvine Frances Kenney Linda Connor Lacke Betty Lethin Marybeth Lynch James Pellegrine Cindy Peterson Maryann Sadowski Sandra Tocman Every gift is appreciated. If you made a donation between July 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018 and your name is not listed, please accept our apology and let us know. Member of the Metrowest Aging and Disability Resource Consortium (ADRC) Fran Padula Lyssa Phillips James Timilty Senator Walter Timilty Cindy Wilson201130-HESSCO Annual Report 2018_Page_2

Rosebay comments due 12/6/18

Get the full Rosebay plan and materials at the Town of Medfield website by clicking here

Affordable Housing Trust Committe

Posted on: November 6, 2018

DHCD Comment period open for the Rosebay 40B Application (Pound Street)

Rosebay cover picture Opens in new window

On 11/6/18, DHCD hand-delivered the Rosebay 40B application packet to the Town, commencing the 30-day comment period. The municipal comment letter must be received by DHCD by December 6, 2018.

Departmental comments should be submitted to the Town Planner by Tuesday, November 13th for incorporation into the draft municipal comment letter for approval at the 11/27 BoS meeting.

Residents may submit comments to the Board of Selectmen through Evelyn Clarke at and send comments directly to DHCD:

Catherine Racer, Associate Director, (with cc to Rebecca Rebecca Frawley Wachtel – DHCD Tax Credits and HOME Program Director)

Department of Housing and Community Development

100 Cambridge Street, 3rct Floor

Boston, MA 02114

Project description:

This new development is proposed as 45 units of rental housing restricted to residents age 62 and over. All 45 of the apartment homes in The Rosebay are proposed to be affordable to senior residents. The development site is a portion of the Medfield Housing Authority (“MHA”) property in Medfield, Massachusetts, for which MHA has granted the applicant an option to enter into a Ground Lease. MHA has also entered into a Master Development Agreement with NewGate Housing LLC (“NewGate”) for the proposed development.

The proposed development is expected to include 45 apartment homes in a single residential building. Of the 45 apartments, 37 are proposed as one bedroom/one bath units, and 8 are proposed as two bedroom/two bath units. All of the apartments in the proposed development will be age-restricted and all 45 will be eligible to be counted on Medfield’s Subsidized Housing Inventory for purposes of Chapter 40B. In addition to residential units, the building is also expected to house a community center “Club Room” for residents, a fitness center, a computer lab, a leasing and management office, a dedicated supportive services office and consultation center, mail and package facilities, and a maintenance facility. The proposed development will also include trash/recycling; outdoor recreation amenities such as picnic areas, community gardens, and a rooftop garden deck; and related parking, utilities, infrastructure, and landscaping improvements.

Here is info on the rare rosebay rhododendron and the trail off Woodridge:

Status of Rosebay


Town Status on the Rosebay Project

I have been asked enough about the status of the Rosebay project that I thought I would share what I know.  Rosebay is the private development proposal for 45 units of senior affordable housing on Medfield Housing Authority land that is directly adjacent to Tilden Village on Pound Street.  Rosebay would be all seniors, all rental, and all affordable.  The developer is Brian McMillin of NewGate Housing LLC of Westwood, who was selected by the Medfield Housing Authority.  Brian McMillin previously worked for Gatehouse, at the time Gatehouse built The Parc in Medfield.

In general, the Board of Selectmen have been pushing to have more affordable housing, especially for seniors, so conceptually I support the Rosebay project.

The town’s active and effective Affordable Housing Trust has been meeting with the Rosebay developer and I understand that the Affordable Housing Trust has been advancing the Rosebay project as part of the town’s solution to our affordable housing needs.  I also believe that the Affordable Housing Trust even provided some monies for fees to that developer to advance the project.

The Town of Medfield is in a good spot at the moment with respect to unfriendly 40B proposals because we are currently in a safe harbor, meaning that:

  1. we have a Housing Production Plan that the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) has accepted, and
  2. we are currently building 21 SHI units per year.

I believe that we have about another year and a half of safe harbor remaining, but we also have several irons in the fire that could extend that time frame.

So as long as we remain in that safe harbor, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Medfield can turn down any 40B that it does not like on the basis that we are in that safe harbor, and the developer cannot end run the town by appealing for state approval to the Housing Appeals Committee (HAC) at the DHCD for an approval.  The HAC routinely approves any developer’s 40B developments turned down by towns, but the HAC will not overturn a ZBA denial based on our being in a safe harbor, while we continue to be in that safe harbor.

The Board of Selectmen will soon send a letter to Department of Housing and Community Development opining about the suitability of the Rosebay project in general, and we would welcome citizen input as part of our formulation of that letter.

The project is not looking to be a Local Initiative Project (LIP), which is a town endorsed 40B.  The need for that town endorsement of a LIP gives the Board of Selectmen a high level of control over any LIP.  The Board of Selectmen therefore does not have that same high level of input and control over Rosebay that we would have if it were a LIP.

In this instance the Zoning Board of Appeals will be the main town entity that will deal with the nuts and bolts issues of the Rosebay project, and that will seek to ameliorate the proposed project and its impacts on both the neighbors and the town.  The ZBA has even greater than usual control over the Rosebay proposal, because of the fact that we are in a 40B safe harbor, and any ZBA denial should be supported by the HAC.

I am trusting the Zoning Board of Appeals to see that the details are worked out as well as they can be so as to minimize the impacts and effects of the project on the neighbors.

DHCD site visit to Rosebay site 11/6

Email this afternoon from Sarah Raposa about the Department of Housing and Community Development site visit to the Tilden expansion project called Rosebay (a copy of the email appears below) –


The Town of Medfield has received notice (from the Developer) that DHCD is currently reviewing an application for Site Approval submitted by NewGate Housing LLC (the “Applicant”). The proposed development will consist of 45 age restricted (62+) rental units comprised of 37 one-bedroom units and 8 two-bedroom units contained within one residential building with amenities, facilities, driveways/roadways and associated infrastructure on ~2.4 acres.


Access to the site will be provided from Pound Street. The project will access the utility infrastructure located on Pound Street, including sanitary sewer, water, gas, electric, telephone and cable. The stormwater management system will be designed to fully comply with all the standard of the MA DEP Stormwater Management Regulations. The Applicant is proposing that all units (100%) will be identified as affordable units for the Town’s Subsidized Housing Inventory.


The application may be viewed on the Town’s website: HERE


Should DHCD deem the conceptual design appropriate for the site, the Applicant is then allowed to submit a formal comprehensive permit application to the Medfield Zoning Board of Appeals for this project.


As part of its review, DHCD will conduct a site visit, which Local Boards[1] may attend. The site visit for The Rosebay at Medfield has been scheduled for Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 10:00 am. Please meet at the project location (at or near 30 Pound Street).


A municipality has an opportunity to submit comments to the agency within 30 days.  The public may also wish to submit comments.  The deadline for comments is no later than TBD.


Please inform us of any issues that have been raised or are anticipated in the review of this application within 7 days of the site visit so that comments may be incorporated in to the Board of Selectmen’s municipal comment letter.


[1] Local Board – means any local board or official, including, but not limited to any board of survey; board of health; planning board; conservation commission; historical commission; water, sewer, or other commission or district; fire, police, traffic, or other department; building inspector or similar official or board; city council or board of selectmen.  All boards, regardless of their geographical jurisdiction or their source of authority (that is, including boards created by special acts of the legislature or by other legislative action) shall be deemed Local Boards if they perform functions usually performed by locally created boards.



Sarah Raposa, AICP

Town Planner

Know the Signs of Elder Abuse

Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view newsletter online. + SUBSCRIBE


Osler “Pete” Peterson

617-969-1500 – Newton

September 2018

Attorney Photo

Perfect Storm Jeopardizes Safety of Older Adults

The prevalence of elder abuse in both institutional and in-home care settings appears to be rising due to a perfect storm of circumstances. First, the number of Americans 65-plus is exploding as Baby Boomers age and require more care. Second, for-profit companies, which now own more than 70 percent of the nation’s nursing homes, often cut staff and other resources to meet investor expectations. And third, government oversight and support are disappearing as budget cuts increasingly target these services. That leaves it up to all of us to be more vigilant than ever for the signs of elder abuse.

Elder Care

Protect Loved Ones from Nursing Home Abuse

Choosing nursing home, assisted living or in-home medical care is complicated, difficult and often an emotional process. The last thing on your mind is the possibility that those responsible for the care of some of our most vulnerable citizens would abuse or neglect their patients. But it does happen all too often, which is why you should know the signs of elder abuse and how to find quality care for the older loved ones in your life.



Adults 65-plus make up 13 percent of the population, numbering more than 40 million.


A Culture of Denial,
a Failure to Act

CNN investigation uncovers rampant sexual assault in elder care facilities – and little accountability.



Social media abuse of nursing home residents often goes unchecked, reports NPR.

You Should Know is a copyrighted publication of Voice2News, LLC, and is made possible by the attorney shown above. This newsletter is intended for the interest of past and present clients and other friends of this lawyer. It is not intended as a substitute for specific legal advice. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, click here to unsubscribe from this newsletter, and your request will be honored immediately. You may also submit your request in writing to: Steven L. Miller, Editor, 4907 Woodland Ave., Des Moines, IA 50312. Be sure to include your email address.

The Rosebay at Medfield

Today I got this email follow up, below, from the developer that the Medfield Housing Authority selected for the proposed project on Medfield Housing Authority land next to Tilden Village.  I also met with the Legion and its developers this week about their plans, and the issue of how their timing fits in to the town’s safe harbor needs, so I asked Brain McMillin about the timing of his plan, and he reported  “it’s not out of the question that it could take until 2022 or 2023 until these units are ready to be leased up.”  –




I should probably point out that The Rosebay at Medfield is not public housing, so it is technically not an expansion of Tilden Village.  It will be a privately-owned development located on land leased from the Medfield Housing Authority under a long-term ground lease.

Although it will not be public housing like Tilden Village, all of the units in the proposed development would still be affordable and age-restricted (62+) to meet the Housing Authority’s requirements.  For the Town of Medfield, all 45 of the proposed units would count toward its Chapter 40B Subsidized Housing Inventory and further goals stated under its Housing Production Plan.

The basic structure we have proposed is fairly common and has been used around the country for privately-owned developments built on housing authority land.  We are aware, however, that that it may require some explanation and we plan to provide that detail during our Comprehensive Permit hearing before the Zoning Board.




Brian J. McMillin | NewGate Housing LLC