Category Archives: Uncategorized

Warrant Committee handout about ALS



The Warrant Committee has prepared this Options Overview for Article 15.


Option 1.  As Is – For a Limited Time Period


Rely on neighboring communities to provide ALS intercept service (as we have in recent past) while evaluating an optimal long term solution


Expected Investment:             Potential $25K to study committee (no over-ride required)

Service:                                   Effective – ALS intercept will continue to work well for us if neighbors continue to support us while we evaluate other solutions

Uncertainty:                           Not a long term solution


Option 2.  Contract out ALS Services


Contract with a private service to dedicate an ambulance and 2 Paramedics to Medfield 24/7


Expected Investment:             $570K per year (based on one quote only)

Service:                                   Response time fast (have 2 ambulances available – ALS & BLS)

Ambulance utilization low

Staffed from a pool of paramedics with high utilization/experience

Uncertainty:                           Control of resources, Potential to share costs & services


Option 3. Hire FF/Paramedics


Hire paramedics and equip current ambulance to accommodate ALS service


Expected Investment:             6 hires < $700K ($544K-$606K per year +  $90K startup costs)

(Lower if we hire entry level Paramedics but will grow to this level within 7 years as a result of step increases)

4 hires would decrease investment 30%

8 hires would increase investment 30%

Service:                                   Response time fast (assuming no concurrent calls),

Equipment and Paramedic utilization low

Uncertainty:                           Number of hires/level of coverage
New Fire Chief not yet available – who will hire/train?
Cost (contract negotiations ongoing, retirement benefits not included,
budget to support required wage growth without future over-rides)


Option 4. Regionalize ALS Services


Share resources (either hired or contracted ALS) with other towns locally


Expected Investment:             Unknown – but lower than other long term options.

Potentially half (or less) than other options; could it be a profit center?

Service:                                   Response time fast (assuming no concurrent calls) especially if ambulance housed in Medfield, Utilization higher

Uncertainty:                           Partners, cost sharing, location of ambulance

Relay for Life – Chili Chowder Challenge, 4/22

From Medfield firefighter, Bill DeKing –

chili chowder-page-001-2017

Come taste and vote on your favorite chili & chowder from some of the best local restaurants to benefit the Relay For Life of Millis / Medway/ Medfield/ Norfolk on April 22nd from Noon – 4pm. We will have raffles, silent auction, music, cash bar and much much more! Tickets are $20 per person and are available to be purchased in advance or at the door. The following restaurants are going to be there to judge. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like to donate.
Thank you,
Bill DeKing

Affordable housing workshop, 7PM this evening

This today from Suzanne Siino’s Medfield Inclusion Project.



If you think our 40B issues are behind us after Mass Housing’s denial of Medfield Meadows, think again.

Since 1969, Mass Chapter 40B Law mandates that 10% of EVERY towns housing inventory be affordable.  Medfield has 4220 housing units.  Currently, we have 283 units designated as affordable.  We are short by 139 units.

Medfield’s newly approved Housing Production Plan (HPP) is a blueprint to our 40B future.  It is Medfield’s vision and commitment to the development of future subsidized housing.   Do you share this vision?   Take the time to read the document.  It’s on the towns website.

Medfield has “Safe Harbor” from future unwanted or unfriendly 40B developments  (like Medfield Meadows) ONLY if we create 0.5%  (of 4220) or 21 units of affordable housing every year until we reach the 10% goal.   Two new 40B projects, the Bike Shop rental project and the Hospital Rd ownership project will give us a one-year reprieve once they are permitted.  It’s vital we begin to plan for 2018 and beyond, or risk exposure to unwanted 40B once again.

Medfield is a bucolic town with top-ranked schools.   The cost of land and the average home prices are well above the state median.  There is very little, if any, state or federal funding for development of subsidized housing.  This presents financial challenges for towns, housing authorities and developers.

More than 80 communities in the Commonwealth have created Affordable Housing Trusts (AHT) since 2006 to address this issue. .  AHT’s have a Board of Trustees whose purpose is to create and preserve affordable housing.  More importantly, they rely on the voices of the citizens, the goals of the HPP, and the Town’s Master Plan to proactively and creatively plan 40B housing.   Long term revenue funding of the Trust can be achieved creatively in over 40 ways, including Inclusionary Zoning Funds and CPA (Community Preservation Act) funds.

At Town Meeting on April 24, you will be asked to vote on Articles 16 and 17; the creation of an Affordable Housing Trust (AHT) and its initial funding of one million dollars.  These monies will simply get the ball rolling for the first year until the Trust establishes its funding mechanisms.

There’s a lot to learn and much at stake.  In October, the High School auditorium was filled with hundreds of residents passionately protesting the mega 40B.  We need that same energy now!

Come listen to the experts from COG (Community Opportunities Group) the town’s consultants, ask questions, and let your voice be heard.  It’s your town, and it can be your 40B too!

Please attend the Affordable Housing Workshop, Tuesday, 4/11, 7 pm at The Center.


Suzanne Siino

Medfield Inclusion Project




State budget – step 2 (i.e. the House version)

This notice this afternoon from the Massachusetts Municipal Association about the House version of the proposed state budget. The state budget goes through the following steps each year:

  • The Governor starts the budget process with his budget proposal at the end of January,
  • the House then does its version,
  • the Senate then does its own version,
  • then the House and Senate work out the final version via a reconciliation committee,
  • the Governor can veto items, and
  • the legislature can pass what it wants over those vetos, if it has enough votes.

Our local aid monies seem to have been mainly protected in the House version of the state budget.


April 10, 2017






Earlier this afternoon, the House Ways & Means Committee reported out a lean $40.3 billion fiscal 2018 state budget plan to increase overall state expenditures by 3.8 percent. The House Ways and Means budget is $180 million smaller than the budget filed by the Governor in January, yet it also increases Chapter 70 aid by $15 million above the Governor’s recommendation by increasing minimum aid from $20 per student to $30 per student. The full House will debate the fiscal 2018 state budget during the week of April 24.

H. 3600, the House Ways and Means budget, provides strong progress on many important local aid priorities, including the full $40 million increase in Unrestricted General Government Aid that the Governor proposed and communities are counting on. The House W&M Committee would increase funding for other major aid programs, by adding $4 million to the Special Education Circuit Breaker, adding $1 million to Regional School Transportation, and increasing Chapter 70 minimum aid to $30 per student.

Please Click this Link Now to See the Chapter 70 and Unrestricted Municipal Aid Numbers for Your Community

Later Today or Early Tomorrow – Click on this Link to See Your Community’s Local Aid and Preliminary Cherry Sheet Numbers in the House Ways & Means Budget, as Posted by the Division of Local Services

In a major victory for cities and towns, the HW&M fiscal 2018 budget plan (H. 3600) would provide $1.061 billion for UGGA, a $40 million increase over current funding – the same increase proposed by Governor Baker. The $40 million would increase UGGA funding by 3.9 percent, which matches the projected growth in state tax collections next year. This would be the second-largest increase in discretionary municipal aid in nearly a decade. Every city and town would see their UGGA funding increase by 3.9 percent.

The House budget committee is proposing a $106.4 million increase in Chapter 70 education aid (this is $15 million higher than the $91.4 million increase in House One), with a provision that every city, town and school district receive an increase of at least $30 per student (compared to the $20-per-student amount in the Governor’s budget). The House budget would continue to implement the target share provisions enacted in 2007. Further, the House Ways & Means Committee proposal would build on the Governor’s initial proposal to start addressing shortfalls in the foundation budget framework, by increasing the cost factors for employee health insurance.

In the context of a very tight budget year, the House budget committee’s increase in Chapter 70 funding is certainly welcome progress over the House One proposal that was filed in January. The MMA continues to give top priority to full funding for the Foundation Budget Review Commission’s recommendations, and over the long-term will work to build on this increase.

In another budget advancement for cities and towns, House leaders have announced that they support increased funding for the Special Education Circuit Breaker program. The House budget plan would provide $281 million, a $4 million increase above fiscal 2017, although this is still short of full funding for a vital program that every city, town and school district relies on to fund state-mandated services. The MMA will work to continue building on this welcome increase.

House Ways and Means Committee budget would add $1 million to bring regional transportation reimbursements up to $62 million. The MMA will work to continue building on this welcome increase.

Both budgets filed by the Governor and the House Ways & Means Committee would level-fund charter school reimbursements at $80.5­ million, far below the amount necessary to fully fund the statutory formula that was originally established to offset a portion of the funding that communities are required to transfer to charter schools. The fiscal 2017 funding level is $54 million below what is necessary to fund the reimbursement formula that is written into state law. If this program is level funded, the shortfall will grow to an estimated $67.1 million in fiscal 2018. This would lead to the continued and growing diversion of Chapter 70 funds away from municipally operated school districts, and place greater strain on the districts that serve 96% of public school children. Solving the charter school funding problem must be a major priority during the budget debate.

The House budget committee’s proposal would level-fund PILOT payments at $26.77 million, add $600K to library grant programs, add $500K to METCO, and level-fund McKinney-Vento reimbursements at $8.35 million. However, the HW&M budget would reduce Shannon Anti-Gang Grants to $5 million, a $1 million reduction.

Please Call Your Representatives Today to Thank Them for the Local Aid Investments in the House Ways and Means Committee Budget – Including the $40 Million Increase in Unrestricted Local Aid, Providing Chapter 70 Minimum Aid at $30 Per Student, and Adding Funding to the Special Education Circuit Breaker and Regional School Transportation

Please Explain How the House Ways and Means Budget Impacts Your Community, and Ask Your Representatives to Build on this Progress During Budget Debate in the House

Thank You!


More on DIF & TIF

DIF houses-bus

Both DIF and TIF provide municipalities with innovative tools to target districts or specific projects for redevelopment. The use of tax increments is the centerpiece of both tools. A tax increment is the difference between the beginning assessed value of the targeted property in its dilapidated state and the assessed value going forward in time, as the planned improvements take shape. The tax increment, calculated by the local Assessor, is the tax on the added value of new construction, rehabilitation or new equipment or machinery. Determining the value of the tax increment is essentially the same for both DIF and TIF. How the tax increment is used as an incentive, however, is very different. Using DIF, municipalities can pledge all or a portion of tax increments to fund district improvements over time. With TIF, municipalities may grant property tax exemptions to landowners of up to 100% of the tax increment for a fixed period.

District Improvement Financing (DIF)/
Tax Increment Financing (TIF)

In Brief: District Improvement Financing (DIF) and Tax Increment Financing (TIF) are economic tools that promote redevelopment by use of public/private partnerships. TIF offers tax breaks to developers, while DIF channels tax dollars into targeted redevelopment districts.


The cultural arts center analysis recommends the use of district improvement financing (DIF) and tax increment financing (TIF) as mechanisms for financing the cultural arts center and the needed infrastructure.  A DIF allows one to raise monies by issuing bonds that are paid back only out of property tax monies derived from the lands within the DIF boundaries, so the DIF could be the former Medfield State Hospital campus, and the rest of the town would not have to pay in. A TIF sounds like a straight tax break given to stimulate a particular result.

Interestingly, the DLS newsletter this month had the following article on those –


Ask DLS: Property Tax Incentive and Financing Program Changes

This month’s Ask DLS features questions relating to changes in economic and housing development property tax incentives and financing programs under the Job Creation and Workforce Development Act, Chapter 219 of the Acts of 2016, and the Municipal Modernization Act, Chapter 218 of the Acts of 2016. A summary of the changes made by the Municipal Modernization Act can be found in the August 18, 2016 issue of City & Town. We have also compiled the questions answered in the Municipal Modernization Act series of Ask DLS for your convenience. Please let us know if you have other areas of interest or send a question to We would like to hear from you.

What is the District Improvement Financing Program?

Under MGL c. 40Q, cities and towns may create one or more improvement districts within their boundaries to promote increased residential, industrial, and commercial activity. Development districts are created by action of the mayor and council in cities, and town meeting in towns.

The centerpiece of the district improvement financing (DIF) program is the “District Development Program,” which is a statement of means and objectives designed to improve the quality of life, the physical facilities and structures and the quality of pedestrian and vehicular traffic control and transportation within a development district. Development programs may also include means and objectives to increase residential housing, both market rate and affordable. Every development program must include a financial plan, which is a statement of the costs and revenue sources needed to carry out development programs, to include (1) cost estimates for the development program; (2) the amount of indebtedness to be incurred; and (3) sources of anticipated capital. MGL c. 40Q, sec. 2.

How is municipal financing of improvements under the DIF program different than financing of other improvements?

A unique financing option involves setting aside all or a portion of the additional taxes, generated by the public improvements entailed in the development program. Districts that set aside a portion of the rise in property tax revenues (the “increment”) to finance the development program are referred to as “invested revenue districts.” General obligation or revenue bonds can be issued in anticipation of higher property tax revenues spurred by the development program in the district.

The revenue from the retained tax increment is reserved and credited to two accounts. MGL c. 40Q, sec. 3. First in priority is the “development sinking fund account” that is used to cover payment of interest and principal on debt taken out to fund the program. Second priority goes to a “project cost account” to cover separate project costs as outlined in the financial plan for the program. An amendment made by the Municipal Modernization Act provides that the requirement to reserve the increment ends when sufficient monies have been reserved to cover the full, anticipated liabilities of both these accounts. MGL c. 40Q, sec. 3(d).

How is the District Improvement Financing tax increment calculated?

The Municipal Modernization Act amended the calculation of the tax increment reserved for debt service and project costs in cities and towns with invested revenue districts under MGL c. 40Q. It will now equal the actual new growth increase added to the municipality’s levy limit under Proposition 2½ for the development activity and expanded tax base within the district. MGL c. 40Q, sec. 1. The previous formula was based on certain adjusted valuation increases that were difficult to calculate, did not correspond to the new property tax revenue generated by the program and were not fixed until the tax rate for the year was set. The amount will now be known before the rate is set since it is based on Proposition 2½ new growth. Moreover, the assessors can provide a realistic estimate of the increment for budgeting purposes. This will ensure that the revenues generated by the increment are not used to support the budget generally.

The annual increment is based on the increase in the community’s levy limit (“new growth”) attributable to real estate parcels within the district for that year, including the portion attributable to prior years with an assessment date after the base date of the program. The percentage of the increment being reserved for financing the project must be specified as part of the district financing plan.

District is created April 1, 2017
Base date is January 1, 2017 (FY18)
FY19 with January 1, 2018 assessment date is first year for tax increment

$100,000 of FY19 tax base growth is attributable to parcels in district
FY19 increment = $100,000.

$150,000 of FY20 tax base growth is attributable to parcels in district
FY20 increment = $252,500 [$102,500 ($100,000 FY19 increment increased by 2.5%) PLUS $150,000 additional increment]

$100,000 of FY21 tax base growth is attributable to parcels in district
FY21 increment = [$358,813 [$258,813 ($252,500 FY20 increment increased by 2.5%) PLUS $100,000 additional increment]

Where can municipalities enter into TIF Agreements?

The Job Creation and Workforce Development Act, Chapter 219 of the Acts of 2016, made a number of changes in the economic development incentive program (EDIP), which makes state tax credits and local property tax exemptions available for certain economic development projects. MGL c. 23A, secs. 3A3G. The EDIP program is administered by the state Economic Affairs Coordinating Council (EACC), which approves the tax incentives. The Act streamlined the requirements and procedures for the two local property tax exemptions under the program, which are the tax increment financing (TIF) exemption and the special tax assessment (STA).

Municipalities may now apply to the EACC to declare an area in their city or town, or contiguous areas in neighboring cities or towns, as eligible for TIF agreements. An area can be designated as TIF-eligible if the EACC finds that there is a strong likelihood that any of the following will occur within a specific and proximate period of time: (1) a significant influx or growth in business activity; (2) creation of a significant number of new jobs—not merely replacement or relocation of current jobs within the state; or (3) a private project or investment will contribute significantly to the resiliency of the local economy. It is no longer necessary that a TIF-eligible area be within an Economic Target Area (“ETA”).

Cities and towns can enter into TIF agreements with persons or entities undertaking either (1) certified projects, or (2) real estate or facility expansion projects in a TIF-eligible area. Any project must be consistent with the municipality’s economic development objectives and likely to increase or retain employment opportunities for residents of the municipality. MGL c. 23A, sec. 3E. A certified project is a project run by a business for which the EACC has approved state tax incentives. An eligible real estate project must be construction, rehabilitation or improvement of any building or other structure on a parcel of real property which, when completed, will result in at least a 100% increase in the assessed value of the real property over the assessed value of the real property prior to the project. A facility expansion project requires relocation from one location to another in the state or expansion of an existing facility that results in a net increase in the number of full-time jobs at the relocated or expanded facility. See definitions in MGL c. 23A, sec. 3A.

What happens to a local tax incentive for a certified project when the certification is revoked?

The 2016 Act clarified the impact of an EACC revocation of a certified project for a business that is also receiving a local tax incentive. MGL c. 23A, sec. 3F. The EACC can revoke state tax credits for certified projects that are in material non-compliance with the job creation or other requirements agreed to as a condition of the credits. The local tax incentive will now terminate at the beginning of the tax year in which the material non-compliance occurred, unless the agreement between the municipality and business expressly provides otherwise. If a local tax incentive is terminated, the municipality may amend the agreement to continue it. The amended agreement must be approved by the legislative body and EACC. In addition, the municipality may recapture the previously foregone taxes by making a “special assessment” on the taxpayer in the year after the year of the EACC’s decision to revoke project certification. The recapture could go as far back as the finding of material non-compliance. The procedure for municipalities to assess and collect the recaptured amount as a property tax is also spelled out.

What is the new local option to promote creation of middle income housing? (Republished from March 2, 2017 City & Town)

Under G.L. c. 40, sec. 60B, cities and towns may, through their respective legislative bodies, provide for Workforce Housing Special Tax Assessments (WH-STA’s) as incentive to create middle-income housing. Municipal Modernization Act, Chapter 218, sec. 39 of the Acts of 2016. Unlike other property tax incentives, such as economic development tax increment finance (TIFs) agreements, no state-level approval is required. Local WH-STA plans may allow for exemptions as great as 100% of the fair cash value of the property during the first two years of construction. Over a three-year stabilization phase following construction, the exemptions are available in declining maximum percentages of the fair cash value.

To use this incentive, a city or town must designate one or more areas that present exceptional opportunities for increased development of middle income housing as WH-STA zones. The plan must describe in detail all construction activities and types of residential developments intended for the WH-STA zone. The city or town must also promulgate regulations establishing eligibility requirements for developers to enter into WH-STA agreements. The regulations must address procedures for developers to apply for a WH-STA; the minimum number of new residential units to be constructed to qualify for WH-STA tax incentives; maximum rental prices and other eligibility criteria to facilitate and encourage construction of workforce housing.

The city or town may then enter into tax agreements with property owners in WH-STA zones that will set maximum rental prices that may be charged by the owner to create middle income workforce housing.

Borrelli 40B gets DHCD approval


The Department of Housing and Community Development issued a letter dated yesterday (a copy of the letter appears below) that gave its approval to Bob Borrelli’s proposed eight unit 40B at 67 North Street.  Borrelli next applies to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Medfield for a comprehensive permit.

Those eight affordable units are the second part of the affordable housing units needed by the Town of Medfield to gain a one year safe harbor from unfriendly 40B’s, when added to the Larkins’ thirteen affordable units at their Hospital Road 40B that were approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals this week.  The one year of safe harbor runs from the date that the Zoning Board of Appeals permits the Borrelli 40B units.

However, the town next needs to plan now for the twenty-one affordable units it needs to build each year for the next several years to keep its safe harbor from the unfriendly 40B’s.  The town needs about 140 affordable units beyond those described here.  Come to the Affordable Housing Workshop at 7PM on April 11 at The Center to hear about the next steps.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Charles D. Baker, Governor + Karyn E. Polito, Lt. Governor + Chrystal Kornegay, Undersecretary April 6, 2017 Mr. Robert J. Borrelli, Manager Medfield Holdings, LLC 9 Boiling Spring Avenue Medfield, Massachusetts 02052 Mr. Mark L. Fisher Medfield Board of Selectman 459 Main Street Medfield, Massachusetts 02052 RE: Cushing House, Medfield, Massachusetts De terr 11i11alio11 of Project Eligibility under the Local Initiative Program (LIP) Dear Messrs. Borrelli and Fisher: I am pleased to inform you that your application for project eligibility under the Local Initiative Program (LIP) for the proposed Cushing House project has been approved. This approval is based on your application that sets forth a plan for the development of eight rental units. The proposed rents of the LIP units are generally consistent with the standards for affordable housing to be included in a community's Chapter 40B affordable housing stock. As part of the review process, Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) staff has performed an on-site inspection of the proposed project sites. DHCD has made the following findings: 1 . The proposed project appears generally eligible under the requirements of the Local Initiative Program, subject to final program review and approval; 2. The site of the proposed project is generally appropriate for residential development; 3. The conceptual plan is generally appropriate for the site on which the project is located; 4. The proposed project appears financially feasible in the context of the Medfield housing market; 5. The initial proforma for the project appears financially feasible and consistent with cost examination and limitations on profits and distributions on the basis of estimated development costs; 6. The project sponsor and the development team meet the general eligibility standards of the Local Initiative Program; and I 00 Cambridge Street, Suite 300 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 617.573.1100 Medfield - Cushing House Page2 7. The project sponsor has shown evidence of ownership of the Project site. The proposed project must comply with all state and local codes not specifically exempted by a comprehensive permit. Please provide us with a copy of the comprehensive permit as soon as it is issued. The DHCD legal office will review the comprehensive permit and other project documentation. Additional information may be requested as is deemed necessary. Following the issuance of the comprehensive permit, the specifics of this project must be formalized in a regulatory agreement signed by the municipality, the project developer, and DHCD prior to starting construction. As stated in the application, the Cushing House project will consist of eight units, two of which will be eligible for inclusion in the Medfield's subsidized housing inventory. The affordable units will be marketed and rented to eligible households whose annual income may not exceed 80% of aFea median income, adjusted for nousehofd size, as determined by t""li-e+Uf-'.Sq-.---Department of Housing and Urban Development. The conditions that must be met prior to final DHCD approval include: 1. A final affirmative fair marketing and lottery plan with related forms shall be submitted that reflects LIP requirements including consistency with the Comprehensive Permit Guidelines, Section Ill, Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans; 2. Any changes to the application it has just reviewed and approved, including but not limited to alternations in unit mix, rents, development team, unit design, site plan and financial proforma reflecting land value, must be approved by DHCD; 3. The project must be organized and operated so as not to violate the state antidiscrimination statute (M.G.L. c151B) or the Federal Fair Housing statute (42 U.S.C. s.3601 et seq.). No restriction on occupancy may be imposed on the affordable unit (other than those created by state or local health and safety laws regulating the number of occupants in dwelling units); and 4. The Town shall submit to DHCD the finalized details of the comprehensive permit. As the Cushing House project nears completion of construction, DHCD staff may visit the site to ensure that the development meets program guidelines. Medfield - Cushing House Page2 When the units have received Certificates of Occupancy, the developer must submit to both DHCD and to the Town of Medfield a project cost examination for the comprehensive permit project. This letter shall expire two years from this date or on April 7, 2019 unless'a comprehensive permit has been issued. We congratulate the Town of Medfield and the project sponsor on their efforts to work together to increase the Town's supply of affordable housing. If you have any questions as you proce. d with the project, please call Alana Murphy at 617-573-1301. cc: Sarah Raposa, Town Planner Michael Sullivan, Town Administrator James Murphy, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel, DHCD Enc. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COST CERTIFICATION: By your signature below, Medfield Holdings, LLC acknowledges and accepts this approval letter, including the obligation under law to provide the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Town of Medfield with a project cost examination. Signature: ___________ _ Name (print): __________ _ Date: _____________ _ Upon receipt, please make copy of this letter and return a signed copy to Division of Housing Development, Department of Housing and Community Development, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114 ATTN: Local Initiative Program Cushing House, Medfield, Massachusetts LOCAL INITIATIVE PROGRAM - COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT Sponsor: Medfield Holdings, LLC 9 Boiling Spring Avenue Medfield, MA 02052 Project Addresses: 67 North Street Medfield, MA 02052 This project will provide ownership opportunities according to the following breakdown: Tl£ee of Unit ·#Units # Bdrms #Baths Gross SF Maximum Rent Market Units Two Bedrooms 6 2 1 876 $1,950 LIP Units One Bedroom 1 1 1 700 $1,279 Two Bedrooms 1 2 1 740 $1,461 TOTAL UNITS 820170406-DHCD-ltr from re Cushing House PEL_Page_220170406-DHCD-ltr from re Cushing House PEL_Page_320170406-DHCD-ltr from re Cushing House PEL_Page_4