Cinderella at MHS 3/11 & 12

Cinderella

From Renee Clark –


Rodger’s and Hammerstein’s Cinderella is coming to Medfield High School! Come see this enchanted version of a classic love story complete with singing animals and magic carriages. The Medfield High School Theatre Society Spring Musical takes place March 11 and 12 at 7 p.m. and March 13 at 2 p.m. Tickets are $12 and can be purchased online at medfielddrama.weebly.com.

MEC on 1/13/16

MEC Meeting Minutes-January 13, 2016

Attendance:  Fred Bunger, Andrew Seaman, Alan Peterson, Lee Alinksy, Cynthia Greene, Pete Peterson, Maciej Konieczny, Marie Nolan

 

1.       Presentation on LED Streetlighting by Fred Davis

a.        Outlined various options for LED conversion including smart controls, various types of fixtures and costs/savings associated with this project.

2.       Energy Manager Report

a.       WWTP Solar progressing with no issues.  Panels are mounted, cable trench dug and wiring continues.  Estimated substantial completion date of February 11.

b.      Other town solar projects:

i.      Public Safety Building-Permanent Building Committee has elected to submit an RFI for a change order to install solar at the PS Building.  Should have an estimated cost by end of February.

ii.      DPW Garage-Exploring a PPA at this site.  Greenskies to submit proposal and A. Seaman to review with MEC at next meeting.

iii.      Generating interest in solar at the landfill.  Still in the fact-finding phase and will report on any additional progress.

3.       MHS meeting with Environmental studies students regarding solar at MHS.

a.       Discussed various options for the school and other town sites.  Students were excited to see progress being made and wanted to see how they could be advocates for this progress.  Since most of the class are seniors and over 18 they would be eligible to vote at Town Meeting, so Fred and Andrew asked them to initiate a Get Out and Vote campaign at school before the Meeting.

4.       Community Electricity Aggregation Program

a.       Committee felt it was not the MEC place to promote this program and should come from Selectmen.  Selectman Peterson will bring this up at a future Selectmen meeting.

5.       Green Communities

a.       Vehicle Policy-Selectmen and School Board have approved the Policy

b.      Stretch Code – Warrant Committee presentation went well.  Appears most members are in favor of adoption.  Timeline for their vote is by the end of February.   Other Town Committees to discuss Stretch Code include COA, , MSHPC, MEMO, Planning, and Permanent Building.

Next Meeting Thursday, February 11th at 7:30 at the Town Garage

DOWNTOWN SUMMIT – 3-8PM today

Come by to share your views and thereby help to shape the future of our downtown.

Downtown Summit

As I think about how to make the downtown better in advance of the summit, I focus on our need for more retail space.  I think we lack a sufficient amount and density of retail shops for our downtown to be as vibrant as it should be.

Therefore, I go back to what I think was the  biggest missed opportunity of all time for Medfield, when what is now the Montrose School’s property was for sale.  The land was zoned for business uses, but no one wanted to site a business in that location.  The brokers had many high quality developers lined up ready to do mixed use developments, with retail on the  first floor and housing above, but Mike and the other selectmen would not consider the zoning change needed to allow those mixed use developments to happen.  So instead we  got a school that did not need to comply with zoning, and we also lost the $150,000 per year in taxes that had been paid by Tofias, and the much greater tax revenue that would have flowed from the mixed use development.

Perhaps we can solve this issue by rezoning more areas for retail uses.

 

 

Downtown summit tomorrow, 3-8PM at Library

Medfield office

This was the press release from the MAPC a month ago for the drop in anytime downtown planning summit taking place tomorrow at the Library from 3-8PM, being run by the Economic Development Committee.


 

Public Input Sought for Medfield

Downtown Summit

‘Downtown Action Plan’ will identify strategies and actions

for economic growth, development

 

Medfield – Do you live or own a business in Medfield? Are you interested in helping to shape the community’s vision and strategy for economic development and growth in Medfield’s downtown?

 

Join the Economic Development Committee for the Town of Medfield and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) for a public “Open House” meeting on Tuesday, February 9, 2016 that will take place between the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Medfield Public Library located at 468 Main Street. The meeting will give the public an opportunity to identify strategies to increase the economic vitality and overall vibrancy of the downtown area.

 

The event will be an Open House between the hours of 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. Participants can come between those hours at any time that is convenient. Expect to stay between 30 to 45 minutes.

 

Participants – residents, business owners, property owners, anyone interested in the downtown – will be able to voice opinions that will help MAPC and the Town develop and prioritize community and economic development goals and strategies for the downtown; take part in mapping and visual preference exercises that will help to prioritize potential opportunities for retail, housing or office development, as well as improved connections in and to the downtown; and view findings from the current conditions and market analysis report.

 

An overview presentation will kick off the event and will be replayed throughout the evening to accommodate attendee schedules.

 

Funding for the Medfield Downtown Summit is provided by the 2016 District Local Technical Assistance (DLTA) program enables MAPC to work with individual communities, or groups of communities, as we engage the public in responsible stewardship of our region’s future.

 

For more information about the project, contact Steve Winter at 617-933-0753 or swinter@mapc.org.

Traffic study for Rte. 27 signal

Hannah-Adams-Rte-27-South150

A traffic signal is needed at the Rte. 27 intersection with South Street, because of traffic volumes and backups, per a January 19 letter from traffic engineers hired by Chief Meaney to study the need, summarizing their recent study.  The traffic signal is projected to cost about $200,000.

Reportedly, however, Mike Sullivan says Chief Meaney is considering whether to ask the town meeting to proceed with that traffic signal or one for the intersection of Rte. 27 and West Street, which has a high number of accidents, many of which have been serious due the speeds of the vehicles.

The letter appears below and as a more readable PDF is here  20160119-mcmanus-town of medfield_route 27 (spring street) at south street_signal memo (2…


McMAHON  ASSOCIATES
300 Myles Standish Boulevard | Suite 201 | Taunton, MA 02780
p 508-823-2245| f 508-823-2246
mcmahon a ssociates.com
PR INCI PA LS
Joseph W. McMahon, P.E. Joseph J. DeSantis, P.E., PTOE
John S. DePalma William T. Steffens Casey A. Moore, P.E.
Gary R. McNaughton, P.E., PTOE

A SSOCIA T ES
John J. Mitchell, P.E. Christopher J. Williams, P.E.
R. Trent Ebersole, P.E. Matthew M. Kozsuch, P.E. Maureen Chlebek, P.E., PTOE
Corporate Headquarters: Fort Washington, Pennsylvania
Serving the East Coast from 13 offices throughout the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and Florida

January 19, 2016
DRAFT

Chief Robert E. Meaney, Jr. Medfield Police Department 110 North Street
Medfield, MA 02052
RE:

Route 27 at South Street ‐ Medfield, MA

Dear Chief Meaney:
McMahon Associates has completed a traffic warrant analysis at the intersection of Route 27 (Spring
Street/High Street) at South Street in Medfield, Massachusetts. The purpose of this study is to
evaluate existing traffic conditions at the intersection and to determine if a traffic signal is
warranted. Our assessment is based on a review of current traffic volumes, accident data, and
anticipated traffic growth over a 10‐year period. This study examines and documents future
conditions under unsignalized and signalized scenarios.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The study area is composed of the two intersections of Route 27 with South Street, which are offset
intersections approximately 600 feet apart. The study area intersections are displayed in the
attached Figure 1. The southerly intersection of Route 27 (High Street) and South Street is
currently signalized, while the northerly intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) and South Street
is unsignalized, with free‐flowing traffic on Route 27 and stop control on South Street.

Route 27 (Spring Street/High Street) is a two‐way, two‐lane urban principal arterial under Town of
Medfield jurisdiction. Route 27 is approximately 30 feet in width providing one‐foot wide shoulders
on either side of the roadway and generally runs in the north‐south direction through the Town of
Medfield. Route 27 currently has a posted speed limit of 40 miles an hour in the study area.

Both segments of South Street are two‐lane, two‐way urban minor arterials also under Town of
Medfield jurisdiction, which runs in the east‐west direction through the Town of Medfield. The two
segments of South Streets have shoulder widths varying from one to three feet on either
side, with a posted speed limit of 30 miles an hour in the study area.

Chief Robert E. Meaney
DRAFT
January 19, 2016
Page 2 of 9

Route 27 (High Street) at South Street
At the southerly intersection with South Street, Route 27 (High Street) provides a through lane and
exclusive right turn lane on the southbound approach, and a through lane and exclusive left turn
lane on the northbound approach. South Street is approximately 40 feet in width and provides a
single multi‐use lane on the eastbound approach with shoulder widths ranging from one to three feet
on either side. There is a crosswalk located across the southbound approach at the intersection,
which spans across Route 27 and provides connectivity between the sidewalk on the eastern side of
Route 27 and the northern side of South Street. There is also a raised island present on the
southbound approach to facilitate the channelized right turn lane. The intersection of Route 27
(High Street) at South Street is currently signalized in all directions and provides an exclusive
pedestrian phase.

Route 27 (Spring Street) at South Street
The northerly intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) at South Street is approximately 25 feet in
width at its intersection with South Street, providing one‐foot shoulders on either side. South
Street is approximately 75 feet wide at its intersection with Route 27 (Spring Street), with no
shoulders on either side of the roadway. South Street is currently under stop control at the
intersection, while Route 27 (Spring Street) is free‐flowing in the north‐south direction. There
are currently no crosswalks present at the intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) at South
Street. However, there is an existing portion of sidewalk on the southeastern corner of the
intersection which provides connectivity to the intersection of Route 27 (High Street) at South
Street.

Sight Distance
A field review of the available sight distance was conducted at the South Street westbound approach
at the intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street). Route 27 (Spring Street) has a posted speed limit
of 40 miles per hour in both directions. The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) publication, A Policy on Geometric Design, 2011 Edition, defines
minimum and desirable sight distances at intersections. The minimum sight distance is based on the
required stopping sight distance (SSD) for vehicles traveling along the main road and the desirable
sight distance allows vehicles to enter the main street traffic flow without requiring the mainline
traffic to slow to less than 70% of their speed and is referred to as intersection sight distance
(ISD). According to AASHTO, “If the available sight distance for an entering or crossing vehicle is
at least equal to the appropriate stopping sight distance for the major road, then drivers have
sufficient time to anticipate and avoid collisions.” The following table summarizes the sight
distance standards for the various speeds.

Chief Robert E. Meaney
DRAFT
January 19, 2016
Page 3 of 9

Table 1
Sight Distance Requirements

Approach      Movement

Speed (MPH)

SSD
Required (ft)

SSD
Measured (ft)

ISD
Required (ft)

ISD
Measured (ft)

Meets Requirements

South Street WB at Route 27 (Spring Street)

Left (South)         40               305                 500+                445              500+
Yes

Right
40               305                 500+                445              500+
Yes
(North)

For the westbound approach of South Street, there is over 500 feet of sight distance in either
direction along Route 27 (Spring Street). Based on the above mentioned requirements for stopping
sight distance and intersection sight distance with a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour, the
South Street approach at the intersection with Route 27 (Spring Street) provides sufficient
available sight distance.

Existing Traffic Volumes
To assess peak hour traffic conditions, manual turning movement counts were conducted at the study
area intersections on Tuesday, November 10, 2015. The traffic counts were conducted during the
weekday morning peak period from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and the weekday afternoon peak period from 4:00
PM to 6:00 PM. The traffic counts are summarized in 15 minute intervals and are attached. The
resulting 2015 unsignalized traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2.

In addition, Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) data was collected for a 24‐hour period from Tuesday,
November 10, 2015 through Wednesday, November 11, 2015 on both Route 27 (Spring Street) and South
Street to determine the hourly distributions of traffic for the traffic signal warrant analysis.

MUTCD Signal Warrants
Signal warrant analyses were performed for the unsignalized intersection based on procedures
outlined in the latest edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The MUTCD
establishes nine criteria, referred to as warrants, for the installation of traffic signals. The
manual states that satisfaction of these warrants does not in itself require the installation of a
traffic signal. However, a traffic signal should not be installed unless one or more of the
warrants are met. The analyses performed for this report are based on the criteria for the eight‐
hour, four‐hour, and peak hour volume warrants, as well as the pedestrian volume and crash
experience warrants.

Chief Robert E. Meaney
DRAFT
January 19, 2016
Page 4 of 9

Eight‐hour, four‐hour and peak hour signal warrant analyses were performed using existing traffic
volumes at the intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) and South Street. The results of the signal
warrant analyses are attached, and a summary of the results are presented below in Table 2.

Table 2: Signal Warrant Summary

Intersection                         Eight‐Hour      Four‐Hour     Peak Hour     Pedestrian
Route 27 (Spring Street)

Crash Experience

at South Street                             Yes                   Yes                  Yes
No                   No

As seen in Table 2, the intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) at South Street meets the peak
hour, four hour traffic signal warrants (Warrant 2 and 3), and the eight‐hour traffic signal
warrant (Warrant 1), but does not meet the pedestrian warrant (Warrant 4), or crash experience
warrant (Warrant 7).

For the eight‐hour vehicular volume signal warrant (Warrant 1) to be met, minimum vehicular volumes
for the major street and minor street, found in Table 4C‐1 of the MUTCD, must be exceeded for one
of two volume conditions. Per MUTCD methodology, the 70% factor lowering the volume thresholds
required for satisfying the warrants is applicable to this intersection because of the 40 mph
posted speed limit. A summary of the results of the eight‐hour warrant are presented below in Table
3.

Chief Robert E. Meaney
DRAFT
January 19, 2016
Page 5 of 9

Table 3: Eight‐Hour (Warrant 1) Signal Warrant Summary

Hour

Northbound Volume

Southbound Volume

Existing 2015 Total Major Street Volume

Minor Street Volume

Condition 1 Met1

Condition 2 Met2

6:00 AM                 819                         306                         1125
33                       no                        no
7:00 AM                1388                       640                         2028
143                     yes                       yes
8:00 AM                1100                       588                         1688
132                     yes                       yes
9:00 AM                 649                         501                         1150
99                       no                        yes
10:00 AM                485                         421                          906
111                     yes                       yes
11:00 AM                469                         512                          981
141                     yes                       yes
12:00 PM                 486                         475                          961
142                     yes                       yes
1:00 PM                 488                         487                          975
137                     yes                       yes
2:00 PM                  593                         773                         1366
279                     yes                       yes
3:00 PM                  581                         934                         1515
302                     yes                       yes
4:00 PM                  674                        1007                        1681
276                     yes                       yes
5:00 PM                  702                        1010                        1712
218                     yes                       yes
6:00 PM                  581                         882                         1463
215                     yes                       yes
7:00 PM                 369                         452                          821
130                     yes                       yes

1 Ma jor street volume greater than 350 vehicles pe r hour and minor street volume greater than 105
vehicles pe r hour. 2 Ma jor street volumes greater than 525 vehicles pe r hour and minor street
volume greater than 53 vehicles pe r hour.
****Spe ed Limit is 40 mph on Route 27 (Spring Street)

As seen in Table 3, both Conditions 1 and 2 of the eight‐hour signal warrant were satisfied during
ten consecutive hours, which surpasses the necessary eight‐hour signal warrant requirements. Based
on the results of the eight‐hour signal warrant and MUTCD criteria, the installation of a traffic
signal at the intersection is warranted. In addition, the results of four‐ hour and peak hour
warrants also support the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection.

Accident Summary
Crash data for the study area intersection was obtained from the Massachusetts Department of
Transportation (MassDOT) for the most recent three‐year period available. This data includes
complete yearly crash summaries for 2011, 2012, and 2013. A summary of the crash data is attached.

The signalized intersection of Route 27 (High Street) at South Street had a total of 11 crashes
reported over the three‐year period from 2011‐2013, resulting in a crash rate of 0.44 crashes per
million entering vehicles at the intersection. This value is lower than the average crash rates of
0.80 and 0.89 for signalized intersections statewide and in MassDOT District 3, respectively. It
should also be noted that the majority of the crashes were rear‐end type crashes resulting in
property damage, which are typical at a signalized intersection.

Chief Robert E. Meaney
DRAFT
January 19, 2016
Page 6 of 9

The unsignalized intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) at South Street had a total of nine
crashes reported over the three‐year period from 2011‐2013, resulting in a crash rate of 0.37
crashes per million entering vehicles. This is lower than both the statewide and MassDOT District 3
averages for unsignalized intersections of 0.60 and 0.66 crashes per million entering vehicles,
respectively. The majority of the crashes that occurred at the intersection were angle or rear‐end
collisions; however, there were two crashes that were head‐on collisions. All of the reported
crashes resulted in property damage and there do not appear to be any trends related to weather or
time of day.

BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH
A background growth rate of one percent per year was identified in order to forecast increases in
traffic volumes on the study area roadways and intersections for our future analyses based on
information provided by the Town of Medfield. This rate captures growth associated with general
changes in population and accounts for other small developments in the vicinity of the study area
and is consistent with similar traffic studies completed in this area in recent years. No
additional developments or other roadway projects were identified to be included in the future
traffic analysis. The resulting 2025 Unsignalized traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3 for the
weekday morning and weekday afternoon.

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
As a basis for this assessment, intersection capacity analyses were conducted using Synchro
capacity analysis software for the study area intersection under the 2015 Existing, 2025
Unsignalized, and 2025 Signalized conditions. The analysis was based on procedures contained in the
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Capacity analysis summaries are attached. A discussion of the
evaluation criteria and a summary of the results of the capacity analyses are presented below.

Level‐of‐Service Criteria
Operating levels of service (LOS) are reported on a scale of A to F with A representing the best
conditions (with little or no delay) and F representing the worst operating conditions (long
delays). In an urbanized area, LOS D is typically considered adequate.

Capacity Analysis Results
Intersection capacity analyses were conducted for the study area intersections to evaluate the 2015
Existing conditions, as well as 2025 Unsignalized, and 2025 Signalized peak hour traffic
conditions. Based on our analysis, the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic occurs between 7:15
AM and 8:15 AM for the weekday morning, and 4:45 PM and 5:45 PM for the weekday afternoon peak
periods. The results of the capacity analyses are presented in Tables 4 and 5 below for the morning
and afternoon peaks, respectively.

Chief Robert E. Meaney
DRAFT
January 19, 2016
Page 7 of 9

Table 4: Morning Level of Service Summary

2015 Existing      2025 Unsignalized

2025 Signalized

Intersection

Movement

LOS1  Delay2   V/C3   LOS1  Delay2   V/C3   LOS1  Delay2   V/C3

Route 27 (High Street)       EB         L                F      155.9    1.28      F      213.6
1.41      F       81.8     1.06
at South Street                                R                A        3.8      0.12      A
0.1      0.05      A        0.6      0.05
NB       L                B       10.2     0.14      B       10.6     0.16      E       76.9
0.56
T                F      227.1    1.44      F      293.1    1.59      F      271.9    1.51
SB         T                C       33.4     0.92     D       53.7     1.02      F       67.8
0.96
R                A        0.1      0.10      A        0.1      0.11      A        0.8      0.11

Overall

F      134.1    1.44      F      179.4    1.59      F      148.1    1.51

Route 27 (Spring Street)    WB      L                F     1175.1   3.24      F     2097.3   5.17
D       39.0     0.68
at South Street                                R                D       28.3     0.11     D
34.7     0.15      B       11.4     0.09
NB       TR             A        0.0      0.00      A        0.0      0.00      A       11.8
0.78
SB         LT              C       18.2     0.06      C       21.2     0.08      A        8.1
0.64

1 Level‐of‐Service

Overall

B       10.3     0.78

2 Average vehicle delay in seconds 3 Volume to capacity ratio
n/a Not Applicable

Chief Robert E. Meaney
DRAFT
January 19, 2016
Page 8 of 9

Table 5: Afternoon Level of Service Summary

2015 Existing      2025 Unsignalized

2025 Signalized

Intersection

Movement LOS1  Delay2   V/C3   LOS1  Delay2   V/C3   LOS1  Delay2   V/C3

Route 27 (High Street)      EB    L                  B       12.2     0.36      B       12.5
0.39      E       79.0     0.75
at South Street                           R                 A        0.0      0.02      A
0.0      0.02      A        0.7      0.02
NB   L                  B       10.8     0.31      B       11.8     0.34      B       10.4     0.20
T                 C       34.8     0.94      E       61.3     1.05      B       14.3     0.61
SB    T                  B       15.8     0.75      C       20.6     0.83      B       13.6
0.48
R                 A        0.4      0.30      A        0.5      0.33      A        1.2      0.34

Overall

B       18.1     0.94      C       28.6     1.05      B       15.6     0.75

Route 27 (Spring Street)   WB  L                  F     1250.2   3.53      F     2116.2   5.39
F       94.1     1.04
at South Street                           R                 C       15.7     0.05      C       17.2
0.07      B       15.2     0.08
NB   TR               A        0.0      0.00      A        0.0      0.00      A        6.7
0.57
SB    LT               B       10.2     0.02      B       10.7     0.03      B       16.1     0.86

1 Level‐of‐Service

Overall

C       21.0     1.04

2 Average vehicle delay in seconds 3 Volume to capacity ratio
n/a Not Applicable

As seen in Tables 4 and 5, the proposed signal at the intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) at
South Street is expected to operate at an overall LOS B during the weekday morning peak hour and at
overall LOS C during the weekday afternoon peak hour. During the weekday morning peak hour, the
westbound and southbound movements are expected to improve in operations compared to the future
unsignalized condition, based on the level of service. During the weekday afternoon peak hour, the
westbound right and southbound movements are expected to improve compared to the future
unsignalized condition, based on level of service. The implementation of a signal at the
intersection will potentially improve the operations of the South Street westbound approach. In
addition, the potential implementation of a dedicated northbound right turn lane on the Route 27
(South Street) approach, as shown in Figure 4, is expected to improve operations at the
intersection. The implementation of a traffic signal in combination with northbound right turn lane
modifications on Route 27 (Spring Street/South Street) would potentially involve Right‐of‐Way
impacts.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the MUTCD traffic signal warrants, accident data, and sight distance measurements, it is
recommended that a two‐phase actuated traffic signal be installed at the intersection of Route
27 (Spring Street) at South Street. A traffic signal will provide significant operational
improvements to the South Street westbound approach while maintaining adequate operations for Route
27 (Spring Street/South Street).  A traffic signal concept plan for the intersection of

Chief Robert E. Meaney
DRAFT
January 19, 2016
Page 9 of 9

Route 27 (Spring Street) at South Street is shown in Figure 4. The preliminary construction cost to
install a signal at this intersection is approximately $200,000. This estimate does not include
costs related to potential roadway widening on the eastern side of the northbound approach on Route
27 (South Street), which will allow for more efficient traffic operations at the intersection. In
addition, the potential right‐of‐way or land acquisition costs have not been accounted for in this
estimate.

CONCLUSION
Based on the existing traffic volumes, accident history, and signal warrant analysis, it is
recommended that an actuated and coordinated traffic signal be installed at the intersection of
Route 27 (Spring Street) at South Street. The signal warrant analysis concludes that the
intersection volumes adequately satisfy the peak hour, four‐hour, and eight‐hour warrant
requirements. The capacity analysis indicates that signalizing the intersection will minimize
delay, and allow the intersection to operate at a LOS B and C during the weekday morning and
weekday afternoon peak hours. Under the future unsignalized conditions, motorists on South Street
will continue to experience long delays in the LOS F range during both peak hours. By installing a
signal, these motorists will experience much more acceptable levels of service.

We trust that our review and recommendations have provided you with the appropriate technical
information to finalize a decision on this request. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you
require any further information.
Very truly yours,
Phil Viveiros, P.E., PTOE Project Manager
Attachments
Figure 1 – Study Area Map
Figure 2 – 2015 Existing Weekday Peak Hour Volumes Figure 3 – 2025 Future Weekday Peak Hour Volumes
Figure 4 – Traffic Signal Concept Plan
Traffic Count Data Signal Warrant Backup
Synchro Analysis Reports

LCB at ZBA per Globe

LCB

Boston Globe article on the ZBA hearing this week.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2016/02/05/assisted-living-plan-sparks-opposition-medfield/SYjr1F8XMHlaofLrza4ykN/story.html

Busy at MSH

Best,Pete

Osler L. Peterson, Esq.
PETERSON | Law
580 Washington Street, Newton, MA 02458-1416
66 North Street, PO Box, 358, Medfield, MA 02052-0358
617.969.1500 W
617.969.1501 Direct
617.663.6008 F
508.359.9190 M
Osler.Peterson@OslerPeterson.com

Sent from my phone – please excuse any typos.