TOWN OF SHARON
Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Board held on November 3, 2004, at 7:30 p.m., in the Town Offices.
PRESENT: SAMUEL SOLOMON, CHAIR
ARNOLD COHEN, CLERK
NADINE OSTROW
ELI HAUSER
PETER O’CAIN, ASST. TOWN ENGINEER
Business transacted:
I. Meeting called to order.
SIGN REVIEW:
Fitness Together, 10 Billings – The applicant showed a sign in the window and a new company sign. The Board advised the applicant that signs were not allowed in windows. Only one sign per establishment was allowed stating what the business is. The Board said that the applicant could, pursuant to the regulations, enlarge the sign on the building to make it more visible. The directional sign on the door could stay, but the window sign had to be removed. Mr. Cohen moved to approve the wooden sign, 40”x96” above the brickwork on the building, which was white with blue letters and to remove the decal signs in the windows. Seconded by Ms. Ostrow and unanimously voted.
The applicant indicated that he would also like to have a temporary street sign that would be taken in every night. The Board asked the applicant to bring the sign in to the next meeting so that they could take a look at what it was.
_______________________
Administrative Assistant
Minutes of Meeting Page Two November 3, 2004
Bank of America, Post Office Square – The applicant was seeking to replace the current Fleet Bank sign with a new one for Bank of America. The sign would have white letters on an Ashley Grey background, with the total area being 30 sq. ft. Mr. Cohen moved approval, seconded by Ms. Ostrow and unanimously voted.
Elovic Dental, 50 South Main Street – The applicant was proposing a sign for their current premises which would be 72”x30”, black wood with gold letters and trim. Mr. Cohen moved to approve the sign, seconded by Ms. Ostrow and unanimously voted. The applicant also requested permission to refurbish the existing sign. Mr. Solomon advised the applicant that there was only one sign permitted per business, so they would have to choose if they wanted the new one just approved or to refurbish the old one.
360-364 North Main Street, D’Angelo and Daylor, applicants. This plan had been previously submitted and denied because it had been missing required information. The applicant had added all missing information and the submittal was now complete. Mr. Cohen moved to approve this Form A, seconded by Ms. Ostrow and unanimously voted.
Old Post Road, AGM Construction, applicant, Gobbi, owner.
All requirements having been met, Mr. Hauser moved to approve this plan, seconded by Ms. Ostrow and unanimously voted.
The applicant had addressed the concerns of the Board raised at the last meeting. The primary issue was parking. The building originally contained 1600 sq. ft. on the second floor and 2000 sq. ft. on the first floor, requiring 15 parking spaces. They have cut
Minutes of Meeting Page Three November 3, 2004
back the size of the second floor to 1000 sq. ft. until they get a ruling that they can use spaces elsewhere.
Open space was another issue of concern. They had shown 28% open space, while 30% was required. They now have reconfigured the lot and now have 32.5% open space.
Another area of concern was that after meeting with the Building Inspector, the Building Inspector determined that the applicant was making the lot non-conforming. The applicant does not agree with this, as it is a very old non-conforming lot, and they would not be changing the non-conformity. However, to clear things up, the applicant has applied for a special permit for a variance with the Board of Appeals. They will be asking for relief of the non-conformity under the Special Permit. If this is approved, there will be nothing left outstanding under Site Plan design.
The septic system has already been approved by the Board of Health.
Mr. O’Cain said that he had two outstanding issues. The applicant had not established where they were going to put the parking. The second issue was whether this would remain a private way. If so, the applicant may need to get easements from the abutters. Atty. Healy, on behalf of the applicant, explained that he had researched the private way issue back to 1928 where the private way was created by a written agreement. Where it existed prior to the subdivision control law, it is considered exempt. As long as the Planning Board feels there is adequate access and utilities to these adjoining four lots, there should be no problem here. The applicant will only be using the private way for drainage but will be meeting with the neighbors anyway to discuss all this. Mr. Healy thought the neighbors would be agreeable since the applicant would be paying for all the improvements which will benefit all of them.
Minutes of Meeting Page Four November 3, 2004
Mr. O’Cain said that he had not seen any legal findings on this. Mr. Cohen suggested that the applicant obtain some legal documentation showing he had access to the private way.
Ms. Elovic told the Board that the use of the lot was not being changed – they were just updating a poor drainage system. Mr. Cohen answered that if this is a private way and someone owns to the middle of the private way and you are doing work on their side of that way, it is not a subdivision matter but could be a legal matter that the Planning Board does not necessarily want to get involved in.
Mr. Solomon said that the Board is just looking at the site plan review part of this and how it all fits into the guidelines of the Post Office Square issue. The things that were important under those guidelines were whether there was at least 30% of open space and that the look of the building fit the character of what the Town is looking for. He added that the applicant may want to consider creating a walkway near the buffer to connect to the rest of the Square.
Mr. Cohen then moved to approve the site plan revised to 10/29/04 for 6 Washington Place as submitted for Elovic Dental with the understanding that the architectural strip at the rear of the building, meet with the approval of the P.O. Square Revitalization Committee. Mr. Hauser added that the applicant should also make the fence bordering on the Delapa property either lower or more attractive. Ms. Elovic answered that Mr. Delapa asked for that fence as shown, so they would have to go back and discuss this with him before changing anything. Ms. Ostrow seconded Mr. Cohen’s motion and the vote on the motion was unanimous.
Minutes of Meeting Page Five November 3, 2004
Scott Faria, on behalf of the applicant, requested that the Board continue the public hearing to another date as there were only four Board members present and the applicant wanted to have all five members present when the public hearing went forward.
Mr. Godlin, an abutter to the subdivision, speaking on behalf of some of those present, said that everyone in this room had made a commitment to this process and to attend this meeting and it would be unfair to these people to keep canceling after they made the effort to come. The applicant had already asked for an extension and this would be the second one.
Mr. Solomon explained that the first time the applicant did not ask for an extension but actually withdrew the subdivision application and later refiled.
Mr. Faria said that the applicant has been working with the abutters and is trying to keep open communication with them, and have had many meetings with them, and has worked with the Board and is trying to address all the Board’s concerns, and feels that it would not be fair to continue with this public hearing with only four Board members present. It would be putting the approval of this subdivision in jeopardy under State Statute due to circumstances not under their, the applicant’s, control. He did not think it would be fair to the applicant to require them to proceed tonight with the continued public hearing.
Mr. Whitney of Cheryl Drive said that at any given meeting, you cannot guarantee that there will be five Board members present. These postponements could go on and on and it’s not fair to the abutters to expect them to arrange their schedules so that they
Minutes of Meeting Page Six November 3, 2004
show up every time and they turn around and go home because not all five Board members are there.
Mr. Solomon explained that the issue that needs to be addressed is that we are in the middle of a public hearing process and the idea was to have the public hearing with all five Board members present. Historically, since he’s been on the Board, most public hearings finish the same evening. Because there was so much material, the Board decided to continue the public hearing so that everyone could be heard and to address some of the issues that
the Town Engineer had raised. He asked the other Board members what their opinion was on this matter.
Mr. Cohen said that he could understand that the people who came to this meeting might be aggravated by its being continued further, but he has to look at the legitimate concerns of the applicant about their having to be five members present. It is only because this is under the Special Permit process that at least four votes will be needed to approve this plan. In a regular subdivision, only three votes are needed. He didn’t feel this was the applicant’s fault that one Board member couldn’t be here tonight. If this happens again, the Board may decide to go ahead with the hearing regardless so that this matter doesn’t get put off again.
Mr. Hauser and Ms. Ostrow agreed with Mr. Cohen and felt it was not the applicant’s fault that only four members were present.
Mr. Cohen then moved to continue the public hearing on the Hunter’s Ridge subdivision to Wednesday, November 17, 2004, at 8:30 p.m., in the Town Offices. Seconded by Ms. Ostrow and unanimously voted.
Because a decision on this subdivision was due prior to the Board’s next meeting, the applicant requested the Board to allow an extension of time for a decision to be made to January 15, 2005. Mr. Cohen so moved, seconded by Ms. Ostrow and unanimously voted.
Hunter’s Ridge – Because so many abutters had come to tonight’s meeting, the Board determined that it could listen to their concerns outside of the scheduled agenda item for this subdivision, and not as part of the public hearing. The applicant had no objection to this.
First, Mr. Bradley, the abutter at the entrance of the street, provided the Board with a copy of his deed regarding the right of way.
Another abutter asked the Board to explain its calculations on the density bonus, which the Board did.
However, Mr. Solomon explained that it was up to the Board to determine density at the time it makes it final decision, as well as if there was adequate open space that was accessible to the public.
Mr. Solomon also explained that the Board may determine that it would be better to have connecting units, rather than each unit being separate, to allow for more clustering.
Mr. Kublin spoke on behalf of the seniors in the Town as chair of the Council on Aging and said they wanted to know why it is impossible to find senior housing in Sharon when all the Towns around Sharon are building senior housing. These folks want to remain in Sharon where they have lived for many, many years, in the community that they have been part of and still contribute to.
Minutes of Meeting Page Eight November 3, 2004
This developer has built similar subdivisions in adjacent Towns, most recently in Easton, and more than 50% of the people who bought these units were from Sharon. This developer has built beautiful developments and this one would also be a benefit not only to the seniors but to the Town. There doesn’t seem to be anyplace in Sharon that it would be possible to build this type of housing that is needed by an aging population. The abutters always want their neighborhood to remain the same but that doesn’t help the aging population. Currently 18% of Sharon’s population is made up of seniors and it is projected that by the year 2020 that figure will have grown to 29%. Seniors do not create heavy traffic, they will not need school buses in their developments and will not be adding to the school costs. It will be a community within a community where people look after each other. Senior developments do not disrupt the community. Why do we force our old people to leave the town they want to remain in and move to other communities where age qualified housing is permitted? On behalf of the senior population in Sharon, he hopes the Board will seriously consider allowing this subdivision to go forward.
Mr. Marx of Robin Lane echoed the comments of Mr. Kublin that there was a great need for senior housing in Sharon. He has been looking for some place in Sharon to move, but there is nothing. He is being forced to look outside of the Town but really would like to remain in Sharon.
Mr. Godlin answered that he agreed with Mr. Kublin that senior housing was needed in Sharon. However, there were a couple of issue that needed to be addressed. Affordable housing is important to the seniors and these units will not necessarily be affordable as the proposed purchase price for these units will be in the $500,000 range. They need to be this high because the developer is trying to maximize his profits on property that the Glynn’s have asked an extremely high price for. Secondly, the theory that this development will not affect the schools is also flawed. Fifty percent of the residents who move to this
Minutes of Meeting Page Nine November 3, 2004
community will be from Sharon. When they sell their homes, they will be selling them to families with children, so it will increase the number of school age children moving into Sharon, although not necessarily to this subdivision. So there will be an impact to the schools. The bottom line question, however, is whether or not this proposed subdivision is allowable under the CSD by-law. This parcel may not be the right parcel for this type of development, certainly not as it is being currently proposed.
Mr. Solomon commented that:
1. a determination will be made by the Board as to how this proposal fits under the CSD.
2. the effect on the schools will be the same whether the seniors
sell their homes and stay in Sharon, or if they sell their homes
and move out of Sharon. The same homes will become available to new families. Therefore, the impact will be the same.
3. what price the applicant charges for the units is not germaine to the Board’s decision. However, if you look at the selling price of current homes, these units may be affordable to people wishing to purchase these homes.
4. since there is limited senior housing currently in Sharon, it is difficult to say that it would conveniently fit at some other location in the Town.
Mr. Yaal, another abutter, said that you can’t put a set age on the term “seniors,” as seniors are working much longer before they retire. So saying that age 55 qualifies as a senior is not necessarily correct. Mr. Solomon answered that there is a difference between age qualified and communities for residents over the age of 55. Also, in communities for age 55 and over, only one resident per unit can be under 55.
Mr. Bradley said that it was not the age qualified aspect that bothered him, but the density issue. There are a lot of sites in the Town that would be ideally suited for developing senior housing.
Minutes of Meeting Page Ten November 3, 2004
This site would be fine if the land use wasn’t so dramatically changed.
Mr. Cohen explained to those present that there was a large piece of land across from Shaw’s Plaza off North Main Street that the owner came to the Board to request that the zoning be changed to commercial zoning for that property. The Board brought an Article to Town Meeting to achieve this but got raked over the coals from the abutters and the rezoning was not passed. The developer is now taking half of this land and putting five units per acre on it under a comprehensive permit and will be doing the same
on the remainder of the land at a later time. He brought this up because he wanted these abutters to be aware that there are a lot of things that they need to consider. Those folks who didn’t want the rezoning thought they would defeat that and not have anything done on that property. They are now facing many more units than
they ever would have thought could be built on this property. There may be some flaws with this proposal at this time, but they
can be addressed and corrected. If you turn it down completely, the developer will come back and do something with the property, and it could be another 40B development, which could also produce five units per acre. You are naïve if you think something like that would be out of the question here.
Mr. Fry of Lantern Lane raised two issues: One was that he was concerned about noise pollution from so many units and the other was why the Board wasn’t considering the Wilber School for senior housing. It has all the requirements for senior housing – convenient to the commuter rail, walking distance to the center, to stores, etc. Mr. Solomon answered that the noise issue has not been looked at and that the Board has been in favor of something being done with the Wilber School for a long time. There is currently a committee being set up by the Selectmen to look at what could be done with the School, and one of the former members of the Planning Board, Joel Tran, is on that committee.
Minutes of Meeting Page Eleven November 3, 2004
However, this Board does not have any jurisdiction over that property or what is done with it.
Mr. Spoto said that he was one of the abutters closest to the 20’ swath of land they were showing as open space and he wanted to raise the issue that it was not treed and didn’t seem to have any recreational value. Mr. Solomon answered that this would be addressed in the review stage.
Mr. Solomon went on to explain that under a Special Permit, this Board will be required to make a determination that it is in the best interests of the community to approve a CSD. In making that determination, the Board will have to take into consideration what impact it will have on the neighborhood and the area vs. a conventional subdivision, as well as what impact it will have on the Town as a whole.
Mr. Cohen further explained that the only reason this many units is allowable here is that this will be an age-qualified community. Otherwise, only 26 houses would be allowed. However, the Board wrote the CSD by-law to encourage age-qualified housing. Mr. O’Cain added that the applicant had to present a conventional plan showing they could get the 26 house lots approved, and the Board works from that plan to determine what the bonuses will be.
V. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.