TOWN OF SHARON

PLANNING BOARD

Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Board held on November 17, 2004, at 7:30 p.m., in the Town Offices.

                   PRESENT:   SAMUEL SOLOMON, CHAIR

REGINA MANISCALCO, VICE CHAIR

ARNOLD COHEN, CLERK

                                      NADINE OSTROW

                                      ELI HAUSER

                                      PETER O’CAIN, ASST. TOWN ENGINEER

BUSINESS TRANSACTED:

I. Meeting called to order.  The Minutes of the November 3, 2004, meeting were reviewed and accepted with corrections.

FORM A PLANS

None.

SIGN REVIEW

None.

II. ADEOLA MEADOWS – PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW

Paul Finocchio was present on behalf of the applicant.  He explained the subdivision as follows:

• The premises were located at 218 Mountain Street.  The parcel consists of two existing lots and the applicant wants to create an additional two lots.  
• The roadway would be brought in between the two existing lots and a cul-de-sac would be created at the end.
• The total acreage was about 10.6 acres.

____________________________

               Administrative Assistant

Minutes of Meeting                                    Page Two                   November 17, 2004

• The parcel was in a surface water protection district.
• The applicant had already been before the Conservation Commission, which had approved the wetlands line.
• A portion of the roadway will pass through the wetlands.
• The applicant will be asking for roadway construction waivers.

 Mr. O’Cain indicated that his major concern at this time was the roadway separation.  He also explained the drainage system, stating that the drainage would go into a filtration system and that it would overflow into the wetlands.  His other question to the Board was whether this would have to be on a separate drainage lot.   Mr. Solomon answered that if you are not creating a new drainage feature, the Board does not require a separate lot.

Regarding the waivers, Mr. Solomon explained that the applicant would have to have some type of formal roadway, as there are three lots being serviced here.  The Board has historically waived roadway construction only in instances where there are two homes, in which case a driveway has been allowed in place of a formal street.  However, the Board might entertain waiving some of the roadway requirements in this instance, but some type of cul-de-sac or turnaround would still be needed for emergency vehicles.  The applicant would need to speak with the Fire Chief about what the Chief would prefer.   The applicant should obtain a letter from the Fire Chief stating his preferences.  Sidewalk construction, as well as road width, can also be discussed in the waiver stage.  Mr. Solomon added that if these waivers are allowed, it would have to be with the understanding that this road would remain a private way and not become a public street in Sharon. 

Mr. Solomon further explained that the Board does not consider allowing any waivers until the applicant can show that he meets all the Board Rules and Regulations.  Only then are waivers considered.   There is an issue in this instance in that it seems the applicant cannot meet the regulation requiring streets to be at least 500 feet apart from adjacent streets. 

A decision on the preliminary plan is due at the next Board meeting.

Minutes of Meeting                            Page Three                       November 17, 2004

I. ELOVIC DENTAL

The Board signed a letter indicating that the applicant had complied with the site plan regulations.

II. HUNTER’S RIDGE – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Solomon opened the continued public hearing.

Mr. Faria, representing the applicant, said that at the last meeting, there was an abutter who disputed whether the applicant met the requirements of the CSD by-law.  Mr. Faria said he went through the requirements of the CSD with a fine tooth comb and was confident that they did meet those requirements as follows:

• The proposed plan was compared to the previous subdivision filed, Silvertree Estates.
• The Silvertree plan provided no buffers for the abutters, the Hunter’s Ridge (“HR”) plan did, including screening.
• Even though HR is more densely populated, the applicant is providing more open space than Silvertree did.
• The large parcel at the end of the street will not be disturbed – in Silvertree there were at least two houses on this property.
• The open space parcels will be open to the residents of Sharon with parking being provided.
• The reason they have not as yet addressed drainage is that they are waiting for the results of the hydrogeological studies they are having done.
• The applicant believes that they have met the primary and secondary purposes of the CSD.

Mr. Cohen asked how many bedrooms these units would have?  Mr. Faria answered that they would all have two bedrooms.  Mr. Cohen pointed out that even though the density is double in this subdivision, the amount of bedrooms will be about the same.  However, the services needed by this subdivision will be far less than a conventional subdivision.

Minutes of Meeting                          Page Four                       November 17, 2004

Mr. O’Cain informed the Board that he had received a letter from the Board of Health advising him that they would be hiring outside consultants to review the septic aspects of the plan.  The Conservation Commission is also working on this subdivision and they indicated that they too will probably hire a consultant to review the hydrogeological reports.  He did say that water was a big issue here and a lot of the abutters were concerned about runoff onto their property.  The applicant has, however, gone out of his way to get studies done regarding these issues.  When all that data is provided, engineering can then do a review of the water issues on site.

Mr. Solomon said that it was not clear as to where the drainage was going – would it be going to existing contours or a new detention basin?

Mr. Faria answered that there are three detention basins on the site:  The first one is behind the clubhouse and utilizes existing contours.  It deals with the first 600’ of the roadway.  The second one is located behind lots 48, 49 and 50 and deals with the center portion of the road.  The third is at the end of the street.  Three basins are needed because there are three existing water shed areas on the site.

Mr. Solomon explained that the Board’s rules and regulations required detention basins to be on lots separate from the home owners lots and must be deeded to the Town.  Another issue is how the detention basins are considered when calculating the open space.  Have they been included in the open space count?  Mr. Faria answered that if the Board requires the basins to be on a separate lot, then they will do it that way.  As far as open space calculations go, there is approximately 10.2 acres, or 49%, open space not counting the basins, which is well within the CSD’s requirements.

Mr. Faria did say that the applicant would be seeking a waiver of the street width.  The regulations require 26’ of pavement.  They will be requesting a 22’ paved street with a 5’ sidewalk.

Minutes of Meeting                            Page Five                          November 17, 2004

Mr. Cohen said that he had recently walked the site and had several comments:  the large open space area at the end of the street was rather steep.  He asked if the applicant could make the trail so that it would meander somewhat so that it wasn’t as steep and would there be trail markers.  Mr. Merrione, the applicant, answered that they would make it so that it would be walkable and would provide trail markers.

Mr. O’Cain informed the Board that a traffic study had been done which indicates that the number of cars entering and exiting the site will have little or no effect on the large number of cars already using North Main Street.  The main issue is to determine where the entrance to the subdivision will be, whether from North Main Street, or from Cheryl Drive; will it be one way in and one way out only, etc. 

Mr. Solomon then opened the meeting up for comments from the public, indicating that he would like to keep it to new comments that had not been raised previously. 

Concerns raised:

• The applicant was already taking deposits on this subdivision which isn’t even built and may not be built.  Mr. Solomon answered that it was not within the Board’s purview to control this.  Mr. Merrione answered that there has been a lot of interest in this new proposed subdivision, but has not taken any deposits.
• What happens if there is a problem with the subdivision after it is built?  Who will the abutters contact and what responsibility will the Homeowners Association have.  Mr. Solomon explained that part of any decision making would include clearly delineating the responsibility of the Homeowners Association, and they would be responsible for any problems the abutters may have.
• According to the CSD, 50% of the property is to be non-disturbed.  How does this subdivision fit within those requirements?  Mr. Solomon answered that the primary idea behind the CSD is that you will have a better use of the land than you would under a conventional subdivision,

Minutes of Meeting                              Page Six                          November 17, 2004

as open space, as recreational space, etc.  Mr. Cohen added that the Board has to work within the rules and regulations and cannot just do what it wants like some monarchy, but make the best decisions within the letter of the law.

• Access issue of concern.  Mr. Solomon explained that the Board will need to determine which access and egress will be the safest.
• Since the septic system will be power generated, will there be a back up system for power losses?  Mr. O’Cain answered that the Board of Health has regulations for these types of issues.  Mr. Faria answered that they also need DEP approval for the septic systems and the DEP requires that the applicant provide maintenance plans for the systems.  Fees for the maintenance are included in the Homeowners association fees.  Mr. Cohen suggested that something be built into the approval that the Association be liable to correct problems.

Mr. Wayne Godlin, an abutter to the subdivision, explained that he was also involved in the Silvertree discussions.  He said that the Silvertree plan did not consume the back parcel for building as there was no access to it.  Property on the north side of the parcel was not consumed by the conventional plan.  The applicant’s statement that this subdivision is better than the conventional because it provides more open space is very misleading.  He earlier made the statement that most of the trees on the parcel will be cut down, failing to conform to the portion of the CSD that says the parcel should remain as natural as possible.  The applicant’s calculations are ludicrous regarding open space, as the narrow strips behind the house lots will never be used as open space.  Also, the definition of open space does not include wetlands.  Mr. Godlin added that when he voted in favor of the CSD, this was not what he envisioned it to be; nor did many other people in the Town.  They were looking at the CSD in terms of the Rattlesnake Hill proposal, where it would increase the amount of open space and decrease the number of homes.

Minutes of Meeting                             Page Seven                       November 17, 2004

Mr. Solomon responded that the CSD brought to the Town’s attention that something of this type was needed, but it was written to be used in many other areas in the Town also.  The Town has been seeing only one type of development for a long time and it was this Board’s desire to try and introduce a more varied types of housing, such as clustering homes, affordable homes, which would provide a more diversified housing stock with open space.  Mr. Cohen added that one of the purposes of the CSD was to encourage age qualified housing, giving density bonuses for that type of housing.

Mr. Godlin responded that he did not feel that this subdivision met the criteria of the CSD, as it consumes as much land as a conventional subdivision with maximum disturbance of the site rather than minimum disturbance, no provisions for wildlife preservation on the site.  This is not what he had in mind when he voted for the CSD.

Mr. Solomon explained that an individual had the right to develop his land if he could meet the Board’s rules and regulations.  That individual could choose what he wanted to do with his land.  On other parcels in the Town that the Board had seen subdivisions and voted them down for one reason or another, the owners have come back with 40B filings.  One is on Old Post Road, where the applicant can get 66 units under the 40B, and would have only gotten 4-6 under a conventional plan.  Another is being filed near Edge Hill Road with 192 units being proposed, and they are not age qualified.  The Board is trying to get the type of housing it wants or prefers and avoiding these 40b filings. 

Ms. Maniscalco added that this Board has been involved for a long time in trying to bring different housing stock to Sharon in hopes that it can diversify the housing especially for age qualified and affordable housing.  She did not feel there was any desperation on the part of the Board to approve this subdivision.  This was a step in the direction the Board wished to go.  The Board was, as a matter of fact, making a presentation to the Board of Selectmen regarding the Planning Board’s plans for housing diversification.

Minutes of Meeting                     Page Eight                         November 17, 2004

At this point, since there were no new issues being raised, Mr. Merrione requested the Board to close the public hearing.  Mr. Solomon asked those present if anyone had any new comments, otherwise he would suggest the public hearing be closed.

However, before closing the hearing, Mr. Solomon asked if any of the Board members would like to comment.

Ms. Ostrow said that she didn’t have any comments at this time, but would be interested in seeing what both the Conservation Commission and Board of Health had to say first.

Mr. Cohen agreed that the water issue was a major issue and it was important to see what the other two Boards had to say about it.  Assuming that these Board’s gave this subdivision the green light, then this Board would have to make its decision.  It seems that a lot of the abutters are not happy with this subdivision being built, but he is of the opinion that this would meet the goal of the CSD by supplying age qualified housing, and not affect the school population. The same number of bedrooms will be built but these houses will actually use less space.  So when all the information is in, he will have to make up his mind.

Mr. Hauser said that if you compare this to the conventional plan, you will end up with buffers and screening, it would consume only half the land, and it introduces age qualified housing to the Town.  It will also be more beneficial to the Town as these folks will still be contributing to the tax base yet not requiring the services a conventional subdivision would.  The Town was seeing the same pattern over and over where a conventional plan is rejected and then the developer proposes a 40B development.   One of the major issues raised here was traffic, and he would encourage the developer to abate the traffic situation and look at a more collective approach.  He suggested that there be some type of surety required of the homeowners association to remedy any problems that may arise for a certain amount of time.

Ms. Maniscalco said that she did not have any comments at this time.

Minutes of Meeting                          Page Nine                           November 17, 2004

Mr. Solomon started his comments by asking if there is a better place in Town to build this type of subdivision.  In the 9 ½ years that he has been on the Board, he has not seen a subdivision where there were not concerns about it going in.  He said that the best situation for the neighbors would be not to have anything built.  But that isn’t a realistic wish.  He did feel that the Board might have made an omission in writing the CSD as it did not state specifically that the age qualified units should be attached, which would be his preference even in this instance.  Having said that, if the units were attached, you could create a slightly better placing of the units and maybe create more open space.  The Board will be discussing this subdivision many more times in the next few months, as the applicant has requested an extension until January 15, 2005. 

At this point, Mr. Cohen moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Ostrow and unanimously voted.

III. OTHER BUSINESS

---Mr. Hauser suggested the following items be taken up by the Board in the near future: 

• Affordable housing development plan for spring Town Meeting;
• CSD changes;
• Deleting the groundwater protection from MUOD.

     ---Mr. Solomon said that Mr. Rosenfield of the ZBA wished to meet with the Board to discuss the King Phillips Rock 40B.  The applicant is bringing suit and he wants to discuss the Board’s approving the original two lot subdivision to avoid this litigation.  They will be invited in to the next meeting.

     ---Mr. Solomon spoke with the Vice President of real estate at Hebrew Life.  He was interested in the Gobbi property to perhaps build something similar to what they have in Brookline, which is a residential facility for seniors.

Minutes of Meeting                               Page Ten                        November 17, 2004

 ---Mr. Cohen said that it was a valid point that the applicant for Hunter’s Ridge needs to have four board members present to make a decision.  If one of the members is missing during any of the discussions, they probably would not be able to vote on the decision.  Mr. Cohen said that he would investigate this further.

---SURETIES:

Johnson’s Hollow – Ms. Maniscalco moved to reduce the surety from $31,000 to $750.00, per Mr. O’Cain’s memorandum dated November 17, 2004.  Seconded by Ms. Ostrow and unanimously voted.

Tanglewood Estates – Ms. Maniscalco moved to reduce the surety from $32,789 to $750.00, per Mr. O’Cains memorandum dated November 17, 2004.  Seconded by Ms. Ostrow and unanimously voted.

---The Board endorsed the final plans for Bramble Lane and Burnt Bridge Road.

IV. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m.