TOWN OF SHARON
PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Board held on February 25, 2004, at 7:30 p.m., in the Town Offices.
PRESENT: JOEL TRAN, CHAIR
SAMUEL SOLOMON, VICE CHAIR
REGINA MANISCALCO, CLERK
ELI HAUSER
PETER O’CAIN, ASST. TOWN ENGINEER
Business transacted:
I. Meeting called to order. The Minutes of the January 28, 2004, meeting were reviewed and accepted with corrections.
FORM A PLANS
None.
SIGN REVIEW
None.
II. HUNTER’S RIDGE
Nick Merrione again came before the Board to discuss further revisions to this proposed subdivision. He informed the Board that he had come to the January 7 meeting with a sketch plan which showed preliminary ideas. They are now here to address issues and concerns raised by the Board at that meeting.
_______________________
Administrative Assistant
Minutes of Meeting Page Two February 25, 2004
---Interpretation on the yield plan – they have met with Peter O’Cain and Eric Hooper in engineering and they now have an understanding of what needs to be done. Originally, 30 lots were shown. Mr. O’Cain pointed out the conservation lots and no touch zones, and they have now brought down their compliance plan to 28 lots. In their opinion, all of these lots conform for frontage, high and dry, etc., and include two detention basins. Therefore, under the CSD by-law, they would be entitled to 54 units, and are showing 51 units on their sketch plan.
Mr. Tran asked what was the number of compliance lots in the Silver Tree original subdivision, which was the prior subdivision filed for this property. Mr. Merrione answered that there were 22 new lots and 2 existing lots for that subdivision.
---Have looked at drainage. They will be directing the flow to the wetlands in back and this should actually improve the current water problems of the abutters.
---Have supplied the Board examples of other places in Town with small house lots.
---Drew sketch plan of how these 5,000 sq. ft. lots would lay out including showing driveway access.
One of the abutters asked what had been done about the access problem, which is one of the major reasons the Silver Tree subdivision had been denied in the past. Mr. Merrione answered that they do not meet the 500’ requirement and this will be the same access issue as in the Silver Tree subdivision. Mr. Solomon further stated that as far as he can see, this sketch plan has not addressed the access issue. There is not 500’ available on both sides of the roadway. He added that the 500’ issue is part of the requirements of the Rules and Regulations and are even more clearly delineated since the time of the Silver Tree Subdivision. Mr.
Minutes of Meeting Page Three February 25, 2004
Merrione said that they would probably be asking for a waiver of this requirement. Mr. Tran reminded the applicant that it is a Board requirement that the applicant must show full compliance for a subdivision plan before waivers can be considered.
Mr. Solomon asked if they had looked at the Board’s concern about requiring an emergency access. The regulations have been changed to require this road to be a full roadway. There is a road coming in off Cheryl Drive that they may consider, and also consider as an alternate access. Would cut and fill be necessary if this roadway were used? Mr. O’Cain answered that it would exceed the 10% cut and fill allowed by the regulations.
Mr. Solomon explained that his concern was using the sketch plan as a compliance plan. If you have a plan that shows no waivers, then waivers can be considered by the board. Technically, the Board cannot consider waivers if you do not have a compliance plan. The only way the applicant could possibly have a compliance plan is if they come in off Cheryl Drive as their primary access. This may cut back the number of lots allowable under the compliance plan, resulting in the loss of one or two lots in the CSD plan. This may allow the Board to consider what is allowed under the CSD as the safest primary access to the property.
Mr. O’Cain also pointed out that there is a problem with what is labeled as Lot 26 on the sketch plan. He wanted this lot to have a 125’ buffer, as it does not seem to be able to fit a septic system.
Mr. Williams, the landscape architect for the applicant supplied the following information shown on the plans:
· wetlands are shown with setback lines;
· topography plans which show the steep slopes;
· beech tree clusters which are going to be saved;
· development areas shown which include site analysis showing implications of wetland areas, steep and less steep slopes;
Minutes of Meeting Page Four February 25, 2004
· 51 house sites;
· circulation plan showing road layout, sidewalks and trails;
· lot layout
· sketches showing how the houses would mass along the streets.
Mr. Tran asked what percentage of the lots would have an impervious surface? Mr. Williams answered that he didn’t really know as no calculations had been done as yet, but would guess that possibly 50% of the lot.
Mr. Merrione explained that the applicant was trying to keep the houses as far away from the abutters’ homes as possible. They have decided that they will be putting in a sewage treatment plant instead of septic systems. The plant will be oversized so that if others in the adjoining neighborhood wanted to hook into it, they could.
Mr. Tran asked how far apart the houses were and Mr. Merrione answered that they will be 10-12’ apart. One of the reasons the space is small, is that they are trying to keep the lots smaller to get more open space in the subdivision as the Board requested. He also reminded the Board that this will be a gated community and will be totally self-sufficient.
Mr. Hauser asked how the steep slopes would be handled for the houses. Mr. Merrione answered that they will step them. However, they still need to do a grading study. They will try and disturb the land as little as possible.
Regarding the detention/retention areas, Mr. Solomon reminded the applicant that they needed to be on a separate parcel. Also associated with this is the problem of rear access to that lot. Mr. Merrione answered that they would provide an easement for an access strip between the homes. Mr. Solomon said that they might consider deeding it to the homeowners association with a waiver request. Mr. O’Cain said that if it is done this way, he would like to have it made subject to inspection by the Town on a regular basis, but not owned by the Town.
Minutes of Meeting Page Five February 25, 2004
One other issue Mr. Tran raised, was that if this was going to be a gated community, could the undeveloped land in it be considered open space where it would not be open to the public. This matter would probably have to be discussed with Town Counsel.
One of the abutters raised a concern about the density of the proposed subdivision. She said that the volume of traffic would essentially empty out right at a school and onto other major roads. Traffic is already a major concern for this area, as it is very difficult to get in and out of Lantern Lane now. There are many accidents at this intersection. The residents have even asked that a traffic light be put in there, but were told it could not be done. So she felt traffic was definitely going to be an issue.
Mr. Williams said that they have a traffic engineer working on this now and will have a report in the near future. However, even though there will be 51 lots developed, they did not feel it would be a great an issue as the 24-lot subdivision would have been. That subdivision would have included young families with children. The parents would be making numerous trips in and out to drive their children to school and activities. This community is being built for the over 55 population, who will generate much less traffic and mostly at off-peak times. Mr. Solomon added that that is why he would like to see an access through Cheryl Drive. This would move the traffic flow to a different location so that it is not coming from an already troubled, high traffic area.
However, another abutter spoke up and said that there are a lot of children living on Lantern Lane and it probably would be better to dump traffic onto a main road rather then direct it through this residential street.
In wrapping up, Mr. Solomon said that the Board did need to see a compliance plan with drainage design, and showing a roadway that can be built without waivers. Mr. O’Cain added that he wanted to see roadway profiles for any area that there is a question on.
Minutes of Meeting Page Six February 25, 2004
III. OPEN SPACE DISCUSSION WITH L. BROWN (EO418).
The discussion focused on what the Town should prioritize for conservation purposes as well as recreation purposes. Ms. Arguimbau and Mr. Meister from the Conservation Commission also participated in these discussions.
Pertaining to economic development, Ms. Brown said that she would draft something up and circulate it for review prior to its discussion in April.
IV. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
| 
