TOWN OF SHARON

PLANNING BOARD

 

Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Board held on October 20, 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 September 22, 2004, and the October 6, 2004, meetings were reviewed and accepted with corrections.

 

FORM A PLANS

Bullard Street, applicant Wisotsky.  The applicant was subdividing one lot into three, with only two of the lots to be buildable.  Ms. Ostrow moved to approve this submission, seconded by Mr. Cohen and unanimously voted.

 

SIGN REVIEW

David Anthony Designs, 10 Post Office Square.  The sign was to be of a black background with gold leaf letters and a gold frame around the perimeter.  It would be made of medium density fiberboard.  Ms. Maniscalco moved to approve the sign as stated, but not to exceed 24” x 96”.  Seconded by Mr. Cohen and unanimously voted.  Mr. Anthony also indicated that he wanted to paint the wainscoting the same color as it is.  The Board informed Mr. Anthony that he would have to submit a site plan review to get this approved. 

 

                                                     _______________________

                                                               Administrative Assistant

 

Minutes of Meeting                              Page Two                 October 20, 2004

 

Bank of America, 15 Post Office Square.  The applicant was going to replace the Fleet Bank signs.  They were going to use channel lettering instead of the sign box.  The folks representing the Bank didn’t have all the information needed so they said they would come back to the next Board meeting.  One thing they did mention was that the sign was going to be internally lit, and the Board advised them that this was not permitted under the sign regulations.

 

II.            PUBLIC HEARING – HUNTER’S RIDGE

 

Mr. Cohen read the legal notice to open the public hearing.  Mr. Solomon explained the procedures the Board would follow for the public hearing.

 

Scott Farrier made a presentation on behalf of the applicant.  He explained that this plan was a little different from the original plan based on discussions with the Planning Board regarding open space.  He provided the following details:

·        Approximate lot size – 4,800 square feet.

·        More open space areas than previously.  The regulations require 40% of the acreage to be preserved as open space, and they are actually providing 54%.

·        50 lots with 51 units, as one unit is a duplex.

·        The drainage system is a closed system with water going to catch basins and then routed to detention basins.

·        The septic system will consist of two common septic systems on parcels C and B.  They are in the process of filing with the Board of Health regarding these.

·        There will be a club house with parking and a swimming pool that will be owned by the Homeowners Association. 

·        The open space will be deeded to the Town and open for use by the Town’s residents.

·        There will be emergency access through Cheryl Drive with a gate to prevent access by the general public. 

Minutes of Meeting                          Page Three                  October 20, 2004

 

·        All the beech trees are being saved.

·        Because of the steep slopes, a good deal of trees will have to be taken down.  To compensate for this, they have hired a landscape architect to plan out additional plantings after construction to provide buffers for the neighbors.

·        The applicant has met with the neighbors many times to address their concerns and are open to mitigating the neighbors concerns.

 

Mr. Solomon then opened the meeting to the residents for comment.  A synopsis of the comments and concerns are:

·        A prior plan that was submitted by a different developer was denied because of the access problem with this street being too close to the one beside it.  Mr. Solomon explained that the developer provided a preliminary plan that showed that it was possible to build a road that met the Board’s Rules and Regulations off Cheryl Drive with an emergency access off North Main Street.  However, they preferred to come in off North Main Street, using Cheryl Drive as the emergency access.  They will need to request a waiver to do this, and it is up to the Board to determine if granting this waiver would be in the best interests of the Town. 

·        Traffic is already very heavy in this area, with residents having to wait a long time to get out of Cheryl Drive onto North Main Street.  This will make it even worse.  Mr. Solomon answered that this was not necessarily so, as this subdivision was going to be for adults 55 years and older, so it will limit the number of car trips during peak rush hours.  The applicant could build a traditional subdivision here coming in off Cheryl Drive and would not need any waivers.  Therefore, it is the Board’s job to determine which access would be best for the town.  Mr. Cohen added that the issue was not traffic in the previous subdivision, but that the new road was too close to the existing road under the Board’s regulations.  Mr. Solomon further stated that if the applicant could meet the Board’s Rules and Regulations coming

 

 

Minutes of Meeting                          Page Four                    October 20, 2004

 

off Cheryl Drive and that was the only access, the Board would have to approve the subdivision as presented.  The applicant can request a waiver of any of the Board’s Regulations.  They are doing so here because they feel the access would be more beneficial from North Main Street.  It is up to the Board to determine which access would be best for the Town.

·        Mr. Bradley, who was an abutter to the North Main Street entrance to this new subdivision, advised the Board that the applicant is showing trees planted in his driveway.  He was asking that the Board preserve his access.  Mr. Solomon asked Mr. Bradley to provide the Board with documentation showing what the easement was.

·        The Chabad Center on North Main Street was concerned with the added traffic this subdivision would generate, stating that it was now dangerous and difficult for the children to cross the street to get to the school and this would just make it more difficult.  They wanted to know if a traffic study had been done to find out what kind of impact this subdivision would have on this area.  Mr. Solomon answered that a traffic study had been done for North Main Street for the proposed street improvements.  Mr. O’Cain added that the study did not  address the impact of this site but of the intersections that they were looking at in the area.  Mr. Faria added that the applicant had submitted a traffic study as part of their submission.  The only option available was signage to try and get people to slow down.  However, what effect will an additional 50 cars really have on the large number of cars already going down Main Street?

·        Concerns about water runoff.  Mr. Solomon explained that the applicant has to provide drainage calculations as part of their submittal.  They have to show that runoff after construction does not exceed runoff prior to construction.  Mr. O’Cain added that the applicant is having a hydrogeological study done and the Conservation Commission is requiring them to do a drainage analysis. 

 

Minutes of Meeting                             Page Five                  October 20, 2004

 

·        A sentiment in favor of this subdivision was voiced by Mr. Kublin on behalf of the senior population, saying that there were no places for the elderly to move to in Sharon.  People who had lived there most of their lives had to leave Sharon and find affordable housing elsewhere.  This would be one step in the right direction to allow them to remain in Sharon.

·        The applicant is showing a concrete and dirt wall of ten or more feet.  How can this be allowed?

·        Mr. Godlin read a prepared statement of issues of concern of the neighbors, which he presented to the Board. 

·        Concern about rain and snow damage; impact to wetlands; deep gorge that runs along the Glenn property that could be contaminated with runoff.  Mr. Solomon explained that the Conservation Commission is responsible for any wetlands rulings.  Mr. Solomon explained that any septic system design had to be approved by the Board of Health.

·        The design objectives section calls for the natural features of the land to be retained.  None of the natural features of this parcel are being retained.  Mr. Solomon answered that the section also stated “to the extent reasonably possible.”  Unfortunately, the Board is not allowed to use design objectives as a means to reject a subdivision.  They are only to be used as guidelines. 

 

Mr. O’Cain to explained the procedures of how a subdivision is reviewed.  When a plan is submitted, it first goes to him in the Engineering Department and he does a complete technical review.   He then provides the Board with a written report of his findings.  The plans are also submitted to the Conservation Commission and the Board of Health.  Those Boards review the plans and can also hire consultants to assist them. There are a lot more tiers of review than just the Planning Board.  So even in this instance, there will be a lot more review done of the plans and a lot more comments will be added.

Minutes of Meeting                               Page Six                 October 20, 2004

 

·        One attendee voiced the opinion that if the Board thinks it is helping seniors with this subdivision, it probably isn’t.  Between the high cost of these units, the taxes, and condo fees, most seniors wouldn’t be able to live in this subdivision anyway.  If the Board is trying to do something for seniors in this Town, this probably isn’t the answer.  Mr. Hauser answered that this subdivision was “age qualified,” not “affordable age qualified.”  This does meet the requirements of a CSD, which does not require affordable housing.

·        While most people would prefer this land not be developed, if it has to be, then a number of residents would prefer that access not be off Cheryl Drive as there are lots of kids playing in the street there.  The lesser of the evils would be access through North Main Street.

 

Mr. Solomon explained that the purpose of the public hearing is to gather information provided by the abutters that the Board otherwise would not have.  The Board wants to create something that is not obtrusive to the people that are already there.  After the Board has collected the comments from abutters, it will take that information and the information provided by the developer into account when making a decision.  He further added that whoever owns this property does have the right to develop it within the rules and regulations of the Board.  It is the Board’s job to determine what is the best form of development for that land.  Would it be best to have a subdivision in this fashion, coming in off North Main Street or a conventional 26 single family houses coming in off Cheryl Drive.  The Board will have to make that determination based on the feedback from the abutters.  It is also within the Board’s purview and responsibility to make sure that whatever is constructed is as safe as possible.  The Board tries to add as many safeguards as it can.  However, he was sure this land was going to be developed whether the abutters wanted it or not.   Ms. Maniscalco added that the Board is bound by the Rules and Regulations and if a developer could show that his subdivision meets these requirements, the Board has to approve

 

Minutes of Meeting                          Page Seven                  October 20, 2004

 

the subdivision, although it may add certain conditions that the applicant has to comply with. 

 

Since the hour was already late and there was still a lot of information to cover on this subdivision, Mr. Cohen moved that this public hearing be continued to Wednesday, November 3, 2004, at 8:30 p.m., in the Town Offices.  Ms. Maniscalco seconded the motion and the vote on the motion was unanimous. 

 

III.       The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.