TOWN OF
PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Board held on
PRESENT: SAMUEL SOLOMON, CHAIR
ELI
HAUSER
PETER O’CAIN, ASST. TOWN ENGINEER
Business
transacted:
I.
Meeting
called to order. The Minutes of the
FORM A PLANS
None.
SIGN REVIEW
None.
II.
PUBLIC HEARING
– PROPOSED PETITION ZONING ARTICLES
Mr. Solomon explained that these zoning changes were
brought by various citizens in the Town.
The Board will discuss them, take comments from the public and then make
a decision as to whether or not to recommend approval of these articles at Town
Meeting.
Mr. Cohen read the public hearing notice for the first
proposed change. The main change
requested here has to do with buffer areas in CSD’s,
requesting an increase in the required buffer area from 20’ to 50’. Mr. Bradley was the petitioner and explained
that he was requesting this change as a reaction to the Hunter’s Ridge
subdivision to provide some level of minimum protection against the potential
harm that can be visited on neighborhoods under the CSD by-law as written.
_______________________
Administrative Assistant
Minutes
of Meeting Page
Two
Mr. Bradley said that he felt there were many things
wrong with the CSD, which came to light because of the Hunter’s Ridge
subdivision. This is the simplest way to
address the most egregious of the issues.
An area like Hunter’s Ridge, that is already densely developed, needs to
be protected by controlling the size of the buffer area and the impact it has
on the existing neighborhood.
Mr. Cohen pointed out that there is no buffer area
required in a conventional subdivision.
Mr. Solomon added that in a conventional subdivision you could clear the
back yard right up to the property line.
Mr. Hauser said that when you do the math, the setback
from the rear property line in a conventional subdivision is approximately
20’. With a CSD subdivision, you get a
20’ buffer plus a setback, so it could be as much as 30’ total. With a 50’ buffer, you will be taking away
almost 25-30% of land. While he
understands the concept, he thinks more research is necessary to understand
what this would mean to a CSD.
Mr. Solomon further explained that if this type of
buffer were allowed, you would be creating a cocoon effect in the center of the
property with all preserved land being around it. This would basically be telling developers
you do not want a CSD. Mr. Wine of
Mr. Bailey, the Town’s MAPC representative, said that he
brought several articles from the MAPC that had been adopted in other
towns. The original proposals included
language for small lots. Twenty acres is
considered a very substantial piece of developable property. You need the kind of flexibility that exists
under the present by-law and there is more open space and buffering under the
CSD than under a conventional subdivision.
For every person who likes to see developments of a whole series of
similar boxes, there are just as many others who would like to see more of a variety
in the Town. This existing CSD by-law
provides that variety. He hoped the
Board
Minutes of Meeting Page
Three
will think very carefully about advocating a change
without going over all the impacts those changes would have.
Article B – Mr. Wine spoke on behalf of the proponent
of this Article, who was not able to be in attendance. The proponent has young children who walk to
school and he believed that Hunter’s Ridge will result in a severe increase in
traffic. He was concerned that an
adequate traffic study had not been done.
He is asking that for any CSD development, a
traffic study be required to show that traffic will not be any greater nor have
any adverse effect on the neighborhood than a conventional subdivision would.
Ms. Maniscalco commented that every subdivision that
comes before the Board has always had some type of traffic impact study. Mr. O’Cain added every major subdivision that
he has reviewed since working with the Board has had a traffic impact
study. He also mentioned that the
wording in this proposed change was very vague and would not be
enforceable. Mr. Cohen said that the way
it was worded would actually eliminate certain incentives. Mr. Bradley said that that was the point of
the article – to limit what you could do under the CSD, but admitted that the
language was vague.
Article C – Mr.
Minutes of Meeting Page Four
Mr. Wine said that the purpose of this article was to add
one more benefit to abutters of CSD developments to ensure that their property
values will not decrease. They feel that
the conventional development would not decrease their property values as the
CSD could. Going back to the Hunter’s
Ridge subdivision, the abutters are very concerned that this CSD, especially if
it does not have a 50’ buffer and traffic impact statement, could adversely
affect the property values of their homes.
Mr. Solomon explained that the Planning Board takes
into account what would be in the best interests of the Town in any
subdivision, which would include the impact on the people living next to a
proposed subdivision. The Board tries to
protect abutters from any adverse impact from any development, but can’t deny a
subdivision that meets Board regulations just because the abutters don’t want
it there. The language in this proposed
zoning change is very vague and he was not sure how you would determine the
monetary impact of one type of subdivision vs. another.
One woman said that there were very many waivers
allowed here. It seemed that the Board
was bending over backwards to appease the builder rather than the
abutters. This has been a most difficult,
unpleasant and unfair experience for the abutters.
Mr. Cohen answered that that is not what Mr. Solomon
was saying. The Board has been working
on the property that Hunter’s Ridge is located on for many years since the
first submission several years ago. That
subdivision was disapproved by the Board basically for bad engineering. The real threat here is that the applicant
can come in with a 4OB subdivision, which would put even more homes on this
property. That has happened in many
other areas of Town. The Board has to
look at this particular subdivision and do what it thinks is best.
Minutes
of Meeting
Page Five
Mr. Bailey said that he did not think there was any
precedent for this kind of protection of someone’s property from adjacent
development and thought it might even border on being unconstitutional. What is being proposed here is so difficult
and complex that no court could get through it.
In
Article D – Mr. Wine was the proponent of this
proposed change. He said the language
was clear – it represents the abutters’ support of the CSD concept. They recognize that it promotes age qualified
housing and is beneficial to the Town. When
the CSD by-law was first brought before the Town, the concept was approved by
Town Meeting and Town Boards. The idea
of having some type of dense property with open space was desirable. What bothers the abutters of Hunter’s Ridge
is that they feel that subsequent to that ori
Mr. Cohen said that this article of the four proposed
was the most interesting and that he could see the logic behind it. The Board’s impetus for proposing the CSD
change had nothing to do with any developer coming before the Board. That was something the Board came up with on
its own. The issue he has with this proposed change is that they are throwing
out the baby with the bathwater. If
someone had a 20,000 square foot lot under conventional zoning, they would not
be able to put a CSD on it, even though it might be more desirable.
Minutes
of Meeting
Page Six
With this proposed language you would not be able to
do that. What might be considered is
diminishing the density bonus on the smaller lots, and give
a smaller reward. The Board was
proposing a change to the CSD that would require a developer to build duplexes
or attached houses instead of single family homes.
Mr. O’Cain added that his recollection for the change
in lot size was that there would be circumstances where you would have a small
lot that is not economically attuned to build a conventional subdivision. The only recourse in that instance could be a
40B. The CSD would give a developer more
options to get more homes rather than going the 40B route. Since a CSD requires a special permit, it
adds another layer of protection.
Mr. Solomon explained that because the Board felt
there was more need to diversify the housing stock on
Ms. Maniscalco then moved to close the public hearing
on the petition zoning articles, seconded by Mr. Cohen and unanimously voted.
Minutes of Meeting Page Seven
Mr. Solomon then asked for Board
comments on these articles.
Article A - Ms. Maniscalco said this proposed change
might be worth
looking into, but she was concerned about the buffer
eating up all
the open space.
There may be some other way to protect the abutters but just arbitrarily
throwing in a 50’ buffer doesn’t seem to be the way to do so. Sam agreed and said it might make more sense
to have something that had a sliding scale.
Mr. Cohen also felt the 50’ suggested was arbitrary. It could make a potentially desirable CSD
nonviable. It would take away the
flexibility the Board would have in dealing with the CSD. Mr. Hauser moved that the Board recommend
that Town Meeting not vote in favor of this proposed zoning change. Seconded by Mr. Cohen and unanimously voted.
Article B – It was the consensus of the Board that you
could not judge the traffic impact without some clear guidelines of how to do
that. The wording of the article was very vague. The Board may want to consider making a
traffic study a requirement. Mr. Hauser
moved that the Board recommend that Town Meeting not vote in favor of this
proposed zoning change. Seconded by Ms.
Maniscalco and unanimously voted.
Article C – The Board agreed that Mr. Bailey raised a
valid point in that this may not even be constitutional. Of all the proposed changes, the Board was
the most uncomfortable with this one.
This type of concept was foreign to the way the entire legal system in
Article D – The Board indicated it was not clear what
the impact of this change would be nor how many
parcels in the Town would be affected.
It could actually prohibit someone from building a CSD even if the same
number of units was involved as in a conventional subdivision. More open space can be attained through a CSD
than a
Minutes of Meeting Page Eight
conventional subdivision.
Mr. Hauser moved that the Board recommend that Town Meeting not vote in
favor of this proposed change.
III.
HUNTER’S RIDGE
Ms. Maniscalco asked what had happened with the new
groundwater divide issue that was raised by the abutters at the last
meeting. A representative of Horsely Witten (“HW”) answered
that they had requested to be put on the Board of Health’s agenda but would not
be meeting with them until June. They
had sent the same letter to the Board of Health as presented to the Planning
Board at the last meeting. Mr. Solomon
explained that this was a Board of Health issue and would not affect the
Planning Board making a decision at this time.
If something came out of the meeting with the Board of Health, the
Planning Board could revisit its decision and modify it.
The HW representative indicated that the abutters were
very concerned about water in the area, that there were already flooding issues
and they were very concerned that these would get worse with the construction
of the proposed subdivision. There could
be changes in the stormwater runoff and there were
deficiencies in the plans that they were concerned with. Ms. Maniscalco asked when was
HW hired to look at this parcel.
The HW answer was that they had ori
Minutes of Meeting Page Nine
Mr. Solomon further pointed out to HW that the Board
was aware of the existing problems with the abutting land. The applicant cannot have any more water
going off his site during and after construction than there is now. All these issues will be addressed by a
drainage system that will be put into place that has to meet the spirit and
letter of the law. The Board does not
doubt that there are existing problems on
Mr. O’Cain said he had two questions for HW – had HW
looked at the plans at all to be able to make these statements regarding the
runoff and is this plan violating any State law regarding Title V. HW replied that because they do not have all
the materials, they are not able to evaluate the adequacy of the water plan.
Mr. Faria was then asked to
update the Board on the status of this subdivision before the other
boards. Mr. Faria
reported that they had met with ConCom and they had closed their hearing and
were working on an Order of Conditions.
Mr. Faria further stated
that they would like to request of the Planning Board an extension of time for
a decision to be filed, to
Minutes of Meeting Page Ten
One issue of concern was parking in the street. Earthtech’s report
stated that there would be no parking in the street at all. However, the Board was concerned that people
wanting access to the open space and trails would not have anywhere to put
their cars. It was suggested that
several spots be provided at the cul-de-sac for this and that people using the
trails could also park at the clubhouse.
A request was made that the Board require the
applicant to provide a surety or something else to alleviate any financial
burden the abutters may incur from water damage once the subdivision is
built. Mr. Cohen said that there could
be a condition added to the Special Permit (“SP”) that the homeowners
association will be required to indemnify the abutters in that situation. Mr. O’Cain added that during the construction
stage, a bond is given to the Town to cover any such damage.
Ms. Maniscalco then moved to approve the definitive
subdivision subject to the following conditions:
·
The three
standard opening conditions for all subdivisions;
·
Items 1-8 of
Peter O’Cain’s memorandum to the Board dated
·
A
pre-construction meeting is to be held with the Applicant, the Engineering
Department and anyone else that the Engineering Department deems necessary to
be included and that the design and construction of the stormwater
management and roadway proceeds as approved by the Town Engineer;
·
Any heavy trucks
and machinery may not enter or exit the site during the times that there are
drop offs or pick ups of school children when school is in session;
·
That construction
may only take place between the hours of
Mr. Cohen then moved to approve the Hunter’s Ridge
Definitive subdivision subject to the conditions listed here and including any
conditions in the Special Permit to the extent applicable. Seconded by Mr. Hauser and unanimously voted.
Minutes of Meeting Page Eleven
Having found them to be in the best interests of the
Town, the Planning Board voted to allow the following waivers:
A.
Section - Roadway Construction as follows:
Right
of Way Width = 40’
Pavement
Width = 22’
6’
sloped granite curve on sidewalk side of road
One
5’ sidewalk on right side of road
12”
This road is to remain a private way unless it is
brought into conformance with the Board’s Rules and Regulations.
B.
Section
4.2.2.4. Roadway Alignment.
C.
Section 4368 – as
follows:
Minimum Frontage
46 feet
Front Yard Setback
20 feet
Side Yard Setback 6
feet
Rear Yard setback 15
feet
D.
Section 4.5.2.2 –
Detention Basins
In Detention Basin 1, a 2.2’ separation from
groundwater to the bottom of the detention basin is allows.
E.
Section 4.2.8.1 –
Sta. 2+30 to Sta. 5+50 and Sta. 0+50 to Sta. 2+00 a
2:1 slope with a guardrail to ensure safety is allowed.
Mr.
Cohen moved to approve the waivers as listed, seconded by Ms. Maniscalco and
unanimously voted.
The
Board then went on to review and edit the language in the Draft Special
Permit. Some items that needed to be
added were:
Minutes of Meeting Page Twelve
Mr.
Cohen then moved to approve the Special Permit for Hunter’s Ridge subject to the
conditions the Board has written and any further conditions and modifications
that may come up prior to signing the Special Permit. Seconded by Mr. Hauser and unanimously voted.
Mr. Cohen further moved that the waivers
requested under the Definitive Plan be
made a part of the Special Permit. Seconded by Ms. Maniscalco and unanimously
voted.
IV.
KING PHILLIP ESTATES
Numerous
letters had been received from abutters and three representatives from American
Indian Tribes, requesting reconsideration of the Board’s prior vote of this
subdivision. A letter had been sent to
the Board stating the Tribes were requesting the reconsideration.
Mr.
Solomon had contacted Town Counsel to see if the Board could revoke its
decision and make a new one. Town
Counsel advised that the Board could do that, but would have to go through the
approval process all over again, including holding a public hearing. If the Board were to do that, it would be in
the same boat of having the applicant withdraw this application and continuing
with the 40B hearing before the Housing Appeals Court.
Minutes of Meeting Page Thirteen
Mr.
Cohen asked if Mr. Wluka, the real estate agent for
the applicant, had any comment about this.
Mr. Wluka said that he had just spent the last
hour or so meeting with the Tribal leaders and the Sharon Historical
Commission. Mr. Wluka
indicated that his client expressed a willingness to discuss the purchase of
that part of the ceremonial lot with the Tribal leaders. If the Tribes can work quickly, the applicant
is willing to sell that land to them. He
did report that no one had made any attempt to contact him or his applicant
about this situation. Tonight was the
first time he had heard about it.
Mr.
Solomon explained that the Tribes’ letter did not constitute an appeal, as the
decision had not as yet been filed with the Town Clerk. Appeals can only be made once the decision is
filed, and only through the Town Clerk, not the Planning Board. The concern at this time was not to delay the
subdivision process, because if the court case continues before the Housing
Appeals Court and they side with the developer, the preservation of the hilltop
would basically be gone.
Several
of the people in attendance pointed out the importance of the top of the hill
and that if there had been a larger buffer required,
it would have taken care of this problem as that area would not be
touched. The applicant could still get
his three homes without losing any profits.
Mr.
Cohen pointed out that when the Board voted its decision, it took all these
matters into consideration. However,
there had to be some compromise as the matter would otherwise go back to the
Housing Appeals Court. If it does go
back to the Housing Appeals Court, what could go in there would be far worse
than what the Board approved. He thought
this decision should stay and hopefully something could be worked out regarding
the hilltop.
The
Tribal representatives indicated they were willing to sit down with all parties
involved and see if there is something that could be worked out that would be
acceptable to all.
Minutes of Meeting Page
Fourteen
Mr.
Solomon said that the Board now had to make a decision whether or not to sign
the approval letter already voted. The
Board’s signing the letter does make it possible for discussions on the purchase
of that one lot to proceed, because it makes the
decision final. If the Board does not
sign the approval letter, the applicant could determine things have gone far
enough and does not want to continue down this path.
Mr.
Hauser said that the Town has an interest that this approval goes through in a
healthy way as well. He encouraged that
dialogue still go forward regarding the ceremonial site but he was not in favor
of reopening the subdivision but to proceed with the signing of the approval
letter. The other Board members were in
agreement and the approval letter was signed.
V.
There being
no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at