TOWN OF SHARON
PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of a Meeting of the Planning Board held on August 10, 2005, at 7:30 p.m., in the Town Offices.
PRESENT: REGINA MANISCALCO, CHAIR
ELI HAUSER, VICE CHAIR
WAYNE BRADLEY, CLERK
ARNOLD COHEN
PAUL LAUENSTEIN
PETER O’CAIN, ASST. TOWN ENGINEER
Business Transacted:
I. Meeting called to order.
FORM A PLANS
Cedar Street, Howard Glaser, applicant – An additional piece of land was being added to the existing two lots to be able to put in a septic system. Mr. Hauser moved to disapprove the plan based on the issues listed in the memorandum from Mr. O’Cain to the Board dated 7/27/05. Seconded by Mr. Cohen and unanimously voted.
II. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ZONING BY-LAW CHANGES
1. Inclusionary Housing – Mr. Bradley read the legal notice for this part of the public hearing. Ms. Maniscalco informed those in attendance that the majority of the work done for this change was done by Town resident Alice Cheyer. The Board wished to thank Ms. Cheyer for all the work she had put into this.
______________________________
Administrative Assistant
Minutes of Meeting Page Two August 10, 2005
The main premise of this article is that it would require that at least 15% of the lots in a subdivision be affordable. The Town wants all future developments to have some affordable housing. These would be counted towards the State requirement that 10% of all housing stock in each Town be affordable.
Comments re: this proposed change:
---This article should not conflict with the MUOD or LIP;
---re-examine the required 15% affordable amount so as not to deter developers from building a conventional subdivision and going with a 40B;
---why is a 1-5 lot subdivision exempt from this – can’t demand developers to devote ¾ of a house as affordable, which this could do for under 6 lots;
Board Comments:
Mr. Bradley suggested that we should decide what type of affordable housing we were striving for.
Mr. Lauenstein – not comfortable with the language in this proposed change. It is discriminating in favor of smaller subdivisions that will not have to provide affordable housing. All developments should have the same requirements and the smaller ones could provide the funds for the affordable unit to the Town to go into an open space fund. This could equalize the load on all developers.
Ms. Peck, a member of the Board of Health, asked to comment. She indicated that when it comes to anything that will protect against 40B’s, the Board will stand behind it. However, regarding the inclusionary housing, it could force a developer to build subdivisions of four or five lots to avoid the affordable requirement. She agreed with Mr. Lauenstein that if the Town could get money in lieu of affordable units for the smaller subdivisions that would be preferable. The other issue was that none of this will be relevant until the Town meets its 10% affordable requirement.
Minutes of Meeting Page Three August 10, 2005
Selectman Grasfield said that the Board of Selectmen was uncomfortable with the language in Section 3621. It does not require that the land has to be buildable or that it needs to be used for affordable housing. The ZBA has engaged a professional planner whose specialty is 40B’s. That is the kind of person that is needed to run these types of things by also. He suggested that if the Planning Board did not have these types of funds in its budget, it could ask for a reserve fund transfer. Mr. Lauenstein indicated he was in favor of Mr. Grasfield’s suggestion.
2. Fire Alarms – This article was not going forward, as it was part of the Planning Board’s Rules and Regulations and not a zoning change.
3. Accessory Apartments – Mr. Bradley read the legal notice for this part of the public hearing.
Mr. Cohen explained that this was drafted in response to a request by the Council on Aging (COA) to modify the requirements for accessory apartments. Mr. Cohen looked at by-laws of neighboring towns provided to the Board by the COA, and this basically followed the Town of Norwood by-law. The difference from the Norwood by-law was that it had to be affordable. Mr. Cohen said that he was not sure that this by-law would help in reaching the 10% to be exempt from 40B’s.
Ms. Maniscalco said that it was her opinion that this would not to anything towards the 10%. This change is being brought forward because the Town is haiving difficulty in keeping the senior citizens in Sharon who are forced to move to surrounding Towns. She felt that the problem was not necessarily with the current by-law language, but was a problem with Title V restrictions. There is nothing the Board can really do about that.
Ms. Peck of the Board of Health explained that if you are taking an existing home and creating an apartment in it, Title V will not be affected. However, if you are adding on an addition with an additional bedroom, it increases the size
Minutes of Meeting Page Four August 10, 2005
of the septic you need. That requires you to increase the size of the septic system and Title V does kick in. In a groundwater protection district on an acre lot, you could not add an additional bedroom – only four bedrooms are allowed. So in many areas of the Town, accessory apartments would be prohibited.
Mr. Bradley questioned how you would legislate an accessory apartment remaining owner occupied forever. One thing he would like to see is that the size of these apartments be limited.
Ms. Cheyer added that she was not sure that this proposal would to anything to help with what the COA wanted. She does not think that this article should necessarily be acted upon at this time. Mr. Lauenstein agreed stating that it is hazy as to what the need is. He would like to hear from the COA.
Mr. Kublin, the COA representative, first wanted the Board to know that the COA is extremely appreciative that the Board is looking into this issue, which has been talked about for several years now. He said that the COA would at the least like to see a statement added to the by-law that the Sharon Community recognizes that family values are very important to the Town and that it supports these values.
The COA receives many requests from residents to help out with these types of situations – parents no longer able to live alone and take care of themselves, wanting to live with their children. It is usually a matter of health, such as lack of mobility or frailty, that creates the need for personal services or attention. The parent would like to have an element of privacy when living under their child’s roof – thus sometimes requiring a separate apartment with a separate entrance. This is the thrust of what the COA is looking for.
On the other side, there is also the need of adult children needing to live with their parents to save money to move out on their own or to buy a house.
Minutes of Meeting Page Five August 10, 2005
So, at the least, the COA would like to see a by-law that would address these family issues, to encompass and make it easier for the elderly to live with their adult children. Families living together is not a bad thing – the Town should not make this a difficult task but should be looking at how to make it easier for its residents. Mr. Kublin said that he would like to pursue this issue, meet with the other Town Boards to promote the family issues and get some language in place to be able to get to a point as a Town where this can be supported.
Another issue to look into is what happens to the accessory apartment when the elderly relative has moved on, and the caretakers leave the house – what happens then? Ms. Peck added that this is a Board of Health issue. What happens when the situation changes and you are left with much bigger houses that violate water and flood area rules. Looking for a temporary solution may be the way to be looking into this.
Ms. Maniscalco said that this is an important issue for the COA. The Board is trying to find solutions and some good ideas. Mr. Kublin added that the COA would like to make this every board’s priority so that the boards find it is am important issue. He said it might make sense to introduce language that says the Town supports trying to make this a possibility and address the issue of having a separate entrance with guidance from the Fire Chief.
It was pointed out that this proposed change would be more restrictive than the by-law currently in place. Ms. Maniscalco suggested that the Board do nothing at this time until some further research into the matter can be done. Perhaps it can be ready in time for the spring Town Meeting.
4. CSD modifications – Mr. Bradley read the legal notice for this part of the public hearing. Mr. Hauser explained that this modification will be part of the Housing Partnership Plan object to leverage the existing CSD by-law to allow two times the standard density, if these units remain affordable in perpetuity.
Minutes of Meeting Page Six August 10, 2005
Mr. Bradley said that he felt the real issue was that the required acreage for a CSD has already been reduced from ten acres to five acres and was now being further reduced to three acres. He felt the Board was not addressing the existing problems with the CSD and yet was reducing the required acreage for a CSD.
Mr. Hauser disagreed with Mr. Bradley and pointed out that the Board has in fact fixed the problems raised with the original CSD – the component of the units having to be attached has been passed, and the Planning Board now has a wider sense of discretion in approving or disapproving the Special Permit.
Ms. Arguimbau, chair of the Conservation Commission, said that she was concerned about the Board’s rush to increase density. If the developer will not be paying for the land, why is not the 1.75 density enough? Ms. Maniscalco answered that the Board was not trying to rush to increase density – it was trying to stop the ten+ years of negotiations such as Rattlesnake Hill and provide another alternative between the conventional and 40B subdivisions available now. The Board is also trying to provide more affordable housing for the Town and in so doing stop the worst scenario from continuing, which is the 40B.
Ms. Peck said that the Board of Health has to look at all these options in protecting the quality of water in the Town. That has to be in everyone’s planning. There needs to be clear, strong language made a part of all of these subdivisions, with the language being made part of any conditions of approval. The Board of Health is also preparing articles to be brought to Town Meeting addressing all these environmental concerns.
Selectman Grasfield stated that he was concerned about the proposed language. There are several 40B’s in the works. If the Housing Production Plan is approved by the State, that is progress right there.
Ms. Maniscalco said that the Board will continue to think about this, as no decisions will be made tonight.
Minutes of Meeting Page Seven August 10, 2005
5. MUOD – Mr. Bradley read the legal notice to open the hearing. Ms. Maniscalco indicated that this article has been withdrawn.
Mr. Lauenstein moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Hauser and unanimously voted.
III. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m.