Town of Sharon Planning Board

Meeting Minutes of 10/02/07

Amended and Approved 11/14/07

 

 

Planning Board Attendees

Eli Hauser – Chair

Paul Lauenstein

Arnold Cohen – Vice Chair

Amanda Sloan 

Susan Price – Clerk

 

 

Peter O’Cain, Assistant Town Engineer, Consultant - absent

 

Attendees

Gordon Gladstone

Paul Keane – Daylor Consulting Group

Bob Daylor – Daylor Consulting Group

Marty Spagat – Brickstone

John Twohig - Brickstone

Richard Gelerman – Town Counsel

Anne Bingham

Cheryl Weinstein

 

Meeting Initiation

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Chair, Eli Hauser who read the Chair’s Report. Included with the report was a request from Mr. Mirrione to amend Hunter’s Ridge Special Permit to allow 1 resident under age 55 to reside in each unit.

 

Meeting Minutes

Mr. Cohen moved to accept the minutes of 9/19 as amended. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 4-0-1 in favor. Mr. Lauenstein abstained because he did not attend the 9/19 meeting.

 

Calendar of Events for the Planning Board

1. October 17th – Public Hearing regarding 5 warrant articles.

2. October 31st – Public Hearing to discuss three citizen’s petition articles.

3. November 14th –Discussion of Brickstone’s preliminary subdivision plan.

 

Sign Review

None.

 

Bond Reduction

None.

 

Form A for Rattlesnake Hill

Mr. John Twohig, Attorney for Brickstone, LLC presented the Planning Board with a subdivision plan filing covering the Rattlesnake Hill site. He wanted to ensure that the submission was filed properly. Included in his filing was:

  1. The preliminary plan and 12 prints
  2. Filing fee $1,160.00
  3. Form B – filed with Town Clerk
  4. Form D – Engineer’s certificate
  5. Form D-1 Land Surveyor’s certificate
  6. Notice with the Town Clerk stating date of submission of Plan to the Planning Board and a copy of an executed Form B 
  7. Copy of plans to Conservation Commission
  8. Copies to Town Engineer, Fire Department and other Town entities
  9. Form M-1

 

Mr. Cohen stated that normally the Town Engineer reviews the plan prior to the meeting and discusses its components with the Board.

 

Mr. Gelerman provided the Planning Board with a memo explaining the preliminary plan process, containing a checklist of the preliminary subdivision plan requirements and the permitting process.  He also confirmed that the Planning Board is the approving authority for a preliminary subdivision plan.

Ms. Bingham questioned whether the Board should accept the plan. Mr. Cohen replied to Ms. Bingham’s question about accepting the plan by stating the Board does not have a choice as to whether to accept the plan or not. Any landowner can submit a subdivision plan by filing with the Town, at which point the Planning Board reviews the submission and holds a public hearing. It is not a question of accepting or not accepting the submission. Mr. Gelerman added that the Board has 45 days from the filing to make a decision. Mr. Cohen commented that this is for preliminary plans which the Planning Board can approve or disapprove and that they still have to file a definitive plan. Ms. Bingham said this was a showing of bad faith on the part of the applicant. Mr. Cohen commented that the plan needs to comply with the requirements of Section 3.2.2.

 

Mr. Twohig continued by stating it’s a preliminary subdivision filing which will “lock” the current zoning. The applicant is trying to make sure its rights are protected.

 

Mr. Lauenstein requested that the Water Management Advisory Commission receive a copy of the plan.

 

Bob Daylor, CEO of Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. stated there is no bad faith in filing the plan. This is a step to protect the rights of the client and assure that the rights to build under current zoning are protected.  He said the plan was a nine lot subdivision, one street (a cul-de-sac), and believes it is in compliance with the town’s regulations. There would be on site septic systems under the plan.

 

Paul Keane of Daylor Consulting Group, Inc. presented each of the documents and reviewed the plans with the Board.  He provided Ms. Levitts with the check for $1,160.00 to be given to the DPW. He described what was on the provided plans. Parcel A is being subdivided to create 3 lots; A1, A2 and A3. Lots A2 and A3 have frontage on Mountain Street.  Parcel B is divided into B1 and B2. B2 has frontage on Bay Road, B1 has no frontage. Parcel C includes the creation of a new Road C and connects to Mountain Street. Lots C3 and C4 would be on Road C and Lot C1 would be at the intersection of Road C and Mountain Street.  There is a large lot C2 on Mountain Street.  A portion of this lot was the land that was to go to the Town for a fire station, conservation lot and pumping station. The Board asked if this is the same as the Form A submitted earlier in the Summer 2007, and Mr. Daylor replied that this created a division of those lots.

 

Mr. Cohen said the Planning Board needs to see if it complies, and approve or disapprove or impose conditions. They would need a definitive plan for a Public Hearing. They cannot build on this type of plan. Mr. Daylor stated that he feels each lot should comply with the underlying zoning. 

 

Mr. Lauenstein asked which lots are being conveyed to the Town and Mr. Twohig replied that there are areas to be conveyed but this is not relevant to tonight. Mr. Gelerman interjected that Mr. Lauenstein was trying to determine which parcel is going to be given to the town as conservation land. Mr. Twohig stated people are losing sight of the purpose of the preliminary site plan.

 

Mr. Cohen said that in general the motivation behind this is because the Town Meeting made a bylaw and now there is something to negate. They are trying to freeze the bylaw.

 

Ms. Bingham is upset about the preliminary plan process written by Attorney Gelerman. Mr. Hauser replied that it was appropriate that Mr. Gelerman made sure the Planning Board complied with the regulations. Mr. Cohen stated that there was nothing wrong with asking Town Counsel for advice.

 

Ms. Bingham said that the 3 proposed articles do not eradicate zoning and Mr. Cohen stated that under the law this is something they can do and anyone in their position would do.

 

Mr. Gelerman said the Planning Board needed to set a date to vote on the plan within 45 days of tonight; October 2nd. Mr. Hauser stated that November 14th would be 43 days and that would be the date that the Planning Board would hold a hearing and possibly make a decision. The Planning Board has 45 days to file a decision to the applicant. If the Planning Board disapproves; details must be provided to the applicant. Mr. Cohen stated that if the Planning Board does not decide within 45 days, it doesn’t mean they have to approve the definitive plan. Mr. Gelerman will provide the Planning Board with a response on the effect of a “failure to act.”

 

Ms. Bingham asked if any abutter notifications were required for a preliminary plan and Mr. Cohen replied no.

 

Mr. Gelerman suggested that the Planning Board receive decisions from other Boards before they make a decision. 

 

Lot Shape

Ms. Price informed the Board that the Finance Committee voted 7-2-2 for the Lot Shape Article.

 

Inclusionary Housing

Mr. Lauenstein presented a PowerPoint presentation to the Finance Committee which summarized the proposed Inclusionary Housing By-law and the plan to get to 10% affordable housing. Mr. Lauenstein reviewed the Finance Committee comments and asked the Board if he should change any of the wording.  The majority of the members stated that the wording was fine as is and they would leave any changes to Mr. Lauenstein’s judgment.  Mr. Gladstone also commented that the language was okay. Mr. Lauenstein will discuss with Mr. Houston.

 

Other Business

Ira Miller of the Finance Committee stated the Finance Committee needed to put their recommendation in the warrant by October 8th and asked if the Planning Board had taken a position on the warrant articles.  Mr. Hauser replied that the Planning Board had not yet held Public Hearings but was unified on the Lot Shape and Inclusionary Housing articles.

 

Ms. Price noticed a sign for the dry cleaners on South Main Street was not in conformance with the historical colors. Mr. Hauser advised that she should ask Mr. O’Cain to speak with the Building Inspector regarding this issue.

 

Ms. Sloan mentioned that she had spoken with the head of the Finance Committee and asks that the Board be sensitive to the fact that the Finance Committee needs to make decisions ahead of time.

 

Mr. Hauser may not be in attendance at the October 31st meeting. He asked Mr. Cohen to attend the Pre-Town Meeting Hearing in his place on 10/30.

 

Meeting Adjournment

Mr. Cohen moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 PM and Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.