Town of Sharon Planning Board

Meeting Minutes of 10/17/07

Amended and Approved on 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

 

Attendees

Tim Sullivan

Aamir Rashid

Richard Rudman

Santanu Sengupta

Bob Shelmerdine

Jacki Gobbi

Anne Bingham

Cheryl Weinstein

Beth Green

Joshua Martin

Josh Kiernan

Jon Klein

Cindy Amara

 

 

Meeting Initiation

The meeting was called to order at 7:40 PM by Chair Eli Hauser who stated that tonight there would be several public hearings regarding proposed zoning bylaws. The Clerk will read the legal notices. Mr. Hauser stated that under Massachusetts law, if someone wants to amend the zoning bylaws, the Planning Board has to have a Public Hearing. After the Public Hearing, the Planning Board votes to recommend the Articles to the Town Meeting.

 

Mr. Hauser stated that we will conduct the meeting so that each proponent will present. Once the Public Hearing is closed the Planning Board’s discussion takes place and there is no more public discussion.

 

Inclusionary Housing

The Public Hearing began at 7:50 PM. Ms. Price read the legal notice for the Article pertaining to Inclusionary Housing. Mr. Hauser thanked Mr. Lauenstein for all of his hard work in putting this Article together and asked him to describe the process undertaken.

 

Mr. Lauenstein said that the Inclusionary Housing Article is a response to the Chapter 40B Law which requires communities to create 10% of housing stock as affordable. The Town is powerless to control its own destiny as long as affordable housing is less than 10%. The Planning Board filed a housing production plan which outlined a plan to reach the 10% goal. Part of the process is to gain autonomy over zoning. This year with Avalon Bay being approved, this was a significant step to reach the 10% quota. The recommendation in the Article is a requirement that 15% of a development be built as affordable, for developments over 6 units.  Fifteen percent was chosen for larger developments to compensate for smaller developments that would not make any contribution. Unlike 40B which allows the developer substantial density bonuses, with Inclusionary Housing, 15% must be affordable and there would be no density bonuses. Affordable Housing would be good for Sharon because it would provide more diversity. It would promote a sense of community and give service providers an opportunity to live in Town. For all of these reasons, the Planning Board supports this Article.

 

Mr. Hauser commented that the full text of the Article is available at the Library, DPW and Town Hall.

 

Mr. Lauenstein said he asked April Forsman of the DPW to look at all underdeveloped and undeveloped land in Sharon to estimate the maximum build out under conventional zoning. She stated it was 301. There are six or seven other parcels including two golf courses if developed for housing would result in an even greater build-out.  Mr. Hauser recognized Mr. Houston as the consultant to this Article and asked him to expand. Mr. Houston stated concerns were raised in that there is a view that the Article is not necessary because other town processes have allowed us to reach our goals. Mr. Hauser disagreed with these arguments because when dealing with future land use it is difficult to say the number of affordable housing units that will come to fruition. It is difficult to forecast future build out as there may be unforeseen circumstances. It is always prudent for municipalities to include affordable in the mix.  Mr. Hauser opened up the floor to the Board and other attendees.

 

Beth Green of 11 Huckleberry Lane asked why Brickstone was not included. Mr. Hauser replied that the Inclusionary Housing Bylaw has not been adopted yet. With the pipeline in front of us, we project exceeding 10% with Avalon Bay, Wilbur etc., if all these projects come in as expected even including the Brickstone Development.

 

Aamir Rashid of 26 Laurel Road asked how you prevent a developer from building 5 units on a parcel that can accommodate six. Mr. Lauenstein explained subdividing large parcels to circumvent inclusionary housing is prohibited by the language in the proposed Article. Mr. Lauenstein is under the impression that the development of Sharon Commons would not be 40B.  Mr. Hauser stated that 40 B has both “friendly” (formally a Local Initiative Project or LIP) and “unfriendly” 40B variants. In a “friendly” 40B, the Town, Board of Selectmen and the Developer would arrive at a decision jointly and go to the 40B authority and say we would jointly do this. Mr. O’Cain stated that the Memorandum of Understanding states Sharon Commons is a LIP.

 

Ms. Price stated that Mr. Lauenstein, Mr. Houston and the citizens who participated in the writing of this Article did a good job. This will be an insurance policy for affordable housing and is consistent with the housing plan which was adopted.  Mr. Cohen said the State is telling towns they need 10% affordable housing. What we are doing is consistent with the state policy. It is a good idea.  Mr. Lauenstein acknowledged Ms. Cheyer and Ms. Desberg as well as Tom Houston’s help. Those on Boards contribute time to make a difference. The Town is better off having decisions made locally rather than remotely in Boston.

 

At 8:18 PM, Mr. Cohen moved to close the Public Hearing on Inclusionary Housing and Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor of closing the Public Hearing.  Mr. Cohen moved to recommend to Special Town Meeting, approval of the Inclusionary Housing, Article 13. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board endorsed warrant Article 13, by a vote of 5-0-0.

 

Lot  Shape

At 8:21 PM, Ms. Price read the legal notice for the Lot Shape Article. Mr. Hauser complimented Ms. Price and Ms. Sloan on what they have accomplished. Ms. Price began by stating that Massachusetts is the only state with ANR plans or Form A’s. These property owners can subdivide without a Planning Board public hearing. They can do it as of right. This leaves the Board powerless to help design these subdivisions. Over the last 5 years there have been more than 80 Form A’s. This Article is adding a purpose section.  It also specifies how lot width is measured. There are two main ways that the Article will control lot shape; 1) narrow portions of lots, less than half of the required lot width, or less than 60 feet, whichever is lower, cannot be counted toward lot area. If the narrow area connects two larger areas, the smaller of the connected sections will also be excluded. Flag lots are excluded from this requirement; and 2) a requirement for an imaginary horizontal circle to be drawn on the plan with a minimum diameter equal to the required lot frontage. The goal is to make sure there is an area of sufficient width for a house and septic and would seek to prevent contorted lots.  In addition, existing lots will not be affected by this Article; only newly created or modified lots will be impacted.

 

As there were no additional comments from the Board or attendees, Mr. Cohen moved to close the Public Hearing and Ms. Price seconded the motion.  The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor of closing the Public Hearing.

 

Mr. Cohen commented that this is the Board’s Article. He commended Ms. Price and Ms. Sloan for their hard work. He stated Ms. Price worked with the Finance Committee to get their recommendation. This bylaw is long overdue. Mr. Cohen moved that the Board recommend to Special Town Meeting, approval of Article 12. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

 

Technical Corrections to Business D By-Law                

At 8:39 PM Ms. Price read the legal notice for the Article regarding technical corrections to Business D By-Law and sections 2329, 2463 and 6342.  Mr. Houston explained that the genesis of the Article were comments from the Attorney General’s Office for consistency with State Law. The Attorney General had approved the bylaw previously but had 3 concerns during the review. One of these concerns relates to Business District D. In section 2329, the term “concept plan” was used but the Attorney General said that is not specifically defined. Concept plan is now defined. The second change makes the submission of a sketch plan required but then the Board of Selectmen must take a formal vote on the design submission. They took a look at existing coverage and 50% is reasonable for coverage in the downtown. In section 6342 there was a cross reference to state law and the citation was changed to section 1-20.  According to Mr. Houston, under the present bylaw, there is no substantial change.

 

At 8:53 PM Mr. Cohen moved to close the Public Hearing on Article 5. Mr. Lauenstein seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

 

Mr. Cohen recommended that the Planning Board recommend to the Special Town Meeting approval of Article 5. The Board voted and the Planning Board endorsed approval of Article 5 to Town Meeting by a vote of 5-0-0 in favor.

 

Free standing signs

At 8:54 PM Ms. Price read the legal notice for Article 8 regarding off-premises signage. The text authored by Attorney Shelmerdine is slightly different than what is in the Legal Ad. Mr. Shelmerdine is the attorney who represents the proponent for Sharon Commons. Mr. Richard Rudman was present as the Boston Counsel for Sharon Commons. There are five Articles in Town Meeting that are related to Sharon Commons. Article 8 is fine tuning the sign bylaw. It provides for an off premise permanent free standing sign. The Sign By-Law in March Town Meeting only discussed on premise signs. Without Article 8 there cannot be an entrance sign because the land in that area is zoned residential. They are requesting one pylon sign up to 30 feet in height. Mr. Lauenstein asked if there are any restrictions on illumination and Mr. Shelmerdine said that is in Article 7. Mr. Rudman interjected that Article 7 provides that a pylon sign can be internally or externally illuminated but the stone wall sign must be externally highlighted. Ms. Sloan said she thinks more details regarding Article 7 are needed. Mr. Hauser said we are not hearing Article 7. Mr. Rudman said that the design and location of signs needs to be approved by the ZBA.

 

Beth Green of 11 Huckleberry Lane said she was on the Design Review Committee for the Zoning Board and asked if there is any other 30 foot sign in Town. Mr. Houston said that the proposed sign is generally comparable to the two signs at Shaw’s Plaza, but those signs are 20 feet in height. She asked if the 30 foot sign would advertise apartments and Mr. Shelmerdine said it was for the business district only.

 

Anne Bingham of 9 Sherwood Circle asked who owns the land on which the pylon sign will be located. She also commented that it will look strange to have signs for the business district listed as a permitted use in the residence district section of the zoning by-law.  Mr. Houston said it really has to be in residential section because its use would need to be in a residential district.

 

Mr. O’Cain said Article 7 is a general bylaw to regulate signs and that there are lighting limits as part of this bylaw. Ms. Price said that in Article 7, section 5.5.2 it talks about signs in Business District D and the number of signs per lot and asked whether this is considered to be one lot or more.  Mr. Shelmerdine said that the Article which was passed in March Town Meeting allowed the owner of the mall to place three 60 foot pylon signs on the property. One sign was always intended for I-95. The proposed by-law change is limiting it down to one 60 foot sign. The bylaw is exchanging three 60 foot pylon signs to be located anywhere to one 60 foot sign on I-95 and one 30 foot sign near the entrance way. Ms. Price asked if there was more than one entrance and Mr. Shelmerdine replied there is the main entrance and one side entrance, but not a sign at the emergency exit on South Walpole Street.

 

Josh Martin of Laurel Road asked why Article 7 is not being discussed as an accurate decision cannot be made without such discussion. In his view, the deal was supposed to be a cozy, quaint lifestyle village mall. He doesn’t think the decision should be made without more details.

 

Beth Green of the Design Review Committee said the Committee will meet tomorrow to address all questions. She feels Article 8 is placing the cart before the horse.  Mr. Hauser commented that Article 8 is the placement of the sign. Ms. Green stated that the placement should be reviewed after the sign is negotiated and approved. She asked that we wait for the Design Committee Review.  Mr. Rudman stated that under the amended sign ordinance, the ZBA will have sign design and location authority. Mr. Shelmerdine said they are not asking permission for details on the looks or materials, but asking for the table on which the table will be set. The ZBA will discuss details. He said, if we don’t create the structure, we cannot move ahead. The Planning Board is statutorily required to review a change to the zoning bylaw. Cindy Amara, an Attorney with Gelerman and Buschmann clarified that the only issue subject to a Planning Board hearing is allowance of zoning changes. The land is currently zoned residential. If the Article is not passed, Sharon Commons will not be allowed to put a sign in the residence district. Mr. Cohen stated that the Planning Board just makes the recommendations; it is Town Meeting that makes a decision.  Mr. Rashid of 26 Laurel Road asked how this is not meeting the current bylaw. Mr. Shelmerdine said you cannot locate a large sign on a residential property under current zoning and you cannot get tenants without a sign. 

 

Jackie Gobbi of 147 Old Post Road asked if they want to place a sign on state-owned land. Mr. Shelmerdine replied that the optimal position would be located in county or state layout on Old Post Road if they cannot locate the sign on South Main Street. He stated an attractive sign is needed on South Main Street. Mr. Martin agrees that signage is needed. He thinks the Board should hold off because Article 7 was not discussed.

 

Mr. Hauser surveyed the Board. Mr. Lauenstein thought to hold off on the vote until the Design Review Committee reviews and discusses. He recommends waiting until October 31st in order to make the recommendation to Town Meeting. Ms. Sloan agreed. Mr. Cohen asked if the Design Review Committee makes the recommendation or if the ZBA makes the recommendation. Beth Green said that the advisory committee advises the ZBA. Anne Bingham agrees with Mr. Lauenstein in waiting for the Design Committee to provide something back to the Planning Board. Mr. Cohen said it seems all the Design Committee does is advises the ZBA. He said that before the Planning Board is Article 8 which would say that having a sign is a permitted use. If the Town Meeting doesn’t approve this Article, there will not be a mall sign on South Main Street. He doesn’t see the purpose in waiting.  Ms. Price said that she agreed with Mr. Cohen and said that there is no point in waiting to hear back from the Design Review Committee, since Article 8 is only about allowing a sign on South Main Street, in a residential district, and without it, Sharon Commons cannot be a success.  She said that it was her understanding that the applicant had originally wanted to rezone all of the land, including the cranberry bogs, to Business D but that the Conservation Commission (which will be receiving the preserved bogs) wanted the bogs to remain residentially zoned and because of this glitch, the signs along South Main Street were not permitted and are now necessary.  She added that she didn’t see what information the Design Review Committee would be able to provide that would change that fact.

 

Mr. Shelmerdine said that the Design Review Committee was appointed by the ZBA to function in an advisory capacity and that no one with design experience had volunteered for this committee. He said that people in attendance at the ZBA meeting had agreed to participate on the committee. He will be appearing before the Design Review Committee the following day.

 

Mr. Martin said the Planning Board’s purpose is to protect the residents of the town and there is no harm in waiting. Mr. Cohen again stated this is only about where the sign is being built. Ms. Sloan said that the design and placement go hand in hand. She wants to hear the Design Committee’s recommendation, and said that if this is not approved, she recognizes we are left with three 60 foot signs. Ms. Amara stated that the Board can continue the discussion to next meeting in order to hear new information. Mr. Cohen moved to continue the Public Hearing until 10/31 at 8:30PM at the Sharon High School Library for the limited purpose of getting information from the Design Review Committee and the applicant can respond. Mr. Lauenstein seconded the motion. The Board voted 3-1-1 in favor.

 

Drive Thru Amendment

At 10:35 PM Ms. Price read the legal notice for Article 9 regarding drive-thru accessory uses and including sections 2325 and 2326. Mr. Houston stated that under the present condition a drive-thru is not permitted. By special permit, bank drive-thrus are permitted. The change would allow drive-thru’s in business District D for banks and pharmacies. In 2326, drive-thru’s for coffee shops would be special permit uses. Mr. Cohen stated the purpose of this bylaw is to enhance success of the development and Mr. Shelmerdine agreed. Ms. Sloan asked if there was a limit to the number of drive-thru’s and Mr. Rudman said as a practical matter you would not have more than one pharmacy, but you could have more than one bank.

 

Mr. Cohen moved to close the Public Hearing at 10:55 PM on the proposed warrant Article. The Public Hearing was closed by a vote of 5-0-0. Mr. Cohen said he thinks this is in the Town’s interest. Mr. Lauenstein had trouble with the concept of a drive-thru in a New England village theme. He is concerned with the lack of limit on the number of businesses with drive-thru capability. He also said drive thru's are incompatible with a pedestrian mall. He is concerned with the net increase of impervious surfaces. Mr. Hauser commented that he wants this to be successful. Mr. Cohen said you need a special permit for coffee shops but banks and pharmacies are by right. Mr. Cohen moved that the Planning Board recommend approval of Article 9 scheduled for Town Meeting. The Board voted 3-1-1 in favor.  

 

Meeting Minutes

Review of the meeting minutes of 10/2/07 were postponed until 10/31/07.

 

Calendar of Events for the Planning Board

1. October 31st – Public Hearing to discuss three Citizen’s Petition Articles.

2. November 14th –Discussion of Brickstone preliminary subdivision submission

 

Sign Review

None.

 

Bond Reduction

None.

 

Form A

Mr. Cohen moved to approve the plan of land dated 10/15/07 on Norwood Street as not requiring approval under the subdivision control law. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

 

 

Other Business

·         Chair’s report was read by Mr. Hauser.

·         Eisenhower Drive Extension request was withdrawn.

·         Mr. Hauser read the letter from Attorney Gelerman as pertains to the Brickstone Preliminary Plan which says that the Boards failure to act in a timely manner on the preliminary plan does not impact the zoning freeze effect of filing the plan. Mr. Cohen said the preliminary plan is not binding.

 

Meeting Adjournment

Mr. Cohen moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:35 PM and Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.