Town of Sharon Planning Board

Meeting Minutes of Public Hearing of 10/31/07

Amended and Approved on 12/12/07

 

 

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

Tom Houston, PSC

Alanna Edstrom

Dick Gelerman

Richard Gray

Bob Shelmerdine

Don Gilligan

Anne Bingham

Alice Cheyer

Alan Kurland

Rita Corey

Kyla Bennett, PEER

Paul and Judy Bookbinder

Bob Daylor, Daylor Engineering

Joe Kamara

Joanne McGinnis

Mr. Oliveri

Judith Phillips

Dr. Bennett

Marty Spagat, Brickstone

John Twohig, Brickstone

John Kusmiersy, Brickstone

 

 

Meeting Initiation

This evening’s meeting was held at the Sharon High School Library located at 181 Pond Street. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Chair Eli Hauser who reviewed the agenda for the evening. He stated that a Public Hearing would be held to discuss Warrant Articles 1, 2 and 3 for the Warrant of 11/20/07 Special Town Meeting. In addition, Article 8 will be discussed after 8:30 PM to hear from the Design Review Committee appointed by the ZBA and from the representative from Sharon Commons. He said the procedure would be that the hearings on Articles 1, 2 and 3 would be opened at the same time.  The proponents will present their position. He will defer to the Board for questions and solicit input from the Board members. The audience can ask the presenters questions and the Chair will ensure that everyone is treated the same. He recognized Tom Houston’s participation as Consultant to the Town of Sharon. He stated that Town Counsel, Dick Gelerman, was also present.

 

Articles 1, 2 and 3 

The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:35 PM. Ms. Price read the Legal Notices as printed in the Sharon Advocate of October 12th for Articles 1, 2 and 3.

 

Anne Bingham of 9 Sherwood Circle spoke about the Articles as proponent and one of the signers of the petition. Ms. Bingham stated that she is cognizant that she's both the Chair of the Board of Health and proponent of the Articles. She said that those working on these Articles feel it is the correct thing to do. She said the Articles concern a matter of both public health and the natural character of the Town.

 

Ms. Bingham continued by stating that Article 1 constitutes a complete rescission of the zoning from the May Town Meeting. She said there are several points to consider related to water, school costs, and public health. She said that if one adds up the new housing units coming to Sharon represented by Avalon Bay, Simpson, Wilber School, etc. there are over 1,300 units – 21% of the currently existing 6,140 homes in Sharon. She said a 21% increase in housing units is significant and that half of these new units would be attributable to the proposed Brickstone development.  In addition she stated that Sharon’s Water Management Act permit only allows pumping of 650 million gallons per year from Sharon’s municipal wells. Last year 521 million gallons of water were pumped. If we exceed our Water Management Act permit, we may need to import supplementary water from the MWRA.  This cost was not accounted for in the net tax revenue figure of about $3 million presented at May Town Meeting. She said that the water pumped out of Taunton Basin already exceeds our permitted allowance from that watershed, and added that the level of Lake Massapoag is low.  In addition, zero school children were projected which never considered the 69 affordable units needed to offset Brickstone’s share of Sharon’s 40B quota, at least some of which would have children. Additionally the estimate of 16% of the units taken up at Brickstone by people living in Sharon could lead to the sale of approximately 100 homes, many of which would be occupied by families with school children, leading to extra 200-250 children in Sharon’s public schools. She also discussed potential contamination of the wells. She expressed the opinion that most people who voted for the Brickstone project would have not done so if it was proposed to be built in their own backyard. Easton and Stoughton residents on private wells down gradient of Brickstone’s wastewater treatment plant are also concerned about contamination of their drinking water by pharmaceuticals and personal care products. The Development Agreement does not provide Town water for everyone. The statement that the wastewater from Brickstone’s treatment plant will meet drinking water standards is not accurate. Pathogenic organic chemicals could be a public health risk. This concluded the presentation of Article 1.

 

Mr. Lauenstein commented that Brickstone advertised in the Sharon Advocate that they intend to build to LEED standards. However, they are not willing to submit to LEED certification. He said that we live in a world in dire peril of global warming and climate change. As a society, we need to be energy efficient. He feels it is irresponsible not to build to higher standards of energy and water efficiency, considering that buildings last for many decades. A suburban community like Sharon that contributes disproportionately to the problem of climate change has a special obligation to take a leadership role in finding ways to slow climate change. Approving Brickstone without requiring LEED certification is not the way to live up to that obligation.

 

Mr. Lauenstein also commented on Sharon’s legacy of natural wildlife habitat. Brickstone is proposing to build in an area that is a priority habitat of rare species at a time when species are going extinct at an accelerating rate.

 

Mr. Cohen had no questions.

 

Ms. Price asked Ms. Bingham whether, if DEP is looking at the impact concerning how to regulate pharmaceuticals and personal care products and their potential impact on wastewater and groundwater, when this and other developments are either built or under construction wouldn’t DEP come up with new standards for those projects. Ms. Bingham, a former employee of the Department of Environmental Protection, replied that concern about the health risks of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the water supply is relatively new, and regulations lag behind the science.

 

Ms. Sloan said she would make her comments at the end of the discussion.

 

Mr. Hauser asked if they had met with other Boards to validate their conclusions. Ms. Bingham stated she had met with the Finance Committee, the Board of Health and had a private conversation with Jane Desberg from the Housing Authority. She added that other proponents had met with the Conservation Commission to discuss Article 1. Mr. Hauser asked if they talked to the School Committee and Ms. Bingham replied no. He then stated that the estimates were developed by Ms. Bingham with no outside School Committee review. She replied that Brickstone said 165 of the occupants would come from Sharon. Mr. Cohen remarked that many of the people from Sharon moving in to Brickstone would have moved from their homes in Sharon anyway. Mr. Hauser commented that the legislative body is Town Meeting. He stated that Ms Bingham’s team did not have enough dialogue with the Town Boards or personnel in developing their estimates. He personally believes that the 1,200 people who voted made their decision last Spring at Town Meeting, based on considerable information, for a process that went over 18 months; with an intense set of public meetings, working sessions, information sessions, and presentations in the Spring with Town personnel, Town Boards and the community.

 

Mr. Lauenstein stated that Brickstone’s 624-unit proposal was only considered for two months leading up to May Town Meeting. He said the Water Management Advisory Committee held 2 extra meetings leading up to Town Meeting in which they formulated a number of recommendations; only one of which was reflected in the development agreement. In the two months prior, the boards did not have time to properly digest the information. He doesn’t feel the Water Management Advisory Committee input was taken into account.

 

Mr. Hauser questioned why the proponent of Article 1 did not meet with many of the Town Boards in the past six months.

 

Ms. Bingham stated that if you voted yes on the Brickstone question in May, think again about Brickstone building 8 stories in your neighborhood.

 

Ms. Price asked if the 1.75 school children per household used to estimate the potential impact of the Brickstone development on Sharon’s public schools were an average based on existing Town statistics. Ms. Bingham stated that this is an overall estimate.

 

Mr. Lauenstein pointed out that the projected $3.2 million in net tax revenue doesn’t take into account Brickstone’s contribution to the cost for educating kids or importing costly MWRA water, or dealing with issues related to potential contamination of private wells down-gradient from Brickstone’s wastewater treatment plant. It is simplistic to think there would be no additional school children resulting from Brickstone. Voters should consider the number of children moving in.

 

Don Gilligan of 610 Mountain Street, member of the School Committee, addressed the issue of school children. He said if the developers estimate of the average age of the residents moving in is age 75, if those people lived in a large house, then 1.75 kids is representative of large homes. They would have moved out of those homes whether Brickstone was built or not. People are moving out of their houses because it no longer fits their needs – not because of Brickstone. The introduction of Brickstone may or may not have influenced them to move out. There are many other reasons people move out.

 

Richard Gray of 756 Mountain Street asked if the Planning Board had legal authority. He questioned whether Board members had been properly sworn in. Mr. Cohen replied that the Board assumes it had legal authority.

 

Rita Corey of 282 Mountain Street said that the Articles were railroaded through in the Spring Town Meeting. She felt the Selectmen kept information from the public. She stated the language in the Development Agreement kept changing as recently as 2-3 days before Town Meeting. She said that preserving something valuable is more important than money. She asked how many of the Planning Board members visited the land and all except Chairman Hauser said that they had.

 

Kyla Bennett, of N.E. PEER, from North Easton, asked Mr. Hauser when you say zero children are associated with the project, when you say the well will not be contaminated, is that a fact or conjecture or opinion. Citizens have a constitutional right to bring these concerns forward. Dialogue with other Town boards and committees was not conducted. They had an attorney prepare the article.

 

Mr. Hauser replied that his view on the number of children is an informed opinion. A macro analysis on school children would need to be done and it would be much more complex than presented in determining the relationship between housing turnover and children. Mr. Hauser also indicated that he would defer to the School Committee on the impact of any development in increasing the number of school children.

 

Ms. Edstrom of 160 Eagle Rock Road in Stoughton stated “this is contamination without representation.” She feels Brickstone does not care about the neighbors on private wells. Everyone up and down Bay Road is on private well water. PPCP’s were tested in California and cancer may occur in 10 years. She is worried about health issues. She stated if you look at the real estate market, the developer may not be able to fill the units. How can you guarantee the average age; how is it not possible to have grandchildren living there? There is no protection of people in other Towns from the blasting and they are treating the neighbors in a despicable manner. She asked Planning Board members if they would consider moving into a home with a private drinking water well downhill from a wastewater treatment plant.

 

Attorney Gelerman stated that paragraph 1.4 of the development agreement contains the age restriction. One of the speakers had commented that blasting would affect the preserved property.

 

Mr. Hauser said that blasting is a controlled regulated activity. He said that at the Public Hearing last spring, the Fire Chief answered questions about blasting and regulation.

 

Ms. Price commented that she does not see how blasting on the 87 acres for the development will affect the 250 acres to be preserved.

 

Mr. Lauenstein, responding to Ms. Edstrom’s question, said he would not move into a home with a private well downhill of Brickstone because of concerns about water contamination.

 

Allan Kurland of Boulder Lane said he lives in close proximity to Brickstone. He is concerned about the environment and traffic. He felt there was poor communication between the Selectmen, developer and residents who were not aware of the full impact. Boulder Lane residents all have individual wells, and will presumably not be connected to Town water. He said that residents living on his street were unaware of the balloon test that was taken.

 

Mr. Houston stated that the developer had a consultant perform a traffic study. PSC did a peer review for the adequacy of the traffic study. The traffic study, discussed operational and safety studies for both sides of Bay Road. There are sight limitations, which can be remedied by brush cutting and possible road widening. Traffic signals could be installed on Bay Road at East Street by Crescent Ridge, and also at Plain Street. The timing of the Cobbs Corner signals could be changed. He also stated that any change to the section of Bay Road controlled by the Town of Stoughton would need to be approved by the Town of Stoughton.

 

Ms. Price said at the Public Hearing in the spring, the Town of Stoughton seemed opposed to authorize traffic signals on Bay Road. She asked what would happen if Stoughton refused to authorize Roadway mitigation measures.

 

Mr. Houston said his understanding is that the roadways are in the physical control of Stoughton. Traffic operations at the three intersections would be delayed and the streets would remain as is.

 

Mr. Lauenstein asked about traffic lights on Bay Road other than the one at Cobbs Corner.  Mr. Houston said the developer had volunteered to add traffic signals at East and Plain Streets if the Stoughton authorities agree.

 

Mr. Gelerman said that the development agreement with regard to Bay Road, section 8.1 and 8.2, shows primary access from Bay Road. The conditions for site plan approval are contained in the Zoning By-laws section 4367. The traffic impact issue is addressed in the developer agreement.

 

Judy Bookbinder of 738 Mountain Street stated that the impact of blasting was discussed at a Selectmen’s meeting. She has asked the Fire Chief about deeper blasting and larger areas and whether he was cognizant of the effects. She said he stated he did not have any idea of what the impact of blasting would be; or complications that could result. Before the Town Meeting, she wants to know what, if any, provision had Brickstone agreed to and what guarantee did the Selectmen agree to if any home or private well is damaged, or pollution that result from Brickstone’s wastewater effluent. She asked what guarantee does the homeowner have for mitigation because she thinks there is no such commitment.

 

Mr. Gelerman stated that the development agreement, paragraph 7, exhibit 1, states there will be an independent blasting consultant to do a preblast survey for properties potentially to be affected. If there is damage caused due to activities of the developer there are provisions addressing that. It makes sense to have a consultant determine which homes would be most likely affected. If harmed by blasting there is indemnification for the homeowner. Mr. Houston said there is also protection in the Zoning By-law section 4387 for existing offsite structures and facilities.

 

Ms. Bingham said that the development agreement was between the developer and the three Selectmen. Mr. Gelerman said this is an enforceable agreement. In addition, the terms of the development agreement are reasonable. He said it will be enforceable also when it is included as a condition of the site plan approval. It is not correct to suggest it is not enforceable. He said it is enforceable as a contract and as a zoning bylaw.

 

Judy Bookbinder of 738 Mountain Street followed up to Mr. Gelerman’s statement by saying he said that the outside contractor will make the judgment concerning which homes would be at risk or impacted. She asked what recourse someone will have if their home is not among those selected for inspection prior to blasting. Mr. Gelerman indicated that they could sue.

 

Judith Phillips of 2 East Street asked if anyone thought about the impact on traffic in the center of Town. Mr. Houston commented that there is nothing in the traffic study that indicates substantial increase in traffic in Sharon center due to drivers seeking alternate routes. He said it is not a reasonable concern.

 

Ms. Sloan said that she wished to point out that Eli Hauser, who is the Chair of the Planning Board, is also on the Economic Development Committee which worked hard to make agreements with the developer to pave the way for this development. She wished to point out that the Planning Board did not unanimously support Sharon Hills; in fact, the vote last spring by the Planning Board was 3 in favor but 2 opposed, a split vote. A development like this could be a fine addition to the Town but not in this location. We do need more revenue but what’s missing from the economic plan is land planning. No one asked, “Where is the most appropriate place for this development,” and as a result it has been allowed in the most inappropriate place possible. She is very concerned that the two other abutting Towns were not consulted before such a significant development with 8-story towers was put forth. In the corner of Town where this development is proposed, there are dirt roads and homes on private well water. It is one of the only parts of Town that is not serviced by Town water, so water is going from septic systems to wells that produce drinking water. She is concerned when the proponents speak of “landscaping” along Bay Road, because this means the cutting of trees along this historic and scenic byway. She is concerned because the development is in a historically significant place. It is a significant natural habitat. It is not near a highway or a hospital for safety of the residents. There is too much impact of the project on two other Towns. The issue of personal care products is an emerging issue, not an issue that has been decided already. There is not enough research done yet and it cannot be dismissed as a risk. Ms. Sloan cited the W.R. Grace chemical factory in Woburn, which caused cancer deaths in its neighborhood due to contaminated well water, and Global Warming, as examples of two environmental issues which were first doubted and now are well accepted as threats. She said this may be a similar case.  Several years ago the Town tried to save this tract of land. We should be doing all we can as a Town to save the land. We do not want to see a subdivision or Sharon Hills put there; it should not be developed in any way.

 

Article 8 – Public Hearing continued from October 17th, 2007

At 9:10 PM, Mr. Hauser stated it was now time to transition to Bob Shelmerdine, representative of Sharon Commons regarding Article 8, to allow commercial signs in a residential district. This discussion was a continuation of the Public Hearing regarding this Article which commenced on 10/17/07. The purpose of Article 8 is to allow signs for Sharon Commons to be placed on South Main Street in a residential zoning district. The Zoning By-laws need to be amended because signs are not a permitted use in a residential district. Mr. Shelmerdine and Mr. Intoccia were present. They want one pylon and one monument sign to announce the development. The developer’s team has met with the Design Review Committee. Mr. Hauser said there would be no questions from the audience just comments from the proponent. 

 

Mr. Shelmerdine said he and his client met with the Design Review Committee and have come to an understanding. Mr. Olivieri, of Norwood Street, representing the Design Review Committee, said he agreed with the proponent. Mr. Olivieri said the developer worked with them.  Mr. Shelmerdine stated he also met with the Finance Committee and believes the Finance Committee majority will support this one change to Article 8. He said the Finance Committee wanted the sign location area narrowed down. The pylon sign and monument will be limited to the area at the intersection of Old Post Road and South Main Street, in a 160-foot circumference.

 

Mr. Cohen said this looks like a more restricted area. Mr. Lauenstein expressed his appreciation for the sign compromise. Mr. Shelmerdine said the sign will be limited in terms of the type and amount of lighting at night. Ms. Sloan expressed appreciation to the proponent and Design Review Committee.

 

Mr. O’Cain asked Mr. Shelmerdine if the land where the sign would be located is in the state or county layout.

 

Mr. Cohen moved to close the public hearing on Article 8. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The board voted 5-0-0 to close the public hearing on Article 8.

 

Mr. Cohen moved to recommend to Town Meeting approval of Article 8 on the Warrant as developer proposes to amend. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor of recommendation of Article 8 as amended.

 

Articles 1, 2 and 3 Public Hearing resumed

Mr. Hauser recognized Anne Bingham to discuss Article 2. She stated that Article 2 is about cutting the permitted density in half to allow 312 dwelling units, 4 stories in height and a 75 bed nursing home. This is being offered as a second alternative. If cut in half, water issues and traffic would also be cut in half. The main objection she heard to this Article is it would not be economically feasible to the developer. To this she said that the developer has not demonstrated that a smaller scale development would be uneconomic. She said the Striar proposal would have been approximately 300 units and supposedly would have been financially feasible.

 

Ms. Bingham stated that Article 3 would provide a special permit process which would enable Town Boards and Committees in charge of permits to be able to respond more effectively to site specific concerns.

 

Mr. Cohen said Article 2 essentially cuts the project to one half the number of units. He said the owner of the property will not build if this article was passed. The Town would not receive the benefits of the Developer Agreement. He asked whether, if Article 2 passes, there are any requirements to get extra land, money etc.

 

Ms. Bingham replied that, of course, the developers say they wouldn’t build their development at a reduced scale. She said that until we see numbers that show it is economically not feasible to build a smaller development, it’s nothing more than conjecture to draw that conclusion.

 

Mr. Cohen said his sense is that the developer would not cut the development in half. He then stated that Mr. Lauenstein brought up LEED certification. He asked Brickstone’s representative what their position is on this and did they refuse to build according to LEED certification.

 

John Twohig, Attorney for Brickstone, said this project is not designed yet. He said they would use energy saving devices. He said they will meet much of the LEED certification standards but noted that only one building in Boston has achieved platinum LEED certification, and acknowledged that Brickstone does not intend to actually LEED-certify their development.

 

Mr. Cohen raised the issue of PPCP’s and asked the owner to respond.

 

Bob Daylor, of Daylor Consulting said the EPA had done a lot of research. He said the EPA looked at European papers, US geological survey of streams and stream sampling has found very small amounts in the water. He is unsure if this issue will be regulated at the time of construction. If it is, they will comply. DEP is not regulating PPCP’s at this point. Beauty parlor waste does not go to treatment plants, it is collected in tight tanks, pumped out and removed. They believe, based on all existing research, it is not a real threat to public health. They will meet EPA rules as pertains to ground water discharge.

 

Mr. Cohen asked Mr. O’Cain about the water impact on the Town. Mr. O’Cain stated the DPW calculations indicate the Town will not exceed the permit limit even if all of the proposed projects are built. He said Sharon is getting close to the permit limit but the Town has no intent to connect to MWRA. He said having working plans to do so would be prudent...

 

Mr. O’Cain stated we would have to implement a water ban before being allowed to join MWRA.

 

Mr. Lauenstein said that water use varies year to year. Sharon has a permit to withdraw 649 million gallons per year. In 2006 Sharon used 521 million gallons, 65 million gallons less than the 586 million gallons used in 2005. The Town seems to be responding to efforts to encourage conservation of water. He commented that DPW Superintendent Eric Hooper recommended at a Water Management Advisory Committee meeting that Sharon should aim to use not more than 90% of the Town’s pumping permit in order to be sure not to exceed the permitted amount.

 

Alice Cheyer of 1 Glendale Road asked what a priority development habitat was.  Mr. O’Cain stated it is an area that has rare and endangered wildlife. This is in an area to be donated to the Conservation Commission. The entire 337-acre parcel has been officially designated as Priority Habitat of Rare Species by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program.

 

Mr. Gelerman said paragraph 5 of the Development Agreement, shows $100K to BOS for water system mitigation and improvement.

 

Alice Cheyer asked if Article 2 cuts the development in half would the development still provide for 250 areas of conservation land.

 

Mr. Gelerman stated that the Development Agreement  set forth the developer’s obligation to donate conservation land to the Town. The commitment is predicated upon the project continuing as agreed to; that if any of these Articles passed, the Development Agreement is voided and the Town would not receive the benefits.

 

Joanne MacInnis of 2131 Bay Road said she lives 1,100 linear feet from the entryway. She has been put in the Development Agreement  for water. She asked how easily the Development Agreement is changed. Her name is mentioned in the Development Agreement as an abutter who might be affected by the development but she doesn’t have a copy and was wondering if it could be changed without her being contacted.

 

Mr. Gelerman said it is legally possible for the two parties to alter the agreement but conditions of the development agreement will become provisions of the site plan approval. He said that the BOS will not delete anyone mentioned in the Development Agreement from the benefits of the agreement without prior notification.  Ms. MacInnis asked why Coach Lane residents and Boulder Lane residents were not to receive Town water.

 

Joe Kamara, 9 Boulder Lane, said the people on Boulder Lane are close to the leaching field. He asked why a special provision was made for some and not others who would be most affected. They are direct abutters and not being treated equally. Mr. Gelerman asked Mr. Kamara to contact him tomorrow. Mr. Gelerman will speak to the engineer and the developer. His experience is if there is a reasonable concern they will address it.

 

Judy Bookbinder of 738 Mountain Street stated there is inconsistent information on waste water. The treatment facility will purportedly transform wastewater to drinking quality so that the impact on private wells would be insignificant. On the other hand the Development Agreement provides for some abutters to be hooked up to Town water in order to avoid the possibility of drinking contaminated water from private wells. It is inconsistent; if the water is drinkable, the developer should not have to connect any of the neighbors to Town water.

 

Mr. Houston replied that there are a number of houses in the area to be connected to the water main which will be extended further along Mountain Street and along Coach Lane. Some homeowners will have to pay for hooking up to Town water and others will be hooked up to municipal water by the developer at no charge to the homeowner.

 

Rita Cory of 282 Mountain Street said she was surprised the Planning Board did not have maps of the streets at the hearing.

 

Mr. Daylor stated that the development agreement extends water to serve all of Coach Lane, if they can get an easement. He said that any place where they could extend water mains within the Town and its water system, they have been extended; where it is physically and legally possible.

 

Joe Kamara of 9 Boulder Lane said he sees preferential treatment for some people getting water. He asked why certain costs are waived and said it does not seem fair.

 

Paul Bookbinder of 738 Mountain Street said the main will not come down Mountain and Bay Road because it is financially not feasible and Mr. Houston replied that was correct.

 

Mr. O’Cain stated the cost to hook a house up is $4,000 to $9,000 in the development agreement.  The Sharon Water Department charges $4,000 to connect to Town water. It costs roughly $5,000 additional to run a service line from the water main to the house.

 

Daylor said the primary concern of some residents was that the effects of blasting would leave some with no value to their homes. The developer met with neighbors, listened to their concerns, and agreed to extend the water.

 

Joanne MacInnis of 2131 Bay Road acknowledged that the developers went out of their way to get her water.

 

Mr. Cohen moved to close the Public Hearing on Articles 1, 2 and 3. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 to close the public hearing.

 

Mr. Lauenstein commented that the developer’s estimated net tax benefit of $3.2 million per year does not include any adjustment for school children in the houses vacated or in the 69 affordable units. Furthermore, no allowance was made for the cost of importing supplementary water from MWRA, or for the cost of potential lawsuits over contamination of nearby private drinking water wells. Therefore, the estimated $3.2 million net tax benefit is suspect. Much is made of the 250 acre gift of conservation land. However, significant numbers of acres are wetlands and would be off limits to development anyway. There are also other significant limitations to development such as ledge and steep slopes that mean that any development on Rattlesnake Hill would have to include substantial areas of undeveloped land

 

Mr. Cohen said he appreciated all who expressed their feelings. There was a big turnout at Town Meeting at which the bylaw passed by the necessary 2/3 vote. People came who didn’t normally attend Town Meeting . A 2/3 vote will be needed to rescind the bylaw that was passed in May, 2007. He does not think the issues being raised now are new issues. They were all raised before.  The 250 acres going to the Town is important. With this plan we have more opportunity. Whatever else they could build would be worse.  He will make the same vote as last time to recommend.

 

Ms. Sloan said that she had no additional comments.

 

Ms. Price said Article 1 would repeal the Senior Living Overlay District. She thinks senior housing is an important use for the Town. Of benefit is the conservation of 250 acres of land; a majority of the property would be saved. At a Planning Conference, she attended a session on senior housing and the senior advocates stated that “the seniors are coming and we are not ready.” Developers said there are not many properties near Boston for continuing care facilities.  Article 2 would reduce dimensional standards like building height and increase buffers for neighbors which sound like great ideas.  She added that, however, the Article would make changes that are too significant in terms of reducing the dimensional standards and would put the project and 250 acres in jeopardy. Concerning Article 3, Ms. Price said that there are already stringent standards in place in the zoning and development agreement and this is unnecessary. She added that Article 3 is not only about adding special permit requirements but it makes other changes to the text, including removing language for small retail stores, and changing language concerning ZBA authority and how consultants for peer review are to be selected.

 

Mr. Hauser commented that the development and rezoning proposal had considerable public review in the spring in numerous presentations and meetings with many Town Boards, and employees, as well as in multiple informational meetings with neighborhood and citizen groups. The proponent on these 3 Articles met only with the minimal boards required to place the Article on the Town Warrant, the BOS, FinCom, and now the Planning Board's Public Hearing. The Town has been working to obtain this land for many years and is now positioned to receive 250 acres. The questions of alternative use would be worse in terms of control. The development agreement would be null and void if we move forward with any of these zoning changes. He said $10 million dollars in capital investment would be lost. He said $3.2 million dollars is substantial. We need to strike a balance in estimating what is reasonable.

 

Mr. Cohen moved that the Planning Board recommend to Town Meeting to take no action on Article 1 at the 11/5/07 Special Town Meeting. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted to take no action on Article 1 by a vote of 3-1-1.

 

Mr. Cohen moved that the Planning Board recommend to Town Meeting to take no action on Article 2 at the 11/5/07 Special Town Meeting. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted to take no action on Article 2 by a vote of 3-1-1.

 

Mr. Cohen moved that the Planning Board recommend to Town Meeting to take no action on Article 3 at the 11/5/07 Special Town Meeting. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted to take no action on Article 3 by a vote of 3-1-1.

 

Article 13

Mr. Gelerman discussed changes to the proposed Inclusionary Zoning bylaw because some of the language is unclear. Mr. Cohen said he believed Planning Board members thought Brickstone was excluded. He asked why this is this important and why should the Planning Board do this. Mr. Twohig said this would void the development agreement. Mr. Houston said it was never the intent to include Sharon Hills. He concurs with Mr. Twohig that the language is unclear and recommended it be changed to make it clear.  Mr. Gelerman produced a handout in the form of Article 13 and a redline version showing a copy of what appears and how it will appear in the Warrant.

 

Mr. Lauenstein suggested this Article be withdrawn at this point because altering the Article at the last minute is an issue. Also, because there is unanimous opposition by Finance Committee, he thinks it should be postponed.

 

Alice Cheyer of 1 Glenview Road supports Mr. Lauenstein’s suggestion to withdraw the Inclusionary Housing Article. She said it is a good bylaw that provides an alternative method to affordable housing.

 

Ms. Sloan thinks this last minute change is an attempt at CYA. She said Mr. Lauenstein did a great amount of work and hopes this goes through in the future.

 

Mr. Cohen moved that the Board withdraw the Planning Board Article 14. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor of the motion.

 

Meeting Minutes

Review of the meeting minutes of 10/2/07 and 10/17/07 were postponed until 11/14/07.

 

Calendar of Events for the Planning Board

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

 

Sign Review

None.

 

Bond Reduction

None.

 

Form A

None.

 

Meeting Adjournment

Mr. Cohen moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:40 PM and Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.