Town of Sharon Planning Board

Meeting Minutes of 11/14/07

Amended and Approved on 11/28/07

Planning Board Attendees

Eli Hauser – Chair - absent	Paul Lauenstein
Arnold Cohen – Vice Chair	Amanda Sloan
Susan Price – Clerk

Peter O’Cain, Assistant Town Engineer, Consultant

Attendees

John Twohig

Anne Bingham

Kyla Bennett, PEER

Meeting Initiation

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Vice Chair Arnold Cohen. Mr. Lauenstein read the Chair’s report.

Meeting Minutes

Mr. Lauenstein moved to accept the minutes of 10/2/07 as amended. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 4-0-0 in favor.

Ms. Price moved to accept the minutes of 10/17/07 as amended. Mr. Lauenstein seconded the motion. The Board voted 4-0-0 in favor.

Review of the meeting minutes of 10/31 were postponed until 11/28/07.

Preliminary Subdivision Plan Review of Sharon Hills

Mr. O’Cain stated that he reviewed the Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Sharon Hills, dated October 1, 2007 and the revised Plan and Profile sheet dated January 12, 2008. The plans were reviewed as per the requirements of Section 3.2.2 – 3.2.20 of the Land Subdivision Rules and Regulations of the Planning Board of the Town of Sharon, adopted 2001 and the Zoning By-laws of the Town of Sharon amended through June, 2005.   He commented that the preliminary plan does not lock the applicant into filing the same plan for the definitive filing. He reviewed his letter sent to Daylor Consulting Group with items that did not meet the checklist criteria.

#1 - The record owner of the property and the applicant of the property is not indicated.

#2 - The locus map is not legible. Legible roadway names were not included as per section 3.2.2.5.

#3 - Outcroppings are not included on the plan and need to be. There should be a legend for the line-types of outcroppings and buffers.

#4 - As per 3.2.2.9., lot dimensions are required.  It is unclear whether the “379.47” label is associated with the frontage on lot C-3 or C-2.

#5 - As per section 3.2.2.10., the plan must include widths of the pavement of adjacent streets.

#6 - As per 3.2.2.11., the plan should include contour labels on Sheet 2 of 3.  The drawing extent on sheet 2 of 3 has detail that is insufficient for review due to the scale and also due to the fact that no contour labels have been provided.  Section 3.2.2.1. also requires water bodies and their maximum elevations with the date of measurement.  A contour sheet should be provided for lots abutting the proposed roadway that are proposed for construction and lots A-2 and A-3.

#7 - Section 3.2.2.12. requires soil types to be included on a plan sheet.  The sheet should also include the subdivision outline, so soil type within the proposed development can be readily evaluated.  It should be noted that the applicant has submitted a small plan on Figure 2-2 of their application package.  The Board may choose to accept the data as submitted.

#8 - The Plan and Profile sheet indicates an easement for the proposed detention basin. Section 4.5.1.1 states the detention/retention basins must be contained on a separate parcel or lot. The area for the detention basin must be subtracted from the total area of lots C-3 and C-4.

#9 - The applicant has provided a roadway profile as specified in Section 3.2.2.12, however, the roadway proposed exceed the maximum allowable deviation of cut and fill (please refer to section 4.2.5.5.).  As stated in 4.2.5.5., “The centerline grade of roadways shall not deviate from existing ground……by more than ten (10.0’) feet and the average of the absolute value of the deviation shall not be more than three (3.0’) feet.  The applicant is proposing elevations over 21 feet above existing grade at station 5+24.04 (see sheet 3 of 3).  The applicant is also proposing a cut of 12.17 feet at station 2+50.  Additionally, the structure identified as DMH @ station 5+24.04 is proposed to be 23 feet deep.  It is unlikely that the applicant’s contractor can even dig 23 feet down on the site without significant blasting and maintenance of a 23-foot deep structure is extremely difficult.  The applicants plan calls for a twenty (20’) foot high retaining wall at the end of the roadway, which is not the ideal location for a wall at the end of a road with a 7% slope, although not prohibited by any by-law.  Since the road proposed cannot be built due to proposed doubling of the maximum fill requirement and exceeding the cut limit of 10 feet, the wall issue is a moot point. 

#10 - The detail of “Road C” on Sheet 3 of 3 has proposed contours that are incorrectly drawn and the roadway could not be constructed as submitted.  Note, for example, the 324-foot contour on the right side of the roadway crosses contours from 330 to 340 feet, which would be impossible to construct.

Mr. O’Cain stated they are filing a MEPA filing on what they are actually proposing on the definitive subdivision plan.

Mr. Cohen stated that whatever we do, this has no binding effect. The applicant can still file a definitive plan. The Board can approve the preliminary plan, deny the plan or deny the plan with conditions. If the plan is denied, the Board needs to issue a decision as to why it is being denied.  He said the purpose behind the preliminary plan is for the developer to receive feedback from the Board.

Ms. Sloan commented that this was just submitted as a placeholder and it is not the actual plan they will be using.

Mr. Cohen stated an alternative could be to approve the preliminary plan subject to the condition that the comments set forth in Peter O’Cain’s 11/4/07 memo are incorporated into the plan.

Anne Bingham of 9 Sherwood Circle suggested the Planning Board evaluate the plan for face value. The Board of Health has no comment on the plan because there is no soil analysis so there is nothing to comment on yet. She also stated the Board of Health wanted to know where the septic systems would be placed.

Mr. Cohen said if the Board does not make a decision there are no legal consequences.

Mr. Lauenstein said if the Board disapproves the plan; it is conceivable that we would receive a new plan with what is actually envisioned or get the plan back to cure the ills that Peter O’Cain identified.

Mr. Cohen stated that might be a reason to deny the plan. The purpose of this review is to see what the issues are.

Mr. O’Cain commented that he never saw a preliminary plan that was submitted twice.

Kyla Bennett of NE PEER said there are legal duties that must be complied with. Section 3.2.2.14 says you need a cross section of open channel streams.  She said there are flaws on the plan in direct contradiction to the bylaws.

Mr. Cohen said the preliminary plan is advisory; it doesn’t mean the subdivision is approved.

Ms. Bennett also pointed out that the plan showed Lot B-2 as 1.53 acres instead of 15.3 acres, which according to Mr. Keane of Daylor Engineering was a drafting error which will be fixed.

Mr. Lauenstein moved to disapprove the preliminary subdivision plan based on reasons set forth by Peter O’Cain, Assistant Town Engineer, in his11/4 memo. Ms. Sloan seconded the motion. The Board voted 2-2. Mr. Hauser was not present.

Ms. Price commented that all of Peter O’Cain’s items could be addressed in a definitive plan. Ms. Price moved to approve the preliminary subdivision plan conditional upon modifications due to Peter O’Cain comments. She also stated that a correction is needed on the plan to lot B-2 acreage. Also any open channel stream should be indicated per section 3.2.2.14.  Mr. Cohen seconded the motion and the Board voted 2-2. Mr. Hauser was not present.

Follow-up is needed with Attorney Gelerman to determine if a tie vote requires the Board to prepare a letter of denial or approval of the preliminary plan to Brickstone.

Other Business

Mr. Lauenstein complimented Ms. Sloan and Ms. Price on the success of the Shape Bylaw.

Calendar of Events for the Planning Board

November 28^th – Discussion of Hunter’s Ridge

Sign Review

None.

Bond Reduction

None.

Form A

None.

Meeting Adjournment

Mr. Lauenstein moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 PM and Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 4-0-0 in favor.