Town of Sharon Planning Board

Meeting Minutes of 1/30/08

Amended and approved on 2/13/08

Planning Board Attendees

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

Peter O’Cain, Town Engineer, Consultant

Attendees

Stephen Kenney - Attny for Kenney Estate	Sheila Griffin - 18 Huntington Avenue
David Wluka - Agent for Solstice Dev	Trish Condon - 11 Huntington Avenue
Ernst Polyak - Solstice Development, LLC.	Herbert Gould - 23 Huntington Avenue
Fred Clark - Mirrione Realty	Shirley Schofield - 45 Cottage Street
Richard Mandell - 580 Mountain Street	Victor Smetana - 165 N. Main Street
Arlyne Mandell - 580 Mountain Street	Gerald Wine - 33 Lantern Lane
James Spoto - 61 Lantern Lane	Sandra Wine - 33 Lantern Lane
Robin Estrin - 66 Cheryl Drive	Daniel Huse - 54 Huntington Avenue
Liz Dichiara - 24 Lantern Lane	Paul Oliviera - Norwood Street
Chris Raskin - 55 Huntington Avenue

Meeting Initiation

The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM by Chair Eli Hauser who reviewed the Chair’s report.

Meeting Minutes

Mr. Cohen moved to accept the minutes of 1/16/08 as amended. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

Form A’s

Mr. O’Cain presented a Form A for 1481 Bay Road located in the Single Residence A district. Mr. O’Cain stated that this Form A was given to Greg Meister to have the wetlands on Lot 1 reviewed. Mr. O’Cain discussed with the applicant’s attorney that the Planning Board can reject the Form A and he can refile or an extension can be provided. Mr. O’Cain stated that all else on the checklist has been addressed. Mr. Cohen moved not to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the subdivision control law on the grounds it may not comply with the requirements of showing wetlands. If the applicant reapplies after confirming the wetlands, they do not have to pay a second filing fee. Ms. Price seconded the motion and Board voted 5-0-0 in favor of this motion.

Bonds

Mr. O’Cain presented an initial bond recommendation for King Philip Estates Subdivision, owned by Erpol Construction, of 5 Salamander Road, Sharon, MA. The costs delineated in Mr.O’Cain’s January 3, 2008, letter, of $19,000 represent the Engineering Department’s recommendation for the initial bond required for “Solstice Way” in the King Philip Estates Subdivision. The applicants appeared with proof that the $19,000 was provided to the Town Clerk. Mr. Cohen moved that the Board approve the surety bond for $19,000 for King Philips Estate Subdivision pursuant to Peter O’Cain’s 1/3/08 memorandum. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

Included in this package was a Form H which is a covenant that states that until the applicant completes certain portions of the property such as lights, drainage, roads, etc, they cannot sell the lots. Form J releases the covenant of Form H. Mr. O’Cain reviewed the property and recommends that the Board approve the release. Mr. Cohen moved that the Planning Board endorse Form J for King Philip Estates dated 1/30/08. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor of this motion.

Signs

None.

Hunter’s Ridge

The Public Hearing for Hunter’s Ridge was called to order at 7:51 PM. Ms. Price, Clerk of the Planning Board, read the legal ad announcing this hearing from the Sharon Advocate dated January 18, 2008.

Chairman Hauser began by stating that we will hear the presentation by the proponent first. Mr. Hauser will take questions from the audience and the Planning Board members. Once the Public Hearing is closed discussion will ensue amongst the Planning Board members and a vote will be taken.

Mr. Fred Clark, Attorney and Vice President of Mirrione Realty, representing Hunter’s Ridge began the presentation by stating that the Developer had met with the Planning Board on November 28, 2007 to discuss an amendment to the restriction concerning age of residents within the Hunter’s Ridge CSD Special Permit which was granted by the Planning Board on April 27, 2005. After a lengthy discussion on the merits of the Special Permit request, the Board agreed to consider the proposed amendment of the Special Permit in a Public Hearing.

Mr. Clark said that the Board had requested that Mirrione Realty prepare the language for the proposed amendment that would require 100% of the units to have at least one occupant that is 55 and older, but no more than one between eighteen and fifty-five. The Board also asked that they:

1. Address the question of whether a special permit under the CSD by-law can be amended and what process should be followed,

2. Address the question of whether the Board may legally prohibit occupants age 18 or under and whether the amendment language complies with state and federal law regarding fair housing,

3. Address the question of whether the amendment prohibitions can be enforced and

4. Address the question of how the amendment would apply to various hypothetical scenarios.

Mr. Clark said that the Board had asked that all of these questions and responses be provided to Town Counsel, Attorney Gelerman for review.

Also discussed was the Board of Health’s letter written by Anne Bingham regarding whether a change is needed to the Board of Health permit since there was a limit of three persons over age 55 and the calculations used by the Board of Health assumed all residents would be over 55.

Ms. Price noted that the Board of Health approval was for 150 gpd of water use per unit and, with the requested change, they may need to assume 220 gpd per unit (110 gpd per bedroom) of water use. She asked if the water and septic system infrastructure could accommodate these changes without a redesign. Mr. Clark replied that he did not thing the gpd would need to change. He said it is a legal issue that needs to be resolved. He also said he thought any estimated increase could be accommodated by the system they are building.

Mr. Lauenstein asked if the applicant had any plans to put up a fence on top of the stone wall and Mr. O’Cain said they are still building and need to grade the lot further back to the property line.

Mr. Lauenstein asked if the large amount of topsoil that is on the property, and cannot leave Sharon, be donated for soccer fields. Mr. Clark replied that some of the loam will be needed for the site but would consider the remainder for soccer field use. There was a discussion of whether the soil is suitable for reuse at the soccer fields.

Ms. Sloan asked Mr. O’Cain if, in order to grade the property, woodlands need to come out and Mr. O’Cain replied no.

Herb Gould of 23 Huntington Avenue questioned if the Planning Board said all people over 55 years of age. Mr. Cohen replied that is what the Special Permit states. Mr. Hauser replied that the applicant applied to the Planning Board to amend the permit to allow persons under age 55 but greater than 18. The permit as issued only allows residents over age 55. Mr. Gould asked what alternatives other than the proposed amendment the applicant would consider. Mr. Clark replied that they could go back to the current CSD language which was more liberal. They chose the more conservative approach and decided not to allow children.

Mr. Gould asked what the impacts would be if the Town does not agree to the change. Mr. Hauser stated that the applicant would have to market the development to only people greater than age 55 which the applicant had stated had been a challenge. Mr. Clark said this is a legally defined 55 and over project. He said that the properties would sell, but that it may take a lot longer if the restriction remains the same. He said that if the age restriction were changed, it would allow Mirrione Realty to market the property better. Mr. Clark also stated that the property will not be changing its focus of being an over 55 housing project.

Dan Huse of 54 Huntington Avenue asked if, in the spirit of give and take, a commitment could be given by the developer to expedite the project. He stated it is a mess and landscaping needs to be done. He asked if we are going to grant the developer a permit change whether some of these things can be addressed. Mr. Clark replied that with the permit change, they could get the project done more quickly because they can market it more easily but he would not commit to complete the project by a date certain.

Robin Estrin of 66 Cheryl Drive asked if there is a four-year limit on the timeframe to build. Mr. O’Cain stated it is four years and they can request a four-year extension.

Paul Oliviera of Norwood Street asked whether, in consideration of what the applicant is asking for, we could ask for more affordable units. The applicant is coming to us for relief. He asked what the applicant is doing to increase sales. Mr. Clark replied that they are adding in some extras, such as instead of hardwood floors being optional, they are included. There is an issue of people having to sell their primary unit before they can buy one at Hunter’s Ridge. In today’s market, the primary homes are not selling quickly and so the deals fall through to buy at Hunter’s Ridge. The interest is definitely there as currently there are five sold units.

Jim Spotto of 61 Lantern Lane asked if the Planning Board has seen a new traffic study that would reflect this change in trip generation that would occur if people under fifty-five lived in the development. The Planning Board replied that they had not. Mr. Clark commented that they are now at 47 units while the traffic study was done for more units. They do not expect an appreciable change in traffic due to this requested change. Mr. Spotto then remarked that the applicant had promised grading, but his backyard has been flooded. He said there is a drainage pipe that empties to his backyard. He feels misled and that the applicant has not lived up to their promises. Mr. Clark said they will follow the plan. If the neighbors have a particular issue, he will talk to the project manager. He suggested that they come to the office because Mr. Mirrione would not want these items unaddressed.

Mr. O’Cain said the Town installed a catch basin in front of the Wittner’s house on Cheryl Drive, paid for by Mr. Mirrione. He said, in addition, the runoff issues have been addressed. Mr. O’Cain noted that this is an unfinished site, exposed to the elements, but as soon as the site is developed, the drainage issues will be resolved. Mr. O’Cain stated he visits the site everyday. He finds that Mr. Mirrione is responsive as far as drainage. Mr. O’Cain said it is hard to control the site in the current condition.

Gerald Wine of 33 Lantern Lane asked if the developer could address his comment in which he said that if the change is allowed, the development will be completed more quickly. He also asked the developer to address the comment that 17 sales contracts were torn up because the people cannot sell their homes. Attorney Clark said this is speculative. There is always a contingency in which people could sell their homes. He is optimistic with the federal rate cuts that people will buy. Prices have declined 10% but he is hopeful the market will pick up. He stated that the demographics in Massachusetts include more people turning 55 and the need for this type of housing. Mr. Wine replied that he hears what the developer is saying yet doesn’t understand the need for the change because they still do not have more control over the sale of the primary homes and the market. Mr. Clark replied that they lost sales due to the age restriction and he is confident that sales will increase with this change.

Mr. Cohen commented that it is common sense if you loosen the restrictions, sales might be easier to make, but of course not guaranteed. His take is that the developer wants to sell units.

Ms. Price asked how many sales were lost because of the current age restriction. Mr. Clark replied that he believed about five sales were lost because of the age restriction, in cases such as where one spouse is 56 and the other is 54 or a couple is over 55 and had a disabled adult son who was between 18 and 55 years of age.

Chris Raskin of 55 Huntington Avenue asked, of the 17 contracts lost, how many were specifically for Hunter’s Ridge and not for another project. Mr. Clark replied he did not know that specific number. Mrs. Raskin asked how many units did Mirrione have to sell in order to do what was promised to abutters. Mr. Clark replied that it was not related to sales and that the major costs are in the roadways and drains, etc. Mrs. Raskin asked when trees and nicer grass would be planted. Mr. Clark replied that the common area and landscaping will be done at the same time.

Sheila Griffin of 18 Huntington Avenue asked what would happen if the Board makes this change and they still do not sell the units. Mr. Hauser replied that if no units were sold, the project could conceivably go bankrupt. Ms. Griffin also stated she lives near the retaining wall and sent Mr. Mirrione a letter regarding her stone wall which had been damaged. She said he had said he would replace it but has not done so yet. Mr. O’Cain said he would visit the property tomorrow. Mr. Cohen commented that if the wall is on her property, Mirrione should rebuild it.

Mr. Lauenstein commented that this Planning Board takes citizens concerns very seriously and that the Board is comprised of volunteers. Mr. Lauenstein also asked Mr. O’Cain if there is a bond pertaining to the landscaping. Mr. O’Cain replied yes. When Mirrione Realty completes the landscaping, they will get the bond back. Mr. O’Cain also commented that a lot has been agreed to but cannot be done because of the current state of building. As we move toward the Spring, he will work with the developer to see what can be done. The runoff on Cheryl Drive needs to be corrected in the Spring.

Ms. Sloan asked if winter rye can be planted to help control dust and erosion but Mr. O’Cain commented that he did not see how that would help. Mr. O’Cain said there is no erosion on the site. He prefers to get the soil off site.

Dan Huse of 54 Huntington Avenue stated that his home is covered with grit due to wind erosion. If grass were planted that would prevent grit from being blown.

Trish Condon of 11 Huntington Avenue asked for clarification on the number of sales lost because they did not allow one person to be under age 55. Mr. Clark replied most. Ms. Condon asked whether if the change is allowed but the units still do not sell this is opening the door for Mirrione to request a change again. Mr. Hauser replied that the applicant can apply again. Mr. Cohen said the By-Law states that you can have one person under age 55. He said the applicant chose the original language and agreed to the restriction of residents over age 55 and they may now regret that decision. He does not personally think that changing the restriction now will make it more likely to approve something in the future as there is no logical connection.

Mr. Cohen moved to close the Public Hearing and Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 to close the Public Hearing.

Planning Board Discussion of Hunter’s Ridge

Ms. Price commented that there is still an outstanding issue with the Board of Health. She said it may be beneficial to look at the traffic study for Hunter’s Ridge and to see whether the trip generation was calculated based on age of residents, although there is likely to be a nominal change. She noted that what the applicant is asking for is still more restrictive than what the By-law allows.

Mr. Lauenstein commented that we do not know how fast the development will be completed. With respect to comments regarding winter rye and wind erosion he asked the applicant if he would agree to stabilize the dirt. Mr. Clark commented that they would agree to do what makes sense. He would do a site walk through with the Town Engineer to review stabilization. Mr. O’Cain commented that in the past Mr. Mirrione had agreed to power wash homes. Mr. O’Cain will speak to the developer because there are large areas of exposed land and the dust has been bad.

Mr. O’Cain agreed to look at the traffic study to determine what criteria regarding age of the residents was used to calculate the study.

Mr. Cohen said his sense is that the abutters would like this finished. Although there is skepticism as to whether this will solve the problem of sales, he thinks the Planning Board should support this. We would make our decision conditional on the Board of Health’s approval.

Mr. Lauenstein questioned what kind of precedent this will set especially for Brickstone and other developments of age restricted housing. Mr. Cohen replied none.

Mr. Lauenstein asked if it were necessary to vote tonight and Mr. Cohen said the Board is not under any deadlines as the applicant is asking to amend a permit. It was determined that the decision will wait until 3/27/08 and will be added to the agenda.

Mr. Herbert Gould of 23 Huntington Avenue commented that it would be useful to make the decision process public and for the public to know the trade-offs being considered by the Board in making the decision. Mr. Hauser commented that Board members do not always provide reasons for their votes, noted that Mr. Gould, and any citizen could attend any/all meetings, and that no discussion among Board members takes place outside the public meetings. Ms. Sloan commented that all decisions are made at the meeting and he was welcome to attend to hear the discussion.

Sharon Hills

Mr. Cohen recused himself from this conversation based on his legal affiliation with the current owner of the building. Marty Spagat and Fred Heflin representing Brickstone‘s Sharon Hills Sales Center came before the Board to discuss the site plan for this property located on the corner of South Main Street and Billings Street. Mr. O’Cain prepared a review of the plan and identified seven items that were found to be in conflict with the Zoning By-Laws of the Town of Sharon.

1) Section 3111 of the Zoning By-Laws of the Town of Sharon states, “…five (5) parking spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross leasable floor area on the ground floor.” The building has 2700 square feet of floor area, according to the plans submitted, which translates into a requirement of fourteen (14) parking spaces. The plan submitted indicates that 5 spaces have been provided and the applicant has requested that the Planning Board waive the requirement for fourteen spaces.

In response to the applicant’s request for a waiver, it should be noted that Section 3111 also states, “Where it can be demonstrated that the combined peak parking needs of all uses sharing the lot will, because of the differences in peak hours or days, be less than required by Subparagraphs 3111(a)-(e), the number of parking spaces to be provided may be reduced accordingly by Special Permit from the Board of Appeals, but only for a s long as this condition exists”.

The applicant may also utilize any parking lot within 400 feet of the site, as per Section 3112. However, the Board of Appeals must approve the plan and there must be a formal deed between Brickstone LLC and the owner of any nearby lot (see Section 3112).

As per section 6334, paragraph three, “Where Special Permits are required, the Planning Board and the Board of Appeals may start their process at the same time. The Planning Board will forward its determination to the Board of Appeals, which may incorporate the planning Board’s decision into its decision”. It should also be noted that section 6330 states, “In the opinion of the Planning Board, projects that do not meet the checklist will be reviewed and a decision filed within (45) days of the determination that further review is required”.

2) The applicant has also requested that the Planning Board waive the requirement that proposed signage be part of the site plan submitted. The Planning will need to review this request.

3) Section 3115 states, “There shall be at least one (1) loading bay for any building containing more than one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross leasable floor area”. The ZBA may need to make a determination as to whether this requirement can be waived.

4) As per section 3117, “No parking or loading shall be permitted between the front of the structure and the sidelines of any way, except by vote of the Planning Board…” The Engineering Division recommends waiving this requirement, since the parking in currently configured in this manner.

5) As per 3117, “The total landscaped area maintained in lawns or ornamental plantings shall not equal less than thirty (30%) percent of the total lot area unless reduced by the Planning Board…during site plan approval.” The Engineering Division recommends that the Planning Board allow a reduction to less than 30%, if the plan does not meet the requirement. It is unclear what the submitted percentage is but the proposed plan provides a significant increase in the landscaped area of the lot.

6) As per Section 3113, a 24-foot aisle width is required for parking areas. The applicant has provided a 22-foot aisle width, which should be adequate. It should be noted, however, that the middle parking space has a utility pole directly behind it. The applicant may choose to place markings, signs or reflectors on the pole in order to reduce the likelihood of impact from cars backing out the space with reduced aisle width.

7) With respect to the site plan review criteria in Section 6335, the Engineering Division has no comment on items 1, 2 and 5. Item 3, regarding parking and loading have already been discussed in review items 1 and 3 above.

The Engineering Division has the following comments regarding item 4 regarding landscaping, buffers, fencing, paving and lighting:

a) It does not appear that any lighting is proposed for the parking lot or the building. The Board may wish to confirm that fact.

b) Please refer to landscaping comments in review item 5 above.

c) It would be preferable if the applicant used bricks or pavers that match the pavers or bricks currently in place in the Post Office Square area.

Ms. Sloan introduced Shirley Schofield of 45 Cottage Street and member of the Sharon Historical Commission to Brickstone’s representatives to discuss her thoughts for a decorative structure to be placed in the middle of the central area in front of the sales office instead of the previously suggested obelisk. Mrs. Schofield presented a picture dating back to 1912 of a water trough that used to be in the center of Town. Mr. Heflin replied that he did not see a problem with this. Mrs. Schofield commented that she would like to keep things historical and would hope the applicant would consider this.

Ms. Price asked if, in the location where they are closing the curb cut, the slope will remain and Mr. Heflin commented that they would not be digging up Main Street or changing the sidewalk or curb cut, just landscaping next to it.

Mr. O’Cain commented that he would like to have an aisle for the handicap parking space.

With reference to signage, Mr. Heflin asked that it be a separate discussion.

Mr. Lauenstein asked if they would consider using low flush toilets and Mr. Spagat said they would consider this.

Mr. Hauser noted that the Post Office Design Committee was very enthused about the project. The Planning Board asks a range of questions from all applicants. He asked that the applicant return to the Design Review Committee to discuss the trough or obelisk for the middle park area.

With reference to parking, Mr. Spagat said he is pursuing 11 off-site spaces with private owners. These will be used for employee parking.

Ms. Price and Ms. Sloan stated that they do not like the style of the bollards shown on the plan. Ms. Sloan noted that there are other bollards in Town that are not any more expensive but more historical. Mr. Heflin asked that they be forwarded to him for review.

Ms. Price motioned to approve the site plan for Brickstone Companies for the Sharon Hills Sales Office dated January 10, 2008 based on the criteria of section 6335 of Zoning By-Laws, and to waive the requirement from section 3117 for 30% of the site to be landscaped since the site plan shows an increase in the amount of landscaping from the existing site conditions and to waive the requirement from section 3117 concerning parking or loading between the front of the structure and the sidelines of any way since this shows an improvement from the existing conditions, with the approval subject to the following conditions: private parking arrangements shall be made for 11 off-site parking spaces; the site plan shall be revised to show the loading area; a different style of light bollard shall be used which is consistent with others in this part of Town; reflectors shall be added to the utility pole next to the parking area as per Mr. O’Cain’s review letter; the red bricks used in the walkways shall be consistent in size and color with the red bricks used in the adjacent Town public sidewalks; and the applicant shall return to the Planning Board for approval of any signs. Mr. Lauenstein seconded the motion and the Board voted 4-0-0. Mr. Cohen had recused himself.

Other Business

1. Mr. Richard Mandell of 580 Mountain Street asked to be notified by email of any meeting/discussions as pertains to Brickstone. He also asked that phone numbers for the Planning Board members be added to the Town’s website.

2. The approvals from the Attorney General for the Fall Town Meeting Articles were received. Ms. Levitts needs to update the Zoning By-Laws.

3. Ms. Sloan stated that she received a drawn plan from Alice Hui’s landscaper for modifications to her property. The next step is for Ms. Hu to proceed with the plan.

4. Mr. Lauenstein went to the FinComm meeting on Monday with Ms. Price and Ms. Sloan to present and discuss Inclusionary Housing. Their concerns were put on the table and there had been some misunderstandings. The three participants will come up with a summary of the FinComm objections.

5. Mr. Cohen commented that the Finance Committee will meet on Monday to discuss budgets.

Next meeting dates

2/13 – Add Inclusionary Housing to the agenda

2/27 – Add Hunter’s Ridge to the agenda

Meeting Adjournment

Mr. Cohen moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:04 PM and Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.