Meeting of the Sharon Planning Board 6

Town of Sharon Planning Board

Meeting Minutes of 2/27/08

Amended and approved on 3/12//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

Shirley Schofield	Gordon Hughes
John Twohig - Brickstone	Bob Daylor
Richard and Arlyne Mandell

Public Hearing

The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:30 PM by Chair Eli Hauser. Ms. Price read the legal notice as posted in the Sharon Advocate on 2/15/08 and 2/22/08.

The Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 7:30 PM in the Hearing Room at the Sharon Community Center located at 219 Massapoag Avenue in Sharon, Massachusetts to review a proposed amendment to the Zoning By-Laws of the Town of Sharon. The Planning Board will be discussing the following two changes to the Zoning By-laws:

“To see if the Town of Sharon will vote to amend the Zoning By-Laws of the Town of Sharon by amending the map entitled “The Town of Sharon Massachusetts Zoning Map”, dated May 7, 2007 and bearing the signature of the Planning Board. The amendment will change the map that was approved in 2007 back to its former configuration approved first at Town Meeting on March 9, 1970, which included the Sharon Public Library as part of the Historic District 1 zoning district. The change will restore the map to its proper configuration.

To see of the Town of Sharon will vote to amend the Zoning By-Laws of the Town of Sharon by amending Section 2100 to add the wording “Historic Districts” to the list of “Overlay” Districts.

This is the entire text. A copy of the proposed amendment is available in the office of the Town Clerk and Sharon Department of Public Works office during normal business hours and at the Sharon Public Library during normal library hours.

All interested parties should attend.”

Mr. O’Cain began by stating that the Town voted back in 1970 to include the library property in Historic District 1. At some time between 1970 and today, that lot was accidentally taken off the Zoning Map. Mr. O’Cain stated he is requesting the Planning Board to vote to place the library property back on the Zoning Map for District 1. In addition, the current regulations do not include the Historic District as an overlay district. Mr. O’Cain also stated that the Planning Board signatures will have to be on the Zoning Map and it needs to be voted on at the next Town Meeting.

Mr. Cohen asked if the library building is a historical building and Mrs. Schofield replied that it was.

Mr. Lauenstein asked the age of the building and Mrs. Schofield replied that it was built in 1914 with funds from Andrew Carnegie.

Mr. O’Cain also stated that he asked April Forsman to review all annual reports since the 1970s to verify that there was never a vote to remove the library property from the District.

Mr. Cohen moved to close the Public Hearing and Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 4-0-0 to close the Public Hearing.

Planning Board Meeting

The Board entered into discussion. Mr. Lauenstein asked how old does something have to be to be historic. Mrs. Schofield replied that houses need to be 100 years old to be historic but there are different standards for public buildings.

Mr. Cohen asked if the Library Trustees are aware this is before the Town. Mrs. Schofield replied that she was not sure but would inform them. Mr. Lauenstein also asked if the library moved to the Wilber property and the building became vacant, what limitations are on it considering it is in the Historical District. Mrs. Schofield said that any changes to the exterior would need to be reviewed by the Historical Commission.

Mr. O’Cain clarified that the Map had to be signed before going to Town Meeting.

Mr. Cohen moved to recommend to Town Meeting approval of the article amending the Zoning Map and Section 2100 of the Zoning By-laws to add the wording ”Historic Districts”: to the list of “Overlay” Districts and amending the Zoning Map to include the Sharon Public Library property as part of the Historic District 1 Zoning District. This change will restore the Map to its original configuration.

The Board voted 4-0-0 in favor of recommending this article to the Town Meeting. Mr. O’Cain will provide the Board with a map to sign which contains the names of the current Board members.

Chair Report

Chair Hauser read the Chair’s report. Ms. Levitts and Mr. O’Cain will work together to respond to the letter of February 22, 2008 from the Register of Deeds to obtain a certified copy of the current list of Planning Board Authorizations to be sent to the Registry of Deeds.

Meeting Minutes

Mr. Cohen moved to accept the minutes of 2/13/08 as amended. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

Form A’s

Mr. O’Cain discussed the Form A for 1481 Bay Road that was reviewed at the previous meeting. Because there were no issues, Mr. Cohen moved to endorse the Plan of Land of Sharon, MA on 1481 Bay Road, Colonial Engineering, Inc. as not requiring approval under the subdivision control law. Mr. O’Cain will verify the location of the stone wall as indicated on the plan and the detail “bubble” shown on the plan shall be corrected to state “Dry Pond Road”. The Board authorizes Town Engineer, Mr. O’Cain to endorse the plan subject to the corrections. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor of approval.

Sharon Hills Definitive Subdivision Plan

Mr. O’Cain presented his review of the Sharon Hills Definitive Plan dated February 19, 2008. He stated that he had contacted Attorney Gelerman and the Planning Board does not have to hold a Public Hearing to determine whether the application was administratively complete.

Mr. Cohen stated that as a part of the process, the Planning Board has to determine if the application was properly filed. The Planning Board has to vote on whether it is administratively complete. Mr. Hauser commented that the job of the Planning Board is to look at the application and determine if all forms were submitted, the drawings are compliant, and the necessary waivers are requested. Tonight we are not approving anything; the issue is simply, does the application satisfy the requirements of the by-law or if not have waivers been requested. Mr. Cohen interjected that we are doing this because of Subdivision Regulation 3.3.

In Mr. O’Cain’s memorandum dated February 19, 2008, pertaining to the Sharon Hills Definitive Plan Review, the following comments reflect a review of the plan submitted, as per Section 3.3.2. of the Land Subdivision Rules and Regulations of the Planning Board of the Town of Sharon, unless otherwise noted:

1) The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirements of section 3.3.1.1., specifically; the applicant is requesting a waiver from delineating wetlands 150 feet beyond the property line. The Engineering Division has no objection to the requested waiver but the Conservation Commission should probably discuss their view of the waiver request in the report that they must file with the Planning Board (see 3.3.1.1., paragraph seven).

2) As per Section 3.3.1.3.1., the applicant is to provide horizontal cross-sections of the proposed roadway at fifty (50’) foot intervals. The applicant has provided a typical roadway cross-section on sheet 12 of 13. The applicant has not requested a waiver from the requirement of fifty (50’) foot cross-sections and should do so, if desired.

3) The applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirements of Section 3.3.1.3.4 regarding the benchmark datum being NAVD 88 instead of NAD 1983. The Engineering Division is not opposed to the applicant’s request, since NAVD 88 is the format being used more commonly at this time.

4) The applicant is requesting a waiver from section 3.3.2.5. regarding the requirement to perform an on-the-ground survey within 500 feet of the property. Since the Planning Board commonly allows waivers of the 500-foot survey requirement, the Engineering Division does not oppose the applicant’s request.

5) As per Section 3.3.2.6. and 3.3.2.9, lines of existing and proposed streets must be included on the plans. For example, the edge of Mountain Street should be included on sheet 5 of 13. The pavement widths and street lines need to be included, as per 3.3.2.9 for Mountain Street and Bay Road.

6) The monuments “Found” should include data as to whether the bounds were found and held. If not held, please include offsets from the bound, so there is enough information to reestablish the survey in the future (see 3.3.2.7.).

7) As per 3.3.2.10., “The existing and proposed location of the Base Flood Elevation (see definition) if encountered within, or within 100 feet of, the subdivision”. The applicant should request a waiver from the requirement, if desired.

8) Section 3.3.2.12. states, “If property that comprises the subdivision or any part or boundary thereof has been examined, approved, and confirmed by the Massachusetts Land Court, such information shall be noted on the plan…..and the same requirement shall apply to any adjoining parcels of land of the Applicant”. The applicant should state, in writing, whether their property or adjoining properties have land court registration and if they do, the requirements of 3.3.2.12 should be addressed.

9) As per 3.3.2.14., the applicant needs to include the right side of the roadway on the profile sheet in a dot line type. The applicant has requested a waiver from using the 1929 NGVD datum, which the Engineering Division does not oppose. There are no handicap ramps indicated on the “Plan View” on sheet 11 of 13 as required by 3.3.2.14.

10) The Applicant has requested a waiver from section 3.3.2.15. Section 3.3.2.1.15. states, “Existing and proposed topography at two foot (2’) contour intervals and by symbols the highest water mark for the last five years. There shall also be indicated by differentiating symbols the contour line four feet (4’) above said high water mark. All benchmarks will be noted, as well as items required in Section 3.3.4.” (test pits which are also requested to be waived). The Engineering Division recommends that the waiver be provided at this time but a condition of construction would be submission of plans that include existing contours for Lots C-1, C-2 and C-3 be provided on additional sheets at a 1”=100’ scale and location and data for all test holes performed on said lots.

11) The applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirements of Section 3.3.2.16 with respect to including boring data and soil test pits. The applicant has not provided a separate utility plan sheet but has met many of the requirements of 3.3.2.16. Since test holes have not been performed, the detention basin for the project cannot be designed and is not shown on any plan sheet.

As per section 4.4.4.3.a) Lights on one side of the street shall be located in front of each proposed lot. Lot C-2 does not have a proposed light in front of it, although there is a light proposed on the property line between C-1 and C-2.

12) The applicant has requested a waiver from 3.3.2.17 regarding the submission of drainage calculations. Since the applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement of providing test holes, it follows that drainage calculations will not be fully determinable at this time. If the Planning Board and Board of Health decide to approve the waiver for test holes, then the waiver for drainage calculations should be approved, as long as they are provided prior to construction. The applicant has a large enough area of land for the proposed subdivision that even if the drainage lot needed to be expanded; there would be room to accommodate it. Finally, digging test holes would require disturbing land that is to be conveyed to the Conservation Commission and it is the understanding of the Engineering Division that the Conservation Commission does not support the disturbance of said property.

13) The applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirements of section 3.3.2.18 for submission of a Tree Plan. The Engineering Division has no comment regarding the waiver request.

14) The applicant is requesting a waiver from section 3.3.2.21., which requires a comprehensive Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan. If the Applicant decided to construct the project, Article 38 (Discharges Generated by Construction Activity By-Law) would be triggered and the applicant would be required to hold a Public Hearing before the Planning Board and submit not only a Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan but also an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all drainage structures, construction wastes and other by-products of construction.

15) The applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirements of Section 3.3.2.22., which requires a groundwater determination. The maximum groundwater elevation on each lot cannot be determined without performing test holes, which the Applicant has requested a waiver from.

16) The applicant has not submitted a separate Traffic Control and Signage Plan but has indicated signs and striping on sheet 11 of 13. The applicant will need to add a roadway name sign and a speed limit sign to the plan and also request a waiver from 3.3.2.23., if they choose not to include the information on a separate sheet.

17) The applicant has requested a waiver from sections 3.3.4.1. – 3.3.4.3 regarding test holes, soil surveys and percolation tests. The Engineering Division does not oppose the waiver request, if the applicant is required to meet the requirements of Sections 3.3.4.1. – 3.3.4.3. in order to proceed with construction of the proposed subdivision. Additionally, if the Boards approve the plan with waivers, the plan sheets should be edited with the text “No dwelling will be constructed on any lot without first securing from the Board of Health the Disposal Works Construction Permit required by Title V of the State Environmental Code.”

18) Notes should be added to the Title Sheet that list all waivers obtained and that all items provided waivers will need to be added to the plans and reviewed by the Planning Board at a Public Hearing prior to proceeding with any construction. Any items that require waivers by other Boards will also be reviewed and comments will be required from all other pertinent Boards prior to construction and approval of construction.

19) On the final construction plan, the Engineering Division would prefer the water main to run down the left side of the roadway, so that the hydrant can be placed at the end of the cul-de-sac. The hydrant at the end of the cul-de-sac should have a blow-off valve, as per the request of the Sharon Water Department.

20) On the final construction plan, the location of the electric, cable and telephone lines should be completely within the grass strip and not in the roadway, so future repairs will not require disruption of the roadway.

21) The “Road Cross-Section” Detail on sheet 12 indicates the telephone, electric and cable in a different location than on the Plan View on Sheet 11 of 13.

22) On the final construction plan, a detail of the Detention basin will be required.

23) On the final construction plan, the detail for “Hydrant and Valve” will need to specify the hydrant and valve type required by the Sharon Water Department.

24) On the final construction plan, the hay bale detail should include silt fence.

25) On the final construction plan, the electrical cable and TV should have a detail showing the wiring for each utility in appropriate PVC conduit.

26) On a final construction plan, hand holes for street lighting should be shown on the “Utility Plan” and wiring for lighting should be placed in conduit and not direct buried. The light controller cabinet will also need to be shown on the plan.

27) Fire boxes are no longer required, although the requirement still exists in the Planning Board Regulations.

28) The applicant has provided a detail for sloped and upright granite curbing. The applicant should note on the construction plan where the curbing is proposed to be located.

29) The applicant will need to provide the Engineering Division with a complete plan for the proposed water main extension prior to any construction. The plan will have to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division and the Sharon Water Department.

30) The “50’ Wetland Buffer” label on sheet 11 of 13 is not pointing to the correct location.

31) A detail for a handicap ramp and driveway openings compliant with the latest AAB requirements should be included on the construction plan.

32) The plan has no verified wetland boundary flags, according to Greg Meister, Conservation Agent. As per Section 3.3.5.2.2., the Planning Board will request written statements from the Conservation Commission, Police Department, Fire Department and the Development and Industrial Commission, which may no longer exist. As per 3.3.5.2.1., the Conservation Commission will provide the Planning Board with a written statement, “….as to the involvement with Chapter 131, Section 40, G.L. and the effects of the subdivision on streams, wildlife and similar considerations within the scope of the Conservation Commission.”

The Fire Department will comment on the location of hydrants and emergency access. The Police Department will comment on street safety, both vehicular and pedestrian, and access for emergency vehicles. The DPW will comment on drainage, location of and sizing of the water system and the feasibility of snow removal from sidewalks and roadways.

33) The applicant is requesting a waiver from section 3.3.3. regarding centerline staking of the proposed roadway. The Engineering Division recommends providing the waiver in order to minimize impact to the site, which may eventually be conveyed to the Conservation Commission.

Mr. O’Cain reviewed each point mentioned above with the applicant. In total, six waivers were requested by Brickstone Sharon LLC in a written note. They included:

1) 3.3.1.3.1 - Horizontal cross sections

2) 3.3.2.6 and 3.3.2.9 - Existing and proposed streets

3) 3.3.2.10 - Base flood elevation

4) 3.3.2.14 - Handicap ramps

5) 3.3.2.23 - Signage

6) 3.3.3 - Roadway staking

Mr. Hauser thanked Mr. O’Cain and Ms. Price on their attention to detail in reviewing this plan.

Mr. Lauenstein asked about the State level rules and Mr. O’Cain commented that would be reviewed by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Cohen interjected that the Planning Board reviews plans under the subdivision control laws.

Mr. Hauser asked Mr. O’Cain if he is satisfied that the applications meet all requirements, or are waiver requests in place. Mr. O’Cain replied yes. He again stated the Planning Board determines if the plans are administratively complete.

Mr. Cohen moved to accept the filing of the Sharon Hills Subdivisions in Sharon, MA submitted by Brickstone Sharon, LLC dated 2/13/08, submitted at the 2/13/08 meeting as administratively complete. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 that the plan is considered administratively complete by the Planning Board.

Mr. Hauser asked Mr. O’Cain to contact the appropriate Boards. Mr. Hauser asked Mr. O’Cain to prepare a matrix related to the waiver requests in order to determine who should comment on each. Mr. O’Cain will notify the Board of Health that they have 45 days to reply but to try to reply before April 9th. The public hearing will be held April 9^th, which is not quite 45 days from Feb. 27^th, the date the application was found to be complete.

Signs

None.

Inclusionary Housing

Mr. Lauenstein discussed Inclusionary Housing and stated he went before the Finance Committee to address the concerns they may have had and believes they are less opposed to the idea, than in the past. The Committee seemed to favor the modification of the proposed By-law to change the trigger of the number of houses from six to ten. They also suggested we disallow the provision of off-site affordable units and discussed Brickstone being an issue with relation to an exemption for Sharon Hills. Mr. Lauenstein also said that Mr. Goodman of the Finance Committee read the 2/17/08 article from the Boston Globe regarding changes in the 40B law. Mr. Lauenstein suggested the Planning Board might want to wait to see the 40B changes before presenting the article at Town Meeting. Strategically, this would mean waiting until Fall Town Meeting.

Mr. Cohen indicated he does not like the idea of limiting affordable units to only be on site. He also does not like going from six to ten units as the trigger, as many other towns that adopted this type of by-law used six units. Mr. Cohen informed the Board that he spoke to Mr. Burk, the Mansfield Town Planner who said Mansfield had not had much subdivision activity so that the by-law has not come into play very often. The motivation behind it was to fend off 40B’s.

Ms. Sloan congratulated Mr. Lauenstein on his progress. A decision has to be made as to whether the By-law submission will be postponed until the fall.

Other Business

Mr. Mandell commented that he cannot access the Zoning By-laws on the Town of Sharon website. Mr. O’Cain and Ms. Levitts will follow-up.

Next meeting dates through the end of May

3/12, 3/26 - Mr. Hauser will be out of town.

4/9 - Tentative date for Brickstone Public Hearing regarding the Definitive Subdivision Plan and Inclusionary Housing

4/30, 5/14 and 5/28 - additional meetings

Meeting Adjournment

Mr. Cohen moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 PM and Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.