Town of Sharon Planning Board

Meeting Minutes of 4/9/08

Amended and approved on 4/30/08

 

Planning Board Attendees

Eli Hauser  Chair   - Absent

Paul Lauenstein 

Arnold Cohen  Vice Chair

Amanda Sloan

Susan Price  Clerk

 

 

Peter O’Cain, Town Engineer, Consultant

 

Attendees

Beth Fitzpatrick

Carl J. Kusch

Elizabeth Giordani

Joseph Fischer

Richard Kershaw Jr.

Richard Mandell

Arlyne Mandell

Kevin Weber -Tree Warden

Anthony DiSipio

Elizabeth Essex

Max Essex

Judy Bookbinder

Ellen Davey Fleming

Sue Kerr

Pamela Tierney

Leslie Myatt

Robert Daylor  - Tetra Tech Rizzo

Paul Keaney  - TetraTech Rizzo

John Twohig  -  Goulston and Storrs

Christopher Regnier - Goulston and Storrs

Mr. Gobbi

 

 

Scenic Roads Public Hearing

Clerk Price read the legal ad as appeared in the March 21st and March 28th Sharon Advocate pertaining to the Scenic Roads Hearing, into the record. She stated “The Planning Board in conjunction with the Tree Warden will hold a Scenic Roads Public Hearing on Wednesday, April 9th, 2008 at 7:30 PM in the Selectmen’s Room of the Sharon Town Hall, 90 South Main Street to review the proposed removal of street trees and the possible removal or reconstruction of stone walls on the portion of Old Post Road to be improved  which begins at South Main Street and runs to the north to the intersection with South Walpole Street, in order to provide primary access to “Sharon Commons” Lifestyle Center.” Mr. Hauser stated we would hear from the Tree Warden, the proponent, members of the Planning Board will be recognized at any time and then the floor will be open to the audience for questions and comments.

 

Tree Warden, Kevin Weber, stated that he reviewed the plan with Peter O’Cain. It is a meandering road and a lot of trees need to come down. He stated that his recommendation is usually to ask for replacement cost as per a regular subdivision. This amount is a dollar amount for tree planting, fertilization, watering of new trees to be planted around town at a cost of approximately $200 per tree. In this instance, however, there are hundreds of trees. As the proponent will be widening the road, grading work needs to be done which will also affect some trees.

 

Mr. Lauenstein commented that both he and Ms. Price walked Old Post Road. In some areas, the road goes through a wooded area. He asked the Warden what the criterion is for counting the number of trees. The Warden replied that it was four inches or more in diameter, as measured 12 inches up from the ground.  He said $200 is an average cost for a tree . Ms. Price asked if the $200 replacement cost included the cost of the tree and the labor to plant them and the Warden said that it did.  Mr. Lauenstein asked if there were any specimen trees. The Warden stated they are primarily White Pine, Oak and Norway Spruce and he did not see any Walnut trees.

 

Attorney Shelmerdine, representing the developer, presented his application for Old Post Road. He showed the Board a segmented plan and pointed out the areas in which the trees needed to be removed to prepare access to the mall on Old Post Road. He stated that they plan as part of the existing lifestyle center to fully landscape the South Main Street entrance way. He also pointed out which houses would be taken down.

 

Mr. Hauser read a letter from resident Charles Levin of 97 Old Post Road who objected to the access to Old Post Road being changed as well as from Mr. Gobbi of 91 Old Post Road who also said any change would not be acceptable. Mr. Gobbi stated that his intention is to keep this driveway connected to Old Post Road. He wanted no change to the grade or configuration.

 

Mr. Shelmerdine stated that they have an obligation to build a berm at the cul-de-sac of Laurel Road. Laurel Road will be a dead end. He stated that it is the developer’s obligation in the MOA to deaden sound, so they will create a berm to serve as a visual and sound buffer and will shift Old Post Road to the west. They are adding land they own and control to the layout. He stated the residents who have access to Old Post Road will continue to do so. The developer will have to extend their driveways a little.  Mr. Hauser stated that road design is not part of the hearing tonight.

 

Mr. Gobbi of 91 Old Post Road stated he wanted to make three points. 1) If they can prevent the road from being moved, there is no sense to cut trees. 2) How will emergency vehicles get to 91 Old Post Road?, and 3) All discussions with the developer were to make Laurel Road part of the berm, now the road is being moved 50 feet toward I-95. Mr. O’Cain commented that the Board of Selectmen approved the road layout and that the Planning Board does not deal with the road layout. Mr. Hauser stated that, based on the layout shown on the plan tonight, the driveways are being extended. Ms. Price said that her impression from Mr. Shelmerdine is that the issue of access for the two houses on Old Post Road (including Mr. Gobbi’s house), is not settled, and the developer is open to either a connection to Old Post Road or to Laurel Road. Mr. O’Cain commented that the Board of Selectmen has approved the connection to Laurel Road and that’s the way it stands.

 

Mr. Shelmerdine stated that the conceptual plan regarding Old Post Road was approved. Also the 25% plan was approved by the BOS and Peter O’Cain. The road for the driveways on the latest plan does not show a connection but the developer will do what makes sense for most people. The subject is for the ZBA, and the property owners should have conversations with the ZBA and the developer.

 

The Tree Warden said it would be a big job to count the number of trees being removed as there are hundreds of trees coming down. He estimated there might be approximately 1,000 trees of four inch diameter or more. The developer noted that the roadway will be landscaped. The Warden requested compensation for trees that are being removed.

 

Mr. Kelly, a representative for the developer, stated that in design of the roadway, there is a balancing of the roadway width, sight distance, and resource areas toward the lifestyle center. They need to play with grades to get into the site itself. Mr. Cohen stated that as part of the Board of Appeals approval, he assumes that a landscaping plan is needed. Mr. Shelmerdine replied yes. Mr. Shelmerdine also said that they want the permits approved by the beginning of May from the ZBA. Mr. Cohen stated that he would like to see the compensation plan worked out before the plan is approved. Mr. Shelmerdine stated he would show the Warden the landscaping plan.  Mr. Hauser said it would be good if they had a tree count.

 

There was a discussion of the two stone walls to be removed.

 

Anthony DiSipio of 179 Old Post Road questioned whether any of the tree cutting would apply the farther end of Old Post Road. Mr. Shelmerdine said after you get by the entrance to the mall, new Old Post Road will pick up Old Post Road all the way to South Walpole.  This section will not change but will be repaved because of the installation of a new water main. Mr. Hauser said the end of the scope is at 145 Old Post Road.

 

Ms. Sloan stated that she is concerned with views into the site from South Main Street. The entrance is right by the historic cemetery. She is balancing concerns between aesthetics, which are very important in this historic area, and the sight distances for driving that need to be maintained.  Mr. Lauenstein said that since 1977 when the Scenic Road Act was accepted by the town, the Planning Board has usually discussed a few trees or stone walls to be removed. In this situation, there are two stone walls several hundred feet long and thousands of trees. He feels we are basically obliterating a scenic road. He felt that the problem is that the sequence of approvals is backwards. The stakes are already in the ground and now the developer is coming to the Planning Board. He is concerned with the rapid pace, there is no large tenant and with the state of the economy, the development may not be economically viable. Mr. Cohen replied that generally when a developer is putting up a subdivision they put in a new road and remove trees and the Scenic Road Act does not come into play. He asked whether we should stop the entire development based on the scenic road law.

 

Ms. Price asked if the landscaped median goes the entire length to the turnaround and the answer was yes, except where they will keep the road narrower to avoid streams or wetlands. She asked whether it would be feasible to count the number of significant trees for compensation value. She also asked that they double check on specimen trees or large trees that could be saved by shifting the roadway. Ms. Price asked if it were possible to move the stonewall overlooking the bogs to be saved on the site and Mr. Shelmerdine said they will take a look at this.  Ms. Price replied that the purpose is to rebuild the stone walls on the property in a visible location to retain their character.

 

Mr. Lauenstein asked if the median will be recessed. Mr. O’Cain said the median is not sand and gravel, it is a constructed swale. Mr. Lauenstein asked if water will run off. The developer’s engineer stated that water will flow into catch basins and the treated water will go into the cranberry bogs.  Ms. Sloan said she would like to encourage the designer to recall what was there and the way it looks; the New England specialness and convince the landscape architect to keep the same feeling.

 

Mr. Cohen moved to close the Public Hearing at 8:40 PM and Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor of closing the hearing.

 

Additional Discussion

Mr. Cohen suggested he thought the Board could approve the plan conditionally upon the applicant preparing a compensatory plan that is approved by the Tree Warden and Board of Appeals. Mr. Lauenstein suggested that there not be a vote until they have the compensation plan. Mr. O’Cain said they are required to do a landscape plan. The question of the compensatory plan is up to the Warden to judge if it is adequate. Mr. Lauenstein again suggested that we need a concrete plan prior to voting to grant approval. He said that voting to grant approval prior to negotiating a settlement on the trees would undermine the Town’s bargaining position. Mr. O’Cain asked if the landscape plan has a list of materials as it is difficult to count the number of trees. Mr. Shelmerdine said he assumes the landscape plan will contain more trees than the number of significant trees removed. Mr. O’Cain suggested the Planning Board write a letter to the ZBA with its recommendation.

 

Michael Intoccia said he wants to work together with the Town. It is a big project that he needs to start so tenants can see progress. Mr. Lauenstein acknowledged that Mr. Intoccia has been generous. Mr. Hauser said we need to look at the net changes in trees qualitatively. He agrees that any substantial trees worth saving should be and perhaps Ms. Sloan could help in this regard.

 

Mr. Cohen moved to approve the tree removal and moving the stone walls pursuant to the Scenic Road Act conditioned on the number of trees being determined and the stone walls being moved and negotiation of a compensatory action plan that meets the approval of the ZBA and Tree Warden. The Planning Board will write a letter to the Board of Appeals that the Planning Board approval of the plan is conditional upon the Tree Warden’s approval of the settlement for the value of the trees. The developer should rebuild the stone walls being removed and put them in another visible location as stone walls of the same style and to identify and consider moving significant trees, if possible, and shifting the roadway if removal of a specimen tree can be avoided. In addition erosion control measures (i.e., hay bales) need to be in place within 24 hours of clearing the land. Ms. Price seconded the motion. Mr. Lauenstein asked that the vote be taken at the next meeting. The Board agreed to delay the vote until the end of the Planning Board meeting.

 

Sharon Hills Public Hearing

Clerk Price read the legal ad as appeared in the March 21st and March 28th Sharon Advocate pertaining to the Sharon Hills Public Hearing, into the record. She stated, “The Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, April 9th, 2008 at 7:45 PM in the Selectmen’s Room in Sharon Town Hall, located at 90 South Main Street, Sharon, Massachusetts, to review the definitive subdivision entitled Sharon Hills, located on the east side of Mountain Street approximately 1.2 miles south of the intersection of Hampton Road and Mountain Street, submitted by Brickstone Sharon, LLC of Andover MA, and drawn by Tetra Tech Rizzo.” The hearing began at 9:00 PM.

 

Mr. O’Cain began by stating that the Planning Board had 90 days to respond, based on the receipt date of the plan of 2/13/08. Chair Hauser read Chief Mann’s letter regarding the definitive subdivision in which the Chief stated that he had no comment as well. Additionally, the Police Department had no comment. The ConComm communicated that the waiver requested from them was acceptable. The Board of Health also recommended granting the waiver requested of them. The DPW comments were also provided by Mr. O’Cain and had been reviewed by the Board at the previous meeting.

 

John Twohig, representing Brickstone, stated with the exception of the four waivers requested, the waiver of time only happens at the time of construction. There are outright waivers and conditional waivers. He stated that they appeared before the Board of Health who supported the waivers under their purview.

 

There was a discussion of questions remaining pertaining to Peter O’Cain’s memo dated February 19, 2008 entitled Sharon Hills Definitive Plan Review.

 

Richard Mandell of 580 Mountain Street asked 1) what would happen if something is brought to Mr. O’Cain but he does not agree with it. Mr. O’Cain stated that he would see that it was fixed. The Board would approve it with conditions or disapprove it. 2) Mr. Mandell said his property is near the new road and the cul-de-sac comes within 20 feet of their property line. He wanted to point out that the new road accesses only two buildable lots. He doesn’t know the logistics and believes the builder does not plan to build this but if the CCRC does not go through and this plan does then only two homes will be accessed by this road. He suggested that the developer should request not to build the road but build a common driveway.

 

Mr. Cohen replied that the Planning Board has typically seen two or three lot subdivisions and the developer usually requests a waiver for road width and sidewalks.  Mr. O’Cain stated the applicant would need to request a waiver. Mr. Hauser asked if the road as it is shown on the plan is compliant and Mr. O’Cain said yes. It is not unreasonable for the applicant to request a smaller road. Mr. Mandell expressed a concern that a large road as shown on the plan should not be built so close to his property line, given that it will only serve two lots. He suggested the developer request a waiver to the subdivision regulations to allow a narrower road to be built.  Ms. Price noted that the developer probably needs a new road on the plan so that this is considered a subdivision and not an ANR plan in order to grandfather the zoning.

 

Ms. Sloan said she shares Mr. Mandell’s concerns. Mr. Cohen said that if the Planning Board does not make a decision within the appropriate timeframe then the plan will be approved. He asked Mr. Twohig if they would be agreeable to an extension.

 

Mr. Twohig commented that he does not see this as necessary. He said he tried to work with Mr. O’Cain. These are primarily waivers of time and performance.  Mr. Cohen commented that we do not want our hands tied. We would need to put together a decision for this subdivision and the Board still needs to vote.  Mr. Lauenstein said he endorsed Mr. Cohen’s comments and if Mr. Cohen needed more time then the applicant should be more agreeable. He said he wanted to know why the police and fire chiefs had no comment. Mr. O’Cain said he discussed this with them. Ms. Price offered to help write the decision. 

 

Mr. Mandell said based on the discussion regarding the roadway, he wants the Board to ask the developer to submit a waiver request for the size of the roadway because they stated it will only access two buildable house lots.  Ms. Sloan agreed and said this is not too much to ask.  Mr. O’Cain said the developer would need to file a definitive plan and waiver plan.

 

Mr. Lauenstein moved that the Planning Board request that the developer create a waiver request to put in a narrower road without sidewalks. The Board voted 4-0-1 in favor.

 

Mr. Cohen moved to close the Public Hearing at 10:07 PM. Ms. Price seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor. 

 

Discussion on Sharon Hills

For the discussion portion pertaining to the Sharon Hills Subdivision, the Board referred to the guideline from Attorney Gelerman's office on the context of voting on the Brickstone definitive plan for 4/9/08. The memo was written as follows.

 

Actions for Planning Board

Regarding

Sharon Hills Subdivision Plan

 

1.  Vote to approve or deny following waivers:

·         Section 3.3.1.1 (wetland delineation beyond property line)

·         Section 3.3.1.3.4 (using North American Datum (NAD) 1983 survey datum)

·         Section 3.3.2.5. (performing on-the-ground field survey on land of third parties)

·         Section 3.3.2.14 (partial) (using National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD))

 

2.  Vote to approve or deny following waivers, with “construction conditions”:

·         Section 3.3.1.3.1 (roadway cross-sections)

·         Section 3.3.2.6 and 3.3.2.9 (edges, pavement widths and lines of Mountain Street and Bay Road)

·         Section 3.3.2.10 (base flood elevation)

·         Section 3.3.2.14 (partial) (side of roadway, handicap ramps)

·         Section 3.3.2.15 (2 foot contours, high water mark)

·         Section 3.3.2.16 (soil boring, test pit data, easements for drainage and other utilities on Utility Plan)

·         Section 3.3.2.17 (drainage system design and drainage calculations)

·         Section 3.3.2.18 (tree planting plan)

·         Section 3.3.2.21 (sedimentation and erosion control plan)

·         Section 3.3.2.22 (groundwater elevation determination within Water Resources Protection District)

·         Section 3.3.2.23 (Traffic Control and Signage Plan)

·         Section 3.3.3 (staking of roadway centerline)

·         Section  3.3.4.1-3.3.4.3 (test holes, soil surveys and percolation tests)

 

3.  If approved, conditions for those waivers listed at Number 2 above:

Prior to construction, the Applicant will provide the proper construction drawings for the proposed subdivision way, in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Sharon Planning Board in effect as of the date of this plan for the Town Engineer’s review and approval.

Prior to construction, the Applicant shall submit proper construction plans that include existing contours for Lots C-1, C-2 and C-3 on additional sheets at a 1”-100’ scale and location and data for all test holes performed on such lots.

No dwelling will be constructed on any lot pursuant to this plan without first securing from the Board of Health the Disposal Works Construction Permit required by Title V of the State Environmental Code.

Prior to construction the Applicant will stake the centerline of the proposed subdivision way.

 

4.  If approved, additional commitments of Applicant not requiring waiver.

The following additional commitments requested by the Town Engineer shall be listed on the Plan:

·         Relocate proposed water main on left side of the subdivision way and hydrant at end of cul-de-sac to have a blow off valve

·         Locate proposed electric, telephone and cable television utility lines with the grass strip area adjacent to the subdivision roadway

·         Confirm consistency of location of telephone, electric and cable utility lines on all plans

·         Provide detail of detention basin

·         Provide detail for fire hydrant and valve consistent with standards of Sharon Engineering Division and Water Department

·         Provide detail showing underground utility lines (electrical and cable) in PVC conduit

·         Provide detail showing underground wiring for street lighting including hand-holes, conduit and controller

·         Confirm requirement of Fire Boxes with Town Engineer and Fire Department

·         Provide detail with limits of sloped and vertical granite curbing

·         Show complete plan for the proposed water main extension required to serve subdivision for Engineering Department and Water Department review and approval

·         Provide detail for sidewalk handicap ramp and driveway openings

 

5.  Vote to approve or deny definitive subdivision plan.

 

6.  If the Board votes to approve, these are the next steps:

Appearance before Planning Board with updated plan for endorsement by Board.

Updated plan to include list of waivers and conditions/commitments noted above.

 

After reviewing the memo, the Board voted as follows for Item #1:

1.      Section 3.3.1.1  - Mr. Cohen moved to approve the waiver for section 3.3.1.1 on the Sharon Hills subdivision plan. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

2.      Section 3.3.1.3.4 - Mr. Cohen moved to approve the waiver for section 3.3.1.3.4 on the Sharon Hills subdivision plan. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

3.      Section 3.3.2.5. - Mr. Cohen moved to approve the waiver for section 3.3.2.5 on the Sharon Hills subdivision plan. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

4.      Section 3.3.2.14  - Mr. Cohen moved to vote to approve a partial waiver of 3.3.2.14 waiving requirements they use NGVD of 1929.  Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

The Board voted as follows for Item #2 – These 13 items are subject to constraints. They are not asking for a waiver, they are agreeing to do them. They would all need to be submitted to Peter O’Cain for approval:

 

1.      Section 3.3.1.3.1  - Mr. Cohen moved to approve the request for a waiver for Sharon Hills Subdivision for 3.3.1.3.1 subject to construction conditions defined in the memorandum  from Town Counsel entitled Actions for Planning Board Regarding Sharon Hills Subdivision Plan. Ms. Price seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

 

2.      Section 3.3.2.6 and 3.3.2.9 - Mr. Cohen moved to approve the request for a waiver for Sharon Hills Subdivision for 3.3.2.6 and 3.3.2.9 subject to construction conditions defined in the memorandum  from Town Counsel entitled Actions for Planning Board Regarding Sharon Hills Subdivision Plan. Ms. Price seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

 

3.      Section 3.3.2.10 - Mr. Cohen moved to approve the request for a waiver for Sharon Hills Subdivision for 3.3.2.10 subject to construction conditions defined in the memorandum  from Town Counsel entitled Actions for Planning Board Regarding Sharon Hills Subdivision Plan. Ms. Price seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

4.      Section 3.3.2.14 - Mr. Cohen moved to approve the request for a partial waiver for Sharon Hills Subdivision for 3.3.2.14 subject to construction conditions defined in the memorandum  from Town Counsel entitled Actions for Planning Board Regarding Sharon Hills Subdivision Plan for the side of roadways and handicap ramps.  Ms. Price seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

5.      Section 3.3.2.15 -  Mr. Cohen moved to approve the request for a waiver for Sharon Hills Subdivision for 3.3.2.15 subject to construction conditions defined in the memorandum  from Town Counsel entitled Actions for Planning Board Regarding Sharon Hills Subdivision Plan. Ms. Price seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

6.      Section 3.3.2.16 -  Mr. Cohen moved to approve the request for a waiver for Sharon Hills Subdivision for 3.3.2.16 subject to construction conditions defined in the memorandum  from Town Counsel entitled Actions for Planning Board Regarding Sharon Hills Subdivision Plan. Ms. Price seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

7.      Section 3.3.2.17 -  Mr. Cohen moved to approve the request for a waiver for Sharon Hills Subdivision for 3.3.2.17 subject to construction conditions defined in the memorandum  from Town Counsel entitled Actions for Planning Board Regarding Sharon Hills Subdivision Plan. Ms. Price seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

8.      Section 3.3.2.18  - Mr. Cohen moved to approve the request for a waiver for Sharon Hills Subdivision for 3.3.2.18 subject to construction conditions defined in the memorandum  from Town Counsel entitled Actions for Planning Board Regarding Sharon Hills Subdivision Plan. Ms. Price seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

9.      Section 3.3.2.21 - Mr. Cohen moved to approve the request for a waiver for Sharon Hills Subdivision for 3.3.2.21 subject to construction conditions defined in the memorandum  from Town Counsel entitled Actions for Planning Board Regarding Sharon Hills Subdivision Plan. Ms. Price seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

10.  Section 3.3.2.22  -  Mr. Cohen moved to approve the request for a waiver for Sharon Hills Subdivision for 3.3.2.22 subject to construction conditions defined in the memorandum  from Town Counsel entitled Actions for Planning Board Regarding Sharon Hills Subdivision Plan. Ms. Price seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

11.  Section 3.3.2.23  -  Mr. Cohen moved to approve the request for a waiver for Sharon Hills Subdivision for 3.3.2.23 subject to construction conditions defined in the memorandum  from Town Counsel entitled Actions for Planning Board Regarding Sharon Hills Subdivision Plan. Ms. Price seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

12.  Section 3.3.3 -  Mr. Cohen moved to approve the request for a waiver for Sharon Hills Subdivision for 3.3.3 subject to construction conditions defined in the memorandum  from Town Counsel entitled Actions for Planning Board Regarding Sharon Hills Subdivision Plan. Ms. Price seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

13.  Section  3.3.4.1-3.3.4.3 - Mr. Cohen moved to approve the request for a waiver for Sharon Hills Subdivision for 3.3.4.1 - 3.3.4.3 subject to construction conditions defined in the memorandum  from Town Counsel entitled Actions for Planning Board Regarding Sharon Hills Subdivision Plan. Ms. Price seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

 

Item #4 from Attorney Gelerman’s list is commitments of the applicant that are engineering details. Mr. O’Cain said that if the applicant proceeds with construction, these engineering requests need to be done. Mr. Cohen moved that the conditions listed under item #4 in the “Actions for the Planning Board memo regarding the Sharon Hills Subdivision from Town Counsel be listed as conditions for our approval of the subdivision plan and these conditions be listed on the plan.” Ms. Price seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

 

Additionally, Mr. Cohen moved that as a condition of the approval of the subdivision that the applicant make changes to the plan as described in the comments and response letter dated April 7, 2008 from Paul Keene of Tetra Tech Rizzo to Peter O’Cain, Town Engineer for items 6, 8, 18, 24 and 30. Ms. Price seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

 

The Board agreed to delay the vote until the meeting of April 30th until the conditions language had been drafted.

 

Voting on Tree Hearing:

Mr. Lauenstein wanted to postpone the vote until the next meeting in three weeks. He pointed out that the developer stated that he does not intend to commence clearing trees for a month, and said there was nothing to be gained by voting right away, but voting prior to negotiating a settlement would compromise the Town’s bargaining position.

 

(Motion taken from Scenic Roads Hearing above)

Mr. Cohen moved to approve the tree removal and moving the stone walls pursuant to the Scenic Road Act conditioned on the number of trees being determined and the stone walls being moved and negotiation of a compensatory action plan that meets the approval of the ZBA and Tree Warden. The Planning Board will write a letter to the Board of Appeals that the Planning Board approval of the plan is conditional upon the Tree Warden’s approval of the settlement for the value of the trees. The developer should rebuild the stone walls being removed and put them in another visible location as stone walls of the same style and to identify and consider moving significant trees, if possible, and shifting the roadway if removal of a specimen tree can be avoided. In addition erosion control measures (i.e., hay bales) need to be in place within 24 hours of clearing the land. Ms. Price seconded the motion.

 

The Board voted to approve the motion 4-1-0. Mr. Lauenstein being opposed. Mr. Shelmerdine agreed to come back on 4/30/08 with the number of trees.

 

Meeting Minutes

Mr. Cohen moved to accept the minutes of 3/26/08 as amended.  Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 4-0-1 in favor.

 

Sign Review/Bond Approval

None.

 

Form A’s

None.

 

Other Business

1.      Pre Town Meeting is 5/1/08 at 7:30 PM.

2.      Mr. O’Cain said he would bring the landscape plan for Hunter’s Ridge to a future meeting for the Board to review.

3.      Continued discussion on Hunter’s Ridge proposed change to the age restriction will be held on 4/30/08.

4.      Mr. Hauser addressed Mr. Miller’s memo and clarified that the Planning Board had not voted on Hunter’s Ridge with regard to reducing the age of one occupant.

5.      Ms. Price volunteered to be appointed to the Selection Committee of the Standing Building Committee.

 

Next meeting dates through the end of May

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

 

Meeting Adjournment

Mr. Lauenstein moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 PM and Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.