Town of Sharon Planning Board

Draft Meeting Minutes of 5/20/09

Amended and Approved on 6/17/09

 

Planning Board Attendees

Paul Lauenstein, Vice Chair  - absent

Susan Price

Eli Hauser, Clerk   

Amanda Sloan   

 

Peter O’Cain, Town Engineer, Consultant

 

Attendees

Attorney Robert Shelmerdine

Michael Intoccia

Trish Condon, 11 Huntington Ave.

Rosemary Thomas, 30 Huntington Ave.

Sheila Griffin, 18 Huntington Ave.

Scott Dunn, 34 Huntington Ave.

Robin Estrin, 66 Cheryl Drive

Israel Yaar, 53 Lantern Lane

David Sotkowitz, 59  Cheryl Drive

Ina Kornetsky, 57 Lantern Lane

Arthur Kesselman, 11 Osprey Road

Katherine Roth, 54 Huntington Ave.

Victor Smetana, 165 N. Main St.

Jim Glazer, 6 Inca Trail

Ilan Meyers, 136 N. Main St

 

 

Public Hearing – Hunter’s Ridge

 

Susan Price read the legal notice to begin the meeting. “A public hearing will be held in the Sharon Commons Community Center, upper level, 219 Massapoag Avenue, Sharon, Massachusetts, on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at 7:30 PM to consider a request by Hunter’s Ridge LLC to amend the “Decision on Application for Special Permit pursuant to Section 4371 of the Zoning Bylaws” issued to Hunter’s Ridge Realty Trust by the Planning Board for the Hunter’s Ridge Development on April 27, 2005 and filed with the Town Clerk on May 3, 2005. Applicant seeks to amend the 1) reduction in total number of dwelling units, 2) change of unit type, 3) alteration of number of age restricted units, 4) modification of the provision of affordable units and 5) such other relief and findings as is necessary or required therefore. The property is located at 155 and 157 North Main Street, Sharon.  The Parcel is shown on the Assessor’s Map as Map 112, Plot 127 and the approximate area is 20.86 acres. The Property is situated in a “Single Residence District B” zone. All persons desiring to be heard on this matter should appear at the time and place designated. The above Application and Plans are on file at the Engineering Department, 217 South Main Street, Rear, Sharon, Massachusetts for review during normal business hours.”

 

Eli Hauser, performing the duties of Chair, provided instructions for the public hearing which included the presentation by the proponent, the Board providing their comments and that all questions from the public would be recognized.

 

Attorney Bob Shelmerdine, representing proponent Michael Intoccia, began his presentation by stating that Hunter’s Ridge is already an approved subdivision pursuant to the CSD Bylaw. He displayed the current subdivision plan of the 50 lot subdivision and stated it is approved for 51 dwelling units.  He stated that the property is under purchase agreement. They want to modify the property and are thus asking for a special permit to change the lot layouts, architectural style, and eliminate the age restriction and affordable designation. He then displayed a new proposed plan containing larger lots; 29 in total, single family three-bedroom homes. If the Planning Board approves the request, they will present a Form A to alter the lot lines.  Attorney Shelmerdine stated that as the CSD bylaws provide for bonuses, and they qualify for three extra lots because of the open space parcels; about ten acres, which has been provided. This would allow for 10% bonuses. 10% of 26 (the number of units allowed under conventional zoning) would be 2.6 rounded UP to 3 additional units, as provided for in the zoning regulations. There are also currently two lots that were previously sold. The proponent has met with the homeowners and one has agreed to have the house purchased. He also reported that on May 13th, the developer held a meeting with approximately 30 - 40 abutters that attended. They have not yet met with all abutters. They discussed the new proposal and fielded all questions. They agreed to honor what was required per the special permit, i.e. landscaping, buffer zones and any other areas of concern the abutters had. Again, they are asking for 29 single family residences; 26 allowed plus the three bonuses. They are not making changes to the road, drainage, utilities, or detention basin. Mr. Intoccia said the site needs cleanup, as a fair amount of landscaping has laid fallow for three years.

 

Ms. Price confirmed that, as per the discussion, the house on Lot 1 will remain. Mr. Intoccia said the exterior will be changed to match the new architecture. The lot sizes will be approximately 10,000 square feet. He commented that he originally wanted to build duplexes but when he went to stake out the site it did not work. There will now be more open space. Ms. Price asked for the setback dimension and was told ten feet between the buildings (five feet from the building to the side lot line). She questioned the detention basin near Cheryl Drive and was told they will loam, seed and hide it with shrubs. Mr. Intoccia said he will follow whatever was on the previous landscape plan.  Ms. Sloan volunteered to assist with the landscaping plan.  Mr. O’Cain said the previous landscaping plan was submitted as a minimal plan. He suggested that Mr. Intoccia meet with the neighbors before they pull a permit to make sure the landscaping plan is done. He said on the Huntington side there are safety issues and fences are needed. Ms. Price asked about the disposition of the clubhouse and Mr. Intoccia said he was unsure. She also asked if they need to go to the Board of Health regarding the septic. Mr. Shelmerdine replied yes but they will be below the 10,000 gpd capacity.  Mr. Intoccia said he was worried about the stigma associated with the name Hunter’s Ridge and may change it.

 

Ms. Sloan asked if they had any ideas for the clubhouse and they said that right now it will become their sales office. He said he will build stone walls, and wants to work on the streetscape. He wants to create a new atmosphere with a lot of plantings. Ms. Sloan asked Mr. Intoccia to describe the hardscape and grading process and he said he needs to add loam to stabilize the property and then hydro seed. He will use borders on the premise and will work on the grade. Ms. Sloan questioned the type of grass seed Mr. Intoccia will use and Mr. Intoccia agreed to show the seeds to her. Mr. Intoccia stated he will not build until the neighbors are happy with the plantings. He will meet with the neighbors again and wants to stabilize the lots by mid-end of June. He does not anticipate cutting down any trees.

 

Mr. Hauser stated that as per confirmation from Attorney Cindy Amara, she is comfortable that the CSD bylaw as current of the original approval is applicable in this situation. Mr. Hauser agreed that 29 is the correctly calculated number of units based on the allowed bonus for open space. He stated that there had been a verbal agreement with the neighbors regarding the buffer and was glad to see that Mr. Intoccia would be honoring this. In terms of public space, Mr. Hauser said that public parking is required. Mr. Mirrione was going to put in four spaces.  Mr. Intoccia agreed to this as well. Mr. Hauser said that 2 public trails, and signs indicating their entrance, were included to be built in the original agreement for Hunter's Ridge; and that this should continue to be done.  Mr. Intoccia agreed to create signs marking the entrances, as well as to create a woodchip path leading to the trails from the street. Mr. Hauser suggested that Mr. Intoccia discuss the details of the construction and locations with Mr. O’Cain.

Mr. Hauser then asked if the development was LEED certified and Mr. Intoccia said it was not. Mr. Hauser also asked if pervious asphalt would be used and Mr. Intoccia said he would use this material for the four parking spaces. He also said he would not be using compost toilets. Mr. Shelmerdine interjected that whatever was in place in the original decision they will do.

 

Catherine Roth of 54 Huntington Avenue said the developers need to think of things like LEED certified and compost toilets. She thinks there was a huge mistake made in the previous development and is concerned about enforcement. She said that the Town was affected by the fiasco and wants to be guaranteed of conditions promised.

 

Mr. Hauser said that Mr. Lauenstein’s previous requests for LEED certification and compost toilets were not written into an approval. Regarding compliance, it is up to Joe Kent, Building Inspector, not the Planning Board to enforce compliance. The Planning Board takes the regulations and applies the plan against them. The Board approves lot layout, treatment of roadways and CSD calculations, and can make conditions of approval.

Mr. Intoccia stated he thinks the neighbors will be happy once he gets started. He promises to finish the subdivision and thinks it will take approximately eighteen months. The property needs $200,000-300,000 worth of landscaping. He will clean the area; stabilizing it and fixing the front entrance.

 

Ms. Katherine Roth of 54 Huntington Avenue asked who to go to for compliance and Mr. Hauser replied Mr. O’Cain. He said Mr. O’Cain will bond particular items that are requested but he cannot make the developer do something.  Mr. Intoccia said to put the fencings and plantings as a condition. He will meet this and satisfy the neighbors where any property backs up to it.  

 

Scott Dunn of 34 Huntington Avenue stated that if the homes are age restricted the residents would not take Town services such as schools. He wants to maintain taxes and not have them increased. He suggested building one story, two bedroom age restricted homes. He suggested that the market was down and perhaps another developer would do something else.

 

Mr. Hauser said these were good thoughts but the Planning Board is chartered to review the plan as within the Planning Board regulations which do not include economics as a qualification for approval. He said that the developer came to us with a plan that is assessed against those regulations in this case. The economics of the project are not in the realm of the Planning Board’s approval criteria.

 

Ina Kornetsky of 57 Lantern Lane said that Hunter’s Ridge went against all they had hoped for. Over age 55 aged qualified homes will have less impact on schools and traffic. She asked how Mr. Intoccia knows the homes will sell.

 

Mr. Intoccia said that banks will not finance over 55 developments today. He said he is here tonight to discuss 29 homes and move forward. He said if he did not think he could sell the units he would not be building them.

 

Arthur Kesselman of 11 Osprey Road said that Lot 48 is in his name. He is disappointed with no age restriction. He feels the clean-up is a plus. He is concerned with the conditions. He is disappointed there will not be a clubhouse and is curious about the land the club house sits on and questioned if it will be owned by the association.  Mr. Intoccia replied he cannot sell age restricted and the clubhouse will be used as a sales office for two years.

 

Mr. O’Cain said they need to think about what will happen with the lot the club house sits on. Mr. Shelmerdine replied that it is only for residential uses because it is residentially zoned and any rezoning would have to go through Town Meeting.

 

Mr. Kesselman said he wants a condition to require the developer to help his home fit into the neighborhood better.

 

Mr. Shelmerdine said he will prepare a draft list of all conditions for approval.

 

Robin Estrin of 66 Cheryl Drive wants a condition to include fixing the fire gate and hay bales on Cheryl Drive. Mr. Intoccia said he will replace the bales. Mr. Hauser said that the fire access is specified by the fire chief.

Israel Yaar of 53 Lantern Lane asked what the height of the buildings would be and Mr. Intoccia said the maximum height of the buildings is 35 feet. Mr. Yaar asked if they will put the fence between the development and Lantern Lane and Mr. Intoccia said yes, plantings or a fence will be used and that a fence would be six feet tall.  Mr. Yaar asked if the Planning Board has the authority to cancel what was voted at Town Meeting. Mr. O’Cain said that the Town Counsel ruled the need to go by the Old Zoning Regulations of 2005. Mr. Hauser said the CSD bylaw in effect at the time of approval of April 14, 2005 is what is applied as per Attorney Gelerman’s advice to the Planning Board.

 

David Sotkowitz of 59 Cheryl Drive wants a fence around the retention basin right away. Mr. Intoccia said yes.  Mr. O’Cain said they need a gate in the fence large enough for a backhoe to fit through.

 

Sheila Griffin of 18 Huntington Avenue has small children and asked about a retaining wall. She suggested plantings are needed to stop the washing out on the embankment...In the original plan, she said trees and bushes were promised.  Mr. Intoccia said he will put up a fence to fix the erosion.

 

Katherine Roth of 54 Huntington Avenue said that originally there was going to be one affordable unit. She asked whether the Planning Board has any option to require the developer to do so. Mr. Hauser said there were two affordable units in the original plan, but that the Planning Board has no authority to require affordable units of this developer.

 

Israel Yaar of 53 Huntington Avenue asked where the fence would be located. Mr. Intoccia said on his property before the swale.

 

Ina Kornetsky of 57 Lantern Lane asked if the houses will be built on speculation or by ordering. Mr. Intoccia will be building spec houses. He will not be landscaping properties he did not build. He will put a fence behind all lots.

 

Mr. O’Cain asked the developer to provide a list of abutters’ lots, including the name of the owner and a resolution to each owners concern.

 

Katherine Roth of 54 Huntington Avenue asked about bonds on the property. Mr. O’Cain said the 4/20/09 bond from Mr. Mirrione should be transferred. He said there is a $10,000 bond to ensure the hay bales are replaced; the soil stabilized and runoff eliminated on Cheryl Drive. He said there is always a fine line when you work with the developers and abutters. He doesn’t want to pull the bond because the Town would have to complete work and the new developer said he has paid the outstanding bond so it is still active.  Ms. Roth then asked if the Town could take control of the property by tax taking. Mr. O’Cain said the Treasurer waits two years for tax taking.

 

Victor Smetana of 165 N. Main Street asked if there would be blasting. Mr. O’Cain said the site is mostly done. They would need a permit from the fire department to do any blasting but he does not think there will be any blasting.

 

At 9:32 PM, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Price moved to close the public hearing and Ms. Sloan seconded the notion. The Board voted 3-0-0.

 

Additional Comments

Ms. Sloan addressed the audience and said to send any landscaping concerns to her at synta@comcast.net.

 

Ms. Price asked if the homes will have basements, what the square footage would be, will there be a restriction on the number of bedrooms and is the master on the first floor of any of the units. Mr. Intoccia said yes to basements and that the homes will be 1700 – 2400 square feet.

 

A brief discussion ensued about Intoccia offering to build a model with a bedroom on the first floor and Mr. Intoccia agreed to prepare a design for this, and include this on his marketing plan so that it could be age directed.

 

Mr. O’Cain said the traffic will increase by a small amount because this is not an age restricted development.

 

Ms. Price also questioned where the walking trails would be. Mr. Hauser said not defined trails but more access and signage to the existing public spaces. Mr. Shelmerdine said he will look to see if trails are on the existing plan.

 

Ms. Price asked if the septic for the Town could be built on any of this land. Mr. Hauser said not on this plan as presented tonight; the community was not surveyed regarding having a septic system there, no-one from the Town (BOS, BOH, etc.) had yet endorsed such a proposal, and no design studies for locating the system were yet executed. At present, we only have a concept and a general idea of how much land is needed. As such, it is beyond the realm of the current discussion. Mr. Intoccia said he cannot hold four acres of land not knowing who would pay for it.

 

Mr. Intoccia said he will hold a meeting at the clubhouse and ask each abutter to sign off on their requests and the proposed changes. This can be attached to the final draft.

 

Mr. Shelmerdine stated to the Board that it closed the deliberation stage tonight. He said you could take a vote to approve the concept of 29 single family homes with three bedrooms each subject to the review of conditions at the next meeting. Mr. O’Cain said the Board had ninety days to respond. Ms. Price asked that they darken the property lines for this property on the map. Mr. O’Cain said he wants Chief Mann to review the plan and comment.

 

Ms. Price motioned to amend the decision on application for special permit pursuant to section 4371 of the Zoning Bylaws issued to Hunter’s Ridge Realty Trust by the Planning Board for Hunter’s Ridge Development on April 27, 2005 to approve the amendment submitted for twenty nine lots removing age qualified housing and affordable units as well as the 8/14/08 letter and subject to conditions to be attached to the amended decision replacing with twenty nine single family homes; not more than twenty seven, three bedroom and two, two bedroom units and subject to approval by the Board of Health.  Ms. Sloan seconded the motion. The Board voted 3-0-0 in favor. (This vote was subsequently deemed invalid and will be revoted on July 8th).

 

Next Meeting

June 2, 2009 to discuss the conditions of approval for Hunter’s Ridge, as well as a request by Mr. Shocket for a waiver on Eisenhower Drive and three sign reviews.

 

Meeting Adjournment

Meeting adjourned at 10:10 PM. Ms. Price moved to close the meeting and Ms. Sloan seconded the motion. The Board voted 3-0-0 in favor.