Town of Sharon Planning Board
Meeting Minutes of 6/3/09
Amended and Approved on 8/12/09
Planning Board Attendees
|
Paul Lauenstein, Vice Chair |
Susan Price, Vice Chair |
|
Eli Hauser, Clerk |
Amanda Sloan |
|
David Milowe |
|
Peter O’Cain, Town Engineer, Consultant
Attendees
|
Robert Shelmerdine |
Michael Intoccia |
|
Victoria Groves |
Shishin Meht |
|
Dale Baker |
Debbie Odier |
|
Brandon Collins |
Alan and Susan Wittner |
|
Joel H. Fishman |
Dao Thach |
|
Laurie Brown |
Michael Kramer |
|
Jon Shocket |
David Klayman |
|
Peter Savage |
Chris Piazza |
Meeting Initiation
Meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Vice Chair Paul Lauenstein.
Sign Reviews
French Memories – Debbie Odier from French Memories Café requested to be able to hang an “OPEN” flag outside of her restaurant in order to generate more business. She also asked that parking signs be noted for parking in the rear of the building. Mr. Lauenstein stated that the sign bylaws allow for only two permanent signs, and the Board should consider the precedent that would be set by allowing a flag in Post Office Square. Mr. Lauenstein also commented that Ms. Odier provides a valuable service to the Town with her restaurant but is concerned that many businesses may request to be allowed to hang flags. Ms. Sloan commented that a flag will add to the liveliness of the center of Town. Ms. Sloan moved to allow French Memories to hang a flag as described by the proponent for a period of thirty days. This will allow them to determine the impact the flag has on their business, and also allow the Planning Board to see if other businesses come forward with requests to hang out flags. Mr. O’Cain will monitor the situation and report back at a future Planning Board Meeting. Mr. Milowe seconded the motion and the Board voted 3-0-0 in favor. Mr. Hauser and Ms. Price were not yet in attendance.
Get in Shape for Women – A request for a sign was received from this new business. They described their sign as old fashioned, externally illuminated carved wood sign. They wanted to use colors that would assist with their brand recognition as there are twenty other locations across Eastern, Massachusetts. The designer who attended the meeting stated they would be amenable to using historical colors as per the request of Ms. Sloan. They are also aware that the sign has to be no larger than 30 square feet. The designer also provided a drawing of a softened edge to the sign as per Ms. Sloan’s request. The design for the border will have an inward radius. The designer will forward the historical color to be used to Mr. O’Cain.
Mr. Hauser moved to approve the sign for “Get in Shape for Women” contingent upon their using historical colors and adding the inward radius as well as shrinking the size to thirty square feet. Mr. Milowe seconded the motion. The Board voted 4-0-1 (Price abstained).
Coriander – Owner Dao Thach asked the Board to hang a temporary banner which states “Grand Opening” for his new restaurant. He wants to hang the sign for thirty days. Mr. Hauser moved to approve the temporary sign presented by the applicant for thirty days pursuant to section 4.4.B. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 to approve.
ANR Plan
Joel Fishman, Attorney for clients of 102 Massapoag Avenue went to Town Counsel trying to split a non conforming lot that is too small to build on. The Planning Board received a letter from the office of Attorney Gelerman, Bushmann and Jeter, P.C. regarding the parcel of land on Massapoag Avenue dated 6/1/09. In the letter to Mr. O’Cain, Attorney Amara stated that her office received a letter from Attorney Fishman dated 5/15 regarding the parcel of lake front property at 102 Massapog Avenue. She stated that the proposed division of the lakefront parcel does not constitute a subdivision, and, therefore is entitled to endorsement under M.G.L. ch.41 81). Thus the ANR Plan submitted by the property owners for the lakefront parcel is entitled to endorsement by the Planning Board. The endorsement she writes should state that the parcel cannot be used for building.
Mr. Hauser made a motion to approve the plot plan as submitted as approval not required for the lakefront property of 102 Massapoag Avenue. Current owner Ruven and Anat Meyer and lot 2 to be owned by James and Elizabeth Glaser and two lots not buildable as noted on the plan submitted 5/5/09. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor of approval.
The Board signed the associated mylar's and Form A’s.
Eisenhower Drive
Mr. O’Cain in several email correspondences to the Board provided the following information:
Within his 5/13/09 email, Mr. O’Cain writes, “The developer of the Eisenhower Extension subdivision, Mr. Jon Shocket, has submitted a waiver request to the Planning Board. The attached waiver is related to the fact that I found during one of my inspections that the curbing installed in the cul-de-sac was set at a 24-foot roadway width, which has reduced the area available for the grass strip around the cul-de-sac. Abutting property owners have already landscaped (one with a large boulder), so moving the sidewalk back will impact abutters. It should be noted that the landscaping is within the right-of-way and no abutter called to inquire about the location of the right-of-way. The grass strip issue only pertains to the cul-de-sac area and the developer will be able to complete the rest of the roadway and sidewalk to plan. I have had the engineer for Mr. Shocket delineate the curb line and sidewalk line in paint, so the Board can review the locations being discussed. It should also be noted that the construction (paving) of the sidewalk is poor in some areas and will need to be replaced. I will be evaluating sidewalk cross-slope in the day or two, so I can determine whether the sidewalk cross-slope (slope from front to back) is correct.
The developer states in his letter that the modifications were due to a "mix-up" between the Town offices and the project engineer. The applicant's engineer filed a "Notice of Intent" with the Conservation Commission on August 7, 2007 that indicated the cul-de-sac roadway width was not 24 feet but 21 feet when scaled off, so he must have had modified plans at that time. Additionally, the developer has the only signed copy of the subdivision plan, which he was supposed to have registered at the Registry of Deeds and he was then supposed to provide the Town with a copy of the registered plan. The DPW has yet to receive a copy of the recorded plan.”
As the email continues, Mr. O’Cain states that as a supplement to the Board's information, the following is some background regarding each of the waiver requests found in the attached letter:
“1) If we leave the cul-de-sac roadway width at 24-feet, the sidewalk will need to be moved back, which will impact some of the abutter's landscaping and a hydrant. Moving the curbing in 2 feet will allow the grass strip to be about 3 to 4 feet depending on location (If curb is moved toward the center of the cul-de-sac). The abutters will probably not want their landscaping impacted by moving the sidewalk back and the developer will not want to move the curb because it will probably cost him about 8-10K dollars
2) If we reduce the width of the grass strip, the trees will need to be moved to the back of the sidewalk. The plan calls for a 4'-7" grass strip, according to the Planning Board Rules and Regulations standard (see "Schedule B" at the back of the Planning Board regs).
3) The relocation of the trees will depend on the outcome of items 1 and 2 and the opinion of the Board and the abutters. In my opinion, having trees within the grass strip is a bad idea from a technical standpoint because the roots tend to interfere with utilities located in that area (underground cable and electric) and the trees eventually damage the sidewalk. That said, the plan calls for trees within the 4'-7" grass strip. “
Mr. O’Cain continued by stating he discussed the issues with some of the abutters and they were going to meet and provide him with their concerns and wants for the subdivision. One point that has come up again is the issue of the cul-de-sac island which the abutters do not want. He reminded the Board that the developer came before the Board a few months back and made a request to eliminate the island. The Board voted against removal of the island at that time.
At the meeting Mr. Shocket stated he wants to address the curbing issue and wants the Boards approval to shrink the grass strip because the road is too big.
A conversation with the Board ensued in which Ms. Price asked if Mr. Shocket would be putting trees in the straight away and he said yes. Mr. Lauenstein suggested permeable pavement and Mr. Shocket said he would be using asphalt. Mr. O’Cain said he was happy with the asphalt and granite curbing.
Mr. Lauenstein read the letter received from Alan Brown. It stated:
Dear Planning Board Members:
With respect to the Eisenhower Drive Extension Development, we, the residents, offer the following requests for your consideration:
· Remove the island from the cul-de-sac as, among other things:
o we do not want to maintain its appearance
o it will be a hazard in the winter, whether the roadway is 22’ or 24’ wide
o it is dangerous for children – we have already witnessed one child from another neighborhood ride his bicycle down the slope of the street and flip over the island curb
o removing the island will allow for more space for the children to play
· Do not plant trees on the residents’ side of the sidewalk
· Do not move the sidewalk into the residents’ front yards
· Do not decrease the approved width of the grass strip, and such grass strip should have a consistent width throughout the development
· Repair the sidewalk throughout the development (e.g., consistent with the approved plan and normal standards, removal of bumps, etc.)
· Place granite curbing throughout the development roadway (straight portion of the road and cul-de-sac)
In summary, other than requesting the granite curbs along the straight portion of the road (for aesthetics and consistency throughout the development, and to minimize the future cost of repair for asphalt curbs), we do not believe we are requesting anything that we are not entitled to from the developer. Specifically, we do not believe we should suffer any consequences (e.g., infringement on our properties, narrower grass strips, etc) due to the unprofessional and below-standard workmanship of the company hired by the developer, or the lack of developer oversight during the walk and curb installation process. Furthermore, it appears that the waivers being requested by the developer and, thus, the concessions that would be absorbed by the residents, are merely a byproduct of deficient execution by the developer’s subcontractor.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss these matters prior to the June 3rd Planning Board Meeting, please do not hesitate to contact any of the residents of the Eisenhower Drive Extension Development.
Thank you for your careful consideration of the above requests.
Mr. Kramer of 16 Eisenhower Drive said the paving by T& K paving was substandard and they worked from the wrong set of plans. There are wavy sidewalks, inconsistent grass strips and the transition from one to the next is also inconsistent. Residents want the cul-de-sac circle removed for safety. If the sidewalks are fixed appropriately, the granite curb would not need to be removed. The grass strip will cause future landscape issues.
Peter Savage of 17 Eisenhower Drive said he wants the grass strips to be equal and said getting rid of the island would make it easier to plow.
Peter O’Cain stated that the subdivision was approved in two stages. It is common to have granite and radius curbing. The Town owns the land beyond the roadway and recommended the abutters verify where their land is. The right of way is town owned. There is room to move the sidewalk. The layout of the road was done by a surveyor. The contractor made a mistake and the cul de sac is not laid out properly.
Laurie Brown suggested moving the sidewalks to touch the granite and suggested getting rid of the island.
David Klayman of 29 Eisenhower supports not having the grassy strip in the cul de sac and wants a grass strip on the straight away that is tree lined and consistent. He also suggested the developer supply the trees to the owners.
Mr. Hauser said he was not in favor of removing the island. If additional trees are involved he stated the funds should be added to the tree fund for the Town. He stated the developer needs to make sure the sidewalk is completely repaired. He suggested permeable asphalt for the sidewalks and said Mr. Shocket needs to hire a landscaper to do things correctly. He also said the sidewalk should not extend into the Town right of way. Ms. Sloan stated she agrees with both Mr. Hauser and Ms. Price. Mr. Lauenstein said he was not convinced of the safety argument to remove the island and that the road should not be made narrower because the fire department prefers a wider road in the cul-de-sac. He likes using porous asphalt and said that planting deep-rooted, drought-tolerant native grass addresses the difficulty of irrigating the grass strip between the sidewalk and the road. He agrees that Mr. Shocket needs a plan. He prefers not to move the curb in two feet and he is also not inclined to remove the island.
Mr. Shocket agreed to put together a plan to present back to the Board at a future meeting.
Hunter’s Ridge
Attorney Bob Shelmerdine representing applicant Michael Intoccia stated he came before the Board on 5/20/09 to make a presentation for 29 single family residences, down from the previous 51 approved on the original CSD plan. The Planning Board voted to approve the 29 single family homes subject to conditions specified in a subsequent written decision. Two will be two bedrooms and the remaining twenty seven will be single family units with three bedrooms, for a total of 85 bedrooms. According to the current plan lots 1 and 48 will remain. Mr. Shelmerdine said he met with Greg Meister and Peter O’Cain and reviewed the construction plan, focusing on improvements for storm water mitigation, erosion and grading. The Planning Board vote allowed Mr. Intoccia to acquire the property and start improvements. Mr. Shelmerdine sent a draft decision to Mr. O’Cain on 6/1/09 for the review of the Planning Board. He hopes to have a Form A at the next meeting for review and plans to record it at the registry of deeds. They are just changing the number of lots and the architecture, not the overall layout of the access road, open space, or other aspects of the original development. They will be submitting an amended plan to the Board of Health and Conservation Commission.
Mr. Lauenstein said at the last meeting 29 homes were approved and appreciates the stabilization of the property. He would like to see a development plan that is respectful and protective of the nearby wetlands. Ms. Sloan and Mr. O’Cain had agreed to pull together the conditions from the abutters. Mr. O’Cain had sent Mr. Shelmerdine the abutter’s addresses and a list of conditions.
Mr. Shelmerdine said that on 5/13 there was a meeting with the abutters where residents of Cheryl Drive, Huntington Avenue and Lantern Lane were invited. Last Wednesday, they had a second meeting where Mr. Intoccia noted the abutter’s requests on a large map of the property.
Mr. Lauenstein showed a presentation of the site which he created because he wanted to establish the spirit of the CSD which he feels was violated by the previous owner. The presentation showed how bad the erosion has been at the site.
After the presentation, a conversation ensued in which Mr. Intoccia said he will be stabilizing the property. He is starting fresh. The roadways and drainage systems are already built. He is just building homes. He promised to hydro-seed the exposed earth to prevent further erosion.
Mr. Lauenstein agreed to work with Ms. Sloan to write up the additional conditions. Mr. Hauser commented on the first draft written by Mr. Shelmerdine and provided contextual edits. Ms. Price provided her edits as well for Mr. Shelmerdine to capture and correct. Mr. Lauenstein then commented that he will review the document again and forward Mr. Shelmerdine additional comments. Ms. Sloan said she will comment on the landscaping plan. Mr. O’Cain commented that if they are going by the old plan it needs to be written into the decision. He also asked if Frank Gallagher looked at the plan as it may affect the drainage design.
A discussion ensued regarding the Town’s liability for the rock retaining wall on the southern edge of the property, which was built without the required permit and was not shown in the original plan as approved. Mr. O’Cain stated it needs to be permitted. Mr. Shelmerdine said he will address this.
Mr. O’Cain said that all mitigating measures should be shown on the plan like the number of plants used and where the fences are actually being placed.
Mr. Lauenstein nominated Ms. Price to be Vice Chair. Ms. Sloan seconded the motion. The Board voted 4-0-1 in favor. (Ms. Price abstained.)
Mr. Hauser nominated Mr. Milowe for the position of Clerk and Ms. Price seconded the motion. The Board voted 4-0-1 in favor (Mr. Milowe abstained.)
Meeting adjourned at 11:20 PM. Mr. Hauser moved to close the meeting and Mr. Milowe seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.