Town of Sharon Planning Board

Meeting Minutes of 7/08/09

Amended and Approved on 8/12/09

Public Hearing regarding Hunter’s Ridge

 

 

Planning Board Attendees

Paul Lauenstein, Chair 

Susan Price, Vice Chair

Eli Hauser

Amanda Sloan  

David Milowe, Clerk   

 

 

Peter O’Cain, Town Engineer, Consultant

 

Attendees

Robin Estrin, 66 Cheryl Drive

Israel Yaar, 53 Lantern Lane

Beth Green, 11 Huckleberrry lane

Jane Desberg, 27 Colburn Drive

Sheila Hollister, 44 Huntington Avenue

Shelia Griffin, 18 Huntington Avenue

Susan Saunders, 26 Massapoag Avenue

Ellen Bisshopp ,36 Huntington Avenue

James Spoto, 61 Lantern Lane

Roni Thaler,16 Kings Road

Attorney Robert Shelmerdine

Michael Intoccia

 

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, July 8th, 2009 at 7:30 PM to consider the proposal by the Sharon Planning Board 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 (the 2005 Decision). The Planning Board proposes to cure a defect in the vote taken on May 20, 2009 on the petition of Hunter’s Ridge, LLC to modify the 2005 Decision. Under law, a vote of four in the affirmative is required to amend the 2005 Decision and only three Planning Board members voted on that date. The Planning Board seeks to amend the 2005 Decision as follows: 1) reduce the total number of dwelling units, 2) change of unit type, 3) alter the number of age restricted units, 4) modify the provision of affordable units and 5) grant 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, and Sharon, Massachusetts for review during normal business hours.”

 

Mr. Lauenstein thanked the applicant, Mr. Intoccia for extending the 65 day period to cure the defect in the vote inadvertently made in May. He acknowledged the stabilization of the property by the applicant and commented that the property is in better shape than it used to be. The hearing was then turned over to Robert Shelmerdine, Attorney for the applicant, Michael Intoccia to present.

 

Attorney Bob Shelmerdine 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 said that in 2005, the Planning Board granted two matters of relief. The definitive subdivision was approved which laid out the 50 lots. The developer was granted a special permit to allow the density to increase and it showed that 26 lots could be conventionally developed. Ten acres was given to the Town for open space as well. He stated that the road, utilities and drainage are already in place. He said that two lots were conveyed to the property owners and indicated on the display map what had and had not been built. He said that due to hard economic times and the style of home this development did not take off under the previous developer. He said Mr. Intoccia inquired 6 months ago to change the nature of the development and convert the 50 lots/51 units to 29 units on 29 lots thus reducing density. Lot 28 will continue with the existing house and certain things will be provided to the owners, such as façade and landscaping improvements. Lot 25A will be acquired by Mr. Intoccia. As he proposes to build 29 lots and 2 exist, he will build 27 dwelling units. Three open space parcels were previously provided to the Town equaling ten acres, and because of the open space provided, the applicant was able to increase the density by 3 units. At 29 units they do not need to comply with the affordable or age restricted requirement. On each of the 27 lots they intend to build 3 bedrooms, 2 story single family residences which are approximately 68 feet wide and 33 feet deep.

 

Mr. Shelmerdine stated they are present at this meeting to ask for modifications of the special permit to reduce density. They will be simply changing the interior lot lines and if the Planning Board approves the request, they will present a Form A to alter these lot lines. No lot will be built on buffer zones or vegetative wetlands. They already submitted an application to the Board of Health and a hearing is scheduled. They will go in front of the Conservation Commission as well. He stated that all work they will be doing will be on lots outside of the buffer zone. Mr. Shelmerdine said he is asking the Planning Board to vote on the plan of 29 lots, 27 will be three bedrooms, two story single family residences. They do not need to provide age restricted or affordable units.

 

Mr. Lauenstein thanked Mr. Intoccia for his presentation. He then read emails from Kevin McCarville, Lee Wernick and Walter Newman who all expressed their opinion regarding Hunter’s Ridge which included keeping age restriction and limiting the number of homes being built by phasing them in.

 

Ms. Price said that with regards to the comments read, she disagrees with imposing any additional phasing restrictions. She agrees with the comments regarding age restrictions and is not pleased that there will now be school children from the project and no affordable units provided. She stated that because of the reduction in the number of units and the provision of open space, the project is still within the purpose and intent of the CSD. She noted that the developer said he would offer to build a style of dwelling unit with the master bedroom on the 1st floor, which may appeal to older home buyers.

 

Ms. Sloan stated that we are at the point to do the best that we can on the property to restore the environment and make sure the needs of the abutters are met the best that they can be.

 

Mr. Hauser wants to assure that parking and access to public space is still okay and the question still remains about the disposition of the clubhouse. Mr. Intoccia replied that right now the clubhouse will be used for marketing the new development. In order to convert the property to a home he would have to come before Town Meeting. Mr. Shelmerdine said the CSD Bylaw gives 29 houses and if the clubhouse is to be used for anything else they will come back. This is already in the conditions.

 

Mr. Hauser suggested that it could be converted into an affordable unit or Town Offices and Mr. Shelmerdine said zoning may be an issue. Mr. O’Cain said the septic system is at its limit and changing the use of the clubhouse could be an issue. Mr. Shelmerdine said 500 gallons are associated with the pool use so if it is closed then it wouldn’t be an issue.

 

Mr. Lauenstein asked if the remaining occupant had rights to the clubhouse. Mr. Shelmerdine said the property owner has rights of access but they do not mind giving up their rights. He said they will fix up the property owners house to match the style of the new ones being built.

 

Mr. Lauenstein read from the bylaws in terms of what the Planning Board needs to determine if they want to grant the special permit. He said, with regard to the letters from the Zoning Board members which urged the Planning Board to maintain the age restriction, he finds that this is not supported by the bylaw. He thinks that there are no grounds to deny the application and would like to hear from the citizens.

 

Jim Spoto of 61 Lantern Lane stated that in the past a number of variances were granted to Mr. Mirrione like the clearing of the land in the 20 foot buffer zone and access to North Main Street. These he said were granted based on affordable and age restricted. With the new development, traffic patterns may change. He asked if the Planning Board looked at the variances and if they would be given to the developer now.

 

Mr. Lauenstein replied that in the process tonight, the Board may or may not vote to put the situation back in the same footing as back in May. The Developer put a lot of money into the property. There will be conditions put into the decision like trees. As far as access onto North Main Street, the 29 houses will create less traffic than the previous agreed to 51 homes.

 

Ms. Price replied that when reviewing and revising the conditions, she looked at past waivers and their purpose and impact, and whether they were still relevant.

 

Ms. Sloan asked Mr. Spoto what the root of his concern was and he replied that a lot of variances were given based on age qualified and now that it is not an age qualified development will that make a difference.

 

Mr. Shelmerdine replied by stating that on April 27, 2005 five waivers, not variances, were granted. They all had to do with the roadway and were a part of the definitive decision which stands from 2005.

 

Israel Yaar of 53 Lantern Lane asked why waivers were given back in 2005. Mr. Hauser replied that the builder was looking for relief to ease construction efforts but this is now out of the scope of the Public Hearing as the roadway is now in place.

 

Ms. Price read an excerpt from the draft decision to explain why a waiver would have been given for the original project. She stated it was because of drainage issues and the applicant was supposed to replace the buffers.

 

Mr. Shelmerdine stated that there are published rules and regulations which tells the developer how they should build streets. The developer will say they do not need certain things that are not deemed necessary so they asked for a waiver.

 

It was recommended by the Board that Mr. Yaar have a private conversation with Mr. Intoccia to discuss his particular issue regarding his fence. Mr. Shelmerdine stated that he mailed letters to abutters regarding their particular issues.

 

Ms. Jane Desberg of 27 Colburn Drive, a member of the Sharon Housing Partnership stated she was present with Susan Saunders and Roni Thaler. They were disappointed that two affordable units were not being built and would like to have one of the homes being torn down at Hunter’s Ridge, moved to Hixson Farm Road. A lot of work had been done to make this happen. She stated the home would be sold as affordable and deed restricted. 

 

Roni Thaler said that when they heard that houses would be torn down they thought Hixson Farms was a good possibility. The State is okay with this. She met with movers and the house could fit, the septic would also work as well.

 

Mr. O’Cain asked how long Mr. Intoccia will wait for the house to be removed and how long will it take for the State to release the land. Ms. Desberg replied that the land needs to be deemed surplus, it will remain affordable. It is financially and physically feasible. 

Ms. Thaler stated that the Town would need to make its case to the Finance Committee to release the funds to move the house.

 

Mr. Intoccia said he offered some of the homes to the fired department for training.

 

Mr. Lauenstein said that every unit counts. He is in favor of this and asked what the Planning Board can do to make it happen.  Mr. O’Cain replied that the time frame for the move should be made a condition in the decision.

 

Ms. Price asked why the second house cannot be used as well and Mr. O’Cain replied that the property at Hixson Farms is narrow and they would need variances to fit the house. Using the GIS maps they can definitely fit one house and the second house would need to be located diagonally.

 

Sheila Griffin of 18 Huntington Avenue said that Mr. Mirrione took out a historical wall, wrote her a letter that he would fix the wall and thinks that letter should be honored. She said that the area behind her house is a safety issue due to the steep slope. There is erosion and she wants low maintenance plantings and grass to stop the erosion. In the letter she received from Mr. Intoccia she said the problems are not resolved. She offered six months to get the problems corrected.

 

Mr. Intoccia said there is no mud in the areas where her property is. Regarding the wall he said it was on his property and Mirrione took it down so he is not responsible. He agreed to meet with both the homeowner and Mr. O’Cain on the property.

 

Mr. O’Cain said that each individual abutters needs (a signed agreement) so that the developer, the Town and the abutters all have a record of what was agreed to. Before the decision is signed or as a condition of the decision he wants time limits in place to have the abutter agreements finalized.

 

Mr. Lauenstein interjected that Ms. Sloan has been to the site and will have an input on the conditions and ensure the problems are solved.

 

Mr. Shelmerdine said that for the draft conditions specifically related to abutters issues that were not resolved; Peter O’Cain would be the arbitrator.

 

Mr.  Hauser agrees with Mr. O’Cain regarding enforceability of what the abutters want. He wants Mr. O’Cain to be able to mark actions off against an explicit and clear check list of commitments and deliverables. He stated that the Planning Board did not give Mr. Mirrione permission to take down the historical wall. Mr. Hauser also stated that he does not want the Planning Board to become an enforcement or oversight board, and that there are people in the Town (DPW, Building Inspector, Board of Health, Conservation Commission) who are specifically tasked and empowered by the Town and various regulations for oversight and enforcement.  He suggested perhaps setting a bond for these types of items if the Planning Board wants to.

Robin Estrin of 66 Cheryl Drive said there is confusion in the agreements between plantings and buffers. She asked what the Planning Board will be doing and how much should they as abutters advocate for.

 

Mr. Hauser said Mr. Intoccia needs to have a formal plan and this plan should be a requirement within the conditions.

 

Mr. Intoccia said they provided a plan that was previously approved.  Mr. Lauenstein commented that each abutter should review the plan.  Mr. Shelmerdine said within the previous conditions Mr. Mirrione put together a landscaping plan that should have been reviewed by the tree warden. It was adopted and approved by the Planning Board on 4/6/05 and revised on 1/21/06. Mr. Shelmerdine said this is the plan they are using to plant in the buffer zone and street trees. They are sending letters to provide additional landscaping and/or fences to the abutters.

 

Ms. Sloan said that on 6/1/09 she reviewed the original site plan and provided Mr. Shelmerdine with comments. She has not yet received a response.

 

Beth Green of 11 Huckleberry Lane questioned the existence of the bond that Mr.  Mirrione had. Mr. Lauenstein replied that the applicant took over the bond making payments. Erosion has been mitigated to the extent practical. Mr. O’Cain said that Mr. Intoccia is now the bond holder and is required to complete the work. He also said the landscaping plan can be bonded.  Tonight the Board could vote if the configuration is acceptable. The conditions will take time to work on.

 

Sheila Hollister of 44 Huntington Avenue does not see the public access to the path on the plan that is being displayed at the meeting. Mr. Shelmerdine pointed it out to her on the map. Mr. O’Cain said you need to go into the development to get access to the open space.

 

Ms. Sloan moved that the Planning Board approve with conditions the application to amend the special permit pursuant to Section 4371 of the Zoning Bylaws issued to Hunter’s Ridge Realty Trust by the Planning Board on April 27, 2005, removing the requirements for age-qualified housing and affordable housing and associated density bonuses, but retaining the open space requirement and associated 10% density bonus, subject to all provisions of a Decision to be prepared by the Planning Board in a timely fashion  but not later than ninety days hence, with assistance from an outside consultant whose fee shall be paid by the applicant pursuant to Section 2.7.1 of the Rules and Regulations of the Sharon Planning Board. Mr. Hauser seconded the motion and the Board voted 4-0-1 (Mr. Milowe abstained).

 

Ms. Sloan moved that the Planning Board recommend to the Applicant the selection of Professional Services Corporation, PC to assist the Planning Board in formulating conditions of approval for inclusion in the Decision on the revised special permit which modifies the special permit issued to Hunters Ridge Realty Trust by the Planning Board for Hunters Ridge Development on April 27, 2005, and for providing monitoring and inspection services, per the scope of services submitted by Professional Service Corporation, PC to Attorney Robert Shelmerdine on June 25, 2009. Mr. Milowe seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

 

Mr. Hauser moved to continue the Public Hearing on Hunter’s Ridge to July 22nd. Ms. Sloan seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

 

The meeting ended at 10:00 PM.