Town of Sharon Planning Board

Meeting Minutes of 9/30/09

Amended and Approved on 10/28/09

 

 

Planning Board Attendees

Paul Lauenstein, Chair 

Susan Price, Vice Chair

Eli Hauser

Amanda Sloan

David Milowe, Clerk 

 

 

Peter O’Cain, Town Engineer, Consultant

 

Attendees

Jen Roach - Sharon Advocate

Brond Larson - 49 Lantern Lane

Israel Yaar -  53 Lantern Lane

Sheila Griffin - 18 Huntington Avenue

Ivars Apse - Coach Lane

Ellen Bisshopp

Marilyn Kahn - 114 Ames Street

David Thomas - 30 Huntington Avenue

Edward Lyons - Architect for Bella Estates

Sheila Hollister - 41 Huntington Avenue

Bob Shelmerdine - Attorney for Bella Estates

David Sotkowitz - 59 Cheryl Drive

Katherine Roth - 54 Huntington Avenue

Robin Estrin - 66 Cheryl Drive

Daniel Huse - 54 Huntington Avenue

Davita and Bruce Moyer - Briggs Pond

Kathleen McCulloughy

Peter Savage - 17 Eisenhower

Bonnie and David Klayman - 29 Eisenhower Dr.

Steve Kelley - 630 Mountain Street

Anne Bingham - 78A Cedar Street

John Twohig

Bob Daylor

Marty Spagat

Cindy Amara - Town Counsel

Joanne McGinnis - 2131 Bay Road

Mr. Freeman - 31 Eisenhower

 

 

Chair Report

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Chair Paul Lauenstein who read the Chair’s Report .

 

Bella Estates

Ms. Price moved that the Board release the Intoccia Companies from the requirement of the special permit not to harm or demolish any housing unit until November 1st as listed in condition #16 and thus to allow the demolition of 9 Hunter’s Ridge prior to November 1st.  Mr. Milowe seconded the motion and the Board voted 3 -0- 2 in favor. This was done because the Sharon Housing Authority voted against acceptance of the relocated dwelling structure to an off site location.

 

Form A’s/Sign Reviews

None.

 

Meeting Minutes

A review of the 9/16 meeting minutes was deferred until the next meeting.

Brickstone

Ms. Price moved to reopen the continuation of the Brickstone Public Hearing from September 16th. Mr. Milowe seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

 

Mr. Lauenstein provided a recap from the hearing in which he stated that Brickstone provided a presentation to modify the plans for Rattlesnake Hill. He opened discussion to the Board and then the audience.

 

Ms. Price suggested that a change be made to Article 1 regarding the definition of “unified systems building area” and that it should not use “senior dwelling units” but “livable floor space”, or something that would indicate that the 10 story limit was for the dwelling units and lobby and common spaces but not for the levels which contain garage or loading areas. Mr. Twohig disagreed.  She asked Brickstone to describe the largest building face and its location. Mr. Twohig replied that the buildings facing Bay Road would be the tallest. Mr. Daylor stated that the buildings closest to Bay Road, which is within 2,000 feet of it, are buildings number 1 and 2 in the lower level. These buildings are 10 stories high. In the basement of the garage is a waste water treatment plant and emergency cooling systems. For that face of the building, there are a few locations where the three stories below grade will be exposed. It is not the entire wall that is exposed but a 24 foot wide opening to drive into the treatment plant.

 

Anne Bingham of 78A Cedar Street called a point of order because there were no Brickstone related visuals at the meeting. Mr. Twohig replied that the formal presentation was last meeting and they didn’t bring any presentation materials. They can provide hard copies as shown at the last meeting. It was noted that the presentation was forwarded to Roni Thaler and that it was available on the Town’s website.

 

Ms. Price asked where the building is 10 stories, how many feet high does that equate to. Mr. Daylor replied that the bottom and the top floors are 12 feet and ¾ inches. The other 8 floors are 11 feet high each. Therefore 88 feet plus 25 feet plus the mechanical roof equals 113 feet in total.  Ms. Price then asked if the definition of a dwelling unit would include the lobby and Mr. Daylor said it would not.

 

Ms. Sloan asked Mr. Daylor to describe the changes being proposed. He said instead of having six eight story buildings they are shifting to make it smaller with support buildings, particularly the nursing home, by adjusting the height and bringing the nursing home into the residential area. There will now be two six story, two eight and two ten story buildings. These buildings sit on top of a garage and loading dock areas and emergency power generation. The podium which the buildings rest on will be stepped down so one can enter the garage at the lower level. All of the support needs are tucked into the eastern end of the two tallest buildings under the garage. The entrances from the garages are from the sides of the buildings. The face of the buildings face into the site so that most of the face is buried in the created berm. Independent driveways into the loading dock and waste water treatment plant is buried but has to be exposed. The face is 800 feet long. All development sits on 20 acres. This area cannot be seen from public areas.

 

Ms. Sloan asked if you were standing in someone’s back yard could you see the buildings and Mr. Daylor replied that there are angles where you could see part of the buildings.  Ms. Sloan replied that everyone has a role on the Planning Board. She said “My role is as a landscape architect and landscape designer. This project, as much as it brings revenue to the Town, is not the right use for the land. From a land planning perspective, it’s the wrong place for this; for example      it is not close to a highway or hospital.” Her role she said is to continue to voice concern and look at things from a broad perspective.

 

Mr. Hauser commented that a good portion of the land will be deed restricted with no buildings.  Mr. Twohig replied that 36 acres are deed restricted. The six acres that were allocated to the nursing facility (now proposed to be integrated into the 6 buildings rather than a separate facility), will become additional green space for a total of 28 acres of green space. Mr. Hauser asked if there was any chance to put these acres as conservation restricted and Mr. Twohig replied some will be conservation and some will be green space. Mr. Daylor stated that most will be left in the natural condition. All of the storm water management facilities are landscaped marsh pond systems. Any mitigation for storm water is in developed green space. Mr. Hauser questioned the nursing home space land and Mr. Twohig said they will look at this land as part of the development agreement.  Mr. Hauser commented that it would be good to see the built up green space versus restricted in different colors illustrated on a diagram. Mr. Daylor said he could show the before and after effects.

 

Mr. Hauser asked how many fewer truck trips will be made due to the proposed change in zoning for the site and the Brickstone representatives stated that 30,000 truck trips would be removed from the project. Mr. Daylor said that by stepping the buildings, there is a substantial reduction in earth works; there is less blasting, it saves money and has an environmental benefit.

 

Mr. Lauenstein asked for the specific number of trips that would be made.

 

Mr. Hauser asked if the 4 options Brickstone considered available to them included building 88 single family homes; building the currently approved and/or appealed 40b submission; selling the land; or building under the current senior overlay district zoning. Mr. Twohig replied that they can renew the 40 B project of 166 units. They will file a concept plan for the single family homes following the Striar plan and will also file for 40B. He said there are still 250 units in play until December with access from Mountain Street.

Mr. Hauser commented that this topography is more level than the other 200 plus acres. Mr. Daylor commented that where the buildings ended up is based on economical, political and environmental reasons. That portion of the property is the only way to get to Bay Road so it is a combination of factors.

 

Mr. Milowe asked for clarification on the two stories of buildings under the garage.  Mr. Daylor said there are two levels of garage except for the buildings with support buildings and basements.

 

Ms. Price again suggested changing the definition in the bylaw so no building can be taller than 10 stories, not including the garage and loading space, but including the common areas and dwelling units. Mr. Twohig said this was already discussed with the Town Attorney. They created a unified building area. They added a height parameter which they can not exceed. They created the number of units that they can’t exceed which are 624. They have restricted the commercial space as well.  There are limited uses, limited number of units and how tall the buildings can be. They need to take advantage of the site. Mr. Twohig stated that with the way it is written there is protection that they can not build above the height or out of the box.

 

Mr. Lauenstein asked if there had been an analysis done of how much green house gases would be generated by the project and Mr. Twohig replied he has no idea at this time. Mr. Lauenstein asked about the cash payment benefits and Mr. Twohig said there will be a $1.8 million payment because the Simpson project is defunct as per the development agreement. Mr. Lauenstein then asked with respect to water, if they know how many gallons per day would be used and Mr. Daylor replied than on average 70,000 - 80,000 gallons per day would be used. Mr. Daylor said whenever they can; they will use the recycled effluent.

 

Ivars Apse of Coach Lane asked if the height of a tower tops 482 feet plus 11 feet of elevator space. Mr. Daylor said no, 482 feet is the total elevation. Mr. Lauenstein asked if there was any reason why the language could not be changed accordingly.  Mr. Twohig said that his recollection is changing in elevator technology and height of head house is of concern. In all likeliness, the elevator head house because of the changing technology should fit in the 482 feet.  Mr. Apse then stated that the buildings will be higher than Rattlesnake Hill and Mr. Twohig replied that this is not a new issue. Mr. Apse said he has still not seen any artist renderings or depictions of what this site will look at. Mr. Spagat replied that they are not spending money on drawings until the zoning is resolved.

 

Joanne McGinnis of 2131 Bay Road said this is the first time she heard she will be seeing buildings. Mr. Daylor replied, yes you could see them from Bay Road but that the buildings will be lower than under the approved zoning and there will be less blasting and earth works.

 

Bruce Moyer of Briggs Pond Way asked how much more visible will the buildings be from the south and Mr. Daylor replied that they are not visible from the south. He said that they will be able to see them from the emergency entrance and generally cannot see then from Briggs Pond.

 

E Kelley from 630 Mountain Street asked how close is the closest building to Briggs Pond Road and Mr. Daylor said about 2,000 feet. Mr. Kelley said he hopes the application is denied. He suggested making Brickstone keep their commitment to access only through Bay Road.

 

Mr. Lauenstein commented that the whole question of Mountain Street access is part of the article pertaining to the development agreement. It is not in the zoning article. It is the Board of Selectmen Article. The vote regarding Mountain Street is not related to the Planning Board.

 

Cindy Amara, of Attorney Gelerman’s office said the development agreement and zoning are two separate issues. The issue of changing the Mountain Street access from the development agreement is not impacted by zoning. The Public Hearing on zoning does not impact access.

 

Anne Bingham of 78A Cedar Street objected to no visuals for the public, she said she does not see the Selectmen in the room and felt it was unheard of that the developer came to a meeting without visuals. Mr. Lauenstein noted that this evenings meeting was a continuation of the Public Hearing, and that the proponent presented visuals during the previous portion of the meeting two weeks ago.

 

Ms. Price asked what the elevation of the balloon test was. Mr. Daylor said it was 150 feet above ground elevation and in the middle of the podium but he wasn’t certain of the elevation. He believes that it was taller than any building before or ten story building now being proposed.

 

Ms. Price moved to close the Public Hearing for Article 1. Mr. Milowe seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0.

 

Mr. Lauenstein thanked the Brickstone representatives for their attendance.

 

Ms. Price moved to close the Public Hearing on the fire substation. Mr. Milowe seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

 

Eisenhower Drive

Ms. Price read the legal notice as pertains to the Eisenhower Drive Town of Sharon Street Acceptance Public Hearing as follows:

 

The Town of Sharon Planning Board will hold a public hearing on the acceptance, as a Town way, of the extension of Eisenhower Drive from station 0+00 to 6+95.05.  The hearing will be held at the Sharon Community Center, 2nd floor hearing room, on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 8:00 pm.

 

All persons interested are hereby invited to attend and be heard at said meeting.  Please call Peter O'Cain, Town Engineer, if you have any questions or comments at (781) 784-1525, ext. 16.

 

Mr. O’Cain said there are four meetings for the Street acceptance process. The Planning Board provides their recommendation to the Board of Selectmen who act as the Roadway Commissioner. The Planning Board will discuss this again on 10/14 and the Selectmen will meet on 10/20. If the items on the checklist are not complete, then Mr. O’Cain said he would not recommend roadway acceptance. He also said he will provide the Board with a punch list of open items.

 

David Klayman of 29 Eisenhower Drive asked about indemnification and Mr. O’Cain replied that Town Counsel is evaluating the possibility of providing some indemnification. Mr. Klayman then said he wanted to determine if there is a drainage issue on the access road. Mr. O’Cain said he will take a look at it. The berm is to allow water to flow down the cul-de-sac.

 

Peter Savage of 17 Eisenhower Drive asked a question about specific plantings on his property and Mr. O’Cain referred him to Mr. Shocket.  Mr. O’Cain said he has an issue with trees being planted in the grass strip and offered three options for plantings.

 

Mr. Freeman of 31 Eisenhower Drive asked if the Town will maintain the emergency access for plowing because there is an electrical box in the road.  

 

Ms. Price asked what the width of the grass strip is and Mr. O’Cain said it is six inches to one foot narrower than the plan calls for. The sidewalks are in nice shape and had already been removed once.

 

Ms. Price moved to continue the hearing until 10/14 and Mr. Milowe seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

 

Bella Estates

Ed Lyons of Falcon Associates, Architect, Inc., landscape architect for Bella Estates) and Bob Shelmerdine, Attorney for Mr. Intoccia were present for this discussion.

 

Mr. Shelmerdine began by stating that he is here tonight regarding the landscape plan. He acknowledged that he sent letters to the abutters regarding this evening’s meeting. He also put together a new plan for the landscaping needs and placed copies at the library for viewing.

 

Ms. Sloan reminded everyone that the plan shown is not a plan for each abutter’s property line but for the interior of the site to the property line.

 

Mr. Shelmerdine stated that eventually they would have one plan which will include both the plan for the property as well as each individual abutter. From this plan shown he expects comments, suggestions and recommendations for improvement. He said that house #7 is going up and a foundation for #11 has been poured.

 

Mr. Lyons reviewed the conceptual landscaping plan he created and began by discussing the design elements. He said at the entrance plantings he changed the grading and added a landscape specimen grouping. He wants to move multiple trees along the buffer area at the end of the parking lot and suggested beech trees. He requested feedback if the tot lot should be developed as a park. He said the street plantings changed by replacing the oak trees with locating one tree in front of every house. With reference to the plantings on the slopes he received a lot of suggestions. He said, in some places it is impractical to put trees because the space is too narrow. He suggested fences and a variety of low growing plants. He suggested adding evergreens where the property is wider. At the rotary he added a boulder and landscaping.  At the detention basins there are concrete walls and he is proposing screening plants on top and a wetlands species inside.

 

Mr. Hauser asked about parking at the trail head and Mr. O’Cain interjected that the spaces are required as part of the traffic mitigation plan. He suggested Cheryl Drive for gated spaces. Mr. Shelmerdine said spaces will be added. Ms. Price asked if there will be parking signs and Mr. Shelmerdine said the mitigation plan will include signage.

 

Ms. Sloan said she defers to the abutters and is appreciative of Peter O’Cain reviewing the decision and suggested reviewing his findings at the next meeting. She asked Mr. Lyons if the shrubs and trees are drawn to scale and Mr. Lyons replied they were. Ms. Sloan said she would like to see more of everything; near Cheryl Drive and across from the detention basin; more evergreens and white pines would be appropriate to add. She said that she imagines that once the plan is more developed there will be a specific listing of plants included. She said that there had been talk about placing trees on the slope and she understands the hesitation but suggested staking the trees on a 1:3 slope. Mr. O’Cain said there is also the issue of public safety and he does not want people falling.

 

Mr. Lyons said the field at the end of the cul-de-sac would be a meadow mix.

 

Robin Estrin of 66 Cheryl Drive said the fire access is overgrown with weeds and looks hideous. She would like to see landscaping on the access road as well as it being clean up. Mr. Lyons said it will be planted with grass mix. Ms. Estrin also asked if the generator can be screened with plantings. Mr. Lyons said you cannot put trees where there are utilities underground. Mr. Shelmerdine indicated that there is a lot going on there and they will do something.  Ms. Estrin said that she wants to block the concrete wall view.

 

Sheila Griffin of 18 Huntington Avenue she would like to see a lot more plantings. On the original plan there were 296 trees and 395 shrubs indicated and in the new plan there are 34 trees and 418 shrubs included.

 

Katherine Roth of 54 Huntington Avenue asked about the trail head and is concerned about the historic stone wall. She is concerned it has been destabilized and wants it to be re-established. Mr. O’Cain said that the trail head does not cross the historic stone wall. Mr. Shelmerdine said that it is only connecting from the rear of the property and will not cross over the stone wall.  Ms. Sloan asked that the stone wall be added to the plan.

 

Israel Yaar asked if shrubs will be planted above the swale and Mr. Lyons said that bushes would be planted.

 

Sheila Hollister of 41 Huntington Avenue said she would like to have white pines planted on her property rather than a fence and Mr. Lyons said this was an issue for a one on one discussion. She stated that she never had her trees replaced that were taken down. Mr. Lauenstein said this was part of her negotiations with the developer.

 

Ron Larsen of 49 Lantern Lane said the developer indicated they would plant on the top of the slope as he lives in a two story house needs high shrubs. The plan shown looks like trees are in the swale and he doesn’t see trees on the slope for screening on the height issue.  Mr. Shelmerdine replied that it was agreed with the Planning Board that the landscaping would be in the buffer. They agreed that the screening landscaping would be located on the abutter’s properties. Bella Estates homeowner Association prohibits fencing. Peter O’Cain said he will look at the slope of this lot. Mr. Shelmerdine said he will raise the issue of a living hedge on Lantern Lane.

 

Dave Thomas of 30 Huntington Avenue said that he felt the plan was not inclusive enough and asked what recourse the neighbors have.  Mr. Lauenstein said that the Planning Board offered to hear the issues if someone cannot come to an agreement with Attorney Shelmerdine.

 

Ms. Sloan said that they can not pull a permit if they have not come to an agreement regarding the buffer plan.

 

Dan Huse of 54 Huntington Avenue asked if there was any reason why the open space cannot be put back to its natural state. Mr. Shelmerdine replied there are competing desires.

 

David Sotkowitz of 59 Cheryl Drive said at the last meeting he thought the generator would be screened. Mr. Lyons said he would add more in.

 

Mr. Yaar asked why the fence was on his land and Mr. Lauenstein said the plateau is higher and needed in order to provide effective screening. Mr. Lyons will look into this issue.

 

Sheila Griffin of 18 Huntington clarified that the buffer plan needs to be agreed upon before they can pull a permit for new houses and asked what her recourse is. Mr. Shelmerdine said he will discuss with her.

 

The discussion was continued to October 14th.

 

Other

Ms. Sloan moved to nominate David Milowe as the Planning Board representative to the Capital Outlay Committee. Mr. Hauser seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

 

Ms. Sloan moved to nominate Seth Ruskin as the At-Large representative to the Capital Outlay Committee. Mr. Hauser seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

 

Ms. Price moved that the Sign By-law corrections could be Planning Board sponsored. Mr. Milowe seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

 

Mr. Milowe reported that he will create an article for the May Town Meeting as pertains to a letter of credit with the assistance of the Town’s Finance Director. He will contact the Zoning Board regarding this matter.

 

Adjournment

Mr. Hauser moved to close the Planning Board meeting at 10:00 PM. Ms. Price seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.