Meeting Initiation

Town of Sharon Planning Board

Meeting Minutes of 9/15/10

Amended and Approved on 9/21/10

Sharon Town Hall

Filmed by SCTV

Planning Board Attendees

Susan Price, Chair	Anne Bingham, Clerk
Eli Hauser, Vice Chair	Amanda Sloan
David Milowe	Peter O’Cain, Town Engineer

Attendees

Paul Lauenstein – 4 Gavins Pond Road	Bob Shelmerdine
Herbert Gould – 23 Huntington Avenue	Marilyn Kahn – Billings Street
Amy Carboneau – Sharon Advocate	Alice Cheyer – 1 Glenview
Gordon Gladstone – 2 Bruce Avenue	David Goldstein – 28 Billings Street
Cheryl Weinstein – 4 Coach Lane	Nancy Hall – 19 Depot Street
Peg Arguimbau – 300 East Street	Dave Martin – 350 N Main Street
Kurt Bergmann – 45 Furnace Street	Shirley Davenport
Sheila Griffin – Huntington Avenue

Chair Report

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Chair Susan Price and the Chair’s Report was read.

Meeting Minutes

Ms. Bingham moved to approve the meeting minutes of 9/1/10 as amended. Mr. Milowe seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 in favor of the motion.

Form A

None

Signs

None

Public Hearing P.O. Square Zoning

Prior to the reading of the legal ad, Ms. Price said that during the September 13th Finance Committee meeting it was stated that she never emailed the Committee a summary of the changes being suggested by the article and for the record she wanted to clarify that she had indeed confirmed with the Committee that she sent them her response on August 14. Chair Susan Price called the Public Hearing to order at 7:35 PM.

Ms. Bingham read the Public Hearing announcement as appeared in the Sharon Advocate of 8/27 and 9/3.

“The Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, September 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM at the Sharon Town Hall, Lower Level Meeting Room, Sharon, Massachusetts, to review a proposed Amendment to the Zoning By-Laws to revise certain sections of the Zoning By-Laws affecting the so-called “Post Office Square” area.

The proposed amendments are intended to promote Smart Growth, mixed use, compact development, to enhance the business environment, to encourage a pedestrian and community destination, and to increase the vibrancy and architectural integrity of Post Office Square. The majority of the proposed revisions would affect: Business District A, which can generally be described as the Post Office Square area from French Memories/Coriander block continuing down Pond Street (both sides) to East Chestnut and then up South Main Street (both sides) to French Memories/Coriander block; Business District B at Shaw’s Plaza and Heights Plaza; and Business District C at the Wilber School.

The proposed amendment would revise numerous sections of the Zoning By-Law. Key revisions are summarized below:

Amend Section 2213 “Site Plan Approval in Certain Business Districts” to require site plan approval for Business District B projects.

Amend Section 2321 “Permitted Residential Uses” to allow, in Business District A, up to two (2) apartment units when located above a non-residential ground floor use.

Amend Section 2323 “Permitted Commercial Uses” to require a special permit for uses over 5,000 square feet of gross floor area in Business District A; to reduce the number of parking spaces required in Business District A; and to allow artist’s studios or art galleries in Business Districts A and C.

Amend Section 2326 “Uses and Accessory Uses Allowed on Special Permit from the Board of Appeals” to require a special permit for certain uses.

Add a new Section 2412(h) to exempt from Section 2412 those uses in Business District A, unless the property contains a single- or two-family dwelling.

Amend Section 2461 “Minimum Lot Area” to eliminate minimum lot area requirements for uses other than single- or two- family dwellings in Business District A.

Amend Section 2462 “Minimum Lot Frontage and Width” by adding new requirements for Business District A.

Amend Section 2463 “Lot Coverage and Open Space” by increasing maximum lot coverage for multi-family uses and for other uses other than single- and two-family dwellings; by reducing minimum landscaped open space coverage; and to encourage landscaped areas and public seating.

Amend Section 2464 “Building Location” by changing front yard setbacks for uses in the Business Districts A and by requiring front yard setbacks be used for landscaping, public seating, circulation, signage and drives; by allowing for adjoining buildings.

Amend Section 2465 “Maximum Building Height” by changing maximum building stories (but not height) in the Business District A and the maximum building height (but not stories) in Business District C, plus allowing for accessories and architectural features on roofs.

Amend Section 2467 “Residential Buildings” by allowing more than one (1) building used wholly or in part for residence on any one (1) lot in the Business District A.

Amend Sections 3110 and 3111 “Business A and C and Professional District Parking Requirements” and “Number of Parking Spaces Required” by exempting outdoor seating space and certain non-residential nonconforming uses from additional parking requirements and to allow the Planning Board or the Board of Appeals, as applicable, to review and make decisions on parking issues; and to require bicycle parking in Business Districts A and B.

Amend Section 3120 “Business B District Parking Requirements” by deleting it in its entirety.

Add a new Section 4240 “Business District A” that regulates site plan approval by the Planning Board and special permit approval by the Board of Appeals for developments in the Business District A and which includes additional standards for review for affordable housing in Business District A.

Amend Article V “Definitions” by adding new definitions for “Apartment,” “Basement,” “Half Story,” “Mixed Use Building,” “Single Family Dwelling,” “Special Permit Granting Authority,” “Story” and “Two Family Dwelling.”

The full text of the proposed Article is available in the office of the Sharon Town Clerk at 90 South Main Street, in the Engineering and GIS Division office of the Sharon Department of Public Works at 217R South Main Street during normal office hours and at the Sharon Public Library during normal business hours.

All interested parties should attend.

Sharon Planning Board

Susan Price, Chair “

Chair Price began the discussion with a brief presentation about the Post Office Square Zoning and stated that, following the presentation, the public hearing discussion would be by major topics as listed below:

1. Uses,

2. Dimensional Standards,

3. Parking,

4. Additional Standards for District A,

5. Affordable Housing,

6. Other Topics, including Definitions.

She stated that a consultant was hired by the Planning Board to help write the zoning. The goal of the P.O. Square Zoning revisions is making requirements consistent with what is wanted in the Town Center. It’s not rezoning properties, just changes to some sections of the bylaws. Part of the goals of the Land Strategies’ study for the Economic Development Committee is making the area more bicycle friendly and bringing buildings towards the sidewalks. Part of the zoning article is to correct unclear language, remove redundancies and add more definitions. The zoning revision would remove uses not needed. It will make desirable uses more accessible. It will encourage mixed use buildings and provide a framework for affordable housing in Business District A. The core of the article is about embracing smart growth and mixed use. It is also to embrace P.O. Square design guidelines and to make the area business friendly. One main change eliminates minimum lot size in Business District A, other than for one or two-family dwellings, so as to encourage nonresidential and mixed uses. There will still be a minimum requirement of 1,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. The intent is to encourage living space over stores. The dimensional requirements were made more flexible. Another major change is to section 2463 for lot coverage and open space. There would be an increase from 50% to 60% for maximum lot coverage. The maximum set back will be 10 feet – not strip mall setbacks. The new zoning encourages parking areas behind the buildings. The front yard would be used for signage and seating.

The building height maximum maintained in Business A is now 3 stories or 45 feet. The article would change it to 4 stories or 45 feet, plus 5 additional feet for architectural features.

With reference to parking, Post Office Square is different from other parts of Sharon since it has a small lot size, and close proximity to the train. The idea is to reduce parking from the suburban strip mall standards from 5 spaces per 1000 square feet (for ground floor, with 3 per 1,000 for additional floors) to 3 spaces per 1000 square feet for ground floor use with 1.5 per 1,000 for additional floors. Bicycle parking would be required for developments over a certain size. The revisions would reduce outdated loading requirements. Currently the Planning Board has site plan authority and the Board of Appeals has special permit authority in Business District A. For a handful of types of parking waivers and parking issues, the Planning Board would have authority, if it is already conducting a site plan review and there is no special permit application before the Board of Appeals, so as to simplify the process for the applicant.

Additional Business A standards would embrace the Post Office Square design guidelines and discourage blank walls facing the street.

Mr. Hauser provided a brief presentation on his laptop to the audience, showing views of Wellesley Center, so as to illustrate how pedestrian friendly it can be to have buildings closer to the sidewalk, rather than parking lots. These pictures were taken by Ms. Price. He stated that a copy of the Land Strategies report is available at the Library and at Town Hall.

Ms. Bingham began by expressing her thoughts on uses. She is concerned that the zoning allows for 1 dwelling unit per 1000 square feet of lot area – 40 units per acre. With reference to the intrinsic use of property – she is concerned with ending up with a lot of dwelling units. She is concerned with the draft although shows some encouragement for pocket parks. She thinks that amenities should be provided in exchange for 60% density.

Ms. Sloan said if you look at the history of landscape and town development in the country, the strip mall is an ugly result of the 1950’s -1970’s planning. It happened because residential uses on second floors of commercial buildings were discouraged. Now we have one story strip malls with huge parking lots. The kinds of changes being proposed are a general response to correct the strip mall errors and encourage mixed use. People can have shopping and residence in the same place.

Ms. Bingham said there is no guarantee there will be mixed use here either between residential, commercial and office space.

Cheryl Weinstein of 4 Coach Lane questioned the studies performed.

Ms. Price said the Land Strategies’ planning study talked about many issues including zoning. The Planning Board hired the consultant to write the draft of the zoning. There was also a traffic study done. Tom Houston of PSC performed the traffic study that will be presented in October. He presented initial results to the Planning Board last Spring.

Ms. Weinstein asked if the waste water study was incorporated into the zoning. She said if it was disregarded then the zoning makes no sense.

Mr. Hauser said that the waste water study established baseline water use. It identified in effect four alternatives for treating waste water. The conceptual solutions are to 1). continue as is, 2). put in a large traditional system, 3). do a smaller treatment system on multiple sites or 4). each land owner could build small clusters. He said the waste water study consultants dialogued with the Land Strategies’ economic and zoning study.

Ms. Weinstein stated that with denser zoning there will be a lot more waste water. Mr. Hauser said that the Board of Health can manage the waste water after the zoning is passed.

Ms. Bingham read an excerpt from the Wright Pierce study, which was commissioned by the Economic Development Committee, which stated there are limitations in the soil.

Ms. Weinstein asked what kinds of studies are done for town’s people needs and wants. She is concerned with the number of people surveyed. Ms. Sloan stated it was a visionary process, focus groups were consulted, information was in the Advocate and the community was invited to meetings. She feels that this was a good process.

Ms. Price said her opinion is that the zoning revisions do not depend on waste water being solved first. She feels this will put the appropriate zoning standards in place when business owners find a solution. She feels the zoning revisions could be an incentive for property owners to build and solve their waste water issues.

Ms. Weinstein said she wants to see something other than housing. She asked how does zoning get to a nicer downtown and better sidewalks and fix identified problems such as pedestrian safety.

Ms. Price said that there is more flexibility and incentive for the property owners to build under the new zoning. She said sidewalks are to be fixed by the Town.

Mr. O’Cain stated the curb cut issue is addressed by 10-foot maximum front setback included in the proposed zoning as there won’t be room for parking in front of the new structures.

Ms. Weinstein asked why can’t people sell off small lots, such as with a 1,000 square foot footprint. Mr. O’Cain said there are side setback requirements. Ms. Weinstein said she is nervous there is no minimum lot width size and with septic systems like French Memories and is concerned that this will end up being a lot of apartments. Mr. Hauser outlined an approach to determine a minimum lot size - starting with the building footprint of 50 x 20, for example, which would yield a 1,000 sq foot footprint building. Then, you would add the side setbacks of 10 feet, which would give an effective footprint of 50x40, or 2,000 square feet; then you need the back setback added as well. In a general sense, the septic field would probably need 2x the building footprint, and then there is a setback from the building to the septic field. All of which was too detailed to calculate precisely in the meeting, but certainly more than "just" 1,000 square foot lots as suggested by Ms. Weinstein.

Ms. Sloan commented that she does not think investors would invest in the scenario described by Ms. Weinstein.

With references to uses, Kurt Buermann of 45 Furnace Street asked if he could see drawings and Mr. O'Cain stated they were located at the DPW. Mr. Buermann also asked if affordable housing was connected to 40B and Mr. Hauser responded that "Affordable Housing" is defined in the zoning as compliant with 40B requirements as issued by the State. Mr. Buermann asked if the developer comes in with a 40B could they do it based on the changes. Mr. O’Cain said that 40B overrides all zoning if approved by the State.

Mr. Hauser elaborated by saying there are two types of 40B housing as provided for in the state regulations. A developer sponsored 40B, or "hostile 40B" and a "friendly 40B" or "Local Initiative Project (LIP)" brought jointly between a developer and the Town. Any 40B can override local zoning, with the exception of wetlands and Title 5 requirements, so these regulations as we are proposing are really directed towards the friendly 40B or the simpler "developer builds apartments" scenario. Under a 40B, 20% - 25% of the units developed need to be priced as "affordable" depending on a number of factors. Within this zoning, if you build an apartment complex in P.O. Square, whether "Affordable" or not, 12.5% of the units need to be designated as affordable. In this way, it builds in a means for scaling the Town’s affordable count with the growth in units when they are not done as a 40B, and direct the expectation for the creation of Affordable units if they are done as a friendly 40B.

Mr. Buermann suggested that a good idea would be to issue a survey to gather various points of view. Ms. Price replied by stating that a public hearing and public meetings were held to discuss this topic.

Regarding dimensional standards, Anne Bingham stated that she is unsure if she would want the setback of 10 feet all over Post Office Square. By having the maximum setback of 10 feet, it is limiting amenities and pocket parks a well as seating areas. She thinks it is going overboard. Unless there is a visual drawing to show Business District A with no more than 10% setback, she feels it is uncomfortable for blanket approval.

Ms. Price said this was recommended by the consultant. These are standards in other communities, related to smart growth, and the consultants have seen it work.

Marilyn Kahn of 114 Ames Street requested additional information on what other communities are similar to Sharon. Ms. Price said the consultant identified Cambridge, Somerville and Brookline as not having minimum lot area or width. Mr. Hauser said there was a lot of rework in Stoughton. Rob Maidman, in the audience, said he would speak to Ms.Kahn. Ms. Sloan indicated that everyone must remember that the area being discussed is small. It will not be like Brookline or Cambridge. She wants people to remember that this is not meant to turn Sharon Center into a large area but rather to keep it small.

Ms. Bingham thinks that some comparisons are worth considering. Downtown Foxboro she suggested is worth a drive through.

Paul Lauenstein of 4 Gavin’s Pond Road questioned in what way the plan will be bicycle friendly. Ms. Price replied that for larger projects, bicycle parking will need to be provided.

Mr. Lauenstein continued by asking if anyone has estimated the growth to the Town in terms of numbers of people, businesses, waste water, school children or tax revenue. Mr. Hauser stated that the report showed a rough estimated increase of 10% in commercial space in P.O. Square. The current water use is estimated at 56,000 gallons of waste water per day, and under a maximum scenario would grow to about 75,000 gallons per day. Mr. Lauenstein suggested that a one page summary be created to give people an understating of what the metrics would represent.

Marilyn Kahn of Billings Street is concerned about the fact of putting more waste water into the ground in that area. She is unsure if purification can be written into the zoning and wants to be forward thinking in the process.

Ms. Bingham said that since we know the soil is tight and of substandard conditions, she would like to know waste water handling first.

Mr. O’Cain said that technically, on paper, most of the area being discussed is not in the water protection district. This area does not contribute to well #4. Furthermore, replacement of old systems will improve the on the negative impact of existing systems by ensuring proper separation to groundwater from the septic field. Ms. Sloan said we should be thinking about putting a new modern systems in.

With reference to parking, Ms. Bingham said that Sharon is not ready as a community for underground parking. She did not hear an explanation for going down from 5 to 3 parking spaces every 1000 square feet. It’s already tight in the downtown area; reducing parking has not been validated. She also said the vision spoken about included more bicycles and walking but there are still significant dangers that need to be addressed.

Ms. Price stated that above or below ground parking is language already allowed in the mixed use overlay district. A special permit would be needed for parking garages. With being walkable to the train, and having municipal parking and on-street parking, the properties in P.O. Square do not need the same amount of off-street parking like Shaw’s. Also, the lots are small. Regarding pedestrians and bicycles, it is good to reduce the size and number of curb cuts.

Ms. Sloan said there is too much driving; we need to do more walking. We need to return to the time when villages are friendly and walkable. Ms. Price said that pedestrian safety and bicycle safety will be discussed in Tom Houston’s study. Mr. Hauser said that in the Economic Study there is a parking study that surveyed "parking occupancy" throughout the day and throughout P.O. Square; and that overall, the parking is running at about 60% - 65% of capacity. The parking study reviewed both public and private parking spaces, including lots and on-street parking.

Cheryl Weinstein wants to see less housing. She feels it is too concentrated and thinks the article will lead to more housing. Ms. Price commented that there are a lot of incentives for retail uses.

Ms. Bingham stated that if you want people walking, the sidewalks need to be repaved. Mr. O’Cain said that the Pond Street roadway and sidewalk will be redone in the spring from Ames to P.O. Square.

Mr. Milowe suggested that Mr. Houston’s presentation discussed congestion and relieving it. Mr. Hauser agreed and said that the intersection of Billings Street and Pond is heading for considerable congestion without changes. The traffic has a lot of moving parts to review and synchronize. The Planning Board and Economic Development Committee have had Mr. Houston conduct a traffic study and recommendation for the Town, and expect a final report and presentation to the Board of Selectmen this October.

Mr. Lauenstein doesn’t think the Town has yet felt the impact of Brickstone or Sharon Commons. This development plan will increase the town population. He cautioned in biting off more than we can chew. Mr. Hauser responded that the traffic studies from Mr. Houston (PSC) indicate minimal impact above natural growth for P.O. Square from Brickstone and Sharon Commons, excluding construction traffic.

Dave Goldstein of 28 Billings Street thinks there is a need to bring people to Post Office Square. He said it’s a community center and it is an embarrassment. There is nothing to shop or drive to. There needs to be something to make town center a place people want to go to. He wants something to happen to change the dynamics.

Herb Gould of 23 Huntington Avenue stated he thinks it is important to have a plan to integrate functions from development and the town’s point of view. He feels there is a disconnect between aesthetics, economic development and septic. He is concerned that Bella Estates would be an option for waste water. He said no questions were asked from neighbors who will be in the vicinity of the waste water treatment plants. He asked about coordination of different boards and departments in Town.

Mr. Hauser said that there are no treatment plants in the proposed zoning or the consultant study. The most likely current and quite frankly only planned option right now is to continue as we are which is for the owner is to have their own systems. And, under any zoning, the Board of Health opinion on Title V trumps any zoning or use. Ultimately, the Board of Health ruling limits and contains the possible development from a septic perspective.

Anne Bingham said you cannot get compliant Title V in downtown area. Mr. Hauser said he disagrees on the potential for achieving a solution, and we need more flexibility in the land and septic treatment options. By managing coverage, setbacks and requirements and septic treatment choices, we can create a virtuous circle where the owners are interested in improving their parcels, and they have reasonable options to do so, individually or as a group. Ms. Price said that a permitting guide was put together to help developers understand the different Town boards or departments that need to be worked with.

Mr. O’Cain said the question is whether you will get greater than 10,000 gallons per day. The size of the building will dictate septic needs. The lots are already developed. He said that we are talking about redevelopment. It is a lot by lot decision.

Mr. Gould asked if the Planning Board has scenarios of what it will look like in terms of septic. Mr. Price said we do not know who will redevelop their properties.

Ms. Sheila Griffin asked if the septic can be put on the Bella Estates property in the location of the clubhouse. Ms. Griffin expressed she is concerned mistakes can be made. Mr. O’Cain stated that it would be cost prohibitive to bring a system down there; but more importantly, there is already a septic system in place on the front parcel, so no additional systems could be added there. Mr. Hauser added that at the time of the study, that property did not have housing built as yet, so it was available, but now it isn’t, and further that we had considered the idea of adding additional neighborhoods to the system, which is why it might have made economic sense. Ms. Sloan responded that we hired a professional consultant to perform this review. We do not have our own town planner. Ms. Price said that as residents and volunteers, the Planning Board members do not want to make mistakes in the Town.

Ms. Alice Cheyer of 1 Glenview asked why the MUOD is not used. Ms. Price said the consultant did try to incorporate some standards in A but focused on revising Business District A. She said there may be a variety of reasons; perhaps it is not dense enough.

Ms. Cheyer questioned why we are giving green amenities for people to be traded under special permit for density rather than being required. She feels it should be required. Ms. Price said that the article contains more about the amenities now and the article contains a new paragraph regarding open space in section 2463. Section 4240 discusses landscaping. Mr. O’Cain said that 20% is required for open space.

Ms. Cheyer said she believes the water report is incorrect. Before one can vote for zoning based on a land report she would like to see a companion report with recommendations for waste water treatment that is current. She says the 2009 waste water report is invalid and needs updating. She said you cannot say the Board of Health will take care of water.

Ms. Bingham said it needs to comply with Title V before doing dense zoning changes.

Ms. Price said our existing zoning is not up to standards. Yes, waste water issues need to be solved. When redevelopment happens, she would like the underlying zoning to have appropriate standards so we are not scrambling and not building under the current standards.

Dave Martin of 350 N. Main Street and Chair of the Historic Commission asked if there are any vision changes for the historic houses. Ms. Price said it is not intended to make changes to historic buildings.

Ms. Sloan said the vision is to preserve the historic flavor. Mr. O’Cain said that any exterior modification to a building greater than one hundred years would need to be passed by the Historic Commission. As per a bylaw, changes in the zoning would not affect it.

Rob Maidman of Wilshire Drive and member of the Economic Development Committee commended the Board for clear explanations. He said that Ms. Bingham’s thoughts are important and he hopes she will push to ensure all is clear. He said the reports generated are not recommendations but options. The vision is to capture the aesthetics that commensurate with Town. They do not want to change the pleasantness of the Town. He said they knew water was a factor. A host of issues will determine what happens and to what extent. If incentives are not provided, we will be stuck with what we have and it will continue to degrade. As a Town, we need a beginning point. Mr. Maidman expressed that he has confidence that everyone will do the right thing. He hopes the people of this Town realize it is in their best interest.

Ms. Bingham expressed that she did not see business owners in Business District A in attendance.

Ms. Cheyer emphasized that the report says recommendations. She wants the Planning Board to take time to have the water report updated. She doesn’t think we need to vote for zoning now.

Ms. Sloan said the water problem is extremely important. She said we need to think outside the box and look at new systems.

Ms. Bingham moved to close the Public Hearing and Mr. Hauser seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0-0 to close the Public Hearing part of the meeting.

Regular Meeting continues

Bob Shelmerdine came before the Board to discuss the changes to the Homeowner’s Agreement for Bella Estates. He said the changes made to this document on 9/1 were reviewed by Town Counsel. Attorney Shelmerdine had received comments from the Town Engineer and Ms. Bingham and he incorporated all of their comments. He handed out 2 documents; one is the 12 comments from Ms. Bingham and the other contained the specific pages to which changes were made.

Mr. Milowe expressed that he wanted Ms. Bingham’s comments sent to Town Counsel for review and approval. Ms. Bingham said that if Attorney Amara agrees with her comments then she is all set.

Attorney Shelmerdine said he hopes to have the bond in place by 9/21 and will attend the next Planning Board meeting.

Next meeting dates

9/21, 10/6, 10/20, 11/3, 11/17, 12/11, 2/15 and 1/5.

Adjournment

Mr. Milowe moved to adjourn the Planning Board meeting at 10:50 PM. Ms. Bingham seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0-0 in favor.

Attached Documents

1. Planning Board legal ad for Public Hearing

2. Letter from Thelma Newberger – Hirsch regarding the PO Square revision

3. Revision pages from the Bella Estates amended Homeowner’s Agreement

4. Anne Bingham comments and RAS responses 9-15-10

5. Warrant Article

Note: New Open Meeting Law. As of July 1, 2010 all Planning Board minutes and attachments will be available by contacting Rachelle Levitts at 781-784-3199.