Town of Sharon Planning Board

At the Meeting of the Town of Sharon Board of Health

Meeting Minutes of 9/27/10

Amended and Approved on 10/4/10

Sharon Town Hall

Filmed by SCTV

 

Planning Board Attendees

Susan Price, Chair

Anne Bingham, Clerk

Eli Hauser, Vice Chair

 

 

 

Board of Health Attendees

Andrew Stead, Chair

Suzi Peck

Stanley Rosen, Vice Chair

Jay Schwab

 

 

 

Attendees

Jim Anders – DPW

Alice Cheyer – 1 Glenview

Herbert Gould – 23 Huntington Avenue

 

 

The Board of Health meeting began at 7:30.  The Planning Board meeting was called to order at 8:00 PM by Chair Susan Price.

 

P.O. Square Zoning

Chair Susan Price began the discussion with a brief presentation about the Post Office Square Zoning, including the history of the project.  A presentation summary was distributed to both boards.  The summary shows major changes to the zoning bylaws by pointing out the type of regulation, and the requirements under current zoning and proposed zoning.  Ms. Price also noted that the proposed density was changed from a minimum lot area requirement of 1,000 square feet per dwelling unit to 2,000 square feet (approximately 21 dwelling units per acre).  She said that under current zoning, 16 apartments per acre could be built, and under the existing Mixed Use Overlay District (MUOD), a minimum of 20 units per acre is allowed.

 

Ms. Peck remained concerned about the fact that there was no limit in the proposed zoning on number of bedrooms.  She would like the zoning to be compatible with the septic rules.  She is also concerned that the Board of Health will become the “bad guy” when a popular development is proposed.

 

Mr. Hauser stated that we are trying to create an envelope to guide development over the next 20 years or so.

 

There was a discussion of parking.  Ms. Peck asked whether there has been research about reducing the parking requirements.  Ms. Price answered that the consultants had recommended the proposed requirements to reflect the parking needs and character of Post Office Square.

 

Mr. Hauser noted the major types of changes proposed in the article:  format, clarification, clean up, modernize standards, remove inappropriate uses, bring in architectural features, make pedestrian friendly, reduce curb cuts.

 

Ms. Bingham said she remains concerned about the density and that, unless the area becomes sewered, the number of bedrooms is important.  She said even at 20 units per acre, it is still a frightening density.  She said she did not find comfort in the fact that the Board of Health review will be required because the Board of Health is under pressure to approve projects that are desirable in Town, and the Board will feel like “a skunk at the picnic.”  She asked if the consultant’s report presumed an off-site wastewater solution and said an engineered approach is needed.

 

Mr. Rosen asked what the wastewater alternatives are.  Mr. Hauser described the Wright Pierce studies that were prepared for the Economic Development Committee (EDC).  Ms. Peck noted that the report estimates were based on an additional 75- 80 new bedrooms.  Mr. Hauser said there are four alternatives/solutions identified in the report: 1) on-site septic, 2) conventional sewage treatment plant (unlikely because it is about $12 million, 3) alternative technology (like a grinder pump) which would be less expensive (about $2 or 3 million, and may be located on multiple sites, and 4) joint systems (like the one behind French Memories).

 

Mr. Hauser noted that there are 45 owners and 62 parcels.  He said if you figure that 10 to 20 properties are historic, municipal, churches or parking lots that won’t be developed, and 5 to 8 are fairly new buildings that won’t be redeveloped for a long time, that there may be 20 or 30 lots that are the most likely to be developed.  He said Delapa is the largest property owner in the area and that he needs a solution to redevelop but redevelopment is not on his radar right now.

 

Ms. Bingham said that “maximum feasibility compliance” may occur when a lot is too small to comply with the wastewater regulations but a new building cannot be approved under this.  She added that grinder pumps are trouble and tend to break down.

 

There was a discussion of site plan approval and at what stage does the Board of Health get to review a project.  Mr. Stead said that the Board does not want the plan before the Planning Board has reviewed it but that a concurrent review would be good.  Ms. Peck added that she was not sure if concurrent could work but that the Board of Health did not want it ahead of time.

 

Ms. Cheyer said that even under a longer 45-day site plan review that the Board of Health needs to be aware that the clock is running and something may be approved automatically.  Ms. Peck said the zoning regulations need to be complementary.  Mr. Stead said he wants to see Peter O’Cain’s calculations about potential developments that Ms. Price had mentioned.  Mr. Hauser noted that Mr. O’Cain had said that a developer will usually come in and talk to him and Joe Kent to understand the requirements and regulations for site development before coming to the Boards.

 

Ms. Cheyer objected to Wright Pierce’s second report and said it looked at three locations for treating wastewater, Temple Israel (not clear if it is suitable for full build out), Hunter’s Ridge (vanished), and Billings/Glendale Road (not an option because it was purchased (in part with private donations) as conservation land).  She said there are various good things in the proposed zoning but that it should wait until the Planning Board updates the wastewater report.

 

Mr. Schwab asked if Ames Street playground could be used and Ms. Peck said that it could not because the groundwater was too high.  Mr. Stead said that maybe a developer could take down a building on another lot to provide for waste water treatment.  He said he sees that the article is trying to provide a framework or starting point for a developer.

 

Mr. Hauser said that the comparable rents are much lower in Sharon than in other towns with similar income levels.  He said we need a catalyst for redevelopment.  He said it is difficult to get the property owners to move forward.

 

Mr. Stead asked what the total acreage of the Square is and whether that included roads. Mr. Hauser replied the Post Office Square Center contains 20 acres not including the road.

 

There was a discussion of development potential and school children.  Mr. Hauser and Ms. Price described their calculations.  Ms. Price said that it is not as much of an issue since the new proposed zoning density is not much higher than the current permitted density and is similar to the MUOD.  Mr. Schwab pointed out that Delapa has lots of vacancies and not many school kids and the ones he has may be orthodox and not using the public schools.  Ms. Price noted that Avalon yielded a number of schoolchildren but as redevelopment occurs in the Square, it is also possible that some of those residents will be sending their children to private schools and not public school.  Ms. Peck said Delapa could put in 3 bedroom apartments, which would yield a lot of school children.

 

Mr. Gould said he did not want waste water disposed of at Bella Estates.  He said he values the position of the Board of Health.  He said a final option of where to dispose of waste water needs to be solved before development occurs.  He said the study did not focus on new technologies.  He said there should be a risk assessment of development on each parcel. Mr. Hauser reiterated Bella Estates is no longer an option given that the new developer has since built out the site.

 

Ms. Cheyer asked about other uses such as restaurants.  Mr. Stead said that each use has a design flow under Title V.

 

Ms. Rosen said that the problem is that it is difficult to incentivize the property owners to work together.  He said that one guy’s proposal may be good for him but not good for the area overall and asked how it may be possible to achieve the greater good.  Mr. Hauser said he is fully supportive of the Town hiring an expert to do the next level of detail design.

 

Ms. Peck said if the Town could identify a place for leaching fields and they knew it could be used that it might create enough relief so that the property owners could tap into that and have confidence to redevelop their properties, and then the proposed density wouldn’t matter.  She said to write the zoning when the time comes that the Town has achieved a solution.  Ms. Price noted that even under current zoning, waste water is a problem and that the zoning might as well be fixed now (while the studies are relatively new) rather than continue to allow any development under the current zoning standards and wait for a future waste water solution (at which point the planning studies may need to be redone).

 

Ms. Bingham said she did not agree with the comparisons to the MUOD and that perhaps the MUOD should be changed.

 

Next meeting dates

10/4, 10/20, 11/3, 11/17, 12/1, 12/15 and 1/5.

 

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned when the Board of Health went into executive session at 10:10 PM. 

 

Attached Documents

1. Post Office Square Zoning Revisions, Fall 2010, prepared by Ms. Price

 

 

 

 

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.