Town of Sharon Planning Board

Meeting Minutes of 11/2/11

Amended and Approve 11/9/11

Sharon Town Hall

Filmed by SCTV

Planning Board Attendees

Susan Price, Chair	Anne Bingham
Eli Hauser, Vice Chair - absent	Pat Pannone, Clerk
David Milowe - absent	Peter O’Cain, Town Engineer

Attendees

Thomas Hardman, Site Design Engineering	Susan Gooltz, 24 Longmeadow Lane
Ed Welch, 281 Mountain Street	Mark Emerson - Sharon Credit Union
Paul Brodmerkle, Site Design Professionals	Joel Fishman- Sharon Credit Union
Toni Jo and Michael Guardabascio,194 East St.	Brian Arcand – Sharon Credit Union
Bob and Leenie Chavez, Ames Street	Alice Cheyer, 1 Glenview
	Doreen and Andy Kriegel, Knife Shop Lane

Chair Report

Chair Susan Price called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM and read the Chair Report.

Meeting Minutes

Ms. Bingham moved to approve the minutes of 10/18/11 as amended. Mr. Pannone seconded the motion and the Board voted 3-0-0 in favor of approval.

ANR Plan

An ANR Plan for 345 and 353 Moose Hill was presented by Mr. Tom Hardman of Site Design Engineering, representing MH Realty Trust. These lots had been gifted to the Trustees of the Reservation and are now being reconfigured. A conservation restriction will be placed on the property.  Mr. O’Cain said that the plan satisfies section 3.1.2 and there have been several iterations of the plan. Ms. Price noted that the plan now shows the stone wall along Morse Street; a scenic roadway.

Ms. Bingham moved to approve the Approval Not Required Plan on Moose Hill Street dated 10/24/11as not falling under the Subdivision Control Laws because no new street is being created. Mr. Pannone seconded the motion and the Board voted 3-0-0 in favor.

An ANR Plan for 96 Morse Street owned by Martha Silke and Patrick Silke was presented by Engineer Ed Welch.

Ms. Bingham moved to approve under the subdivision control laws as Approval Not Required for the Plan of Land on 96 Morse Street dated 10/31/11 owned by Martha and Patrick Silken. She also moved to have Town Engineer Peter O’Cain insert as per section 2412E, a circle of diameter equal to the required frontage. The Board voted to authorize Peter O’Cain, as agent for the Board, to sign the mylars.

Mr. Pannone seconded the motion and the Board voted 3-0-0 in favor.

Sharon Credit Union Presentation

Mark Emerson representing Sharon Credit Union located at 30 Pond Street came before the Board along with Brian Arcand and Attorney Joel Fishman to obtain the Board’s feedback for a proposed drive up ATM for the bank. They currently have a walkup 24 hour ATM in the banks vestibule but through feedback see an interest in providing a drive-up service. They would like to add this feature as a convenience to its customers.

Peter O’Cain said that drive thru’s for banks are allowed by the zoning by-laws.

Mr. Emerson said that they will need to bump the building out 30 inches in order to make it easier for the ATM to be reached. It will be located on the wall near the night drop. He said he does not anticipate that this will cause a traffic backup. They will install instructive signage on the pavement and on the existing signage to indicate there is a new ATM. They have a limited number of customers that use the night depository and no changes will be made to this.

Attorney Fishman said that no application has been filed yet.

Mr. Pannone said that he would like to see the elevation dimensions, so that Joe Kent, the Building Inspector, can see that the ADA rules are met.

The Board suggested they were in favor of the addition of an ATM machine at Sharon Credit Union and noted that there are already drive thru lanes.

Post Office Square Affordable Housing - Article 8

Ms. Price said the issue with this article is the offsite housing component.

Mr. Pannone asked if the article can include that only a certain percentage of homes have to be onsite. He said he has had experience with offsite situations in Boston and would like to see a percentage maintained onsite.

Ms. Price said that two paragraphs can be removed from section 5 that deals with off-site housing.

Peter O’Cain said that Chapter 40B requires similar finishes be used for affordable homes and questioned how that will be ensured offsite.

Ms. Price said we could add "and that satisfies all requirements

for listing in the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community

Development’s *Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) *under M.G.L. c. 40B §§20-23" at the end of the definitions of "Affordable Homeownership Unit" and "Affordable Rental Unit."

Ms. Bingham said that you need to vote on what is in the warrant or explain the different language that is being proposed. She said that she thinks it is confusing and thinks the vote should be postponed.

Ms. Cheyer said that she thinks the motion can be made with altered intentions.

Discussion will be continued to the 11/9/11 meeting.

Stoneholm Estates Continued Discussion

At the October 18^th meeting Ms. Bingham moved to close the Public Hearing on the two lot subdivision for Stoneholm Estates. Mr. Hauser seconded the motion and the Board voted 3-0-0 to close the Public Hearing. The Board continued its discussion at this meeting. Chair Price asked Mr. Brodmerkle and the proponent if they wanted to speak and Mr. Brodmerkle said that they had no comments but were available for questions.

Ms. Price summarized a packet of selected pages from the Town Plan and Open Space Plan that Eli Hauser asked to be brought to the meeting regarding open space in Sharon.  His point was that open space is important to have and his goal is to preserve the open space.  Ms. Price noted that Mr. Hauser did not include a letter or narrative along with the packet so she could not be certain that she read the sections that he would have wanted read.

Ms. Price said she is not comfortable with having a precedent set for waivers on a compliance plan without a clear public purpose or benefit. She said that the proponent would probably have had a more positive response from the Board to the subdivision idea of just two lots in the rear.  She said that if the Applicant stuck with just the two lot subdivision that might have justified a waiver on the compliance plan because the views and open space would have been protected.  She said there may have been a better layout. She noted that it is not anyone’s fault that the property is an L shaped lot with a house in the center of the property which can make it more difficult to subdivide. She said if you want to protect the historic house in the center it makes it more difficult. She said we did not get into the waivers requested because we did not want to require the applicant to do storm water testing and other work if the Board was not on board with the compliance plan and waiver.

Ms. Bingham said she is not in favor of supporting the subdivision. She thinks the subdivision should be denied because the plans are not complete. There is no administratively complete compliance plan. She adopts all of Ms. Price’s reasons set forth. She thinks it is a bad precedent, not in the public interest and there is no compliance plan.

Mr. Pannone said that waivers are not a huge issue. He would like to preserve the land and thinks the waivers could have been worked out. He said the Historical Commission felt the land was worth preserving and he will go with their recommendation. He said the waivers were reasonable requests but the wetlands were an issue.

Ms. Price said that many of the issues in Peter O’Cain’s memo could probably have been complied with, such as street lights and pavement width, if the Board was in favor of the Compliance Plan.

Ms. Bingham said we never got a compliance plan, it was not administratively complete. The applicant indicated they did not want to pay for more work given the apparent inclination of the Board. Mr. Pannone said this was not fair because it was not requested. Mr. O’Cain said they could never comply with the 500 foot roadway separation requirement but other waivers requested appeared to be addressable. 

Ms. Bingham said the reasons to include in the decision letter are that they did not provide a compliance plan that was administratively complete (3.3.1). They cannot meet the 500 foot roadway separation required as per section 4.2.2.5.

Ms. Bingham moved to deny/not approve the definitive subdivision plan submitted for Stoneholm Estates by Site Design, dated July 1^st, 2011. The Board voted 2-1-0 to deny the definitive subdivision plan (“Compliance Plan”).

Signs

Mr. O’Cain discussed a potential sign for 93 Pond Street, Beth Israel Deaconess Healthcare of Sharon, Several questions were raised including location of sign and allowable size. Mr. O’Cain will discuss this with Building Inspector Kent and the applicant will be attending the next meeting.

Other

Ms. Price said that she and Mr. Hauser attended the Selectmen’s meeting last night along with Tom Houston, and discussed the traffic study in Post Office Square. The Planning Board recommendations and votes were discussed. The Selectmen agreed to losing two parking spaces near the Unitarian Church, changing the Billings Street approach to right/thru and left/thru lanes to merge onto Depot Street. The Selectmen also agreed to optimize the timing of the lights for the Post Office Square intersections. Additional conversation ensued. 

Mr. O’Cain said that with regards to Bella Estates, 75% of the dirt pile is gone. They are proceeding with the requirements of the MOU, which requires completion of a number of tasks by fixed dates. If dates are missed, permits and inspections will be terminated until the tasks are completed.

Meeting Dates

The next meeting dates are 11/9, 11/30 and 12/14.

Adjournment

Ms. Bingham moved to close the meeting at 9:45 PM.  Mr. Pannone seconded the motion and the Board voted 3-0-0 to close the meeting.

Attachments

1. Packet from Eli Hauser regarding Open Space.

Note: New Open Meeting Law. As of July 1, 2010 all Planning Board minutes and attachments will be available upon request by contacting the Planning Board Secretary via email at rlevitts@hotmail.com.