Town of Sharon Sacred Heart Reuse Committee

Meeting Minutes of 12/14/10

Amended and Approved on 1/5/11

Sharon Community Center

 

Committee Attendees

John Davis, Chair

Jim Michael

Valeda Britton - Absent

Ed Keenan

 

Other Attendees

Dick Gelerman, Town Counsel

Judy DiCastro,14 Cottage Street

Jeffrey Russell, Old Colony YMCA

Cindy Amara, Town Counsel

Michael Markowitz,10 Ina Road Needham

Greg Meister, Conservation Commission

Alice Cheyer

Dan Rosen, 141 Brook Road

Karen Friedman, 1 Lee Road

Eli Hauser, 58 Ames Street

Steve Lesco, 25 Eliot Street

James Thomas, North Easton

Gary Bluestein

 

 

Chair Report

Chair Davis opened the meeting at 7:35 PM.

 

Meeting Minutes

Mr. Keenan moved to approve the meeting minutes of 10/27/10 and Mr. Michael seconded the motion and the Committee voted 3-0-0 in favor.

 

Mr. Keenan moved to approve the meeting minutes of 11/10/10 and Mr. Michael seconded the motion and the Committee voted 3-0-0 in favor.

 

Mr. Keenan moved to approve the meeting minutes of 11/30/10 and Mr. Michael seconded the motion and the Committee voted 3-0-0 in favor.

 

Cornerstone

Chair Davis began the Cornerstone discussion by stating that there are some issues which need answers with respect to the Sacred Heart Property as Cornerstone contemplates residential use and a pool/recreational facility and B’nai B’rith contemplates housing. It is now appropriate to speak with Town Counsel to enlighten the Committee on the nature of the restrictions for Parcel F and Parcel N.

 

Attorney Gelerman stated that Parcel N had been federal park land when the Town took the parcel out of park land in 2002. The new use was restricted by the Selectmen vote and Town Meeting vote. Based on Article 25 in May, 2002 the land was transferred back to the Selectmen for a senior center or construction of a recreational facility.  Because the land had been park land a State legislative process was needed. A special act was filed which echoed the same restriction. Parcel N has local and state legislative restrictions. A special act is needed to use the parcel beyond the senior center or recreational center. It will require a legislative act to change the use by a 2/3 vote of Town Meeting. There is a 40B exception in which the use imposed is overridden for religious and educational restrictions. With regard to Parcel F, it was acquired by the Town for a library, police or municipality office purposes. In 2010, to make the use compatible with Parcel N a recreation use was added. A use change only needs a 2/3 Town Meeting vote.

 

Mr. Michael asked Attorney Gelerman if the land could be defined as a day care center. Attorney Gelerman replied that he hasn’t studied this but Cornerstone would have a 40A for education. 40A does not overcome legislative restriction. A legislative change for Parcel N would require a vote and authorization to Selectmen to ask the Legislature to change the act that imposed the restriction. As per Attorney Gelerman, the Legislature usually does what the Town wants. Because it is park land, the Town might have to substitute additional park land for recreational use.

 

Mr. Dan Rosen of Cornerstone, Inc. asked if Cornerstone wanted to put educational housing on Parcel N would you need to repeat the process done to make the land available for a senior center. Attorney Gelerman replied that the best case scenario would be to bring this to Town Meeting in May and September to the Legislature for a vote to change the land use requirement.

 

Mr. Dan Rosen then asked what would be required to put educational housing on Parcel F. Attorney Gelerman stated that this would require a 2/3 vote at Town Meeting. As this is one project with one combined use this would need to meet all requirements.

 

Chair Davis stated that the RFP was not inviting residential proposals. Cornerstone was the only group that met the requirements of the RFP. He asked Attorney Gelerman his thoughts on the Town inviting residential proposals. Chair Davis asked if we can work with the RFP used or reconfigure it in order to solicit other residential proposals.

 

Attorney Gelerman replied that the proposal should be responsive to the RFP. To avoid any issues he suggested preparing a new RFP that welcomes residential use. He said the restrictions need to be removed first or point out what is happening. A new RFP would be fairer and create a more open process.

 

Ms. Cheyer mentioned the Dover Amendment and Mr. Davis said that the Dover Amendment is 40A. Because of the nature of the legislative restrictions, educational residential is non exempt.

 

Attorney Gelerman said that 40A permits dimensional regulations like bulk height for a nursing home. 40B statute requires that you go through the Zoning Board requirements.

 

Mr. Hauser commented that Parcels F and N are part of one lot although they are separate parcels.  Attorney Gelerman replied that they are separate parcels with separate development problems.

 

Mr. Dan Rosen said that in the RFP the language says for use year round like cultural or educational and questioned where this came from. Chair Davis said that they envisioned the use of the facility to benefit the entire Town. The space is for indoor recreational use to complement the outdoor recreational use that surrounds it.

 

Mr. Rosen asked if educational uses are permitted on the property. Chair Davis said educational uses are permitted but the issue at hand is that they are requesting a residential component.  Mr. Rosen said that the educational piece is the residential piece. Attorney Gelerman said the restriction is by legislature. There is 40A and 40B zoning and the restriction imposed by Town Meeting and the legislative act.

 

Mr. Rosen asked it the Town realized when they did the RFP that educational use was not going to work. Chair Davis said he does not view educational and residential as discrete notions that can’t overlap. A senior center can have an educational component. The RFP listed the restriction on Parcels F and N.    

 

Mr. Rosen said that in 2002, Town Meeting voted to allow lot N to be used for recreational uses. Why vote again? Attorney Gelerman said that in 2010 recreational use to Parcel F was added.

 

Mr. Rosen said it seems as if a pool could be placed on parcel N or F. Attorney Gelerman said he is not prepared to answer that right now.

 

Chair Davis stated at the last meeting Mr. Rosen provided financial information and asked if there were additional materials. Mr. Rosen provided a financial outline draft dated 12/14/2010 which illustrated that Cornerstone is working with a consultant to identify and pursue sources of funds which include grant money, private funds, government housing funding sources and corporate sponsorships. They plan to kick off their capital financing in the spring.

 

Chair Davis asked if there was more that needed to be heard about Cornerstone whether it is about the facilities itself or the nature of the homes they are hoping to build.

 

Mr. Jeff Russell of the YMCA stated that he sees the case of Cornerstone as amazing. They are taking care of the population that needs them. He ventures to guess this would be a great project. There are opportunities for major gift givers to assist he said based upon his experience.

 

Ms. Karen Friedman of 1 Lee Road expressed concerns in the project getting HUD financing. She stated the funding is not given for group homes because that is 3-5 people per unit. She said that although there is severe shortage in housing for people with disabilities this type of housing would not be good under the Olmstead plan and would move away for public funds to be secured.

 

Chair Davis said that Ms. Friedman raises a good question. He asked Mr. Rosen, from which state or federal agency will you try to get funding on an ongoing basis? Did you have a conversation with HUD? Will they go forward with a proposal like this and fund it on an ongoing basis?

 

Mr. Rosen said the model Cornerstone is working on is a new model. There will be push back but at the same time there are well established precedents like New England Village. He said he thinks the pendulum Karen is talking about is going in a new direction. Parents are demanding high quality of life so across the country groups like Cornerstone are popping up. Hopefully they can show DDS they meet the requirements. He said this is not a housing project for people with special needs. It is designed to be the jewel of Sharon for all residents to take part in. By choosing to be a host to this concept would bring benefits to the Town. The point he said is to be apart of the Town. The only reason why he would go through the process or ask the Selectmen to go through is for the belief this is a wonderful benefit for the Town for social and cultural changes.

 

Chair Davis asked if a meeting was held with DDS regarding funding. Ms. Julie Nascenzi who is both a parent and has worked for the agency said if you know where a home is going to be located the state works much better. She said you need a location and then you bring the idea to the State. Ms. Friedman said they can give you guidance if you show the proposed plans. Chair Davis said he would like to get a sense from the state on the proposed plan.

 

Mr. Eli Hauser said that if you rewrite the RFP one potential outcome is to encourage the housing component. From the Town perspective the appropriate goal is to get affordable housing in. The Town he said is close to achieving the state established goal for affordable housing. He suggested reframing the RFP if you want affordable housing in addition to the pool.

 

Chair Davis said the Committee needs to discuss the next steps and they need to go back to the Selectmen to update them on the current process. The idea of resubmitting the RFP is not out of the realm.

 

Ms. Alice Cheyer said the affordable housing count is according to the state and the DDS would have to approve the housing as affordable.

 

Mr. Steve Lesko said that if the Committee redoes the RFP he suggests talking to the Conservation Commission before doing so. Chair Davis said various Commissions as well as the library were solicited but he would do so again.

 

Mr. Michael said we need to restudy the RFP and graph out the definitions of use groups. Its’ not a stand alone swimming pool. If the RFP is reissued, it will open up to a lot of different people.

 

The question was asked of Mr. Russell if Old Colony is willing to build a pool without Cornerstone. Mr. Russell said Old Colony is very driven to help underprivileged and right now they are working with Cornerstone.  He envisions a full Olympic 25M pool and a small child’s therapy pool in the same facility.

 

Next Meeting

January 5th, 2011 – B’nai B’rith presentation.

 

Adjournment

Mr. Keenan moved to adjourn at 8:50 PM and Mr. Michael seconded the motion. The Committee voted 3-0-0 in favor.

 

Attachments

1. Cornerstone Financial Outline Draft 12/14/2010