BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2007

A regular meeting of the Town of Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at 8:00 P.M. in the lower level of the Town Office Building. The following members were present: John Lee, Chairman, Kevin McCarville, Walter Newman, Associate Member, Larry Okstein, Associate Member.

Appointments:

8:00 P.M. Continued Hearing William and Tina Kasimer

Case No. 1585 5 Niantic Road

Mr. Lee read a letter dated June 26, 2007 from Jim Andrews regarding Title V. Ms. Kasimer gave the board a copy of the Title V report for their review. The board had no further questions and there were no questions from the public.

Mr. Newman moved to approve a special permit for 5 Niantaic Road to allow the expansion of a structure on a non-conforming lot per Section 6412B of the Sharon Zoning By-Laws for property located at 5 Niantic Road and situated in the Rural 1 Zone within the Groundwater Protection District. Said approval is subject to the board’s standard conditions and the following special conditions: 1) the expansion shall have no plumbing or heating; 2) the applicant shall be allowed to remove the existing deck and replace it with a 3-season room of the exact size as the deck; 3) the new addition cannot be used as a bedroom either now or in the future. Motion seconded by Mr. McCarville and voted 3-0-0 (McCarville Newman, Okstein).

8:06 P.M. New Hearing Elena Solovieva

Case No. 1586 7 Summer Street

Mr. Lee opened the public hearing and read the public hearing notice as advertised. Ms. Solovieva is requesting a finding that the proposal is not more detrimental to the neighborhood as per M.G.L., a finding that the proposal does not increase the nonconforming nature of the property as per Section 6412A of the Sharon Zoning By-Laws and a Special Permit to allow an expansion of a structure on a nonconforming lot per Section 6412B of the Sharon Zoning By-Laws for property located in the Single Residence B zoning district. Mr. Lee read correspondence from Jim Andrews, Health Agent, dated July 10, 2007 and Greg Meister, Conservation Agent, dated July 10, 2007. Mr. Andrews requested a Title V inspection report. Ms. Solovieva stated that the system is new and Mr. Lee stated it still needs to be inspected. Also, after the inspection is done, he asked Ms. Solovieva to submit a copy of the report to the Board of Health.

Mr. Meister had no concerns with this application as presented.

Ms. Solovieva stated that her house is very small and the addition is being requested to give them more room. There were no abutters present. Mr. Newman asked how many feet the addition will be to the right side lot line and Ms. Solovieva was not sure. Mr. Lee stated that the board needs to know that figure before making a decision. He also stated he has an issue with the door off the second bedroom and also the stairway to the second floor as it could allow the addition to become an apartment in the future. He feels the stairs on the outside of the house should be removed. Mr, Newman asked why there are outside stairs now and Ms. Solovieva stated in case of fire. Mr. Newman stated that most houses don’t have that and agreed that the stairway and door mentioned by Mr. Lee should be removed. He stated she could have a balcony or eliminate the door and put in a window. Mr. Lee stated she will have to come back with a Title V report and also the side setbacks before the board proceeds. He stated that the existing 4.8’ could be a problem for him as it is extremely close to the property line. There should be 10’ from the property line and that is not what is shown.

SHARON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2007 (2)

Mr. Newman asked how close her neighbors are and she stated that they are pretty close. Mr. Lee gave her a copy of the plan showing the door and stairway issues.

There were no further questions. Mr. Lee continued this hearing to September 12, 2007 in order to allow the applicant to have a Title V inspection and also to find out about the setbacks.

8:20 P.M. New Hearing Sally Michael-Pomerantz

Case No. 1587 4 Park Road

Mr. Lee opened the hearing and read the public hearing notice as advertised. Ms. Pomerantz is requesting a finding that the proposal is not more detrimental to the neighborhood as per M.G.L., a finding that the proposal does not increase the nonconforming nature of the property as per Section 6412A of the Sharon Zoning By-Laws and a Special Permit to allow an expansion of a structure on a nonconforming lot per Section 6412B of the Sharon Zoning By-Laws for property situated in the Single Residence B Zoning District.

Mr. Lee read correspondence received from Greg Meister, Conservation Agent, dated July 10, 2007 and Jim Andrews, Health Agent, dated July 10, 2007. They had no objections to the plan as submitted.

The applicant was present with Thelma Newberger who drew the plan. Mr. Lee asked how many s.f. they are proposing to add and Ms. Pomerantz stated 645 s.f. She said they are trying to reconfigure what they presently have. The house has three bedrooms now, but they are all in close proximity to each other and the kids need a bit more space and also more closet space. They are proposing to move two bedrooms upstairs.

Mr. McCarville questioned the location of the present chimney and asked if it would present any problems. Ms. Newberger stated it is far enough away from the proposed addition that it won’t interfere with it. Mr. McCarville asked her to double check that and she stated she would.

Ms. Pomerantz stated that they added on a bathroom and closet several years ago. Mr. Newman asked if the plan before them is correct and Ms. Pomerantz stated yes. Mr. Lee stated they are not changing the footprint. Ms. Pomerantz stated nothing is being done on the ground. Everything will be done on the second floor. Mr. Newman feels the dates as shown on the plan are confusing because the 8’x15’ addition as shown is currently part of the existing house. Ms. Pomerantz is proposing to do work on the second floor only; therefore, he feels this plan needs to be amended. Ms. Pomerantz disagreed as the plan she is using is an “as-built” plan that has been certified. Mr. Newman asked that the wording “proposed addition” be removed from the plan. Mr. Lee asked if the applicant needs a new plot plan and Mr. Newman stated there should be a plan showing the conditions of today, but not as a “proposed addition”, as that has already been completed. He asked Ms. Pomerantz to show what was added in 2001 and what is being requested now. Mr. Lee agreed with Mr. Newman’s suggestion as it looks like they are requesting an 8x15 addition. Mr. McCarville questioned the small room and the railing shown on the plan and Ms. Newberger stated the front door is where the railing is and there is access to the big window from the middle landing for cleaning purposes. It is not really a small room.

Mr. Lee stated that there is presently 1965 s.f. existing and 645 s.f. proposed for a total of 2,610 s.f. Ms. Pomerantz agreed.

Mr. Lee asked if the neighbors present were in favor of the addition and they stated yes.

Jessica Horowitz, 48 Ames Street: stated her driveway is on Park Road although her address is Ames Street. She would like the board to allow Ms. Pomerantz to proceed with her request as they are good neighbors and would like them to stay in the neighborhood.

SHARON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2007 (3)

Also, Ms. Newberger has done an addition for her in the past and she trusts her. Ms. Pomerantz stated that Jessica is her closest neighbor.

Mr. McCarville stated that they are not adding any more bedrooms, but are just putting two up stairs and leaving one down. Ms. Pomerantz agreed.

Ms. Newberger stated she has been back and forth with the Building Inspector, Joe Kent. The overhang and roof line will remain as it is presently. Mr. Lee questioned the two doors on the front of the house and Ms. Newberger stated those are existing double doors. Ms. Pomerantz stated they were like that when they bought the house and stated even though it looks like a two family house, it is not. Mr. Newman asked if the basement is presently unfinished and Ms. Pomerantz stated it is like a half basement and is very rough and not livable; however, the washer and dryer are down there now. Ms. Newberger stated that part of the basement is a crawl space. The stairs are off the kitchen and the space is not usable.

There were no further questions from the board or the public. Mr.Lee asked if the board was ready to vote tonight. Mr. Newman asked if they need a new plan and Mr. Lee stated he doesn’t think so. Mr. Newman stated the plan the way it is doesn’t match what they are requesting. Mr. Lee asked the applicant to remove the word “proposed” from the plan that will be given to the Building Inspector and she agreed. Mr. Lee stated the footprint of the house will remain as it presently is. Mr. Newman stated he would like that change to the plan made.

Mr. Lee moved to approve a plan consisting of four pages and dated May 8, 2007 and revised May 27, 2007 as drawn by T. Newberger-Hirsch Designs for the Pomerantz residence, 4 Park Road, Sharon, MA. Said approval is subject to the board’s standard conditions and the following special conditions: 1) the house presently has three bedrooms and will remain a 3-bedroom house; 2) there will be no increase in the current footprint; 3) the applicant will revise the plot plan dated September 19, 2001 which shows a proposed addition from 2001 which has already been built by removing the word “proposed”. Motion seconded by Mr. McCarville and voted 3-0-0.

8:44 P.M. New Hearing Gary and Shelley Kline

Case No. 1589 43 Berkshire Avenue

Mr. Lee read the public hearing notice as advertised. The applicant is seeking a finding that the proposal is not more detrimental to the neighborhood as per M.G.L.; a finding that the proposal does not increase the nonconformng nature of the property as per Section 6412A of the Sharon Zoning By-Laws and a special permit to allow an expansion of a structure on a nonconforming lot as per Section 6412B of the Sharon Zoning By-Laws for property situated in the Single Residence B Zone within the Groundwater Protecgion District. Mr. Lee read correspondence received from Greg Meister, Conservation Agent, dated July 10, 2007 and Jim Andrews, Health Agent, dated July 10, 2007. Mr. Meister stated he had no issue with the proposal. Mr. Andrews stated a septic system upgrade is required and is presently being installed.

Mrs. Kline was present with Donald Vollela, her contractor. She stated that they are proposing a 20’x28’ addition, which will be a great room and a master bedroom. Mr. McCarville asked about the present master bedroom and Ms. Kline stated that will become a dining room. Mr. Vollela stated the plan shows how the present living room and dining room will be wide open. Mr. McCarville asked where the addition will be and Ms. Kline stated it will be off the back of the house. Mr. Lee asked if the 3-season room will become part of the kitchen and Mr. Vollela stated yes as well as the dining room. They are also adding a bathroom. Mr. Lee asked if the kitchen will flow into the family room and Mr. Vollela stated that is correct. Mr. Lee asked for a cop of the plot plan as they have the septic plan in front of them and that is not acceptable. Mr. Lee asked if this is increasing the nonconformance and Mr. Vollela stated they are not infringing on any setbacks.

SHARON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2007 (4)

Mr. Lee asked if there were any neighbors present and there were not.

Mr. Lee asked if the proposed deck will be enclosed and Mr. Vollela stated no. Mr. Newman asked if there will be skylights and Mr. Vollela stated no, there are scissor trusses. He further stated that people seem to be getting away from skylights. Mr. Newman stated there doesn’t appear to be any issue with the setbacks.

There were no further questions from the board or the public.

Mr. Vollela asked that hearing be closed.

Mr. Newman moved to approve the special permit for 43 Berkshire Avenue as per a plan dated May 2006 by Packert Design and a plan for an on-site sewage disposal system by DMG Associates, Berkley MA dated May 25, 2007 and amended to show the proposed addition. Said approval is subject to the Board’s standard conditions and the following special conditions: 1) the home will remain a three bedroom ; and, 2) the porch will not be enclosed now or in the future. Motion seconded by Mr. McCarville and voted 3-0-0.

8:55 P.M. New Case Rabinovich

Case No. 1591 435 N. Main Street

Mr. Lee read the public hearing notice. The applicant is seeking a finding pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A, S.3 and any findings, variances, or special permits as determined requisite for a proposed child care facility located at 435 N. Main Street and situated in the Suburban 1 Zonng District. Mr. Lee stated that this hearing cannot be closed tonight as the board is waiting for input from Jim Andrews, Board of Health agent as per his letter dated June 26, 2007.

Mr. Lee read a letter dated July 9, 2007 from Greg Meister, Conservation Agent. However, Mr. Meister commented on property located at 459 Massapoag Avenue instead of 435 N. Main Street; therefore, the board will need a new letter.

Mr. Lee read a letter received from Gelerman & Buschmann, Town Counsel, dated July 11, 2007, which outlines some issues the board needs to address. Mr. Lee stated we will take their comments under advisement.

The applicants, Mark and Ina Rabinovich, were represented by Atty. Joel Fishman, 271 Canton Street, Stoughton, MA. Mr. Fishman stated that the applicants presently run a day care at 459 Massapoag Avenue. They are both certified teachers and Mark is also a Director. He submitted pictures of the existing site and also a letter from Joe Kent, Building Inspector. They have met with the neighbors who had some concerns, which they will try to address tonight. Mr. Fishman stated they will not be touching the back of the lot which is heavily wooded.

One of the abutters stated that only Cobb Tavern, the property and house, are historic. No part of the Rabinovich’s property is historic, but it does abut it.

Michael Fillion, Fillion Group, Inc., 71 East Street, Sharon, MA spoke regarding plans. He stated that they are proposing to build a 3400 s.f. one-story building at this site. There will be 15 parking spaces, one of which will be a handicap space and can accommodate a van. There will be a15’ curb cut at both the entrance and exit with signage stating “no right turn” because of the traffic concerns. There will be a 5% slope increase, but the parking lot will be all at the same level to accommodate the handicap. There will be a site retaining wall which will hold back some of the soil in the back.

SHARON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2007 (5)

There will be a playground, fences and safety and visual barriers. The leaching field, which will have a pump system, will be located in the back of the site.

Mr. Lee asked if they will need to go to the State for the new curb cut and Mr. Fishman stated that will need to be determined at a later time. Mr. Fillion stated he has been working with Joe Kent, building inspector.

Mr. Lee asked the height of the proposed retaining wall and Mr. Fillion stated about 7’ at the highest point and it goes down to 5’ and then 2’ at different locations. Mr. Lee asked if the play area will be in a bowl or on a plateau and Mr. Fillion stated it is in a bowl. Mr. Newman asked if the septic system has been designed and Mr. Fishman stated yes, but it has not been approved. They will be going before the Board of Health due to a change in use. Mr. Lee asked what the proposed structure will look like and Mr. Fillion stated it is a single story building with two toddler rooms with nine kids per room and one pre-school room with 20 kids per room. That is the maximum allowed in each of those rooms. There will be a handicap bathroom, a vestibule and an office. They are encouraging lots of light for a healthy learning environment. There will be a kitchen with a microwave and refrigerator and a rec room in the back, which is how they will access the playground. There will be a total of six bathrooms. The plans will eventually show changing tables in the rooms and washing stations. Mr. Lee asked if he has designed a child care facility before and Mr. Fillion stated no. Mr. Lee stated there is a huge amount of requirements from the State. Mr. Fillion stated the State will license this facility so it will have to meet the State’s standards. He has been in touch with the State Representative for the Sharon area. Also, he has not prepared a final plan yet. Mr. Lee stated that when we approve a plan, that is what will be enforced. Mr. Fishman stated they understand that. Mr. Lee asked if the neighbors have seen this plan and Mr. Fishman stated yes, just this evening. Mr. Fishman stated they are suggesting staggered arrival times so 38 people won’t get there at the same time. The times should be between 7:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m, but the heaviest time will be between 8 and 9:15 a.m. There will also be six staff people on site at those times. It was suggested that when Ina and Mark have people come to the center, they will be told their scheduled times. Also, there will be families with more than one child, so the sibling factor will have to be taken into consideration, making for less traffic. Mr. Lee stated the Zoning Board will set the hours of operation and will ask for input from the abutters. Mr. Fillion stated they have made some changes to the plan after meeting with the abutters. Mr. Newman asked where this property is in relation to Mr. Heinburg’s. Mr. Fishman stated it is diagonally across the street. Mr. Newman stated that one of the biggest problems will be the traffic issues as the light back up the traffic now during peak hours now. He asked if Peter O’Cain, assistant town engineer, has commented on the traffic. Mr. Fillion stated he said that there are so many cars now that additional cars won’t make a difference. He also pointed out that there are other day cares that stagger the drop off and pick up times, which is a way to make this work. Mr. Newman stated that if there is a problem after this is built, there could possibly be a police detail. Mr. Lee stated we had traffic concerns regarding an application across the street and we asked for comments after one year from the police chief. We could possibly do that with this. Mr. Lee asked how many employees and Ms. Rabinovich stated six. Mr. Fishman stated he has nothing further to add at this time.

Mr. Lee asked for comments from the public. Mr, McCarville asked that they give their names and addresses for the record.

George Comeau, Esq., Sharon, MA represented some of the abutters. He stated he would like the board to keep in mind that this is a commercial use in a residential area. Also, this intersection is one of the worst in Sharon. This is a special kind of property. Also, relative to the use, they are mindful of the fact that you can’t preclude this and it would be illegal to do so. He is here to make this project better. This is being put in an irresponsible place; i.e. to put 38 children at such a bad intersection with 17,000 cars in the area. It is a compact site and a dense use is proposed on this site.

SHARON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2007 (6)

Further, he has an issue with the following: 1) the plan doesn’t show a radius at the entrance and also the turning radius needs to be shown; 2) he feels there is an issue with signage; 3) an adequate striping plan needs to be done for the parking lot; 4) they need more detail on the wall that is shown on the plan. For example, there is no reference to any drainage on the plan and he doesn’t know what is happening with roof drains and what the affect of the drainage on the neighboring lots would be; 5) he would like to see a planting detail and a landscaping plan as the wooded area needs to be cleared in order to put in a leaching field; 6) this area abuts single family homes, apartments and a historic house; 7) he feels the fence as proposed could possibly block sight views; 8) access to the septic system is a problem. How do you get to the clean outs? Do you drag something through the playground? 9) How do you deal with rubbish or trash on site? There should be a trash plan; 10) exterior lighting is not shown. It would need to be shielded and used appropriately; 11) there should be no parking signs. Mr. Fishman stated there will be no signs ever and that could be a condition of approval. The only signage will be relative to traffic flow. 12) reserve area has not been looked at; 13) capacity of the building – they would like some assurances that it will always be a one story building. He questioned the staircase as shown on the plans. He would like more detail on that. He further stated he will put these concerns in a letter to the board. Atty. Comeau stated he feels the plan is grossly deficient and the board would be unable to make a decision relative to the safety issues. Mr. Lee stated there was a good point brought up regarding the intersection. He asked Mr. Fishman if he had any input on the level of the intersection. Mr. Fishman stated he can get that easily, but it would be hard to get crash data as there are three towns involved. He futher stated that we all know this is not a safe intersection. Mr. McCarville stated he is concerned with emergency services to the children. Atty. Comeau stated the applicants have done some good work, but he brought up some valid points and issues. Mr. Fishman stated he wrote them down. Mr. Fillion stated there will be a substantial cost to his client to develop and address some of the points. They will be engineered and coordinated with the fire department. He reminded the board that this is not the final set of plans. Mr. Lee stated that Mr. Comeau’s comments need to be addressed. He also stated that they should add a sprinkler system to their list. Mr. Newman stated that could be a requirement. He asked if the exit driveway would be a right turn only and Mr. Fillion stated the sign would state “no left turn”. Mr. Comeau stated there is a double yellow line there.

Michael Mirochnik, 112 Hampton Road: stated he is favor of this, but is questioning the following: 1) what would be impact of 38 cars to the existing 17,000. He feels it would be small. 2) he feels that the question of an inappropriate location is not a valid concern as there is a day care presently by Shaw’s Plaza right near Rt. 495; 3) the Dept. of Education will have stipulations; 4) they will have to follow all the rules.

John O’Neil, 437 N. Main Street: he lives next door and he takes his life in his hands coming and going every day. If the traffic turns right, where will they go from there? They will have to turn around.

Pat Gelormini, 427 N. Main Street: her house is on the other side. She is not opposed to this project, but she is concerned for the safety of the children. She can’t imagine a mother with a van full of kids trying to get in or out.

Ken Pittman, 41 Bay Road: can’t cross over the double yellow line. Mr. Lee questioned entering the site and he is not sure. He asked if they are proposing that no one will cross the double line. Mr. Fishman stated they will look into this.

Debbie Pittman, 41 Bay Road: questioned snow removal in the winter is a huge concern as there is no place to put it. Also, she doesn’t oppose this, but what happens when they have an event at the center; for example, graduation. If there are more than 12 or 15 cars, there will be no place to put them. Mr. Lee stated they could condition it that there would be no events open to the public on site. They would have to be held someplace else.

SHARON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2007 (7)

Gordon Beers, 9 Bayberry Drive: for years he was one of those 17,000 cars, but now he comes out of Sharon Green. He wonders how they will get the bulk of the kids getting dropped off between 8 and 9:30, as some people start work early and those staggered hours would preclude them from using this day care. If you limit the arrival times, you will limit the market. Mr. Lee stated that is a valid point. We will restrict the hours of operation and they will provide a traffic timing plan. Mr. Comeau stated there would be no mechanism to enforce that; therefore, he would find a police detail helpful. They are concerned about the safety of the cars and children. Mr. Lee stated that maybe a one hour daily detail would be the answer.

Michael Zollo, Stoughton: we are all customers of Ina. The abutters’ attorney has no right to say it’s not right to put a day care there. Mr. Lee stated he does have a right. Mr. Zollo stated they are here in support of Ina. Also, there is never a back up now. These people are phenomenal. Mr. Lee reminded him that this board runs a civil meeting. Mr. Zollow apologized for his tone and attack.

Rita Burke, 5 Bayberry Drive: she sees this site from her back window. The traffic is an issue and she sees that every day. She is thinking about the mothers who are trying to get their kids home.

Lana, Stoughton: she doesn’t understand the traffic issue as she drives 1-1/2 hours per day and has no problem with traffic.

Michael Mirochnik, 112 Hampton Road: asked how time can be enforced. There will be a lot of children and only some will utilize carpooling. There is no way to enforce carpooling either. People will need to use common sense. Mr. Newman stated that an extension of that idea would be a pick-up service. Mr. Fishman stated he will add that to the list.

Mr. Comeau stated that when you look at what you can regulate as a zoning board, you can deal with the serious issue of traffic. That needs additional scrutiny. You can address the parking also, but if you change the parking, the building will have to be changed also. Mr. Lee stated they are not asking for any variances, but they are here because the lot is an undersized lot according to the town’s zoning.

Ms. Rabinovich stated that if they are going to make the parking lot too big, it will not look residential. They have tried to make this look like Cobb’s Corner.

419 Brook Road: If you increase the parking spaces, there will be more cars as the lot will be bigger. Mr. Lee stated that more spaces would mean a smaller building, so there would be less cars. We are all here to support Ina and questioned how many parking spaces are across the street.

Mr. Comeau stated he is not downgrading the business or the owners. This is a good use. That is not the issue.

Michael Zoller, Stoughton: suggested that the employees park elsewhere at Cobb’s Corner. Mr. Lee stated that is being creative.

Dave White, 27 Bayberry Drive: property manager at Sharon Green. He stated that people cut through Sharon Green to miss the light. The cars just speed and people can’t stop. They will run you over. Mr. Lee stated this is an enforcement issue and suggested he call the police. That is not the issue before us tonight.

Mr. McCarville stated that snow removal does take up some space and asked if they allowed for that on the plan. Mr. Fishman stated they will have to look into this as there is some room, but they need a more definitive plan.

SHARON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2007 (8)

Paul, Stoughton: his son goes to Ina’s day care. Regarding the turn restriction, does the medical building have one? Mr. Lee stated no. Paul stated then this shouldn’t have one.

Mike, Stoughton: the area where this is going to be built is a sore spot and is falling apart. Ina is trying to put a nice well maintained building here.

Michael Mirochnik, 112 Hampton Road: is it this board’s authority to control the number of parking spaces? Mr. Lee responded yes. Mr. Mirochnik asked how many are required and Mr. Fillion stated six. Mr. Mirochnik stated the problem is the traffic flow and the accidents.

Lee Aster, 9 Bayberry Drive: lived here for nine years and within the last five years the traffic is horrendous. You take your life in your hands. She doesn’t go out that way as the cars will not stop to allow them to get out. She doesn’t talk on the phone, drink coffee. She is very careful, but this is still very dangerous.

There were no further questions. Mr. Fishman signed an extension of time.

Mr. Lee continued this hearing to September 12, 2007 at 8:00 P.M.

Correspondence

Sharon Commons: The board is in receipt of a memo of understanding with the Board of Selectmen. It was agreed that this would be part of their conditions of approval.

It was moved, seconded and voted to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 11:05 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,