SHARON BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 26, 2007

A special meeting of the Town of Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals was held on November 26, 2007 in the lower level of the Town Office Building.  The following members were present:  John Lee, Chairman; Kevin McCarville, Clerk; Lee Wernick, Regular Members and Alternate Members Walter Newman, Larry Okstein (8:10 P.M.).

Mr. Lee called the meeting to order at 7:12 P.M.  He stated that this meeting was scheduled originally to take a vote on Sharon Commons, but the necessary information did not get to the Board until last Friday; therefore, tonight will be to go over the potential conditions of approval.  Also, Tom Houston is present to explain any key points.

Mr. Lee stated that the applicant is present tonight, but will not be providing any testimony as the hearing was closed.  He will, however, provide clarification, if needed.

Mr. Houston discussed the draft decisions and also Draft 1 and Draft 2 dated November 26, 2007 as put forth by PSC, 10 Lincoln Road, Suite 201, Foxboro, MA.

Mr. Houston stated that on page 18, Draft 2, Condition #34 was formerly Condition #31, Draft 1.  Condition #34 was approved by the board with the verbiage “and the residence at ?? Walpole Street to public water service if granted by the owners of each property.  That if requested by all property owners having rights in said cart path and” is removed.”  The next sentence will start with “If authorized by the Board of Selectmen and County Commissioners (added new) in approving…..”    

Mr. Lee stated the board has not seen the Memo of Understanding as referenced in the draft decision.  Mr. Shelmerdine stated he will PDF it to the board tomorrow morning.

Mr. Lee asked how many people have rights to the cart path and Mr. Samuels, an abutter, stated the Goddard Estates and two others.  Michael Intoccia agreed to post a sign showing “private way” and will also plant a tree in the middle of the cart path so no one can access it.  He further stated that all improvements are being made on the county road.

Condition #33, Draft 2:  Mr. Intoccia has agreed to re-draft this condition.  Also, Mr. Houston will reference the screening.  Mr. Intoccia stated they have their own landscaping company they will be using.  Mr. Wernick feels that the language needs to be strengthened and Mr. Intoccia agreed.  He also would like “see the attached letter signed by both parties” added to this condition.  Mr. Houston feels the trees will also provide additional screening.  Mr. Newman asked how many feet of fencing will be used in the entire project and Mr. Caputon stated over 1,000 feet.  Mr. Rudman stated that the zoning by-law requires a solid stockade fence, six feet high.  Mr. Intoccia stated he doesn’t want something that needs to be maintained yearly.  Mr. Wernick asked that “ultimate design of the fence will be ascertained at a later time” be added.

SHARON BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 26, 2007   (2)

Mr. Houston went back to the beginning of the Draft 1 decision and reviewed it item by item.  Pages 1, 2, and 3 were acceptable at this time as written.  Pages 4 and 5 listed waiver requests numbers 1,2,3,4,and 5.  All were okay as presented at this time.  Mr. Houston stated that the language on Conditions 3,4, and 5 is an attempt to meet the questions and concerns of Lisa Whelan, Gelerman & Buschmann. 

There were no changes to Pages 5,6,7,8 and 9, Draft 1.

Page 10, Draft 1 Specific Conditions of Approval:  1 and 2 are acceptable; 3 is to be taken from Draft 2, 4 is to be taken from Draft 2; 5 is to be taken from Draft 2.  Condition #6 is to be taken from Draft 2; Conditions 7,8, and 9 in Draft 1 are acceptable.

Pages 11, 12, 13 and 14 in Draft 1 are acceptable as written.  Conditions 30 and 31, Page 15, Draft 1, are being re-drafted as previously discussed.

Pages 16, 17, 18 in Draft 1, are acceptable as written. 

Page 19, Draft 1, Condition 53:  Mr. Houston was unsure if Saturday work would need a permit from the Police Department.  Mr. Samuels, an abutter, asked that work not be allowed on Saturdays.  Mr. Shelmerdine asked the Board of Appeals to consider allowing Saturday work.  Mr. Lee stated the board will be reasonable in their decision.

Pages 20 and 21, Draft 1, are acceptable as written. It was agreed that Conditions 63-68 would be fulfilled prior to the issuance of a building permit; Conditions 69072 would be prior to occupancy.

Page 22, Condition 72:  It was agreed to add the word “cumulative” in the second line after the number “100,000”.

The words “in perpetuity” were discussed as used on Page 22, Draft 1.  It was suggested that the board might want to add “or without approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals or 99 years” wherever the word “perpetuity” is used.

Mr. Houston stated that Conditions 73-89, Draft 1, run with the land.  Mr. Wernick asked if the board needs to reference the Board of Health requirements in this decision and Mr. Houston feels what is already there is sufficient.

Condition 85, Page 23, Draft 1:  Mr. Shelmerdine feels this could be a difficult condition for them as it could block certain signage, etc.  Also, structured parking is not allowed under the existing zoning.  Mr. Lee stated if there are any problems, the owners will have to address them. No one will go to this site if there is no parking.  Mr. Rudman stated this project is at the high end of what is required and they feel their tenants are adequate. 

SHARON BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 26, 2007   (3)

Ed Hershfield, DRC, asked them to share the names of the tenants and Mr. Shelmerdine declined to do so at this time.  Mr. Rudman stated that could put “no parking”signage on South Walpole Street or they could not allow any delivery trucks whatsoever.

Pages 24 to 25, Conditions 90-102, Draft 1, are acceptable as written.  Mr. Shelmerdine reminded the board that will be 105 total conditions as three were added.

Mr. Lee stated that a resident questioned “green roofs”.  Mr. Houston stated he doesn’t feel they would be appropriate at this site as they want the water to go into the ground, not be absorbed on the roofs.

Ed Hershfield questioned the change in traffic flow this project will create.  Mr. Lee stated he feels that is a good point.

Mr. Lee stated that Mr. Houston has done a good job on this project.  He stated that the DRC will have another “bite” at this when it comes to traffic and signage.  He closed the presentation of this decision and stated it still needs some modifications.  Mr. Lee stated that Town Counsel needs to review this and after that the Board could hold another special meeting to vote on it.

Mr. Houston stated he will submit a draft in three colors:  Color 1 will be town counsel’s comments to date; color 2 will be the board’s directions; and color 3 will show the requests by the applicant to make certain changes.

It was moved, seconded and voted to adjourn.  The meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M.

                                                            Respectfully submitted,