SHARON BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 (1)
A regular meeting of the Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals was held at 7:30 P.M. in the Lower Level of the Town Office Building. The following members were present: John Lee, Chairman; Kevin McCarville, Secretary; Seth Ruskin, Walter Newman, Larry Okstein, and Lee Wernick.
7:33 P.M. Wilber School, Continued Hearing, Case No. 1606: Mr. Lee stated that a peer review was done by EarthTec and Bill McGrath is present to discuss the review. He stated that the peer review was paid for by the applicant, but Mr. McGrath works for the Zoning Board.
Bill McGrath: The first report dated April 22, 2008 was discussed with the applicant. A second report was done on May 13, 2008 discussing the civil site design, layout material, grading and utilities and general comments. Most of the questions have been resolved.
Mr. Lee asked if 106 parking spaces are sufficient for this project and Mr. McGrath stated they are providing 127, which is sufficient. Mr. Wernick asked if snow removal is a condition of approval and Mr. McGrath it is in the Operations & Maintenance manual already.
Regarding the stormwater management report, Mr. Lee stated there was an issue with the pipe capacity going down Station Street. He wanted to know if that pipe is at a slope. Mr. McGrath stated that originally all the flow was going to a 12” pipe down S. Pleasant Street; however, there was a redesign and now part of the water goes to S. Pleasant Street and some to S. Main Street, which has more than enough capacity to handle the flow.
Mr. Lee read letters that were received from abutters that were concerned with water issues. He asked if this change is an improvement for ground water levels in the area and Mr. McGrath stated it is an improvement and definite benefit in terms of directing the drainage. Further, that is one of the more significant changes.
Regarding the landscaping plan, Mr. McGrath stated it has been revised and all conflicts have been resolved. The developer has agreed to go put in a cement concrete sidewalk instead of asphalt. This will be more attractive, durable and will be a benefit to the project and the neighborhood. Mr. Newman asked if the plantings are to provide a screen on Chestnut Street for the abutters, there is nothing that says that will be achieved in a reasonable amount of time. Mr. McGrath stated they haven’t looked at this as it pertains to screening. Mr. Newman stated the applicant had said they would provide additional details, which they did, but not quite enough. Mr. Lee stated that the neighbors wrote a letter regarding the headlights of cars leaving the property.
SHARON BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 (2)
Mr. McGrath stated that regarding the traffic, Vanasse Associates prepared a report. The approximate generation of trips is small, somewhere around 60-62. They would like a condition that some traffic counts be done to see if anything’s needs to be adjusted. Also, that the 4-way stop sign is beneficial. It makes sense to review these changes after the project is up and running rather than before it is done as they would have to guess at the results. School hour and peak hour are the same in the morning, but not in the afternoon.
Regarding the 4-way stop sign, Mr. Okstein asked if there should be two locations. Mr. McGrath stated yes as it would reduce cut-through traffic and speed. It was suggested that Wilber School gather data to look at in this area. The final approval would not be from the Zoning Board, but from the Board of Selectmen.
Hydrogeology and groundwater, Mr. McGrath predicted groundwater went from 16’ to 14’ and they are satisfied this is accurate.
Noise Impact: they are satisfied that the results received from Cartocci Associates are accurate.
On-site Treatment Plant: there are some technical issues that should be on the final plan. The O&M of an off site treatment plant such as this is critical. He suggests the board see the agreement with the licensed operator when it is done. Mr. McGrath stated this meets all the standards, which are suppose to be met on the design. DEP has certain requirements that the applicant is bound to meet. They are recommending additional testing for nitrogen, sodium, chlorides and pesticides and the applicant has agreed to do that.
Mark Beaudry, Meridian Associates, stated he doesn’t have a copy of the Carlos Quintel Engineering report that was submitted to DEP containing all the technical data. Mr. Lee asked if it is to drinking water standards and Mr. McGrath stated yes, but no one is drinking it. Mark Beaudry stated the treatment plant is designed and the same design has been used many times in the State and DEP is very familiar with it. It treats the water to 5 mg/liter of nitrate, which is beyond what the DEP requires. They took the equivalent of 26 bedrooms of flow to treat it in the treatment plant and dispose of it. The abutters are getting cleaner water and Mr. Beaudry agreed. Mr. Lee stated it is an improvement on nitrates alone. Mr. McGrath stated they are comfortable that from a technical standpoint this project is well designed.
Mr. Lee read correspondence dated May 12, 2008 from the Pine Road neighbors. They all feel this use is too dense for the neighborhood. He also read a letter from the Sharon Historical Society and a letter from Shirley Schofield. Mr. Lee stated he appreciates people coming out tonight. He thought from our previous meetings that the neighbors were in favor of this proposal.
SHARON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 (3)
Ann Bingham, Board of Health: would like a copy of the letter submitted by the Board of Health. Mr. Lee stated he will do so after it is discussed.
Charles Aspinwall, Station Street: he is concerned that this project is not being wrapped up tonight. The community is concerned with what is going to happen to this building. Delaying the project and not closing it out could be harmful to the financing and then the project would be in jeopardy. He is in favor of this project.
Marcia Lieberman, 19 Pine Road: agreed with everything Mr. Aspinwall said, although she is concerned with the density. The developers have tried to answer all questions. They under estimated the cost of the septic system. If we let this project go, we will end up with losing the building and could end up with a commercial development or worse. We need to move on.
Charles Fairweather, 20 Chestnut Street: feels the project as proposed is too dense. He is pleased with the cosmetics, but it is still a very large building for the neighborhood. They came in initially saying they could do this project with 55 AQV units, and then changed it to 75-79 non-AQV units. He has no idea whether they have more room in the project to cut it back more. They have suggested taking off the fourth floor and making it less high. That would allow for a significant development without being quite as large.
Giselle, 13 Station Street: Her main concern is the four stories. She feels that is too large for the neighborhood. She is also concerned with the ground water. Her property has a problem now when it rains. Mr. Lee stated that is why we asked the question earlier. Now it runs off in all directions, but the new design and improvements will decrease the flow on to other properties, although we won’t know for sure until it is done and it rains.
Mr. Lee stated the board will not be closing tonight, as we need a draft decision, which we didn’t get yet. Ms. Silman of Nixon & Peabody stated she can have a decision ready in a few days. Mr. Lee stated we only have forty days from the closing of the hearing and he will be gone for 25 days.
Elvira Jordan, 22 Livingston Road: she didn’t see this in paper. If people knew this project was in jeopardy, the meeting would need to be held at the high school. Mr. McCarville stated it was on the front page of the Sharon Advocate. Ms. Jordan stated the abutters do have legitimate concerns, but she agrees that we should make sure this doesn’t get dragged on. She would like to see a quality developer come in and renovate the building.
David Dupre, 1537 Upland Road: wanted to point out that in November 2006, when this came to the town meeting, it was a unanimous vote to go forward. That should clarify why some people aren’t here. Since the 1980’s the town has spent over two million dollars on lawsuits. This needs to move forward. This building had to be abated of asbestos and there was also quite a bit of water damage.
SHARON BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 (4)
The building is in continual decay and costs will grow while we find another developer. Even though it is an historical building, the Selectmen could turn it down. They have spent years studying the feasibility of the building. They ended up with a residential development. It came out that a commercial development was not feasible. That is why we have the lease that we have today. We also got an acre of land for the town. This project is now 1.4 million dollars and no one else offered to do a treatment plant. The abutters that did show up over the last three years were not in favor of this. The abutters only wanted to tie into the treatment plant. The number of units requested is what it takes to make this project feasible. If this treatment facility works and reduces the nitrates to Well #4, this will be the perfect place.
Carol Fairweather, 20 Chestnut Street: she voted in favor at town meeting, but not for this. She thinks people would feel differently if they saw a 4-story apartment building go up in the center of town. Mr. McCarville agreed. There should be commercial on the first floor and AQV on the other floors as presented. Ms. Fairweather stated they have lived with the Wilber School for many years as an abutter and they tune it out.
Mr. Lee read a letter from the Board of Health dated April 18, 2008. Mr. McCarville asked who was copied on this letter and Ms. Bingham stated no one, but that was an oversight. Susie Peck, a member of the Board of Health, stated the board declined to allow anyone to speak for them, although it was voted unanimously to present the letter. Both she and Ann Bingham are here as private citizens. Mr. Lee stated the letter asks that the Sharon Board of Health have joint enforcement with any permit issued. Mr. Ruskin asked if they have ruled on that. Ms. Bingham stated not yet and she doesn’t think they will respond with approval. Mr. Lee stated the Zoning Board could say it in their conditions in the 40B decision.
Ann Bingham, 9 Sherman: at first, they were very much involved and she is in favor of this as a private citizen, then it became a 40B. She feels that the Board of Health should continue to be at the table. She feels they should be the enforcement authority over this permit because of many reasons. She didn’t know there was a peer review until tonight.
Ms. Peck stated they are fully in favor of a wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Lee asked if the Board of Health has ever waived Article 7 on a 40B and Ms. Peck stated this is our first 40B with a wastewater treatment plant. They did issue permits for Old Post Road and it was a septic system. Mr. Lee asked how many units and Ms. Bingham stated 110 units.
Mr. Newman stated he is distressed about this entire situation. This site has been studied over a number of years by the town and everyone new the top issue was wastewater. The town even hired Wesson & Sampson. When this started, he asked the Board of Health to get proactive. Ms. Peck stated the developer did come before the board, but they thought the Board of Health had no authority because it was a 40B. Mr. Ruskin asked if they had a problem with DEP and Ms. Peck stated no. Further, the issue is in general DEP’s regulations don’t deal with dense development in close proximity to a water supply.
SHARON BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 (5)
The local condition here is we have a larger project than originally proposed. The wastewater treatment plant will be in a Zone 2. Article 7 has stringent requirements.
Mr. Newman asked if regarding the letter that the Board of Health sent to us, has that ever been discussed with the developer? Ms. Peck stated they sent it to DEP because the developer didn’t think they needed to discuss this, as this is a 40B. Mr. Beaudry stated they responded to this on May 5, 2008. Mr. Newman asked if they problems with this letter and Mr. Beaudry stated yes, there were some issues. He gave the board a copy of the letter tonight from Meridian Associates dated May 5, 2008. Mr. Beaudry stated they met with the Board of Health in February and again in October to discuss their short list of concerns.
Ms. Silman, Nixon & Peabody: stated the Zoning Board has had this for a long time. Mr. McCarville stated he doesn’t understand why Ms. Peck and Ms. Bingham are here tonight as residents not representatives of the Board of Health. Ms. Bingham stated she doesn’t know when this became a 40B and then the legal problems started. She wants to make it clear that the issues can be resolved. She feels that a change of involvement occurred. Further, she feels that Article 7 is irrelevant. Mr. Beaudry stated that is not true. Specifically in response to Article 7, they altered the placement of the system. Mr. Lee asked if there are any drinking water wells in this area and Ms. Peck stated no. Mr. Newman stated there are no quality issues presented by the Board of Health and he feels there has been a lack of communication between the Board of Health and the applicant.
Ms. Silman, Nixon & Peabody: the issue arose with respect to the proper permitting authority in the context of a 40B. The Zoning Board is that issuing authority. Article 7 applies to this project and that is why they requested waivers from the Zoning Board. Any local board can give input to the ZBA. Nothing was said that the Board of Health shouldn’t have input. She asked who is going to issue this? DEP is the State agency issuing that permit; the Zoning Board issues the other permit. The point was not to become adversarial, but to focus in the right way. As Mr. Beaudry said, we are not asking for a waiver from the O&M requirements. Mr. Lee asked if they want to submit anything tonight, as we are not closing tonight until we have a draft decision. The decision is critical for the town, not just this project. There are many issues – the neighbors, the wastewater issues, etc. We need to send the decision to town counsel also and once we close the hearing, the clock starts ticking. Mr. Beaudry stated that in the spirit of cooperation, EarthTec suggested some additional requirements that the Board of Health wanted to see, including additional monitoring requirements. Mr. McGrath agreed this is important. They did a similar review for the Sharon Commons.
Mr. Newman suggested that we give the wastewater people one more chance to meet with the Board of Health to see if the exceptions are minimal. We can adjudicate any differences within our board.
SHARON BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 (6)
Mr. Timilty stated they will be available while the draft decision is being written. Mr. Beaudry stated they can’t whittle this down any more than it already is. Mr. Timilty stated they will meet with the Board of Health and asked where he would address a request for a special meeting with them. Ms. Peck stated it should go to the chairman. Mr. McCarville stated that all the concerns may not be totally addressed
David Chilinski stated they have been trying to work within the existing school and balance high quality units. Previously, they had two elevators so the floor had to align with the old school. It also had to be taller for accessibility. They actually moved one of the elevators into the addition.
Regarding the screening, Mr. Newman asked if the landscape architect could do a visual cross section so we could see what will be planted. Mr. Korb agreed. Mr. Lee would like a set of site plans that the zoning board will sign off on at the end with actual signature blocks. The landscaping plan, parking, lighting, etc. will all be clear at that time. If and when this is approved, the Building Inspector and other boards in town will know hat they should be getting. Mr. Beaudry asked if he wants signature blocks on the preliminary plan or final and Mr. Lee stated on the final. The decision will reference the plans.
Mary Tobin, 120 Glendale Road: The Sharon Housing Partnership strongly supports this project, as it will help Sharon meet the needs for Affordable Housing. Mr. Lee asked how many Sharon residents live at Avalon Bay and Ms. Tobin stated she doesn’t have the answer, but she will give the board an update.
There were no further questions or comments. Mr. Lee continued this hearing to June 25, 2008.
9:30 P.M. Paul Bisceglia, 88 Walpole Street, Case No. 1614: Mr. Lee read the public hearing notice. He read letters from Jim Andrews and Greg Meister.
Mr. Lee asked the applicant if they are planning on working within the 100’ buffer zone and Mr. Bisceglia stated no. He said the house cannot be reconstructed, it needs to be demolished. Mr. Lee asked if he is the owner of the property and Mr. Bisceglia stated not yet, but he will be purchasing it. He is planning on tearing the house down and putting up a single family with an attached two-car garage. Mr. McCarville asked the lot size and Mr. Bisceglia stated it is a little over an acre. When he met with the Building Inspector, he spoke about the nonconformance. He suggested he maintain the 39’7” setback from the street, which is what it is now. Mr. Lee asked why can’t he move the house back so it would now be conforming. Mr. Bisceglia stated he would prefer to do that, but there are wetlands in the back so the Building Inspector suggested he not push the house back. He said the board wouldn’t want him to push it back either.
SHARON BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 (7)
Mr. Wernick asked the distance from the vegetated wetlands and Mr. Bisceglia pointed it out on the plan and said it is 100’ to the edge of the house, but it is farther to the vegetated wetlands. Mr. Lee stated the back of the deck would be within the 100’ buffer. Mr. Bisceglia apologized that his engineer couldn’t be here tonight. Mr. Lee stated that the septic system is not within the buffer. Is he better off moving the house back away from the road but into the 100’ buffer? However, this board has frowned on this in the past.
Mr. Wernick stated that the taller structure would make this very different. Mr. Ruskin asked what is the story on this property. Mr. Bisceglia stated he will be purchasing this and would like to put up a four-bedroom house, but he will not be living there. He is completely surrounded by Moose Hill. Mr. Okstein stated it makes more sense to move it back from the street. Mr. Lee stated that the Building Inspector has given him guidance and he listened. Joe Kent is trying to say if he rebuilds on the existing footprint there would be no problem. However, good zoning would mean you should move it. Mr. Bisceglia stated he would like to push the house back.
Mr. Lee suggested Mr. Bisceglia come back with a redesign showing the house moved and a 60’ setback in the front. It would be a better house and better for the neighborhood.
One of neighbors stated that this house stands alone. It is a sparse area and would like to see this eyesore gone. Back in the 1950’s there was a barn with livestock that was probably in the wetlands. Mr. Wernick stated he should come back with a new plan. Mr. Bisceglia stated he would like it approved with a 60’ setback condition. Mr. Lee stated we don’t approve anything without a plan. Also, the septic system has been approved. Mr. Bisceglia stated he is a builder and lives in Sharon. Mr. Lee stated he can bring back both plans – the new one and the one before us.
There were no further comments or questions. Mr. Lee continued this hearing to June 25, 2008. He asked Mr. Bisceglia to talk with Conservation Commission about moving the house back.
9:50 P.M. David Hamer, 9 Summer Street, Case No. 1613: Mr. Lee read the public hearing notice. It was pointed out that the notice referenced the property as being in Residential A zone, when it fact it is in Residential B. The agenda that was posted and the Building Inspector’s letter both state RB.
The applicant was present along with his builder, Mr. Barry of J. Barry Company, Sharon, MA.
Mr. Barry stated currently there is a 6’x7’ area that is part bathroom and part pantry. Upstairs there is a very small bathroom with a tub that is coming through the ceiling. Mr. Hamer would like to put a 12’x10’, two story addition. On the first floor would be a
SHARON BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 (8)
pantry and a bathroom and a full bath on the second floor. The reason for this is as they get older they would like a half bathroom on the floor.
Mr. Wernick asked if they have a plan with specs? He stated he would like a plan showing the dimensions as no setbacks or sideyard dimensions are shown on the plan before them tonight. Mr. Barry stated he didn’t know that board needed that. Mr. Lee stated we need a stamped plan done by a land surveyor or engineer showing the setbacks and the distance of the addition from the sidelines. Mr. Barry stated he doesn’t why we need another plan, as they are doing nothing to the sidelines. He was hoping they wouldn’t have to come back. Mr. Wernick stated this is not an unusual requirement. Mr. Barry stated he doesn’t want to come back. Mr. Lee stated it would be unfair to Joe Kent for us to approve what is front of us. Mr. Barry stated it is just a 12’x10’ addition. Mr. Newman stated we could vote on this subject to the receipt of a revised plot plan.
Mr. Lee stated the septic is okay. There is an existing bump out at the back of the house, which is presently one story. They are proposing to tear this down, go up to two stories and out. It will not be any bigger than the existing house. Mr. Wernick stated the setbacks will not be diminished.
There were no neighbors present.
Mr. Hamer stated that one of his neighbors, Mr. Stevens, was present but he left.
Mr. Lee stated that Mr. Hamer should bring a revised plot plan to Mr. Kent. No building permit will be issued until a certified plan has been received. Mr. Newman stated that the outer dimensions of the addition will not exceed the actual dimensions of the existing structure that is being attached.
Mr. Hamer asked to close the hearing. Mr. Lee closed the public hearing.
Mr. Lee moved to approve the application before the board with standard conditions and one special condition: 1) No building permit may be issued by the Building Inspector until the receipt of a stamped, certified plot plan showing the dimensions of the requested addition. Note: Certified plot plan was received on May 19, 2008 and attached to the decision. Motion seconded by Mr. Wernick and voted 3-0-0 (McCarville, Okstein, Wernick).
10:15 P.M. Alan Smithe, 28 Lakeview Street, Case No. 1605: Mr. Lee read the public hearing notice. He read a letters from Jim Andrews and Greg Meister.
Mr. Smithe and his builder, John Alexander, Town and Country Remodeling, Brockton were present. Mr. Smithe stated that the previous owner had a 14’x23’ deck on the back of the house that was used as a sunroom. The expansion is within the exact same footprint. The plot plan is dated 2001. Mr. McCarville stated we require dimensions on our plans and they are not there.
SHARON BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 (9)
Mr. Alexander stated there are drawings in the packet that show dimensions. Mr. Lee asked if there was a new septic prior to purchase in 2000. Mr. Alexander stated it was done by the previous owner. Mr. Lee asked if there is a basement now and Mr. Alexander stated no, but they are proposing to add one that will be insulated and wired. The house is a 4-bedroom and will remain the same. Mr. McCarville asked about a door and Mr. Alexander stated presently there is a slider, but it will be removed and there will be an open doorway. Mr. Wernick asked what will be next to the family room and Mr. Alexander stated a dining room.
Mr. Lee stated the addition is not to be used as a bedroom; there will be no closets and no wall. The opening must remain 8’ going from the new addition into the house. Mr. Hamer stated his wife wanted a French door. Mr. Lee stated they don’t need a new plot plan as this is going in the same exact location.
There were no neighbors present.
Mr. Lee moved to approve the application before the board with the board’s standard conditions and five (5) special conditions: (1) Said proposed addition shall not be used as a bedroom; (2) Said proposed addition shall have no closets; (3) there shall be an 8’ opening from the new addition into the existing house; (4) There shall be no basement under the proposed addition; (5) The deck is in line with the westerly side of the house and shall remain as such. . Motion seconded by Mr. Newman and voted 3-0-0 (Newman, McCarville, Ruskin).
**Note: The original application was filed with the Town Clerk on November 13, 2007, Case No. 1605; however, the applicant did not choose to go forward at that time. He refiled on March 17, 2008, using the same Case Number.
10:25 P.M. Gary Klein, 34 Longmeadow Lane, Case No. 1604, Continued
Hearing: This meeting has been continued from November 2007. Mr. Klein
provided the board with a septic certificate and an updated plan as requested.
There were no comments from the public.
Mr. Wernick moved to approve the request for a 24’x12’ addition and a 10’x24’ deck as
per an revised plan dated December 19, 2007 with the board’s standard condition.
Motion seconded by Mr. Ruskin and voted 3-0-0 (Ruskin, Wernick, Okstein).
10:30 P.M. Sharon Commons, Case No. 1610 Continued Hearing: Mr. Lee stated that there are 843 trees tagged for removal. Mr. Shelmerdine stated they are replacing 320 of those. Also, the Planning Board allowed them to take down the trees even though they are on a scenic road. They also delegated the authority to the Tree Warden, Kevin Webber. Mr. Lee asked if they are cutting on an abandoned section and Mr. Shelmerdine
stated yes. Mr. Lee stated it may be abandoned but it is part of the county layout, in a
SHARON BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 (10)
traveled way. Mr. Caputo stated it is a utility path used by the bog operator and on a paper street. Mr. Lee disagreed with him. Mr. Lee read a letter from Mr. Webber.
Mr. Houston stated he has reviewed the planting plan. Mr. Lee asked about the indemnity on the site and Mr. Houston stated he has been working with Atty. Gelerman on the final wording. It has nothing to do with the decision except that the indemnification is referenced in the decision as condition #13. Mr. Gelerman should be done with this in the next day or so. Mr. Lee doesn’t want to vote on something that is not before us. Mr. Shelmerdine stated the decision incorporates that these restrictions will be submitted before commencing. Mr. Gelerman also requested the changes to the access agreement and also the form of the bond. They are agreeing that until Mr. Gelerman is satisfied, they won’t begin construction. It was agreed to send Mr. Gelerman the form of the bond and the amount of the bond. Mr. Lee asked the applicant if he thinks this is a good way to do business and Mr. Shelmerdine stated they need to start somewhere. Atty. Richard Rudman stated that approval of the indemnity and access agreements can be a condition of approval. Mr. Caputo asked what is the enforcement if these things are not received. Mr. Houston stated we have cease and desist power. He also has seen the last exchange of emails regarding indemnification. Mr. Lee asked what about the bond issue and Mr. Houston stated they are not quite as far along. They have agreed not to take any action until Mr. Gelerman has agreed.
Mr. Newman stated the board wants a cash bond. Richard Rudman stated that site plan gives them permission to do a tripartite agreement, passbook or an insurance bond. Mr. Lee stated that the best bond for the town would be a cash account for the town’s protection. Mr. Rudman stated that would be more expensive from their point of view as it would be putting a million dollars into an account with virtually no interest. Mr. Newman asked what Mr. Gelerman recommended. Mr. Lee stated he hasn’t reviewed this, but cash would be best. Mr. Rudman stated that Mr. Gelerman will probably review this tomorrow. Mr. Newman stated our last discussion was that we were concerned about decision-making and the rights of the town regarding restoration. As discussed at our last meeting, if there is a dispute between the bonding company and the developer, what happens to the town? Mr. Houston stated there is a “sole discretion” phrase included that removes the applicant’s ability to dispute.
Mr. Newman stated we were sold on what was going to be an upscale mall with prestigious retailers and the leasing of the major tenant was right around the corner. Here we are looking at a very down side scenario. If you have come forward with an anchor, we might look at this differently. This could be a disaster waiting to happen. Mr. McCarville stated this board has been very accommodating to date. Mr. Shelmerdine stated this board has been great. You have asked us for tenants and we don’t have them as yet. They are trying to get tenants up there. They haven’t failed yet. Mr. Newman stated they are not on an upward glide, but a downward slide. In November, you needed to sign an anchor, where is it? Mr. McCarville stated we know the economy is in a downward turn. It will be difficult to find upscale tenants.
SHARON BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2008 (11)
Mr. Caputo stated the board has four forms of equal surety. Mr. Lee stated we don’t think they are equal. Mr. Okstein feel Mr. Gelerman should guide the board. Mr. Caputo stated that when you require a bond, you are doing your duty regardless of what type of bond. Mr. Lee asked what do we do as a Zoning Board charged with protecting the town? Cash is the best bond for the town. We are answerable to the Selectmen. We need to keep that in mind. Mr. Shelmerdine stated they don’t need to include a surety decision tonight. The decision presented to the board has 48 conditions. The board needs to be satisfied post signing and prior to construction.
Mr. Lee asked the time frame for clearing the area. Mr. Shelmerdine stated May 27th or we lose the man for six months. We can’t cut the trees until all 48 conditions are satisfied. Mr. Houston stated we can change the language of Condition #13 that addresses “the form of indemnification shall be subject to review and approval by town counsel”. Mr. Rudman feels the board is changing the rules. Mr. McCarville stated there is a “look back” clause. Mr. Rudman stated this is a change, not a look back.
It was agreed to change condition #7 to read: “…in a form selected by the board after consultation with town counsel”. Also Mr. Houston suggested that the surety be held solely in the name of town and the form of security shall be chosen by the board.
Mr. Rudman stated that early site work will be done this summer; then, there could be more than a six-month pause over the winter. Mr. Lee questioned the tree money. Mr. Houston stated this number could change and Mr. Lee disagreed. Mr. Houston stated the deicision will state $60,000 plus the planting of trees in the Old Post Road right of way. Mr. Lee stated that if there are less trees planted, the money figure will go up. Mr. Caputo stated they will give the board the nursery slips. Mr. Houston stated that prior to construction, the applicant shall deposit $60,000 in the town’s revolving fund. Mr. Rudman stated that is a condition they need to comply with.
Mr. Lee read correspondence received from Frank Gobi’s attorney dated May 12, 2008. Mr. Rudman stated they have responded to this letter and will submit a copy of his response to the board.
Mr. Okstein moved to approve a draft decision dated May 14, 2008 as submitted. Motion seconded by Mr. McCarville and voted 3-0-0 (Okstein, Lee, McCarville). Mr. Shelmerdine gave the board a copy of the ANR. Mr. Lee stated the board needs a full set of plans for reference by the Zoning Board.
There were no public comments.
It was moved, seconded and voted to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 11:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
minutes accepted on 12/10/08