SHARON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 9, 2011

A regular meeting of the Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals was held at 8:00 p.m. on February 9, 2011 in the Lower Level of the Town Office Building.  The following members were present:  Kevin McCarville, Acting Chairman; Lee Wernick, Larry Okstein and Seth Ruskin.

Mr. McCarville opened the meeting at 8:08 p.m.  In the absence of the board’s chairman, John Lee, Mr. McCarville stated he will be acting in the capacity of interim chairman until Mr. Lee safely returns from his deployment to Afghanistan. 

8:09 p.m.   Continued Hearing – Michael Oshman, 38 Harold Street, Case No. 1667:  Mr. McCarville stated this hearing was continued in order to allow the applicant the opportunity to pursue his options.   Mr. Oshman stated he intends to share more information with the board to see if there are other options for him regarding his request for solar panels at 38 Harold Street and why this is necessary.  He did a slide show presentation for the board. 

Mr. Oshman stated the panels can’t be on his roof because they would not be facing toward the south.  A board member had previously stated that the Zoning Board takes each application on a case by case basis.  That cannot be done here.  Solar is a trend that is going to become large.  He is asking the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider that their responsibility is to make sure that the aesthetics is in concert with the neighborhood.  When they say no to a variance, it is because it will cause a financial burden on the neighbors.  He will be getting a federal tax credit of $11,000.  The State is behind this and so is the federal government.  He also had twenty-two letters in favor of this.

Mr. McCarville stated we don’t care about fiduciary responsibilities, only the actual bylaw.  He asked Mr. Oshman what is different from the December 8, 2010 presentation.  Mr. Oshman stated he was asked to see if the units could be moved.   The company came back and said this is the one place on his property they can do it.  They said panels on the roof will not work because there is not enough surface area.  They tried everything and the company said it can’t be moved.  They confirmed once again this is the only option available and that is why they are asking for a variance.  Mr. Wernick stated he was very concerned and still is how this is located.  He stated we do take this on a case by case basis and its effect on the neighborhood.  This may be the wrong house for solar.  We still have to protect the neighborhood and also the next door neighbor.  Our job is to protect aesthetics, among other things.  If Mr. Oshman had another house, it could be put in the back.  He wouldn’t have a problem with this in another spot.

Mr. McCarville stated that the decision tonight is on one home.  Mr. Wernick is correct that this is a case by case situation.  Mr. Wernick asked if any of the neighbors were here and Mr. McCarville stated he doesn’t think so.  Mr. Wernick stated that the fact they didn’t come tonight doesn’t mean they have changed their mind.

Mr. Okstein asked Mr. Oshman to re-show the slide he had for 40 Harold Street.  He asked how high these panels will be off the ground.  Mr. Oshman stated about 17’ on the bottom and 20’ at the top.    It will not be a solid wall.  He thinks this is beautiful and a lot of people do too because of what they mean.

Mr. Ruskin stated he agrees with Mr. Wernick that these panels are way too large for this lot.  It will be appropriate some day, but today it is not.

Mr. McCarville asked for comments from the public.

SHARON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 9, 2011   (2)

Brond Larson, 49 Lantern Lane asked what other houses in Sharon have this approval.  Mr. McCarville stated this is the first case he can remember in six years.  Mr. Wernick agreed.  Mr. Larson asked if the reason for a variance is the setback and Mr. McCarville stated yes.  Mr. Larson asked if there are other kinds of variances that are granted for this amount and Mr. Wernick stated very rarely.   We generally make them pull back.  Mr. Oshman asked if you are saying the Town of Sharon has never granted more than a 6” variance.  Mr. McCarville stated he is not saying never.  Mr. Wernick stated if you read the bylaw, it is based on the neighborhood.  Environmentally is not the issue.  Mr. Oshman asked if they are saying their job is to protect the values?  Mr. Wernick stated it is a judgment call.  Mr. Ruskin stated we are looking at the front yard.  If you want to put it in the back, he will be okay with it.

Mr. Oshman stated you are saying your job is to protect the value of other homes? What if rejecting this has a detrimental effect? 

Mr. McCarville stated nothing has changed between December 8 and today.  Mr. Oshman stated there are other people here tonight.

Rita Hoffman, 55 Ames Street stated she does understand what the board is doing, but would like to offer her support for the Oshman’s.  Sharon as a town is supportive of protecting the environment.  This would increase the value of the neighborhood and the Oshman’s home. 

Daniel Epstein, 59 Spring Lane stated he is in support of the Oshman’s having solar on their property mainly because of what Mr. Oshman is and what he does.  In twenty years we will all want solar and it is important to our town.  This will increase the values of neighbors.  He is in support of our town taking a risk.  This is one case, but affects everyone.  If we say no, it will continue to be much harder.

Leah Hoffman Rich, 111 S. Main Street stated she is in support.  We need to visit what aesthetics are because of where we live in the United States.  It would be a shame to turn down an individual who is trying to do this.  The neighbor did voice her opinion, but she also voiced her support for solar.

Chaim Wolosow, 27 Summit Avenue stated this is a case by case process.   He doesn’t think there is anything anyone can say.  Sometimes there is a situation where there is an inherent conflict.   Everybody has rights.  Preserving one’s rights is taking away someone else’s.  He is not sure what the answer is, but Mr. Oshman has dedicated his life not only for his personal gain, but it is also his moral mission in life.  He would like the neighbors to change their mind.  Mr. Wernick stated we have certain obligations under the zoning bylaw as it is presently written. 

Resident, 130 S. Main Street asked why is it we are protecting the neighbors’ rights but not the Oshmans?  Mr. Wernick stated we are obligated to review to see if this causes a problem to the neighborhood.  That is our job.  It is our job to protect the negative effect on the neighbor.  It is our function.  There are rules on how we act.  Mr. Oshman stated data shows this would cause a positive effect not a negative effect.  Mr. Ruskin stated that last month you unwilling to look at your back yard.  It would be your best option to do that.  Mr. Oshman stated he brought solar experts to his house.  If it could be in the back yard, he would do it.  He would sacrifice trees to do that.  Mr. McCarville asked why.  Mr.Oshman stated he would have to cut down 75 trees, not only on his lot, but on his neighbors.  If it were that easy, he would do it.

Mr.  McCarville stated that every panel is a big device to be located 10’ off the ground.  Mr. Oshman stated it is only 3’ of the ground.  A panel is 20’ x 6-8’.  Mr. McCarville stated they are still pretty big.

SHARON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 9, 2011   (3)

Mr. McCarville asked if he would like to close the hearing.

Brond Larson, 49 Lantern Lane asked the basis for the aesthetic judgment.  Mr. McCarville stated the zoning bylaws that are in place have to be obeyed.  Relief is voted by this board on a case by case basis.  Mr. Larson stated there is no procedure.  It is open to the board’s interpretation.  Mr. Wernick stated it is our call.  Mr. McCarville stated it is like going to court and a judge rules.  Mr. Wernick stated we are like a judge.   Mr. Okstein stated it is not only  that we don’t think it looks nice, you have a direct abutting neighbor that showed up and voiced her concern on the impact to her property.  Mr. Oshman stated she thought she didn’t like it.  Mr. Okstein stated we tried to listen to her and to you as well.

Mr. McCarville stated the neighbor has the zoning bylaw on her side already.  Mr. Ruskin stated you are asking for this because it is political, financial…..  Mr. Oshman stated it is not political.  Mr. Ruskin stated technology will get there, it is just not there yet.

Mr. McCarville asked if Mr. Oshman wants to close.  Mr. Oshman stated the fact that Mr. Ruskin thinks this is political is a reflection on Mr.  Ruskin’s politics. This is something that makes financial sense.  It comes down to objectivity of the neighbors first.  Not to allow this is detrimental to him and everyone else.  In closing, although you are talking about politics and aesthetics, there has been no objectivity.  It is a shame to deny this.  This is a scientific project that you are about to deny.

Mr. McCarville  asked if he wants to close the hearing.  Mr. Oshman agreed.  Mr. McCarville stated that the voting members will be Lee Wernick, Larry Okstein and Seth Ruskin.

Mr. Wernick moved to approve the application as presented.  Motion seconded by Mr. Ruskin.  Mr. Ruskin stated Mr. Oshman is recording this.  Mr. Oshman stated no he isn’t, it is on television.  Motion voted 0-3-0.  Motion didn’t carry; therefore, the petition is denied.

It was moved, seconded and voted to adjourn.  The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

Accepted 5/11/11