SHARON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 2012
A regular meeting of the Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Town Office Building. The following members were present: John Lee, Chairman; Lee Wernick, Seth Ruskin, and Larry Okstein (7:08 p.m.).
7:00 p.m. AT&T, 68 Mohawk Street Continued Hearing, Case No. 1656: At the request of Edward Pare, attorney for AT&T, Mr. Lee continued this public hearing to September 12, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
7:03 p.m. Tedeschi’s, Pond Street, Continued Hearing, Case No. 1700: The applicant was represented by Robert Shelmerdine, Foxboro. He submitted two decisions from the Planning Board dated May 7, 2012 and June 6, 2012 and a draft decision for the ZBA. Mr. Lee reviewed the most recent Planning Board decision.
Mr. Shelmerdine stated that one of the provisions in draft decision referenced a third dispenser, which was incorrect. Mr. Lee questioned the lighting on site. Jack O’Leary, Merrill Associates discussed the lighting and answered Mr. Lee’s questions. He stated the existing canopy has old box lights hanging down from the deck. The new canopy has a series of LED fixtures and will shine directly down on to the pump area. There is also some proposed signage that will have goose neck lights over the front of the building, which are not LED lights. There were no public comments or questions.
Mr. Lee questioned tree plantings and Jack O’Leary stated no deciduous trees are being planted, just maintained.
Atty. Shelmerdine asked to close the public hearing. Mr. Wernick moved to close the hearing. Motion seconded by Mr. Ruskin and voted 3-0-0 (Wernick, Ruskin, Okstein). Mr. Wernick moved to approve the application presented as per the draft decision presented and as per the landscape plan dated May 18, 2012 and the site plan dated May 4, 2012. Motion seconded by Mr. Ruskin and voted 3-0-0 (Wernick, Okstein, Ruskin).
7:20 p.m. DKW Builders, 19 Dunbar, Case No. 1705 (remand): Mr. Lee read the public hearing notice and a letter from Jim Andrews. There was no correspondence received from Greg Meister. Dave Welch, the builder, was present to answer any questions. Mr. Lee noted that the plans were drawn by Pillings Engineering. Mr. Welch stated that Pillings Engineering made a 6’ mistake. They said it was 6’ larger than it is. Mr. Lee stated that is why this was remanded back. Mr. Welch stated they have a copy of Greg Meister’s letter from before. Mr. Lee stated it was an incorrect measurement as they had less property than what they presented. Mr. Wernick stated this is a new application and new comments are needed. Mr. Lee agreed and stated this is a new hearing. Mr. Welch stated he doesn’t have anything other than what is in front of the board. Pat Tiller, 48 Bradford Street, gave the board a plan dated March 20, 2012. Mr. Welch stated they would like to demolishthe existing house and put in a new house that is a couple of feet smaller. He thinks this would meet all the requirements. Mr. Lee stated they are here as they want to take down a structure. The lot is 1300 s.f. which is an undersized lot. We will make sure you meet the dimensional requirements. Further, normally a plot plan from a surveyor would show us all the setbacks, but this one doesn’t. He asked how far the house is from Dunbar. Mr. Wernick stated we don’t know. Mr. Lee agreed and stated we need an updated accurate plan.
Mitzie Kraiterman, 21 Dunbar Street stated she is confused about their dimensions. She asked if this will be a four bedroom house. The lot is very small and there was a one bedroom shack here before. She doesn’t think a house with four bedrooms will fit on the lot. Mr. Welch stated it will be a three bedroom house. Ms. Kraiterman asked the location of the front door and Mr. Welch stated Bradford Street. Mr. Lee stated there will be a two car garage and an entry from Bradford Street. Ms. Kraiterman asked the board to go see how small the lot is. Mr. Lee stated he did and actually got out and looked at it and understands what it is. He questioned where the front elevation is. Ed Hershfield, Gavin Pond Road submitted a picture taken from Bradford Street. Mr. Lee stated this is one of the old cottages. Ms. Kraiterman asked how they can change the address and Mr. Ruskin stated they didn’t. Mr. Welch stated it is still 19 Dunbar. Mr. Lee asked if someone stands on Dunbar, what do they see. Mr. Welch stated the side of the house. Mr. Ruskin asked what is the concern about that and Mr. Lee stated he is only trying to figure out what we are looking at.
Pat Tiller, 48 Bradford Street stated he filed the appeal and asked that the remand agreement be part of the record. He stated there are two issues – the drive way and the trees. Mr. Welch stated they will not remove any trees. Mr. Lee stated if you want a permanent vegetated buffer, we can condition that. It will then be on the applicant to do so. Linda Tiller, 48 Bradford Street stated that sounds good to her. Mr. Lee stated he wants the turnaround removed also. Mr. Okstein read the remand and it does address the buffer. Mr. Lee stated we will be going beyond the remand and Mr. Okstein stated we will be modifying it. Mr. Lee stated we need an updated plan showing the exact dimensions.
Ms. Kraiterman feels the Tiller’s should be reimbursed for the money they spent appealing this because of the 6’ mistake. Mr. Lee stated we can’t do that because that is a civil case. We don’t tolerate mistakes like that. The neighbors should be thankful to them and so should the builder. Mr. Lee stated we need an updated plot plan showing where the house will eventually go, the driveway being moved and the 5’ updated permanent buffer. Ms. Kraiterman asked the square footage of new home and Mr. Welch stated 2,065 s.f. and it is currently 980 s.f. Mr. Ruskin stated that is also a two story not a one story. Mr. Lee stated we need to see if that is keeping with character of the neighborhood and if there are some other two story houses. We don’t want it to be out of the realm of the neighborhood.
Richard Taylor, 40 Bradford Street stated the proposed driveway is coming out on Bradford Street. Can the new owner make that circular or would they need to come back to this board. Mr. Lee stated no, but it would go over the septic so they would have to go before the Board of Health. They are here because they are asking for special relief to do something. This might make it safer and more pleasing to the neighbors. It is a reasonable request. Mr. Lee stated we need an updated plot plan showing exact measurements and a letter from Greg Meister. The height requirement is 45’, so this will be two story with attic space. It will be 26’ high and will be much larger than what is there now. Mr. Lee continued this hearing to July 25, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
8:06 p.m. Target, Continued Hearing, Case No. 1701: The applicant was represented by Robert Shelmerdine, Esq., Foxboro. He stated that since our May 23, 2012 meeting, Mr. Houston has prepared a draft decision. Mr. Lee stated he received a petition from some residents and filed by Gary Engelson, 15 Boyden Lane. Mr. Engelson feels we are starting down a slippery slope that made Sharon Commons a life style center. This is not what was envisioned or what was originally proposed.
Steve Rosenbaum, 16 Boyden Lane stated he got signatures and the people that he spoke with had no idea there was to be a Target. He feels that Sharon is selling themselves short. In ten years, this will be an empty place. He asked what sort of agreement do we have with BJ’s and Target and are they signed. What is the status? Dean Stratuli, Congress Group, stated Target will own their own street. They have a P&S and they have a full binder lease with a condition that Target moves forward first.
Paul Lauenstein, 4 Gavin Pond Road stated that town meeting passed this five years ago and there was a written development agreement signed. Is that still binding given the changes that have been made? Atty. Shelmerdine stated there was a Memo of Understanding at the time the zoning change was voted between the Selectmen and Sharon CFII. Some of the terms addressed timing on payment and transfer of land and some of these have been accomplished. There is no change to this. Mr. Lee stated the ZBA has nothing to do with that as we only deal with the zoning bylaw. Money agreements are not before the ZBA at this point. That would be a Selectmen issue. Atty. Shelmerdine stated the applicant became aware of a petition and then a counter petition which was initiated by the Congress Group addressing the definition of a life style center. Atty. Shelmerdine feels they are in complete compliance with the zoning bylaw. The only difference between July 13, 2011 and now is the rotation of the building, parking and the road. Mr. Engelson respectfully disagrees with that statement as the present bylaw does address a life style center. Dean Stratuli stated this plan does meet that definition. They are still committed to the same time schedule and are still negotiating with the movie theaters.
Ed McSweeney, 68 South Walpole Street questioned the boxes being moved on the site and also where the water will go. He would like a wall built to protect his property. Mr. Lee stated we have been through this before. Mr. McSweeney also questioned no stub. He wants to see this as they are changing this every week or so. Atty. Shelmerdine stated nothing has changed from the permit that was granted for Phases 1, 2, and 3. Mr. Lee asked if Mr. McSweeney will be tied into water with the residential project or the commons project. Mr. McSweeney stated that goes with the mall as per an agreement in 2007. Mr. Houston agreed and stated that Condition #36 of the 2007 site plan approval deals with Mr. McSweeney’s water issues. Atty. Shelmerdine stated it is in the commercial decision.
Mr. Lee stated this board wants to see this project move forward and the issue before right now is moving Target and changing the road. Mr. McSweeney asked for a time line and Mr. Lee stated that is Condition #36 that was previously voted. Mr. McSweeney stated it is not in writing and Mr. Lee agreed, but stated it is implied. You have an agreement that they will provide water to you, even if it is ten years from now. Mr. McSweeney stated he has been hearing this since 2004 and if it is not in writing it won’t happen. Mr. Killeen stated this falls under the jurisdiction of the Selectmen, but nothing has been submitted yet. When they do submit, it will include construction plans. Mr. Lee asked that the following be added to condition #36: The connections will be created when the pipe is put in. Mr. Houston agreed. Mr. McSweeney asked what work was done last summer and Mr. Shelmerdine stated he doesn’t know of any. Mr. Kershaw stated nothing was done. Mr. Houston stated there was depositing of fill by person on the other side of the road, but that didn’t involve us in anyway. Mr. McSweeney stated it said no fill in or out. When you change a mall like this, you should go back to DEP. Did you do that? Mr. Houston stated they will have to modify the present permit with DEP and the Board of Health. Mr. Lee stated if this is approved tonight, they still have to go back to DEP and the Board of Health? Mr. Shelmerdine stated that he and Kelly Killeen met with the Board of Health and are going back in a month or so. Mr. Lee stated they still have some permitting work to do. Mr. Houston stated this approval doesn’t authorize construction. T his is only a site master plan. Mr. Shelmerdine stated they will be back for Phase II. Dean Stratuli stated they are not changing a lot. This is not a whole new system design. Mr. Lee stated we have been working very closely with you and have been very accommodating to the developer. Just because it is voted tonight doesn’t mean there will be trucks there tomorrow. This has already been approved and these are changes that Target wants. Eli Hauser, 58 Ames Street stated he is not speaking as Planning Board chair or for any other committee. He feels the new change is a nice environment. He feels this meets the definition of a life style mall and recommends the ZBA moves forward. He feels the effort put forth by the ZBA is appreciated by a lot of people. They are supportive and anxious to see this mall happen. Atty. Shelmerdine stated the question in front of the board right now is not the life style center. Mr. Lee questioned Mr. Houston about the safety aspects regarding four lanes. Mr. Houston stated he doesn’t think it is pedestrian friendly. Old Post Road is one lane in and one lane out. When you get it there it becomes two in and two out. Mr. Okstein feels two lanes is in keeping the life style center concept. Katie Rivard, Target stated Watertown and Abington both have four lanes; Easton has two and it doesn’t work as well for their guests. Mr. Lee stated that Target can turn the building however they want. What is the intent for a life style center? Mr. Killeen stated yes. Mr. Wernick feels the raised cross walks will slow down the speed. He can live with either two or four lanes. Mr. Shelmerdine stated they do provide a pedestrian refuge and feels that Mr. Houston’s memo points that out. Mr. Wernick disagrees. He thinks it does make a difference. Mr. Ruskin likes the cars having a option to turn into one lane and travel in another. He is relying on Mr. Houston’s input. Mr. Okstein is torn as he worries about the amount of traffic. Gary Engelson asked the board to consider Cobb’s Corner. This is very dangerous. Eli Houser stated 10’ is a big median strip and he is comfortable with four lanes. Katie Rivard stated Target likes four lanes as they feel it is important for that shopping center. They have added things to make more pedestrian friendly. Mr. McSweeney asked that the developer provide an independent impact study on the neighborhood. Mr. Lee stated that will be addressed at Phase II. Mr. Houston spoke in favor of the four lanes. The traffic volume will be the same either way and the second lane could handle turning cars. The only disadvantage is the potential for increase in speed, but this particular design addresses that. It will be on the plan and in the decision. Mr. Okstein asked what about when a car slows for a pedestrian and the other car doesn’t slow down. Mr. Houston stated that is an issue but a prudent driver willnot be speeding any waay. He would choose the four lanes if he had to make a choice. Gary Engelson stated as a pedestrial, he appreciates crosswalks and also the raised ones although he is not sure about the sight distance. Kelley Killeen stated the raised crosswalks in Avon have worked out well. Mr. Lee still thinks it is not a pedestrian friendly area. He stated there are no board issues with rotation the building or changing the footprint of the building. Regarding four lanes versus two, the board would like two lanes. Steve Rosenbaum is happy with the board’s position on two lanes. Mr. Shelmerdine stated if the board doesn’t grant four lanes, they are asking permission to withdraw the application. Richard Powell, Selectmen, stated the town voted to have this be a successful property and to be successful depends on traffic. Four lanes can be done safely, so why not do four lanes if that is what the applicant wants? You would drive to different areas in the mall, not walk. Mr. Lee stated the applicant has asked to withdraw the application. Atty. Shelmerdine stated only because you have changed from four lanes to two lanes. Steve Rosenbaum stated the board has given the applicant what they want. The Town of Sharon doesn’t want this. Mr. Shelmerdine stated there are reasonable grounds for people to differ. Target has a business model and they know what works for them and what doesn’t. There is nothing that prohibits four lanes. If the ZBA wants to make a decision contrary to two lanes in and out, it is not acceptable to the applicant. Eli Hauser stated a lot of energy in room and we all need to remember where we are heading with this. A 10’ median is huge. This is a short road, not a long one. He encourages the board to look at the big picture. Mr. Lee stated we have looked at this big picture for a long time. We are looking at the intent of what the people in Sharon voted for. We are saying that two lanes works and it does work safely. Mr. Wernick feels we should allow the applicant to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Hauser stated they won’t proceed with this development if the board does that. Mr. Lee stated you should discuss that with them. We have had numerous applications and we possibly would have approved most of them, but the applicant has asked to withdraw. They already have a permit from this board to build Target and the roadway and Phases I and II of this project. Atty. Shelmerdine stated the request to withdraw without prejudice has been made. We have one of the two major anchors indicating they cannot go forward with two lanes. Mr. Wernick moved to allow the applicant to withdraw their application without prejudice. Motion seconded by Mr. Okstein. Mr. Powell stated that before the vote, the board needs to understand the overall impact on this project. He heard tonight the anchor is leaving. Mr. Lee stated he didn’t hear that tonight. Motion voted 3-0-0 (Lee, Wernick, Okstein).
It was moved, seconded and voted to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Accepted 9/25/13