Sharon Update
--- News from the Source---
|
--- News from the Source---
|
|
|
Letters to the Editor can be submitted via e-mail to Editor@sharonupdate.com.
11-12-2007 - The CPA Money PitDear Editor, Thank you so much for this site. Several of the articles for the upcoming Town Meeting have been difficult to decide on even after watching local TV and reading the Advocate. After having a chance to go through the information provided here, I now feel that I understand them enough to vote intelligently on all the articles. One of my thoughts as I read over the warrant is that the CPA is a new money pit from which people in town can't wait to get their hands into. They seem to forget that this is just a different kind of tax that is simply adding to the burden of heavy taxes here, and shouldn't be used for things that belong in the town budget. Marjorie Asnes 10-29-2007 - Rebuttal to the rebuttalThe following attachment, submitted by Alice Cheyer offers a rebuttal to Mr. Hauser's response to Ms. Cheyer's original letter. 10-29-2007 - Petition to repeal Chapter 40BTo The Editor: 40B is the state law that lets development ignore ALL Towns' rules (e.g., zoning, density, environmental, health, history) in exchange for building some affordable houses (but not many). It's the worst way to accomplish affordable housing. It brings chaos to Town planning and lowers the morale of Town boards throughout Massachusetts. Over 100 bills to "reform" it have not worked in Legislature. Pls sign a petition to get Repeal-40B on the STATE ballot next year. Petitions will be available for signing: Monday Oct. 29 - Train station (platform) 6 - 8:15 a.m. Or, 781-784-7972 to arrange individual signing. Alice Cheyer 10-29-2007 - Hauser responds to Cheyer's concerns with Chapter 43D initiativeTo The Editor: Alice's note to the forum on Article 15 is incorrect on every point, except for her opinion, which is certainly her right to state. The following specific point by point notes were provided on each of the posited concerns as regards 43D by April Anderson Lamoureux, Deputy Director, Mass Permit Regulatory Office, Executive Office of Housing & Economic Development for Massachusetts. I continue to advocate that readers of this forum, and Town citizens vote Yes on Article 15 - up to $150,000 in State grants are available for us to examine the water management issues in Post Office Square, and to help explore what types of businesses can grow given traffic, height, water and access considerations, along with the desired mix stated by the extended Sharon Community. There are no zoning changes required for PO Square; Our current zoning, including the approval cycle and local decisioning, is fully compliant with the requirements for 43D. Please VOTE YES ON Article 15 Regards, Eli Hauser ------------------------- I understand that the Selectmen and the Economics Committee are seeking to increase revenues by “working with” developers to bring in commerce. But this unavoidably brings increased density and height, more traffic and impervious paving, more of a “city” character that residents may not want in the semi-rural Town they chose to live in. >> There is nothing in 43D that asks the Town to change any of its existing requirements around density, heath, traffic, parking, or any other town-bylaw.
Like 40B (residential), 43D (commercial) inserts state agencies and rules into Towns’ land use and permitting decisions. It erodes local boards’ independent review and decisions as to whether to accept or deny projects, and pressures them to “go along.” It dangles the usual “carrot” of grants (but not much). Only 11 municipalities of our size (pop: 12,000–25,000), and total 26 (not 29), have adopted 43D. >> 43D and 40B are not at all similar. 43D does not inject the state into the local process at any time. In addition, the 43D program does not change any authority of local boards or commissions. The actual text of the law states: “Section 15. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to alter the substantive jurisdictional authority of issuing authorities.”
The letter stated that our current zoning for P.O. Square , MUOD (mixed use overlay district), fits with 43D and has much shorter review deadlines. This is true. But rather than being a reason to adopt the ADDITIONAL requirements of 43D, maybe it’s reason enough to revisit and reconsider the MUOD zoning. >>No comment. (e.g. This is Alice's opinion, not a technical interpretation of any requirement, so no comment was suggested - Eli)
My reasons for caution and distrust of 43D: (1) Is it worth it? “Applicants will be considered for [one-time] grants of $100,000 or less, barring extraordinary circumstances, . . . which are defined as large-scale buildout of 100+ acres, and which MAY render applicants eligible for . . . $150,000.” >>The grants are intended to assist with implementation. The other benefits of the program included improved local efficiency, pre-development services through MassDevelopment (free-of-charge), marketing of your site and community (free-of-charge through the Mass Alliance for Economic Development). (2) Allows development projects to proceed while a permit is appealed. 43D changes this for ALL special permits (not only 43D). Courts will be reluctant to uphold appeals when construction is already done. >>This is simply not true. The law to which the author is referring (a 2006 amendment to Section 11 of Chapter 40A) exists in every city or town today without or without the use of the 43D program. A developer may proceed at his/her own risk if a special permit is granted by a local grant authority and subsequently appealed – that new law has absolutely nothing to do with 43D. (3) MEPA environmental impact reports and Mass. Historical Commission reviews may be completed too late (past the 43D deadline of 180 days) to be “of practical use by permitting authorities. . . . No remedy is provided.” >>We are working with MEPA to determine how best to conduct MEPA reviews in the 120-days allotted in Chapter 43D. At the very least, the municipality is held-harmless in cases where a state authority must grant a decision before a local permit can be issued. (4) One-stop state licensing. Single Town liaison (Selectmen), single permitting board (PB). All other boards report back to PB (21 days) or are deemed not in opposition. (In that time, most boards meet once or at most twice.) I believe that a diversity of independent board decisions guards against one-point-of-view rush-through). >>Chapter 43D simply calls for a single point of contact – there is no reference to a single licensing authority or single permitting board. The way in which Sharon decides to set up its 180-day review process is entirely up to the Town, however the law strictly states: “Section 15. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to alter the substantive jurisdictional authority of issuing authorities.” (5) Today, P.O. Square , tomorrow . . . what part of Sharon ? Selectmen could decide to designate other priority development sites for expedited permitting, even one land parcel or one building of 50,000+ sq ft. “Smart growth” sites near transit are not required. >>All Priority Development Sites created through the Chapter 43D program must meet with an affirmative majority vote of Town Meeting. If the Town is putting forth one site now, the Town does not have the authority to “opt in” other sites without Town Meeting approvals of every proposed site. (6) Alters rules for release of conservation, watershed, agricultural, affordable housing restrictions to be same as for disposing of other “interests in land” except for one public hearing and Selectmen approval. >>Again, this is not true. There are not changes to these rules in Chapter 43D and I’m unclear where this reference comes from. There is no reference to disposition of land in Chapter 43D. (7) 43D requires much additional work and cost for Town staff to change bylaws and regulations, determine and list all permits, reviews, approvals required. Costs for staff will not be offset by the one-time grant for consults. >>The law allows the Town to collect a separate fee to be used to cover any costs associated with implementation of Chapter 43D. See “Section 6. (b) The governing body may establish an additional and separate fee, in addition to any fees that may be assessed by an issuing authority in order to carry out its duties under this chapter, and may deposit the fees in a special account to be maintained by the treasurer. The special account, including any accrued interest shall be expended at the direction of the governing body, without further appropriation; but, the funds shall be expended only in carrying out its responsibilities under this chapter.” I have cc’d Matthew Feher of the Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA) on this email. Matthew worked closely with me on the Chapter 43D legislation and as I mentioned in previous emails, the MMA has been a strong supporter of the Chapter 43D program. I know that the MMA would not have supported the program if it intended to accomplish any one of the author’s intentions above. I assure you that the comments set forth in the various op-eds are completely unfounded and simply inaccurate. If any of the statements were true, why would any community use the program? I encourage your voters to visit our website at www.mass.gov/mpro and read the statute and frequently asked questions sheet for a clarification. Please let me know if I can answer any future questions. April April Anderson
Lamoureux, Deputy Director 10-29-2007 - Financial Impacts of Brickstone DevelopmentTo The Editor:
There are
costs associated with Brickstone's Sharon Hills that were not accounted for in
the alleged $3.2 million benefit promised by Brickstone and Town officials.
Mitigation offered by Brickstone is also far less than promised. Some of the
liabilities that the developer did not include in revenue projections are
examined below.
Cheryl
Weinstein 10-23-2007 - Article 15, Expedited Permitting, Is "Commercial 40B"To The Editor: Last week in the paper, a letter advocated that the Town vote to adopt Chapter 43D, Expedited Permitting. I would be cautious about opting in to this new state program. I understand that the Selectmen and the Economics Committee are seeking to increase revenues by “working with” developers to bring in commerce. But this unavoidably brings increased density and height, more traffic and impervious paving, more of a “city” character that residents may not want in the semi-rural Town they chose to live in. Like 40B (residential), 43D (commercial) inserts state agencies and rules into Towns’ land use and permitting decisions. It erodes local boards’ independent review and decisions as to whether to accept or deny projects, and pressures them to “go along.” It dangles the usual “carrot” of grants (but not much). Only 11 municipalities of our size (pop: 12,000–25,000), and total 26 (not 29), have adopted 43D. The letter stated that our current zoning for P.O. Square, MUOD (mixed use overlay district), fits with 43D and has much shorter review deadlines. This is true. But rather than being a reason to adopt the ADDITIONAL requirements of 43D, maybe it’s reason enough to revisit and reconsider the MUOD zoning. My reasons for caution and distrust of 43D: (1) Is it worth it? “Applicants will be considered for [one-time] grants of $100,000 or less, barring extraordinary circumstances, . . . which are defined as large-scale buildout of 100+ acres, and which MAY render applicants eligible for . . . $150,000.” (2) Allows development projects to proceed while a permit is appealed. 43D changes this for ALL special permits (not only 43D). Courts will be reluctant to uphold appeals when construction is already done. (3) MEPA environmental impact reports and Mass. Historical Commission reviews may be completed too late (past the 43D deadline of 180 days) to be “of practical use by permitting authorities. . . . No remedy is provided.” (4) One-stop state licensing. Single Town liaison (Selectmen), single permitting board (PB). All other boards report back to PB (21 days) or are deemed not in opposition. (In that time, most boards meet once or at most twice.) I believe that a diversity of independent board decisions guards against one-point-of-view rush-through). (5) Today, P.O. Square, tomorrow . . . what part of Sharon? Selectmen could decide to designate other priority development sites for expedited permitting, even one land parcel or one building of 50,000+ sq ft. “Smart growth” sites near transit are not required. (6) Alters rules for release of conservation, watershed, agricultural, affordable housing restrictions to be same as for disposing of other “interests in land” except for one public hearing and Selectmen approval. (7) 43D requires much additional work and cost for Town staff to change bylaws and regulations, determine and list all permits, reviews, approvals required. Costs for staff will not be offset by the one-time grant for consults. In sum, I’d say, Vote NO on Article 15, Expedited Permitting, at the Nov. 5 Town Meeting. Alice Cheyer 10-22-2007 - Garden Club Holiday House TourTo The Editor: The Sharon Garden Club is presenting its first Holiday House Tour this December where the public is invited to enjoy three beautifully decorated houses in Sharon. Would you publicize this please in the Sharon Update? I shall be putting together a press release for some of the local papers in the next couple of weeks so if you would like more information or a copy of our flyer I can also provide this. ‘Deck the Halls’, a holiday house tour presented by the Sharon Garden Club takes place over the weekend of 8th (2pm – 6pm) and 9th (12pm -4pm) December 2007. Admission to view three homes and enjoy light refreshments at the Sharon Historical Society is $18 to 30th November, $20 from 1st December. Contact Debbie on 781 784 2261, or by email - debmm3@comcast.net for tickets. Tickets will also be on sale on the day of the tour at any of the homes. For more information go to www.sharongardenclub.org Kathy Tunsley 10-22-2007 - NADD response to questions raisedTo The Editor: NADD received an e-mail "summary" of Nov. 5 Town Meeting Articles 1, 2, and 3 (author unidentified). The following is NADD's response and an explanation of the citizen petition Articles 1, 2, and 3. The entire text of the email is included and has been quoted exactly. Article
One NADD: Moreover, since the zoning would revert to the R-2 zoning that was in place before the May 7, 2007 vote, Brickstone would either have to comply with that zoning or return to Town Meeting for a different zoning overlay. At that point, the Town would be able to renegotiate another development agreement that is more beneficial to the Town. Article
Two NADD: Article 2 reduces the number of bedrooms in the development from 1,404 to 650; reduces the nursing home from 150 beds to 75; reduces the height of the buildings to be consistent with zoning in the rest of Sharon (4 stories or 60 feet, whichever is higher); retains natural vegetative buffer strips to abutting properties at 50 feet; retains 75 foot buffers between rear and side property lines. The objective of Article 2 is to allow Brickstone to develop its age-restricted housing complex, but at a size that would fit better with surrounding residential areas and that would result in less water use, hopefully avoiding the necessity of hooking up to MWRA water. Article
Three NADD:
The Selectmen who negotiated the Senior Overlay District bylaw did not require that Brickstone be subject to special permit review. Only "site plan review" is required, but a presiding ZBA has no power to make any changes to the developer's plans. Article 3, requiring a special permit, would ensure that the presiding ZBA have the requisite oversight capabilities as the preliminary plan that has been presented to date moves into a more definitive project plan. Requiring a Special Permit for such large-scale developments is typical throughout the Commonwealth. The following projects were all approved (or are in process) by special permit: Rockville Meadows (Millis), Pin Oaks (Norfolk), Village at River's Edge (Norfolk), Southport (Mashpee), Oak Hill (Franklin), Legacy Place (Dedham), Westwood Station (Westwood), and Glen Ellen (Millis). A special permit requirement will restore local discretion. Note that Article 3 does not seek to limit the size or scope of the project. Email: NADD: Moreover, the Selectmen deliberately withheld information from the voters regarding alternatives to the project. There are alternative plans that would not release a high number of contaminants into private drinking wells, endangering the health of hundreds of people. The 9-lot subdivision plan that Brickstone recently filed would be one such option. Finally, the author of the email objects to the fact that nonresidents are advising Sharon residents on this matter. However, the Selectmen are advised by nonresident Town Counsel and nonresident Brickstone officials. It is common practice for Towns and their residents to seek experts who do not live in Town. Please vote YES on Article 1 to rescind this rezoning. At least let's keep the impacts more manageable: vote YES on Article 2 and YES on Article 3.
NADD
(Neighbors Against Destructive Development) is an organization dedicated to
persevering the quality of life in local communities. 10-22-2007 - Glut of Age Restricted HousingTo The Editor: Vote YES on Articles 1, 2, and 3, at Town Meeting on Monday, November 5th, to undo or modify the rezoning of Rattlesnake Hill that was approved for Brickstone's proposed 8-story development. NADD (Neighbors Against Destructive Development) sponsored these articles because we are concerned about (1) information withheld by public officials, and inadequate review time for boards; (2) promises that may not be kept, like $3.2 million in Town revenues; (3) serious environmental and health impacts; and (4) the unsuitability of eight-story apartment towers adjacent to conservation land and in a single-family residential neighborhood. This e-mail addresses the uncertainty of the promised tax revenue to the Town. If Brickstone doesn't fill its age-restricted buildings, will the Town get the promised $3.2 million in revenues? Or will the development of 87 acres of Rattlesnake Hill have destroyed its prime geologic and environmental resources for nothing? There is a glut of age-restricted housing in Massachusetts. Towns that are hoping to improve their tax base and avoid overloaded schools with age-restricted housing may be disappointed. In Upton, Hopkinton and Quincy developers are coming back to the town requesting to change their over 55 developments to allow persons under the age of 55. The Village at Ames Pond in Stoughton has recently drastically reduced prices because they cannot fill the units. North Hill in Needham, right off 128, (~$600,000 entrance fee for a two bedroom) has plenty of room! CHAPA (Citizens' Housing and Planning Association) published a comprehensive study of the age restricted housing market in June 2005 ( http://www.chapa.org/pdf/AgeRestrictedHousinginMA.pdf ). This Massachusetts study gathered information from many sources including, state and local officials, regional planning agencies, real estate professionals, and representatives of various trade organizations such as the National Association of Home Builders. Excerpts from their 2005 report follows in italics. The sheer volume of new units coming onto the market in the next 24-36 months means there will be much greater competition going forward. Housing developments that are not well-located, well-designed and well-priced are unlikely to succeed. (page 6) (Note that the Brickstone property is 20 minutes from the nearest highway off a narrow, dangerous, winding road. Most existing age restricted housing units are within 5 minutes of the highway.) Ironically, the more successful an age restricted development is in providing an attractive, alternative housing option for the community's older homeowners, the more likely the town is to experience an increase in the school age population as families with children move into the "empty nest" the seniors vacate. (page 43) CHAPA also identified more than 150
age-restricted active adult developments existing or under construction in 93
communities, which will provide more than 10,000 units of housing. An additional
14,000 units were planned, proposed, or in permitting (CHAPA, page 33). And that
was before the housing slump; now people are unable to sell their houses so they
can move. CHAPA estimates that the number of individuals purchasing in
age-restricted communities in 2010 throughout the state is only 264
individuals (ages 65-74) and only 98 (ages 75+) (CHAPA, page 32). 1. Brickstone requesting that persons under the age of 65, including children, be allowed in the units. If the town refuses; 2. Brickstone could seek to have the complex turned into affordable housing or; 3. The buildings could stand empty resulting in no mitigation or tax benefits to the Town. Please vote YES on Article 1 to rescind this rezoning. At least let's keep the impacts more manageable: vote YES on Article 2 (cuts project from 624 to 325 units, from 150 to 75 nursing beds, four-story buildings) and YES on Article 3 (substitutes special-permit review for by-right site-plan review, giving boards more control). NADD (Neighbors Against Destructive Development) is an organization dedicated to preserving the quality of life in local communities. Neighbors Against Destructive Development 05-09-2007 - Community Preservation MeritsTo The Editor: I would like to respond to just this part of your commentary: ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Let's stop funding the small requests that apparently the Community Preservation Committee has a hard time saying no to. Let's get back to preservation and not being an adjunct funding mechanism for the Town." We have heard criticism of "small requests" before, but never any explanation of why a "small request" would have less merit than a large request. Projects of any size should be evaluated based upon a cost/benefit analysis. The size of the request is simply the "cost" side of the equation. For example, a $500 request towards restoration of an historic cemetery owned by the Town has a very low cost. This $500 enables the project to go forward, supplemented by another $500+ raised privately by the Boy Scouts involved. This is further supplemented by "in kind" volunteer labor provided by the Scouts and their supporters to the benefit of the Town. Were this work to be performed by the DPW (for example), the costs would be substantially higher. In this way, the $500 is leveraged to produce a benefit to the Town that far exceeds that amount. One can argue about the relative merits of performing cemetery restoration in the first place, but that is just another "benefit" factor. Regarding the "adjunct funding mechanism"; to the extent that CPA funds are used to displace budget items or capital requests that were going to be funded anyway, we can save the taxpayers some money. This is not so different from the concept at work in the case of the Horizons for Youth purchase. The Town was going to borrow money to buy HFY whether CPA funds were used or not. That was made very clear by the overwhelming support of the voters both at TM and at the polls. By shifting some of the debt to CPA, the State picks up part of the bill, and local taxpayers save some money. CPA really only moves towards becoming a local tax increase when it is used to fund things that would not otherwise have been funded in the absence of CPA, and even then, only to the extent that expenditures of this type exceed State contributions. For example, the Glendale Village land purchase may not have been successful in a general election as a Debt Exclusion, but it easily succeeded at Town Meeting at 11:00pm with 125 people in attendance. In the case of a borrowing, CPA funding certainly has a lower "barrier to entry" than a Debt Exclusion. Corey Snow 05-06-2007 - In Favor of the Override for the SchoolsTo The Editor: We would like to respond to your editorial on the $2.9 million override. Below are our arguments for why the multi-year override should be supported by the residents of Sharon. 1. The multi-year override specifically identifies our short and long term needs and how to fund meeting those needs. What is the point of long term planning if you don’t identify how to fund meeting those determined needs? The Priorities Committee, in working with the Town Administrator, has consistently done an excellent job in forecasting revenues and expenditures. The residents of this Town have always called for better long range financial planning. This is exactly what the Selectmen and School Committee have done: forecast our potential revenue and what it will take to maintain services over the next few years, and then determine at what level residents need to be taxed to meet those needs. It is possible to design a multi-year override to manage a more long term structural deficit, rather than a short term fix, i.e. a 1 year override, to address a projected revenue shortfall. The Towns of Arlington (passed a five year override in 2005) and Easton (passed a three year override in 2006) offered their citizens a multi-year override in order to take better control of their financial future. Shouldn’t the Town of Sharon be planning ahead for the next three years, especially when we expect revenues from a new commercial tax base beginning in 2010? Planning ahead without planning how to fund identified needs would be irresponsible. 2. The multi-year override does not circumvent the current voter approval processes. Some members of the Finance Committee have called the multi-year override “undemocratic.” On the contrary, voters have the opportunity to vote it up or down at the 2007 May election. In addition, there will be no change in the process by which budgets are debated and approved by voters at Town Meeting each spring. 3. The multi-year override will not take away incentives to Town Departments to control spending. For example, people may be concerned that if additional income, i.e. state aid or revenue from commercial developments, comes in unexpectedly, that the Town will spend that and continue to increase taxes, instead of just ask for what is needed. History proves that the schools just spend what they need to maintain programs. In FY’05, the schools received about $550,000 more from the state than expected. The School Department did not add new programs; it returned that money back to the Town. In addition, over the past 5 years, the Schools returned unused money to the Town at the end of four of those fiscal years. Laura Salomons 05-01-2007 - Postpone Brickstone, "No" on OverrideDear Editor To rush or not to rush? That’s the critical question facing voters at next week's Town Meeting. We urge voters to postpone the Brickstone article and vote "no" on the three-year override. Brickstone is one of the developments cited by override supporters as a source of future town and school revenue. However, Brickstone is not yet a given, and many questions remain unanswered about its size, environmental impacts, basic viability, and possibly unintended consequences. Moreover, the memorandum of understanding governing the project -- arguably the most important piece of information voters need to assess its merits -- won't be available for review until just before Town Meeting. While Brickstone proponents argue that the developers have worked for over a year to revise this complicated project and address community concerns, many voters will want -- and need -- more than a few days' notice to evaluate the memorandum of understanding. Earlier this year, after an intense p.r. campaign promising significant “net revenue” to the town, voters approved a major “lifestyle” mall. Shortly thereafter, the state stopped the Pine Woods project led by the same developer because he had grossly inflated his cost projections. Many voters then questioned the credibility of the numbers behind the just-authorized lifestyle mall. Such skepticism runs deep, and we urge the town to take the time needed to validate the claims and projections made in the Brickstone memorandum of understanding. So, the proposed override, which assumes that revenues from Brickstone will indeed materialize by the end of the override period, is based on a shaky assumption. Moreover, as a three-year proposal, the override doesn’t offer any incentives for controlling spending in the interim. The rapid pace of development in Sharon has raised many worries -- feelings that, if not addressed now, will haunt the town for years to come. We therefore urge voters to postpone considering the Brickstone project until it can be considered carefully -- perhaps at a Special Town Meeting. In turn, we urge voters to reject the shaky assumptions behind the three-year override and just say “no” to its $2.9 million price tag. David Gordon and Sandi Atlas-Gordon Comments? Just send them to editor@sharonupdate.com and we'll publish them in this space. 01-15-2007 - Mass Audubon's Perspective on the Pine Woods Development
January 12, 2007 To the Editor: “Pine Woods” is a proposed 104-unit housing development under the state’s Chapter 40B law on Norwood Street (Rt 27) in Sharon. The site is virtually surrounded by Mass Audubon’s Moose Hill Wildlife Sanctuary, our oldest sanctuary with 2,000 acres of diverse habitats. Chapter 40B is intended to promote the development of affordable housing, an important goal which we support. Unfortunately, this project is poorly sited and designed, and the developer has refused to redesign it. The site consists of pine woodlands sloping down toward Trap Hole Brook, which flows through Mass Audubon’s sanctuary. The shared boundaries between Mass Audubon and Pine Woods extend over 2,000 feet. There are discrepancies between the boundaries on the project plans (compiled from undocumented sources) and the boundaries on Mass Audubon’s professional instrument survey stamped by a licensed land surveyor. Pine Woods proposes to clear cut 26 acres of land and re-grade virtually the entire property. This work will be close to (possibly crossing) the property lines. A proposed storm water overflow outfall will be directed onto Mass Audubon property. Trap Hole Brook is a sensitive cold-water brook trout stream, and we have serious concerns regarding loss of vegetative cover, potential erosion and sedimentation, and water quality impacts from intensive development and paving on the site. Across the state, Mass Audubon regularly works cooperatively with developers of projects near our sanctuaries, to ensure that important resources are not adversely affected. Such cooperation has not occurred at Pine Woods in spite of our good faith efforts to reach out to the developers. Therefore, we have taken a position in opposition to the project as it is currently configured. The next Zoning Board hearing on the project will be held on January 24th, at 8:00 PM at the Sharon High School Library on 181 Pond St. in Sharon. Sincerely, Christine Turnbull 01-10-2007 - Updated Information on the Proposed Pine Woods DevelopmentDear Editor: As a follow up to my October 24th letter in the Sharon Update and Sharon Advocate, it is now being reported that the Town of Wayland is very upset with the actions of Intoccia Construction during their construction of a 40B project in the Town’s center, called the Wayland Commons. This is the same developer who is proposing the strongly opposed Pine Woods project on Norwood St. and more recently, a mixed use, commercial and residential development, on South Walpole St., both here in Sharon. In Wayland, persistent “dust” storms, conservation violations, and problems with the containment of soils have Town officials very angry. A Town Selectman stated that “everything they’ve done shows they have no regard for any town bylaws. The Town of Wayland is suing Intoccia for the destruction of 23 trees that were clearly marked to be preserved to buffer neighbors from noise on Route 27, in Wayland. The Town has been futilely asking the developer to replace the trees since the incident occurred on Aug 9, 2006. So far Wayland has been disappointed with the developer's vague replacement plans. A neighbor remarked "It’s like (Intoccia) is playing a game of wearing down the board until he has to do as little as possible to fix the damage he caused.”. "This is the first time on the Board of Selectmen when I really feel like I don’t have the power to meet this problem head on," said its Chairman. In addition to being unable to accommodate the town on a restitution plan to date, the Wayland Town Administrator said Intoccia Construction was also late on a $190,000 tax payment, which was finally received on Dec. 12. Here in Sharon, this is the same developer who is proposing to entirely clear-cut 26 acres along Norwood St. to build a huge housing development with 104 townhouses, called Pine Woods. To clarify, heading north from Sharon center on Route 27, there will be no trees remaining on the left side of the road from before the intersection of Bullard St. all of the way past the nursing home. In comparison, this project would make the stripping of the land and trees at Hunter’s Ridge look insignificant. Intoccia Construction has also presented a plan to Sharon officials to build a “lifestyle center” on South Walpole St., which would contain a shopping center and residences. The Town’s efforts to raise the commercial tax base are both necessary and commendable. Intoccia Construction’s actions at Pine Woods so far have proved to be far less than “cooperative”, even though they now claim that they want to work closely with the neighbors on this new project. This developer has produced many of vague plans and answers at the ZBA hearings that have been held so far for their Pine Woods proposal. Definitive property boundaries have not been established, the excessive land purchase value cannot be substantiated, sales prices of the units are grossly overstated, incorrect plans have been presented, and flawed traffic studies have already been uncovered in the few ZBA meetings that have been held for the Pine Woods project. Intoccia’s Pine Woods project in Sharon would include the following “features” besides the clear cutting of all 26 acres. The backs of 2-3 story buildings will sit only 20 feet off Norwood St. and will tower over the roadway. Storm water containment from the site onto Norwood St. is sure to be a problem. Also a huge wastewater treatment plant is to be built on the highest point of the land, right beside MA Audubon property. The treatment plant would sit approximately 100 feet higher than the roadway and effluent would be pumped uphill an elevation of 60 feet. Also, the main access road would be placed on the sharp curve in front of the nursing home and Everett St., which is designated as a scenic road, would be eradicated for an emergency roadway. All for the sake of 26 “affordable” townhouses! MA Audubon’s Moose Hill Sanctuary abuts the project on three sides. This beautiful natural land that is surrounded by wetlands and sensitive waterways will be assaulted. Our enjoyment of this property will be lost forever. That is not acceptable because our safety, environment, and neighborhoods are under attack. We cannot allow this developer to do what he is already doing in Wayland. Let the Zoning Board know that they must only allow sensible and equitable development by responsible developers in Sharon. We won’t get fooled again! Please attend the next ZBA meeting on January 24 th at 8:00PM at the Sharon High School Library to express your fears and concerns. The “Gateway to Sharon” along Route 27 is under assault and it is our hope to preserve it. Paul Oliveira 12-27-2006 - Objection to Unsigned ArticlesPlease record by means of this letter that as of November 15, 2006, nothing on this site is written by me nor with my knowledge or concurrence. I decided to stop contributing to this site because of its continuing irresponsible policy of publishing opinion and "news" pieces without requiring the writers to sign their names to them. Alice Cheyer Editor's Note: I have the highest regard for Alice Cheyer. Her commitment to the Town is unsurpassed and I personally value her insights and opinions. As the editor of Sharon Update, my goal from the beginning has been to provide information to the Town that is lacking and to provide a voice for citizens who otherwise might feel disenfranchised. Some contributors do not feel comfortable supplying their name, but they want their opinions to be heard. I personally will sign my own submissions, but I will continue to respect the desires of those who choose not to sign their submissions, as long as the discourse remains civil. Regards, Paul Pietal 12-20-2006 - Taking Exception to the OuchReading the "Ouch" section, I would like to take exception to some of the comments about Mr. Bailey's actions pertaining to the CPC. For the record, I did not support the MBNA proposal, but the purpose of this commentary is not to take any position on this matter. My intent is to convey additional information about the CPC and the proposal in question. Point by point: "Why is he so determined to sway Town committees and prevent the MBNA proposal from simply being brought forward by over 170 Town residents to all the Town residents at Town Meeting?" It actually is the role of the CPC to evaluate all projects and determine if they should be put before Town Meeting. If all projects submitted were automatically put before Town Meeting, there would be no need for a committee. Some may indeed prefer this operating mode, but the CPA clearly states as a matter of law that the CPC has this responsibility. If representatives from other boards vote as their appointing board directs them, the only way to deliberate the matter is to go before the board in question. Had the Historical Commission voted the opposite way, I fully expect that the project proponents would have lobbied for them to change their vote, as is their right. "Does he have a personal agenda regarding a certain individual who has fought for decades to save this last piece of open space in the densely populated Town Center from inappropriate development?" I know nothing of agendas, but one can debate whether this is the last piece of open space in or near the Town Center, or even that our Town Center is "densely populated". "Inappropriate" is also certainly fair game for debate. Not advocating either way, but there is a broad popular movement towards denser development near town centers and public transportation to reduce sprawl and energy usage. I can say that (from my perspective) the focus of the CPC deliberations was less on the nature of the development itself, and more on the cost/benefit equation for the Town as a whole. "When he cast the deciding vote of the CPC resulting in the 3-3 decision against this proposal on November 1, was he acting as a representative of his appointing Board, the Selectmen? or himself?" I thought I cast the deciding vote, but the answer to the question is "both". The Selectmen clearly expressed no support for this project on at least two occasions when I was present. On the broader issue, I am hopeful that the members appointed by the Selectmen will have some level of independence, since at least one of their appointments is supposed to be an "At Large" representative (the other is Recreation). Indeed, the other CPC member appointed by the Selectmen consistently voted against their wishes on this project, and was still reappointed for an additional term. "When asked by the Advocate after the November 28 BOS meeting why he had not informed the members of the BOS about the successful efforts of the MBNA to lower the price from 1.15 million to 850K before the CPC vote on November 1 he suggested it wasn't his job to inform them." While certainly a pertinent change, I would just point out that the "lower price" was not exactly a lower price. There was a reduction in the amount of land to be acquired. The proponents would certainly argue that the net results would be the same (no development), but there is a material difference between a reduction in price and a reduction in scope. Regards, Corey Snow 12-16-2006 - Taking exception to the commentariesUpon reading this site’s “commentary” regarding the recent Brickstone public hearing this reader sums it up succinctly with “I’m ready to puke.” I am not sure how much more muckraking demagoguery that supposedly is intended to pass for editorial I can take. Has this website simply succumbed to the intention that its publishers once mocked of the media at large to simply gain readership via smugly represented half truths couched in selective, out of context quotations? If you want to editorialize, do so. Don’t disguise conceited, self righteous and petty opinions within the commentary section of this site, when what has actually been written is an article, an attempted rehash of an event that actually took place, and was grounded in some version of reality that the writer seems incapable of grasping. I thought we were supposed to leave that to the Advocate. And sign what you write, we do. David Hearne 12-09-2006 - Letter to the Board of Selectmen requesting information regarding the Brickstone DevelopmentCitizens For Responsible Land Use 2131 Bay Road Sharon, MA 02067 December 5, 2006 Board of Selectmen Dear Members of the Board As you are aware CFRLU and various other groups maintain keen interest, and are taking active roles, in the consideration of the development proposal to be submitted by Brickstone Properties. Their proposal will be the single largest development proposal this town has ever considered. A project of this scope on such sensitive lands poses not just local impacts, but regional impacts. The town’s consideration of the proposal is pivotal to the future of the quality of life for the citizens of this town, as well as for our neighboring communities. As our elected leaders your leadership and integrity is of vital importance to our democratic, participatory government. Open government functions best by having an active and informed citizenry. You are responsible to the town to assure an objective and thoughtful review of a project. Consequently, we are by submission of this letter making a formal request under the Massachusetts Public Records Law (M. G. L. Chapter 66, Section 10). On behalf of Sharon citizens and as members of the Steering Committee of Citizens For Responsible Land Use, we are requesting the right to view and make copies if desired, of any and all correspondence whether electronic, typed or handwritten, as well as any and all submissions, filings, logs or minutes of meetings whether hand written, typed or recorded by audio or video means and/or of conversations, or any other form of communication, including exploratory, conceptual or preliminary, between any employee or representative of the town whether elected, appointed, paid or volunteer, and any employee or representative of Brickstone Properties. Additionally any communication with other municipalities, state agencies, departments or private corporations that is relevant to Brickstone Properties should be included. This request is referencing any and all past as well as future correspondence. We request the documents on a computer CD if they exist as computer data, text files or as email. We recognize that you may charge reasonable costs for photocopies, computer disks, or personnel time to comply with this request. If you expect charges to exceed $50, please contact us regarding this request. As you are aware, we must be provided with this information within 10 days. If you cannot comply with this request, please provide an explanation in writing. We would appreciate your notifying us with all appropriate haste when such items arise. Upon notification we will be responsible for viewing such items, and one of the undersigned will do so. We can be reached either at the CFRLU address on this letterhead (2131 Bay Road Sharon, MA 02067), or at the email address of Citizens For Responsible Land Use which is cfrlu@yahoo.com We thank you very much for your cooperation with this request. Sincerely,
Judith Bookbinder CFRLU
Steering Committee Member
Norm MacInnis
CFRLU Steering Committee Member
Richard Mandell
CFRLU Steering Committee Member 11-14-2006 - Confusion at Town MeetingTo: The Moderator, the Selectmen, the Finance Committee, Town Counsel, and Town Administrator Re: Last-Minute Verbal Motions Creating Confusion at Town Meeting Messrs, I'd like to express my protest at how you conduct Town Meeting and the extremely-last-minute verbal motions. The voters must rely on you to make very clear what they are voting on. Having Town Meeting is not just a formality and a "nuisance" process. Residents make a large effort to go to TM and do their civic duty, and they deserve a lot more respect than you give them. The practice of extremely-last-minute verbal motions is noxious. The "inner circle" is belatedly aware of intricate issues that come up. The e-mails fly back and forth among you. Then the question becomes, How can we best slide this past the uncomprehending crowd and get them to vote "the wise way" with minimal explanations? I had some background about the Chapter 97 issue, but most attendees did not. Nevertheless, I did not understand that the verbal changes for Article 7 (and supposedly Article 6) concerned Chapter 97. Having heard "Conservation Commission" and "General Court," I wondered if the Article 7 motion was trying to push the defeated Article 6 into Article 7, and re-vote it in different form. Prior to consideration of Article 7, I had expected to hear an explanation as to the status of the lease for the two existing soccer fields after the Article 6 third soccer field had been defeated. Instead, strange incomprehensible verbiage. Mr. Peirce spoke for all us lay voters when he asked for adjournment because he did not understand what he was voting on. No matter if it worked out to anyone's advantage--it is not right to conduct Town Meeting this way, and it disrespects voters like Mr. Peirce. The Moderator has final say over what is allowed at Town Meeting. I suggest that he refuse to allow any verbal changes to printed motions unless they are accompanied by a corresponding printed version of the new motion *and* a clear explanation of why the new motion is being made--both available on the tables *prior to* Town Meeting. This would form a definite unchangeable deadline. The Finance Committee has a say over whether they will read out a new verbal motion. I suggest that they refuse to read out a verbal motion unless a printed version has been distributed to voters on the tables prior to Town Meeting with accompanying clear explanation. If it is too late for this, well, the train has gone: either vote the motion as printed in the warrant, or declare it unready to be voted on. If this were the Moderator's and FinCom's firm rule, proponents of articles (and the Town Administrator, Town Counsel, and Selectmen, who manage the scheduling of all motions) would soon contrive to meet the deadline. There is no reason that the "final motion packet" listing only the revised motions could not have been finalized *one day earlier*, sent to CopyMax on a mission extraordinaire, and laid on the tables for TM pick-up by voters. This last-minute illness is getting worse and worse, and has reached the point of irresponsibility in leadership. Open Town Meeting is already under grave assault by those who would like to eliminate the participation of townspeople entirely in favor of a "wise inner council" who will "efficiently take care of these complex matters" themselves. As long as we have OTM, though, please do everything you can to assist--rather than incapacitate and disadvantage--the lay voters who seek to do their duty. Alice Cheyer 11-12-2006 - Important Zoning Board Hearing Upcoming on 11-15Dear Editor: A Zoning Board Hearing is being held on Wed, 11/15/06 at 8:00 PM at the Sharon High School Library for the Pine Woods 40B project on Norwood St. A cluster development of 104 townhouses is being proposed all along Route 27 from south of Bullard St. all of the way to past the Epoch Nursing Home. This project makes Hunter's Ridge look minimal in size and scope with 26 acres to be clear cut. If you use Route 27 to commute and are concerned about public safety or want to see what the Gateway to Sharon is to become, please come see. We urge all residents who are concerned about reasonable and responsible development in Sharon to attend. Paul Oliveira
11-7-2006 - Support for the Acquisition of the Horizons for Youth PropertyDear Editor: The beautiful Horizons for Youth lakeshore property, adjoining lands and facilities will soon be sold. The Town has an urgent opportunity to preserve this precious asset for the use of all, but only by decisive, positive and immediate action. The Board of Selectmen has entered into a Purchase & Sale agreement to acquire the property from its owner, Goodwill Industries, under terms advantageous to the Town. The property includes 56 acres, including Lake Massapoag shoreline, woodlands, and the complete camp facilities along Lakeview Street. This is one of Sharon's 2 large remaining properties, and has not only exceptional natural beauty, but also the potential as a valuable resource to serve the community's needs--as a camp; for sports, outings, cultural events or other special functions; for its office space; and as an income generator. The key is that we, the townspeople, must take control, or forfeit our position to decide its fate. The alternative, if the townspeople do not authorize the purchase, is that this prime land will be sold to a third party--unquestionably for development. The Selectmen estimate it will accommodate up to 440 units in a 40B-type development (the most profitable for developers), 29-42 units of cluster housing, or up to 23 single-family homes, including 3 directly on the waterfront. Astute voters will ask, rightfully, about the details. For example, why has little been heard publicly until now on this issue? The reason is that the owner stipulated a non-disclosure agreement during negotiations to protect its interests, permitting these negotiations to proceed quickly and without distractions. This allowed the Town to finalize the agreement in time for voter approval at Town Meeting, while minimizing the risk of competing bids or prior sale to a third party during the process. The final agreement followed appraisals conducted by both parties. What about the financials? This purchase is a great value by many measures. The purchase price is $4.85 M, with $1.2 M covered by Community Preservation Act set-aside funds. The maximum cost to taxpayers net of CPA funds will thus be $3.65 M, or about $50 annually for a home valued at $400,000, then decreasing annually over the life of the loan, because debt exclusion will be used rather than a permanent tax increase. The total cost for this exceptional property and rich natural resource is less than $87,000 per acre. By comparison, single-family lots in Sharon typically cost $300,000, and waterfront lots are valued in the $550,000 range. It is also possible, although by no means certain, that the cost could be further defrayed by outlays from any excesses remaining in the Town's capital outlays budget, depending on the Town's expenses that arise during FY2007. But the true value of this property rests on its worth as a community and natural resource. The purchase will indeed be an outstanding investment, but to view this land exclusively as an isolated financial commodity is to miss the bigger picture: it lies at the heart of an integrated system that includes not only financial values, but the human and esthetic values of property owners and buyers whose continued interest sustains them. Once sold for development, there will be no looking back. This unspoiled piece of Sharon's jewel, Lake Massapoag, will be forever transformed, and we will all pay the consequences. Those who believe that our property values, tax rates, quality of environment, or quality of life in Sharon will be improved by forfeiting this opportunity, and instead allowing this property to be sold to absorb the burden of up to 440 new homes, should carefully reconsider that view before it is too late. We urge the voters to vote YES on Article 2 at Town Meeting, Nov. 13. And, should the Town succeed in acquiring the property, we would each be wise not to forget about it, but to be vigilant and involved concerning its creative stewardship for the benefit of all. Jeff Tatro Editor's Note: For a detailed map of the Horizons for Youth property, see the map in the appendix. 11-4-2006 - Information on Lakeshore PreservationDear Editor: Because the Horizons for Youth land contains a significant portion of undeveloped lakeshore, I felt it would be very important for you to see the attached information on best practices for lakeshore preservation. This very user-friendly piece was developed by my good friend Susan Warren, a lake protection scientist working for the state of Vermont for more than 20 years. I send it to you as a landscape designer, conservationist, former Lake Management Committee member, member of the North American Lake Management Society, and designer for the Memorial Park Beach restoration project. In order to protect our lake both for recreation (fishing) and conservation, regardless of the disposition of the inland portions of Horizons for Youth for conservation or recreation, it will be important to leave a wide natural buffer at the lake’s edge. The attached shows how to do it while allowing access to the shore for passive recreation (hiking) and viewing, etc. It will be especially important to avoid planting grass lawns and avoid cutting trees. (Our experience at Memorial Park Beach shows that avoidance of chain link fence will also add greatly to the beauty of the site!) Please feel free to share this information with any you feel would be interested. Thanks! Amanda Sloan 10-24-2006 - More on the Pine Woods Developers Track RecordDear Editor: As a follow up to my letter in the Oct 13, issue of the Advocate, it is reported that the Town of Wayland is suing Intoccia Construction for cutting down 23 trees at a 40B project in the town. This same developer is proposing to entirely clear-cut 26 acres on Norwood St. to build a huge housing development with 104 townhouses, called Pine Woods. The Town of Wayland’s lawsuit seeks replacement of the felled trees and unspecified damages including costs and attorney's fees. The Town contends that Intoccia violated state law and an agreement with the town when it removed trees from its property and from adjacent town property in August. Many of the trees were large and mature were unlawfully chopped down; this in spite of a neighbor’s pleading. The trees were clearly identified and marked to be preserved to buffer neighbors from noise on Route 27. Wayland townspeople and neighbors are devastated and they have insisted that the trees be replaced with mature trees. Wayland’s attorney, Mark Lanza said that the town is having an estimate prepared because it believes the tree removal was intentional. He said that the property lines were definitively marked. “We're dealing with an experienced developer,” Lanza said. Joseph F. Nolan, selectmen chairman, called the chopping of the trees that were required to be preserved under a Zoning Board of Appeals permit “unconscionable.” “They were not as responsive as we would have liked,” he said. ``We thought perhaps they were giving us lip service." He said he was disappointed with the developer's vague replacement plans. Bob Shelmerdine, Intoccia's attorney, acknowledged that some trees had been cut down, saying it was “a mistake.” He also said “some of the trees would have gotten in the way of the project's drainage plans anyway”. Intoccia is proposing Pine Woods as 40B project on Rte 27. He will clear-cut all of trees on Norwood St., all of the way from Bullard Street to the Epoch Nursing Home. The backs of 2-3 story buildings will sit only 20 feet off the road and will tower over the roadway. In comparison, this project will make the stripping of the trees at Hunter’s Ridge look minimal. All for the sake of 26 “affordable” townhouses! MA Audubon’s Moose Hill Sanctuary abuts the project on three sides. This beautiful natural land that is surrounded by wetlands and sensitive waterways will be assaulted. Our enjoyment of this property will be lost forever. This same developer has produced many of the same vague plans and answers at the ZBA hearings that have been held so far for his Pine Woods proposal here in Sharon. Definitive property boundaries are not established, sales prices of the units are grossly overstated, incorrect plans have been presented and flawed traffic studies have already been uncovered in the few ZBA meetings that have been held. That is not acceptable because our safety, environment, and neighborhoods are under attack. There is no excuse that the trees in Wayland were destroyed and we cannot allow this developer to do the same here. Let the Zoning Board know that they must only allow sensible and equitable development by responsible developers in Sharon. Please attend the next ZBA meeting on November 15th at 8:00PM at the Sharon High School Library to express your fears and concerns. The “Gateway to Sharon” along Route 27 is under assault and it is our hope to preserve it. Paul Oliveira Editor's note: A related article can be found in the Boston Globe. 10-24-2006 - Water Advice Not HeededDear Editor: The following comments are offered on behalf of myself as an individual citizen, and do not necessarily reflect the views of other members of either the Sharon Water Management Advisory Committee (WMAC) of which I am Interim Chairman, or the Sharon Planning Board of which I am an elected member. I was astonished to learn from a front page article in last week's Sharon Advocate that the Board of Selectmen decided to approve a $161,000 upgrade of the Water Department's SCADA system without any input from the WMAC. In fact, the WMAC was not even notified that such an expenditure was being considered. This comes in the wake of the Selectmen appointing a separate committee to evaluate the radio-read water meter proposals, which may have been a contributing factor in the recent resignations of three of the nine members of the WMAC. The other front-page article in last week's Advocate says that state officials have told the town to require Avalon Bay to use MWRA water rather than Sharon water. This was the same advice given to the Selectmen by the WMAC a year ago, which was not taken. On the WMAC's recommendation, the Selectmen unanimously approved a Water Department regulation requiring new construction to install ultra-low flow toilets, yet the Selectmen waived this regulation for Avalon Bay and for the new Community Center renovation, where such toilets could have served as a demonstration of water efficiency for the community. At the September 14 WMAC meeting, a citizen asked about a comprehensive groundwater study referred to by Chairman Bill Heitin at a prior Selectmen's meeting. Neither DPW Superintendent Eric Hooper nor any WMAC members could comment because they had heard nothing of plans for a groundwater study. Almost a month ago on September 26, in my capacity as Interim Chairman of the WMAC, I sent another of a series of emails to Ben Puritz and the Board of Selectmen asking about the status of legal proceedings to gain access to the Gobbi property for the purpose of exploratory testing for a new town well. It has been almost two years since the Selectmen voted unanimously to instruct Town Counsel to obtain a court order for well testing at this site, which the WMAC recommended for well testing over three years ago. So far, I have not received the courtesy of a response. The Selectmen appointed a competent water advisory committee with wide-ranging credentials. The WMAC takes its responsibility seriously, as can be seen in the hundreds of pages of minutes posted at www.townofsharon.net, and the summaries in the Town of Sharon Annual Reports. As Sharon's Water Commissioners, the Selectmen should make an effort to obtain the WMAC's input, and give its recommendations serious consideration before making decisions with respect to our water supply, arguably Sharon's most valuable natural resource. Paul Lauenstein 10-11-2006 - Intoccia Destroys TreesDear Editor: As reported in the Boston Globe on September 3, 2006, Intoccia Construction was cited for cutting down 23 trees at a 40B project in Wayland. This same contractor is proposing to clear-cut 26 acres on Norwood St. to build a housing development with 104 townhouses, named Pine Woods. Many of the trees in Wayland, some large and mature, were on town property and were unlawfully chopped down; this in spite of a neighbor’s pleading. Per Intoccia’s agreement with the Wayland Zoning Board, trees that were clearly identified and marked within the project were to be preserved to buffer the neighbors on Route 27 (ironic?) Wayland townspeople and neighbors are devastated. They have insisted that the trees be replaced with mature trees. Intoccia claimed that it was their subcontractor’s, the tree company’s, fault. A Wayland Selectman said “There was absolutely no excuse for it happening, the situation has to be remedied.” The matter has been referred to Town counsel and a final determination remains to be resolved. Intoccia is proposing Pine Woods as 40B project on Rte 27. He will clear-cut all of trees on Norwood St., all of the way from Bullard Street to the Epoch Nursing Home. The backs of 2-3 story buildings will sit only 20 feet off the road and will loom over the roadway, atop a very steep grade. This proposed project would make the stripping of the trees and the devastation of the environment at Hunter’s Ridge look minimal. All for the sake of 26 “affordable” townhouses! Massachusetts Audubon’s Moose Hill Sanctuary abuts the project on three sides. This beautiful natural land that is surrounded by wetlands and sensitive waterways will be assaulted. In a prior meeting Audubon had questioned the boundary lines that were on the site plans. At the 9/27/06 ZBA meeting, Intoccia’s representatives refused to re-survey the boundaries that are in question. That is not acceptable. There is no excuse that the trees in Wayland were cut and we cannot trust that the same thing will not happen here. Let the Zoning Board know that they must only allow sensible and responsible development in Sharon. Please attend the next ZBA meeting on November 8th at 8:00PM at the Sharon High School Library to express your concerns. The safety, beauty, and environment along the “Gateway to Sharon” are under assault. Paul Oliveira Editor's note: A related article can be found in Wayland's local newspaper. 09-27-2006 - Let's DebateDear Editor: I would like to invite anyone who is concerned about the environment in Sharon to come down to Lake Massapoag to look at the lake water level. Also, while you are their go out on the pier at the boat launch and look at the hundreds of dead mussels on the bottom that have recently died. The lake level is down 15”, it is accumulating nutrients and algae and there is not enough water to flush the nutrients and algae out. Has anyone noticed the dried up streambeds? How can this be with an abnormal amount of rainfall so far this year? The fault lies with the Selectmen Chair Bill Heitin and D.P.W. Superintendent Eric Hooper. They will both tell you we have plenty of water in Sharon and there is no water problem. Selectmen Heitin stated at the September 12, 2006 Selectmen’s meeting “that the Water Management Advisory Committee has commenced a groundwater study”, I asked the committee and Superintendent Hooper, neither had any knowledge of any study. How about a public debate between you and me? I believe your inaction, misrepresentation of facts and your environmental mindset are crimes against the environment. Cliff Towner
09-21-2006 - Does Town Government Work?I have written letters in the past regarding my views on how well or poorly our town government functions, and opined on the fact that we govern ourselves in this town and that Town Meeting holds the power of the purse and anything which is not funded by voters at Town Meeting, cannot be pursued by the Board of Selectmen or the School department, or any other body wishing to spend our tax dollars. But what is supposed to happen when an initiative is funded by Town Meeting and is then not pursued by those expected to do so? Town Meeting may make the laws, but the Selectmen have to administer them. Town Meeting must authorize spending, but the Selectmen have to buy things. Town Meeting must authorize borrowings and levy taxes, but the Selectmen have to actually borrow the money and collect the taxes to pay for the goods and services they provide us with. But what if they don’t? The petition article offered by George Bailey and Eli Hauser intends to overturn an Article approved by voters at last May’s Town meeting. The article provided the Selectmen with necessary authority and funding to proceed with the purchase of land at King Phillips Rock. Town Meeting said we want to protect this land and are willing to pay for the privilege of doing so. Subsequently, the Selectmen have negotiated with the property owners but have, thus far, come to no agreement. So Mr. Bailey and Mr. Hauser took the initiative of going back to the all powerful Town Meeting in the Fall so a new set of voters can support or overturn a decision made, rightly or wrongly, by a previous set of voters, albeit some six months later. The purest form of democracy has morphed into the ability to tell your friends and neighbors that they made a mistake and we should bring this thing up again with the hope of correcting it. After all, the process is pure. Although I voted in favor of the land purchase, I must commend Bailey and Hauser for their approach. This is how the system is supposed to work. It is our Town and our Town Meeting and we, any of us, have the right, indeed, the obligation to bring up issues we feel strongly about and which affect the future of our Town. More of us should do so. That is good governing. Lack of conclusive action on the part of the Selectmen is also good governing. I truly believe they are doing their best to act in what they believe is the best interests of our community. There’s the rub. All parties involved are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. And we are left with lots of angry people who sit back and believe this just isn’t how things are supposed to work. But if everybody plays their part in a Town governed by the purest form of Democracy, our current, completely screwed up situation is the perfect result. David Hearne 08-23-2006 - 40B Creates Urgent Need and OpportunityThe Massapoag Brook Neighborhood Association, a group of over 100 Sharon residents, has applied for Community Preservation Act funding to help purchase tweleve acres of land between Billings Street and Glendale/Glenview Roads. This property is currently under ZBA review for a 28-32 unit 40B. The MBNA asked for one million dollars, funded by the CPA pool available to the Town. If funded by a 20-year bond this appropriation would use only 11% of CPA funds in the first years and less as time goes by. Most of the fund (89%) would still be available for other purposes. The MBNA's application clearly meets the objectives of the CPA to preserve significant open space areas and resources of historical and recreational significance. The parcel is contiguous to four acres of wetlands and to town conservation lands and functions in a flood control capacity for existing "affordable" neighborhood homes. Part of the Massapoag Trail transverses this property. In fact, the MBNA application for CPA funding meets all of the criteria outlined in the Sharon Community Preservation Committee Criteria for open space, historical, and recreation proposals. This parcel, if not purchased with the help of CPA funding will be lost FOREVER. I have followed with interest the Town's ongoing struggles to preserve Rattlesnake Hill and to restore the historic Wilbur School. While much energy, money and discussion have been directed toward the hope of preservation, as time continues to move forward, these important and clearly worthy preservations do not come to fruition. Business decisions and normal decay due to weather and time continue, and while the Town studies and ponders the correct plan of action- changes come about that have the effect of making these decisions for us- often with negative results. At a recent meeting, Selectman Roach stated that the intent of the voters in passing the CPA was to save this money for future urgent needs. Sometimes, however, present circumstances require immediate action based upon objective consideration of the facts at hand. This is a necessary function of government and elected officials have the public's trust to act thoughtfully and objectively while providing solutions to immediate concerns. An urgent need for action exists today. If we do not act to address this need an opportunity for saving a precious and historic parcel of open space will be lost forever. For-profit development facilitated by Chapter 40B has created this urgency. In several recent public forums it has been suggested that the purchase of the property in question goes against one of the three objectives of the CPA, namely, to provide affordable housing. This argument is being used by some to frame any attempt at discussion of the considerable merits of this CPA petition as somehow going against "affordable housing". In the spirit of fairness we ask only for a non-biased hearing regarding our application. The merits of this property should not be disregarded simply to produce seven to eight units of affordable housing on land clearly and repeatedly documented by the Town to be unsuitable for development. Massapoag Brook Neighborhood Association 08-23-2006 - Eagle Scout Project Needs Your HelpHello Sharon Residents, my name is Matt Russell and I am from Troop 95 Sharon. I am working to obtain the highest Boy Scout rank, Eagle. My Eagle Scout Leadership Project will replace the three existing lifeguard stands at the Sharon Memorial Beach with brand new, recycled, plastic lumber stands that will never rot, rust, or splinter and will last for decades. I have recently put up one of the stands and the other should be in by Wednesday August 23, 2006. These stands, once completed, will be dedicated in honor of Dave Clifton. I have had overwhelming support of my project and am happy that so many people wished to help me replace these stands. I have over 75 donors with donations from $5 to $500. To date I have raised $3,334, yet I do not have enough for the third stand. I am still accepting donations of any amount. Contributions may be sent to 615 Massapoag Avenue, Sharon, MA, 02067. Thank you. Matt Russell 06-27-2006 - Summertime in SharonTo the Editor: Summertime in Sharon. Vacation time. Many families have made plans to vacation elsewhere. Plans made well in advance. Not a very busy time in town. Selectmen meet on a summer schedule every two weeks instead of every week because there is not as much going on, not as many people around town to become informed, get involved, be present at meetings. Not a bad tradition. A little down time, a time to reflect, relax, recharge. Why then is the Board of Selectmen now scheduling two very important meetings in July, the outcome of which will affect the entire town for its entire future? Why, at this time, is Brickstone Properties, reportedly the new owner of the Rattlesnake Hill property, suddenly being granted an audience in front of the Board of Selectmen on July 11, 2006, to be introduced to the town on live cable, and present their plans for a potentially very large development on the 340 acre property? Why is the Board of Selectmen scheduling a more formal presentation by the developer on July 18, 2006 at the High School where plans will be put forth? Given summer vacation plans, how many people, whether they live near the property or not, will be able to attend? How many people will have a chance to listen, observe, process and give feedback which hopefully would be welcomed and heard? What is the rush? Is the Board of Selectmen reacting to pressure from the developer rather than taking the lead? Certainly the needs of the town do not dictate that this development be “fast-tracked”. Certainly the needs of the town would be better served if these presentations were rescheduled for September, when most families are back in town and will have the ability to attend meetings. Given the size of the parcel of land, development presents many very challenging issues. Concerns of fire, police and emergency services, schools, zoning, water, traffic and infrastructure and many others need time to be processed. People need to be able to be present from the beginning of the “dialogue” and not just be able to read about what has already happened or watch reruns on Cable 8. Because of the timing of these presentations, it certainly seems disingenuous for the Board of Selectmen to be moving ahead with these plans without giving the entire town the time and opportunity to be present. Waiting until summer vacation is over is not a great hardship for the town. It is the right thing to do. Richard Mandell 580 Mountain Street 06-20-2006 - Issues with the Finance CommitteeTo the Finance Committee at Large: Watching the FinCom meeting this weekend with Dr Jackson and Dr Dunham was most disturbing. As a taxpayer and a native watching the in-depth lack of checks and balances within the school department, I am dismayed as I watched FinCom at 8:2 support the threatening cry of for aid from Dr Jackson and her talking heads. While I understand the importance of a reserve fund and to spend it down within a given fiscal year, I do not see nor endorse the need to hand 300K to the schools because their request at the town election to support their override, failed. When will they and the members of Sharon’s town government understand there is more to Sharon than schools? Given the restraints of Sharon being without industry, inflated property taxes and bare bones operational budgets, it is upsetting to have listened to good debate, with many outstanding discoveries made on how mismanaged the school budget is, to then watch FinCom turn cheek.
|
