Sharon Update
--- News from the Source---
|
--- News from the Source---
|
|
|
Local Commentary11-12-2007Town Meeting Highlights - Brickstone Part II-Paul Pietal- Town Meeting convened on November 5th at the High School auditorium. The first three articles attempted to reconsider last spring's decision to modify the local zoning by-laws which allowed for the Brickstone development on Rattlesnake Hill. There were plenty of prepared presentations by proponents of the articles as well as from those who were content with the voters decision from the last Town Meeting. As often happens, many came to the meeting with their minds already made up. Listening to presentation after presentation simply wasn't going to change their minds. The big decision for many was who would be the first person to the microphone to move the question. The proponents seemed to fall in two categories. The first wanted to retain the natural beauty of the property while the second was concerned with health issues that might arise from the high use of pharmaceuticals that could contaminate water supplies in the area. We heard comparisons to the Woburn contamination from toxic dumping on one side and from a pharmacist who indicated there weren't concerns on the other side. The end result was that neither side produced enough information to sway the vote. Eventually, the "move the question" crowd got their wish, debate was cut off and the three initiatives were defeated in succession. Overall, the majority upheld the decision of the Annual Town Meeting in the spring. Small seeds of doubt may have been planted regarding health issues, but the voters have had enough of year over year tax increases. Tax relief, even if it may be years off, was the prize most voters sought. 10-22-2007Executive Session Question-Paul Pietal- The opponents of the Brickstone development have been attempting to convince the voters before the upcoming Town Meeting to consider changes to the property. Ideally, they'd like to see the whole zoning initiative passed at the May Town Meeting reversed. If that doesn't happen, they'd at least like to pare back the size and scope of the development. They've been sending around plenty of e-mails (see Letters to the Editor section) and intimating about some underhanded dealings at the Selectmen's Meetings over the past couple of years. One complaint is that the Selectmen have intentionally kept items from the public to advance the Brickstone option. The following snippet from Executive Session minutes is what has been held up as the "smoking gun".
It is hard to tell without the context of the entire meeting just what this language means. I suppose it at least merits an explanation from our elected officials. Will it change the voters minds who voted last May? I suspect it will not. Will it make those same voters pause and wonder why information should be withheld? 10-08-2007Who Do You Believe?-Paul Pietal- As we get ready for another Fall Town Meeting, there isn't much buzz except for e-mail battle for Rattlesnake Hill. My inbox recently received forwarded notes emanating from Selectman Bill Heitin. The e-mail was regarding challenges to the votes taken at the Town Meeting in May regarding the Brickstone initiative. Shortly afterward, another forwarded e-mail arrived in my inbox from Neighbors Against Destructive Development (NADD). This e-mail argued against the points made in Bill Heitin's e-mail. It also referred to an e-mail from Eli Hauser but I wasn't fortunate to receive that one. What does it all mean? Well, frankly, it is hard to tell. There's probably some truth woven into each position along with some embellishment and slight of hand. What would be better? Both sides getting together before the Town Meeting to intelligently discuss their views so that the voters can decide on facts.
I trust this email finds that you had an enjoyable summer. I write to you with some disconcerting news. A small group of residents have filed three petition articles to be heard at the November 5, 2007 Special Town Meeting being held at Sharon High School at 7:00 pm. These three articles will reverse the votes taken by more than 2,000 Sharon voters at the May Town Meeting to allow for the senior housing development on Rattlesnake Hill. A small group, including some public officials, has been trying to keeping their actions under the radar screen. They are taking this approach so they can pack the meeting and reverse the actions of the May Town Meeting where more than 78% of the 2,000 voters in attendance supported the zoning change. Does this small group of residents know what is better for the Town as a whole? No new information has been brought forward after almost 2 years of work. Should public officials, who have permitting authority, really act in this manner? Your attendance is needed to send a message as to the true direction the residents of Sharon would like to take this community. The old way has not and will not work. This same group has cost the town thousands of dollars in legal cost while they took their arguments to the Massachusetts Attorney General's office and the Norfolk county District Attorney's office and lost. When will this stop. It will only stop when you the voter come to the November Special Town Meeting and reconfirm your previous actions. What if these three articles pass? You will see 98 residential homes built on the property. In a defensive move the land owner is taking to avenues, senior housing and a conventional residential development. The Sharon Planning Board will be holding a hearing on the residential development within a few weeks. Don't be fooled, there is still a legal 40B option (250 homes on all the land) for the land pending at the State level. These developments will not allow us to benefit from what has been negotiated now for almost 2 years. The zoning as it stands today and the senior housing project allows for the preservation of 250 acres of land at no cost to the Town. The senior housing project allows for approximately $3.0 to $3.5 million in net recurring third party revenue to the Town. The senior housing project allows for increased public safety throughout the Town with the developer paid public safety sub-station on Mountain Street. The senior housing project provides for additional benefits to the Town in excess of $10.0 million. A conventional residential development provides none of this and in fact may be a liability if we have increase school enrollment and need to build a new school. Did you know that the average increase in your November residential tax bill will be more than 8.0%? Clearly this Town needs to look for projects like Brickstone's Sharon Hills, Sharon Commons and the Lexus dealership to help us stabilize our tax base. We can not continue to burden the taxpayer as we have had for years. Revenue from these developments and others have already been built into the Town's long-term revenue forecast, The forecast that was used to determining the recent override. This is all in jeopardy without your help. The old way has not and will not work. The project has been and is still supported by the Finance Committee, the School Committee, the Planning Board, the Economic Development Committee, the Conservation Commission and the Board of Selectmen. These are the boards and committees that have been working diligently together looking proactively for opportunities to benefit our community. I am personally reaching out to each of you and asking you to attend the November 5, 2007 Special Town Meeting being held at Sharon High School at 7:00 pm. The Board of Selectmen has placed these three articles first on the warrant. Please attend and send a message by voting no on all three. Please come and send a message. The old way has and will not work. Please pass this message on to no less than 10 fellow concerned residents. Everyone in this Town has a vote and it is needed to be heard on November 5, 2007. Mark your calendar today.
Many of you have received a broadcast e-mail from Selectman Bill Heitin and Planning Board member Eli Hauser attacking the 164 registered voters who put three warrant articles on the fall Town Meeting. We won't take up too much of your time by correcting all of their mistakes, but we do want to address a few of the more blatant ones. Mr. Heitin wants to know why this issue should be brought up again when there is no new information. There IS new information for Sharon residents. Thanks to the District Attorney's (DA) investigation, Board of Selectmen Executive Session meeting minutes were released to the public. If the complaint had not been filed with the DA's office, we would never know what happened in the dozens of Executive Session meetings “meetings in private, behind closed doors“ to discuss the Brickstone project. Here is a sample of what Mr. Heitin knows that you probably don't: 1. On January 24, 2006, Brickstone told the Town that "if Town is disinterested in its proposal, new owner willing to sell to the Town for $16 million." 2. On June 6, 2006, the Selectmen discussed how another developer was willing to put a smaller development in, and "willing to give 280 acres back to the Town." 3. On August 15, 2006, the Selectmen stated, "look at fiscal analysis of alternatives; and how to keep options away from public" (emphasis added). They deliberately kept other options for the land away from the public. We were kept in the dark, and fed misinformation. We were told that 88 single family homes (which has now mysteriously morphed to 98 single family homes in Mr. Heitin's latest e-mail) or a 40B were the only options. We were told that if we voted no, the schools would be flooded with children, and the town would be financially ruined. We weren't told about a smaller development and 280 acres being given to the Town. We weren't told that if we voted no, Brickstone said – repeatedly! – that they would sell the land back to the Town. We deserved to know this information to make an informed, well-educated vote. We don't want the options kept away from us. We don't want town officials making decisions and disseminating information that supports only their position. As of the date we are writing this e-mail, the case with the DA is not "lost," as Mr. Heitin states in his e-mail. As far as we know, it is still under review. Quite a bit of the "information" Mr. Heitin provides is inaccurate. For example, of the 1,252 votes cast (not Heitin's 2,000 or Hauser's thousands) on the Brickstone issue at TM on May 7, 2007, 919 (72.6%) were in favor (not Heitin's 78%) and 333 (26.6%) were opposed. Mr. Heitin said that our three articles will "reverse the votes taken." However, two of the proposed articles will not "reverse" the vote taken on May 7, 2007. Article 1 does reverse the Senior Overlay District Zoning, but Article 2 cuts the buildings down from 8 stories to 4 (essentially cutting the development in half), and Article 3 merely requires the developer to be subject to a special permit (which allows the town boards to have more control in the permitting stage of the development). Our "small group" represents hundreds of Sharon residents. The "public officials" who have joined in our effort are doing so because they are concerned about the impacts of the project and the way town officials like Bill Heitin and Eli Hauser have misrepresented facts. Last time we checked, town officials still have the right to speak out. It is also puzzling why Mr. Heitin thinks public officials cannot speak out against the Brickstone project, but it is okay for them to be avid and vocal proponents for the project. Mr. Heitin appears to blame us for the fact that Brickstone is now planning a conventional residential development on Rattlesnake Hill. This is not our fault. The Board of Selectmen signed a contract with Brickstone officials, which states "In the event that the Developer determines that it does not intend to proceed with the Project generally as contemplated hereunder … nothing contained herein shall hinder or prohibit the Developer from transferring the Site or the Land Transfer Parcels or seeking any and all permits or approvals for uses permitted under the Zoning By-Law as existing prior to being amended by the Rezoning Articles." In other words, the Selectmen deliberately gave Brickstone the right to do anything they wanted on Rattlesnake Hill. Moreover, the Selectmen signed yet another document that allows Brickstone until the year 2075 to build the project. For anyone who received Mr. Hauser's email: Mr. Hauser is well aware that our group is called NADD, Neighbors Against Destructive Development. The name was printed in the Sharon Advocate last Friday and was on the warrant article petition cover letter. Mr. Hauser claims that the proposed development will net the Town $3.5 million a year (what happened to the $3.2 million that was predicted in May?). Is Mr. Hauser aware that in three communities (Quincy, Hopkinton and Upton), developers have come back to the town after receiving permission to build age-restricted housing, requesting the age restriction be lifted? Apparently, there is a glut of age-restricted housing in Massachusetts , and developers are having a hard time filling them. What will be the financial implications if Brickstone cannot fill its 624 units with people over 62? We are constantly assured that this won't happen, but….what if it does? What guarantees do we have? We are Sharon residents concerned about our water supply, our traffic, our schools, and our quality of life. Yes, we care about our taxes, too. But this development – 8 story buildings in a development the size of the South Shore Plaza - is not the answer. Please pass this message on to no less than 10 fellow concerned residents. Please pass it back to everyone who received Mr. Heitin's and Mr. Hauser's messages. Yes, everyone in this Town has a vote. But everyone in this town also needs the facts, and that is something that the Selectmen have either kept from us or modified to their advantage. If something is good for the residents of Sharon , town officials shouldn't need to modify the truth to convince anyone. Do not destroy the quality of life in our town. Come to Town Meeting on November 5, 2007, and vote YES on Articles 1, 2 and 3. Thank you.
05-13-2007The Family Analogy Works All the Time-Paul Pietal- Tuesday’s Election has the usual assortment of candidates running for various boards and the all too common attempt to override Proposition 2 1/2. This year’s attempt tries a new tactic, essentially requesting three year’s worth of overrides at the same time. Last week’s approval at the Annual Town Meeting for $1.7 million for the School Department is just the beginning. Our moderator rightfully tempered the conversation on the 3-year election initiative to keep the voters at Town Meeting focused on the business at hand but now the next step arrives at the election. Overrides are a two step process. Step one is the lower hurdle at our Town Meeting, where the side truly interested in passing the initiative can typically muster sufficient votes. Step two is the more formidable challenge of gaining a majority at the polls. And this year the numbers don’t even match. We won’t see the $1.7 million amount. We’ll be voting on $2.9 million instead, to fund three years of initiatives. For me, it is handy to put Town budget requests in the same context of daily life. I prefer to plan long range but spend my money when needed. Voting for $2.9 million is not an investment in anyone’s future. It is just an attempt to bypass the heavy lifting needed if an override is requested each year. To me, it is akin to my children asking for $30 so they can go to the movies for three consecutive weekends. My response would be to provide $10 for one trip. They might get the second $10 on the subsequent weekend and they might not. The situation may have changed for all sorts of reasons and the decision would be made at that time. One thing is for sure, if I give them $30, it will be spent. What are your comments? Just send them to editor@sharonupdate.com and we'll publish them in this space. 05-06-2007All We Are Saying...Is Give Speech a Chance-Paul Pietal- I like the concept of Sharon Hills, a.k.a the Brickstone Rezoning. I want more revenue for the Town. I want to believe our Town leaders will use the power at their disposal once a zoning change is approved to ensure the Town’s best interests are protected. I also want to hear both sides of the issue. It is understandable that neighbors on Rattlesnake Hill would be opposed to this zoning change. It will drastically change their neighborhood. I want to be sensitive to their concerns because they are neighbors of the project but they are also our neighbors. And I want to hear what they have to say. I want to hear what the Water Management members have to say regarding the water needs for the Sharon Hills project. I want to hear the minority opinion of the Planning Board. I just want the opposition to have the opportunity to speak. I will listen and then I will make my decision. I’m not sure how I’ll vote until I hear the arguments. One thing is for sure. If I don’t hear the arguments, I’m voting no. 05-06-2007Community Preservation Act - Just What Are We Preserving?-Paul Pietal- The Community Preservation Act (CPA) was approved by the Town several years ago after a couple of failed attempts. Residents were skeptical that they should raise their property taxes since they were already some of the highest in the State. The Town was finally convinced on the promise that this would allow us to accomplish things in the area of historic preservation, land preservation and affordable housing that we typically couldn’t do within the constraints of our annual budget. The choice was made to implement the CPA at a minimal level of 1% taxation on top of the existing tax bills. The Town’s contribution would be met with a State contribution, which at least initially has been 100% match. The enabling legislation allows for Town’s to tax up to 3%, so perhaps we’ve been lucky the burden has only been 1%. The value of this program is that it has allowed for matching State funds to be used to purchase the Horizons for Youth property. That kind of preservation is right in line with what we were told the program could do. So why do we have to stray from the stated mission and fund requests that are clearly outside the scope of what we were sold? The last straw for me was the initial approval by the Community Preservation Committee for an elevator at the Unitarian Church. The Unitarian Church has since withdrawn their request, at least temporarily. Does it make sense to spend tax dollars on the needs of a religious organization? Absolutely not. There are plenty of other congregations that could use some assistance too but that doesn’t make this type of request even close to acceptable. 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. 05-06-2007Community Center - Why Change a Good Thing-Paul Pietal- Article 23 for the upcoming Town Meeting is an initiative to rename the Sharon Community Center after recently retired Recreation Director Dave Clifton. The Historical Commission is against this. The Finance Committee is also opposed. Their stated concerns are that Town buildings shouldn’t be named after employees nor should they be named after living persons. Their concerns are fine, but the real reason this initiative should be defeated is that the building is already perfectly named. The Sharon Community Center recognizes the “Community”. It is for the “Community” and honors the tireless volunteers that put in countless hours for the betterment of the entire Town. This includes the Recreation Department staff but more importantly the leaders of the youth baseball program, the soccer program, the basketball program and softball program. It honors the parents who volunteer to coach their children’s teams. It honors the volunteers who groom the fields. It honors the volunteers how work in the snack shacks. All of these volunteers’ names will change, as they have for the last several decades, but the volunteers will continue to come. They will continue today’s programs and assist in whatever else may benefit the residents of the Town. It might be a renewed First Light program, the continuation of Family Week or vibrancy of the 4th of July celebration. Let’s continue to honor these volunteers, past, present and future, by keeping the name of the Community Center as it is today. 05-05-2007Long Range Taxing - Not the Same as Long Range Planning-Paul Pietal- First, the good news is that our Town boards have made considerable progress in looking at issues that affect the long-term fiscal health of the Town. Looking forward past one budgetary cycle is not easy during the challenges presented by the current budget discussions and the crush to prepare for Town Meeting. There have been efforts to increase the revenue to the Town through rezoning initiatives, which has its pros and cons, but in the long run is determined by the Town Meeting voters. I find this all to be very positive for the overall fiscal health of the Town. The planning efforts have led forecasting that indicates we might need additional tax revenue in future years to cover the services provided by the Town today. With the vagaries of public funding and economic cycles, it also means we might not need additional tax revenue in future years. The School Committee has deemed it necessary to request a Proposition 2 ½ override for the coming fiscal year. The amount of the override is $1.7 million for fiscal year 2008. The merits of this request will be debated at Town Meeting and likely will pass. I personally don’t agree with adding programs in an override request, but the merits of this override request should stand on its own and the Town can decide the outcome. Unfortunately, this override request can’t be voted on its merits. In an unprecedented move, our Selectmen have used their noble efforts at future planning to translate into future taxing. Nice try, but I just can’t see the wisdom in this effort. I understand that our Town leaders don’t want to have to come back to the well again in subsequent years, but that is not reason enough. The Town Meeting vote for an override must also be approved at the polls two weeks later. However, the request at the polls will be for $2.9 million and that is just not right. The additional $1.2 million would not be raised this year but would allow subsequent Town Meetings to use the taxing capability to increase the next two year’s budgets without having to come back to the polls to ask the Town. I’ve heard the argument that we need to trust the Town boards. We actually do trust them to make the proper argument each year when needed. I’ve also heard that Town Meeting still has to approve the increases. Anyone who attends Town Meeting knows that this hurdle is not nearly as significant as gaining approval at the polls when many more people cast their opinions via a ballot. Long range planning is good. Long range taxing is bad. I’ll be voting NO at the polls on May 15th. What are your comments? Just send them to editor@sharonupdate.com and we'll publish them in this space. 05-01-2007Annual Town Meeting Predictions
The editorial staff goes out on a limb (OK, a short limb) with its Town Meeting predictions. We selected only the interesting ones in the interest of time. You'll have to dig up you Town Meeting Warrant, give it a read and educate yourselves before May 7th. Our predictions might give you a little edge. We'd appreciate your comments and thoughts. Just send them to editor@sharonupdate.com and we'll publish them in this space.
|
=
|
