Sherborn Happenings!

SHERBORN RECEIVES GREEN COMMUNITIES GRANT

2011-12-08T18:25:00.001-05:00

Thanks to the initiative of the Board of Selectmen, the strong support of the Planning Board, and the exceptional hard work of the Energy Committee, Sherborn has been awarded $137,450 from the Massachusetts Green Communities program to implement energy efficiency improvements in Town buildings and vehicles. The improvements will, in turn, save more money for the Town while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

GREEN COMMUNITY GRANT APPROVED!

2011-11-15T14:45:00.001-05:00

Sherborn has been awarded a grant in the amount of $137,450 as a direct result of its attainment of status as a designated Green Community. The funds will be used for improvements in lighting, insulation, environmental controls, etc. at Town buildings including Pine Hill School, Town Hall, and the Fire and Police Stations. It also includes funds for anti-idling devices for certain Town vehicles. The great thing is that, in addition to the grant funding these improvements, the improvements themselves will reduce energy use thus resulting in more savings!

In addition to the funds, the Town will also receive road signs indicating its status as a Green Community and a "Big Belly" trash barrel with a solar-powered compactor to reduce the frequency of emptying.

SHERBORN:AT A CROSSROADS - A PLANNING BOARD REPORT ON THE TOWN CENTER

2011-11-03T16:36:00.002-04:00

The Planning Board has been spending several months on studying the Town Center and preparing a report on its existing conditions and potential impacts of changes under two different scenarios. The report includes information on the following:

Previous Town Center Improvement Efforts, including the major zoning changes, proposed road reconstruction plans and previous studies including the 1958, 1975 and 2001 Master Plans, the 1971 Town Center Study, the 1981 Zoning Study Committee report, the 1989 Town Center Master Plan, the 2001 Livability Charrette, the 2001 General Plan, the 2004 Community Development Plan and the 2007 Final Report of the Town Center Water District Workgroup

Documentation of Existing Conditions, including existing lot areas, building space, parking spaces and other information regarding the Primary Commercial Area and other areas within the Town Center

Resident Survey and Citizen Input, including the results of a citizens survey conducted in 2008, and input from a set of public forums conducted in June and October of 2008

Estimates of Future Development, based on alternative assumptions and visions

An Evaluation of the Impacts of Alternatives, including fiscal impacts

The report does not yet include recommendations. The Planning Board has drafted a set of potential recommendations that span a wide range of options. Its plan is to present the report without recommendations in order to receive feedback and input from other boards and commissions as well as the general public before committing to specific recommendations. It is intended to be an inclusive process in an effort to achieve consensus on the actions the Town should pursue.

This report is the first step toward an update of the 2001 General Plan. Following the finalization of the the Town Center report, the Planning Board will begin to update the other elements of the General Plan. The full draft report is available here.

SHERBORN IS A GREEN COMMUNITY!

2011-07-20T16:23:00.001-04:00

I am very happy to announce that Sherborn has officially been designated a Green Community! We are now eligible to receive a grant in the amount of $137,450 to be used for energy efficiency improvements in Town facilities. The grant is subject to successful submission of an application indicating what the funds will be used for. Most of it will consist of projects that have been identified in the Energy Reduction Plan which was one of the five components of our application for designation.The other four criteria that we had to meet were to allow an alternative energy facility to be developed by right (accomplished by creating a solar photovoltaics overlay district at the Town landfill via a Zoning Bylaw amendment approved at Town Meeting in April), allow such a facility to be allowed through an expedited permitting process of 12 months or less (we provided for 6 months), to adopt a fuel efficient vehicle policy (ours was adopted by both the Board of Selectmen and the School Committee) and to adopt of the Stretch Energy Code (this optional building code section that requires a higher standard of energy efficiency was also adopted at Town Meeting in April).

In addition to the grant funds, the Town will receive a solar trash compactor with a recycling attachment, as well as four street signs indicating that the town is a Green Community.

Perhaps the biggest benefit is that energy efficiency improvements made with the grant funds will results in lower energy costs in the future. This will save the Town additional money while also reducing carbon emissions that contribute to global climate change.

It should be noted that the source of funds for Green Community grants is not state tax revenues, but rather it is proceeds from the carbon credits purchased though auctions by emitters of carbon through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in which Massachusetts participates along with other New England and Mid-Atlantic states.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BYLAW AND FUNDING

2011-05-05T16:08:00.000-04:00

Last week, Town Meeting voters approved both the new Stormwater Management Bylaw and funding up to $400,000 through the State Revolving Fund (SRF) at a 2% interest rate. The state loan had been approved subject to Town approval at Town Meeting and then at Town Election. Both of these are required elements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Town Election is Tuesday, May 10.

The SRF funding will be used for a number of projects. These include, but are not limited to, the following:

Mapping -- The existing Town-owned stormwater management system (i.e. catch basins, manholes, culverts, detention basins, leaching galleys, etc.) will be mapped in Geographic Information System format. In the process of creating these maps, an added benefit will be the creation of a new set of Assessor's Maps.
Inspections -- All elements of the Town system will be inspected to determine its condition and to identify possible illicit discharges.
Sampling -- The water discharged from all outfalls will be sampled in both dry and wet conditions. This will help determine where additional treatment or system upgrades are necessary.
Pollution Prevention -- A stormwater pollution prevention plan will be prepared for all regulated Town facilities including the Police and Fire Stations, CMD Garage, Town Hall, and Library.
Operation and Maintenance -- An operation and maintenance plan for the stormwater system will be developed.
Phosphorus Management -- Phosphorus has become a pollutant of increasing concern because it encourages excessive plant growth and results in an imbalance in surface water ecosystems. A plan to address phosphorus discharges will be prepared.
Identify Grants -- Grants may be available to help offset the costs of the program and/or to fund improvements to the stormwater management system. Such grants will be identified as part of the program.

Protection of both surface and groundwater resources is critical to the future of Sherborn, and has therefore always been a high priority. This program is the next step in our ongoing effort to protect these resources.

STRETCH CODE INFO SESSION IN SHERBORN

2010-12-29T14:34:00.001-05:00

Speaking of the Stretch Code (see post below), there will be a presentation about the Stretch Code on January 26, 2010 at 7:00 at Town Hall. Mr. Michael Berry, Project Manager for the Massachusetts New Homes with Energy Star Program, will be present at the public forum to provide an overview of the new Stretch
Energy Code and answer questions from the public. More information will be posted as it becomes available. In the mean time, a "question and answer" document about the stretch code is available on the State web site and can be accessed here.

STRETCH CODE

2010-12-20T14:33:00.000-05:00

No, this is not a new law attempting to prevent injuries by requiring that you stretch before exerting yourself! Rather, it is an optional part of the State Building Code that requires a greater degree of energy efficiency than the standard code. One major difference for new construction is that it requires a performance-based test rather than just a prescriptive list of items that must be done in order to pass the test. Since one of the requirements is a blower test to identify air leaks in the structure, additions and renovations would still be built according to prescriptive measures (and those measures will apply only to the addition or renovation).

While the stretch code was initially intended to provide about 20% greater efficiency than the standard code, the standard code has also changed so the difference has been narrowed to some degree. It should also be noted that what is now the stretch code is scheduled to become the standard code by 2013. However, a new stretch code may also be created by that date that will maintain a margin of greater efficiency over the standard Building Code.

As noted in an earlier post, adopting of the stretch code is one of the required elements in order to be designated as a Green Community. Some have questioned how much extra it might cost to build in compliance with the stretch code. The real answer is that it will actually cost less to build according to the stretch code when energy savings are taken into account. The initial cost will be greater, but that difference will be made up relatively quickly and as energy costs rise, the payback time is reduced. Sixty four communities have adopted the stretch code as of November 19, 2010. Fifty three communities have been designated as Green Communities so far.

It should be noted that upon designation as a Green Community, the Town is notified of a dollar amount in grant funding for which it is eligible. It can use the funds to implement energy efficiency measures. The amount of the grant generally ranges between $125,000 and $175,000.

SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC FACILITY FOR SHERBORN?

2010-11-15T14:14:00.000-05:00

In a previous post, I discussed the five criteria needed in order to become a designated "Green Community." Two of those criteria can be met with a single amendment to the Zoning Bylaw. The amendment would allow a solar photovoltaic electrical generation facility to locate by right (that is, without requiring a special permit) somewhere in Town and to do so with an "expedited permitting" process that would result in a permit within 12 months of application.

The type of facility that must be allowed needs to have a minimum capacity of 250 kilowatts. It is estimated that such a facility would require about an acre of land. Both the Energy Committee and Planning Board have been working on a warrant article that, if passed at Annual Town Meeting next April, would meet the 2 criteria.

The State has provided a model bylaw that contains most of the technical language that needs to be included in the bylaw. While decisions still need to be made about the exact proposal, what has been discussed is to designate the former landfill site (transfer station and recycling center) and/or the existing electrical transmission lines (and possibly some adjacent land) as an overlay district that would qualify as a site for such a facility. While the use would be allowed by right under the Zoning Bylaw, it would still be subject to site plan review by the Planning Board, all Conservation Commission regulations and any other Town requirements.

Such a bylaw would provide an economic use for land that otherwise has little or no economic value. It could provide revenue to the Town through a ground lease(if located on a Town-owned site like the former landfill) and possibly through lower utility bills. In addition, qualifying as a Green Community would make the Town eligible for grants for other alternative energy or conservation projects, further reducing Town costs.

I will provide more information on this and other aspects of the effort to become a Green Community as it becomes available.

MORE ON OPEN MEETING LAW

2010-11-15T13:41:00.000-05:00

In my earlier posting, I suggested that "posting" meeting notices is an obsolete and antiquated practice that reaches few people. I suggested that the practice should continue but that missing a posting should not be considered a "fatal flaw' in the process. I will now provide a real-life example of how such a requirement can inhibit the efficient functioning of government.

Last week, Thursday was a holiday (Veterans Day) so Town Hall was closed. Most Town offices (including the Town Clerk) are always closed on Friday. On Wednesday afternoon, a particular committee decided it wanted to postpone its meeting scheduled for that night to the following Tuesday evening. This was a full 6 days in advance. A second committee also came in to post a meeting for the following Monday (5 days in advance). However, the Assistant Town Clerk had left for the day at noon (due to limited hours) and the Town Clerk was busy and could not accept the postings. Therefore, at least 2 committees had to postpone their meetings until at least Wednesday evening so they could be posted on Monday and meet the 48-hour rule.

I fully understand the limitations of a part-time work force and the complicating factor of holidays. However, again there is a technological solution to this problem.

Now that Sherborn has an electronic monitor facing the window at the front entrance, why not allow postings to become fully automated? That is, a set of rules could be established and just as we currently fill out a form for the posting that is sent to the Town Clerk's office , why couldn't that posting go directly to the monitor? An auto-reply could confirm receipt of the notice as well as establish the day and time of receipt to ensure that it is received at least 48-hours in advance (excluding Saturdays and Sundays). The form on the Town Clerk's web site is already set up with required fields so that ensures completeness in the postings.

Access for submitting postings could be restricted to designated staff, committee chairs, etc. Furthermore, the notices could still be reviewed by the Town Clerk's office to ensure compliance and if any notices were found to be not in compliance for whatever reason, then the meeting could be cancelled and rescheduled with the proper notice. Coupled with a web site posting, this scenario would not only allow more flexibility in scheduling meetings with no loss in public access, but would actually increase such access through the web site posting.

NEW OPEN MEETING LAW COMMENTS

2010-09-27T09:45:00.000-04:00

You may be aware that the state has adopted a new Open Meetings Law that went into effect on July 1, 2010. Among the major changes in the new law are the following: (1) agendas (or items the Chairman reasonably believes will be discussed) must be included in the posting of a meeting whereas previously only the date, time and place was required; (2) such notices must still be posted 48 hours in advance, but now Saturdays are excluded from that time period (Sundays had already been excluded); (3) the notices of all such meetings in a town must be accessible by the public on a 24 hour, 7 day basis; and (4) meeting minutes must now include a list of all documents and other exhibits discussed at the meeting and these must be available for the public view in the future.

There are also some clarifications and definitions. I think the new rules are a good step forward in assuring openness and accountability in government.

My primary problem with the new rules relates to its treatment of technology. The rules remain rooted in centuries-old technology. The basis of it remains posting notices at Town Hall and publishing notices in the newspaper. These may have been effective when people made frequent trips to the town square and when reading a daily newspaper was a common component of life, but in era of sprawling suburbs, plummeting newspaper circulation and an Internet economy, these methods no longer reach most people.

I am not advocating for abandoning these practices, but I do suggest that inadvertently missing a deadline for these should not be a fatal flaw in the process if it can be demonstrated that other means of communication have been used advantageously. In an era in which there are now more households with a cell phone and no land line than there are with a land line and no cell phone, I would be willing to bet that more people could be reached via the Internet than through Town Hall postings and newspaper ads.

While the new law expands the use of technology slightly, its primary focus seems to be to restrict use of technology rather than to embrace it a means of EXPANDING access to government. For example, the guidelines clarify that email can be used for administrative matters (scheduling meetings, distributing information, etc.) but not for substantive discussion. This is a good thing as far as it goes. Private emails should not be used to discuss public business.

However, why not use technology in an open manner to allow greater and easier participation? That is, a public forum could be established that would be viewable by the public in which members of a public body could ask questions or make comments that could be responded to by other members, the applicant or other Town officials. As long as those participating are identified and the forum is viewable by the public, why not allow it?

In the case of public hearings, why not let members of the public participate in the forum? Applicants could post the details of their project including plans, reports, etc. Comments and reports by consultants and Town officials could also be posted. Members of the public body as well as members of the public would have easy access to all information about the project. A requirement would be that all persons participating must be identified and registered with, at a minimum, name, residential address and email address (and, as applicable, whether they are a member of the public body, the applicant’s team, a town official, abutter, etc.). Any comments so posted would become part of the public record of the hearing. This would allow residents to participate who are not able to attend the physical hearing due to illness, mobility issues or scheduling conflicts. In addition, such a system could facilitate and streamline the physical hearing.

The new law does provide for remote participation by public body members. However, this provision is not yet in effect as the Attorney General’s office is seeking public comment as a first step to establishing rules about this practice. One example of how this could be utilized is the case of a public hearing that has been closed and a board is deliberating a decision. If a member is out of town on the day of the vote, but can certify that he or she has reviewed a copy of the draft decision, why not allow that member to participate remotely via phone, video conference, or Internet. When most Boards meet only once or twice per month, it could avoid unnecessary delays.

In summary, the new Open Meeting Law is good step forward in assuring transparency and openness in government. However, the job is not finished and more needs to be done to bring government into the 21^st Century.

BP OIL DISASTER

2010-05-24T13:20:00.001-04:00

While not directly relevant to Sherborn, as a former resident of New Orleans, I am very interested in this issue. In graduate school, I was heavily involved in studying impacts of offshore oil and gas production. The title of my master's thesis was "The Fiscal Impacts of Outer Continental Oil and Gas Production on State and Local Governments in Lafourche Parish, LA." I also worked on a couple of other studies of the industry as a graduate research assistant.

The most interesting project I was involved with was commissioned by the Conservation Foundation (since merged with the World Wildlife Fund) through a contract with the Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department of Interior. I co-authored the report with a professor. The report is called "Environmental Planning for Offshore Oil and Gas, VolumeV: Regional Status Reports. Part 3:Gulf Coast Region." As the name implies, this was a national report on offshore oil and gas and we covered the Gulf Coast, which, of course, is the site of almost all offshore oil and gas activity. The President of the Conservation Foundation at the time was William Reilly, who later served as EPA Administrator and was just appointed by President Obama as Co-Chair of the commission investigating the BP disaster.

Among other things, the report covered some of the challenges involved in deepwater drilling, which was then in its infancy. In discussing technologies involving accident response, the report cites four main problems as "reestablishing control over wells that have blown out, containing and cleaning up oil on water, salvaging marine life and birds, and cleaning up beaches." Not that these are not obvious issues! The report also discusses the impacts of offshore oils and gas activity on living things and the socioeconomic impacts.

GREEN COMMUNITIES ACT

2010-05-12T18:06:00.000-04:00

In 2008, the Massachusetts Legislature adopted the Green Communities Act. This act provides funding for designated communities to implement alternative and renewable energy projects. The funding comes from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI, pronounced "reggie"). A system has been established by which companies can buy credits for their greenhouse gas emissions at an annual auction. The proceeds of those auctions are then used to fund local energy projects.

In order to become designated as a Green Community, a town must meet five criteria. These include the following:

1. Provide for the as-of-right siting of renewable or alternative energy generating facilities, renewable or alternative energy research and development (R&D) facilities, or renewable or alternative energy manufacturing facilities in designated locations.

2. Adopt an expedited application and permitting process under which these energy facilities may be sited within the municipality and which shall not exceed 1 year from the date of initial application to the date of final approval.

3. Establish an energy use baseline inventory for municipal buildings, vehicles, street and traffic lighting, and put in place a comprehensive program designed to reduce this baseline by 20 percent within 5 years of initial participation in the program.

4. Purchase only fuel-efficient vehicles for municipal use whenever such vehicles are commercially available and practicable.

5. Require all new residential construction over 3,000 square feet and all new commercial and industrial real estate construction to minimize, to the extent feasible, the life-cycle cost of the facility by utilizing energy efficiency, water conservation and other renewable or alternative energy technologies.

In my opinion, we could achieve 4 out of 5 of these relatively easily. Since we do not have any industrial zoning districts in which energy manufacturing or R&D facilities could locate, we would have to achieve #1 by allowing energy generating facilities by right. We could do this by allowing solar facilities within or adjacent to our electrical transmission lines. Solar panels (even one sized for commercial quantities of electricity) are relatively benign.

Similarly, we could achieve #2 by adopting an expedited permitting process ensuring that a permit would be granted (actually "decided," it could still be denied) within a year. Rarely do any permitting processes take more than a few months now so this would be very easy to comply with.

#4 is also easy. Heavy duty vehicles and police vehicles are exempt. The policy only applies to administrative vehicles. However, we would need to commit to energy-efficient police vehicles when they become commercially available.

#5 may be a little controversial. It would require adoption of the currently-optional "stretch code" component of the State Building Code. It simply requires more energy efficiency in new houses and other buildings. This increases up-front costs but saves money in the future since the building would use less energy. As energy prices increase, the payback period decreases.

The one I see as the most difficult is #3. First, it requires that we establish a baseline for total municipal energy use (including schools, town buildings, town vehicles and streetlights) and then commit to reduce this usage by 20% within 5 years. There is a free software program provided by the state to help with the inventory and the utility companies can provide usage information. However, some effort is needed to document square footage, number of employees using the space, etc. to complete this task.

Once a community earns the "Green Community" designation, it becomes eligible for the grants mentioned above that can be used to build alternative energy facilities in Town (and help meet the 20% reduction). Therefore, it is similar to the Community Preservation Act in one respect because the early adopters get to maximize the financial benefits. However, the primary benefits are simply the cost savings that result from reduced energy use as well as the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

TOWN MEETING RESULTS AND COMMENTS

2010-05-03T10:41:00.000-04:00

The two Planning Board zoning articles failed to gain the required two-thirds majority at Town Meeting. The article to allow accessory apartments for rent-paying nonrelatives was favored by an 86-70 vote. The 55% majority was 19 votes short of 66.6%. The vote in favor of creating an adaptive use special permit for properties on North Main Street across from the Business General district was 85-57, or 60%. It fell 10 votes short of the two-thirds super-majority required.

Neither of these articles were critical to the future of Sherborn. They both would have resulted in small changes. However, in the view of the Planning Board and the Advisory Committee, they would have facilitated incremental but positive improvements in the quality of life of Sherborn residents. As happens throughout Massachusetts, a minority is able to block progress because of the requirement for a two-thirds vote to change zoning.

This raises the question of whether the two-thirds requirement is appropriate. Apparently, in Connecticut, Planning Boards have the authority to change zoning on their own. While nobody is suggesting such a change in Massachusetts, there has been a debate about changing the two-thirds vote requirement. One suggestion is to allow each town to decide on its own whether zoning changes should be by simple majority or two-thirds with the proviso that reducing the requirement to a simple majority would require a two-thirds vote. I doubt that the minority with power to block changes would be willing to cede that authority in very many towns (if any).

I am not entirely opposed to the two-thirds requirement but I have considered variations that could be beneficial. One thought I have is to allow towns to set the requirement at anywhere between a simple majority and a two-thirds vote. In other words, a town could set the requirement at 55%, 60% or 53.7% if they so choose. Of course, how that would be set remains an issue. Requiring a two-thirds vote for the change would likely render it moot since few, if any towns would be able to make the change.

Another thought I have had would provide more authority to the Planning Board, but stop well short of the authority in Connecticut. That is, a zoning change endorsed by the Planning Board would require a simple majority while one that is opposed by the Planning Board would still require a super-majority. A variation with checks and balances might be that in addition to the Planning Board, the article would need to be supported by the Advisory Committee, Warrant Committee, Finance Committee (or whatever a town calls its body that makes recommendations on warrant articles) in order to qualify for the simple majority vote.

My final comment reverts back to the specific Planning Board articles defeated at this year's Town Meeting. As stated above, the two articles that failed were not the foundation for a successful future for Sherborn nor the seeds of destruction for the Town. They were both minor in scope.Well-meaning residents can have honest disagreements about their value to the Town and there are good and legitimate arguments on both sides. However, it is disheartening to hear residents knowingly make arguments opposed to the articles that have no basis in fact. It is a well-known tactic to defeat an article by inventing unintended consequences, phantom conflicts with existing rules or other such measures in order to raise doubt and the prospect of scary problems in the future if the article were to pass.

REPORT ON ZONING ARTICLES

2010-04-26T17:07:00.000-04:00

The Planning Board report on the zoning articles to be considered at the Annual Town Meeting on April 27 is now posted on its web site: http://sherbornma.org/Pages/SherbornMA_Planning/index.

The Planning Board voted 4-1 in support of Article 11 to amend the existing accessory apartment bylaw by deleting the provision prohibiting the collection of rent and prohibiting anyone but blood relatives and domestic help from occupying the units. The article also increases the maximum size of an accessory apartment from 800 to 1200 square feet (but retains the maximum limit of 30% of the size of the principle dwelling unit; this means only houses of 4000 square feet or more will be able to accommodate a 1200 square foot apartment.). As is the case now, accessory apartments would only be allowed by special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals after notification of abutters and a public hearing. All requirements of the Zoning Bylaw as well as regulations of the Board of Health, Conservation Commission and any other Town rules and regulations would still need to be complied with.

The Planning Board also voted voted 4-1 to recommend Article 12 to create an Adaptive Use Special Permit that would provide a means of allowing very limited commercial use of two properties that are directly across the street from (but not in) the Business General district. The uses would be limited to professional offices or retail uses such as antique shops or arts and crafts shops. Also, at least one residence would be required to remain on the property and the architectural and historical integrity of the buildings would be required to be maintained.This also would be by special permit after abutter notification and a public hearing by the Planning Board.

Finally, the Planning Board voted unanimously in favor of Article 15, which essentially replaces the references to the FEMA flood maps to new ones which go into effect on June 4, 2010. This is a necessary step to ensure that Sherborn retains its eligibility under the National Flood Insurance Program.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTIONS

2010-03-29T10:04:00.000-04:00

On Saturday, March 27, Advisory Committee spent a long difficult day reviewing the omnibus budget, capital budget and other warrant articles. Their day began at 8:30 AM and extended to almost 5 PM, with just very few short breaks. They are in the very unenviable position of having to allocate scarce dollars among many worthy projects and issues that exceed the resources available. Many Town officials who volunteer their time also gave up their Saturday to advocate for their causes. The work was not finished and there are many more articles that need to be heard and voted on. Advisory Committee's hearing will continue Monday evening at 7:00 PM.

Of course, my primary interest is centered on the articles sponsored by the Planning Board. Only one of the Planning Board articles was heard on Saturday. It was Article 12, pertaining to creating an Adaptive Use special permit for 2 properties that sit directly across the street from the Business G district. The article is discussed more fully in a post below, but it essentially would allow very limited business uses in these buildings with strong controls on any changes to the building and site.

A principle of zoning is that a road should be a spine and not a boundary between districts. This article creates a compromise in that concept by allowing SOME limited business use without expanding the Business G district and with strong Town control. The Advisory Committee voted 6-1 in support of this article.

There are three other Planning Board articles to be heard, two of which are zoning related. The most significant would amend the Town's current bylaw providing for accessory apartments. Again, this article is discussed in more detail in a post below, but in summary the article would remove the current prohibition on receiving rent for accessory apartments, allowing non-relatives to occupy the units, and it would allow the maximum size of a unit to increase from 800 to 1200 square feet.

The second zoning article pertains to the Flood Plain District (and tonight should be an appropriate setting in which to discuss this!). It is actually a housekeeping article. The bylaw currently refers to the FEMA flood maps. New Flood rate maps have been produced and will become effective on June 4, 2010. FEMA has asked that our bylaw specifically refer to these new maps. They also ask that we add in a statement that the bylaws applies to land in the flood zones whether or not they are within a "Regulatory Floodway." Since we don't distinguish between land within or not within a Regulatory Floodway anyway, this really has no effect, but it shows our willingness to cooperate with FEMA.

A question has been raised about whether we should adopt this now since the maps will not be official until June 4. Since we are not even likely to get Attorney General approval by approval by June 4 and our updated Zoning Bylaw will not be printed by June 4, I think it is better to risk a slight bit of confusion for a few weeks rather than have that confusion for nearly a year.

Planning Board also has an article to amend Chapter 16 of the General Bylaw. That Chapter pertains to enforcement and fines. The article was prepared in conjunction with previous Town Counsel and current Town Counsel suggests some additional changes. Therefore, the Planning Board decided at its meeting of March 24 to withdraw this article and to come back next year with a new article that incorporates the new Town Counsel changes in a single article rather than to do it piecemeal.

SHERBORN BUS SERVICE

2010-03-17T14:31:00.000-04:00

In case you are not aware, Sherborn now has bus service from the Town Center to the West Natick commuter rail station. The service is provided by the Metrowest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA). The service is provided at no cost to the Town because it is funded by shifting the Town's mandatory assessment for the MBTA to the MWRTA instead.

At present there is only a single run in the morning and a single run in the evening. It is hoped that service will expand as ridership increases. The morning run leaves from the Sherborn Inn (where there is FREE PARKING) at 7:23 AM in order to arrive in time for the 7:46 train from West Natick. The returning bus leaves the West Natick station after arrival of the outgoing 5:35 PM train from South Station that arrives at West Natick at 6:26. The bus arrives at the Sherborn Inn at approximately 6:50 PM.

The Adult fare for the bus is $1.50 each way, and a 10-ride pass can be purchased for $11.00. The fare for students is $1.00 (10-ride pass for $9.00), and for those 65 older it is $.75 (10-ride pass for $7.00). Those with a Medicare card, or an MBTA or MWRTA transportation access card that identifies the holder as qualifying for the disabled fare pay the same as seniors and blind persons with a Commission for the Blind card ride for free.

With limited parking (and at a cost of $4.00 per day!), the bus provides a more convenient and lower cost means of getting to the train station.

If you have questions about the service or need additional information, you may call the MWRTA at 508-935-2222 or 888-996-9782.

ZONING ARTICLES ON 2010 TOWN MEETING WARRANT

2010-03-01T14:37:00.001-05:00

There are four zoning articles on the warrant for the 2010 Town Meeting. Three are sponsored by the Planning Board and one is sponsored by the Recreation Commission. A summary of each of the articles appears below. One of the Planning Board articles would create an adaptive use special permit process for properties on North Main Street across from the Business-General district. This is repeated from last year after it fell just short of the 2/3 vote needed for approval. A second article would amend the requirements for accessory apartments in order to allow rental income to be received, and to allow occupancy by those who are not related to the owners nor serve as domestic help. The third amends the references to flood maps in order to recognize the new flood maps that will be available in June.

Sponsored by Planning Board

Adaptive Use Special Permit – This is a resubmission of an article that was first submitted last year. It would allow very limited business use, by special permit only, with tight controls on changes to the building. It essentially applies to just two buildings on North Main Street. They are directly across the street from the Sherborn Inn, which is in the Business General district, but these properties are zoned residential. They are clearly unique within the Residential A district because they are directly across the street from (and one actually abuts) the Business G district. Under this amendment, those houses would be required to continue at least one residence on the premises, but would be allowed some limited commercial uses (professional offices, studios, retail for handcrafted goods or arts and crafts items or antiques only). In return, the residential character of the premises must be maintained and historic or architectural aspects of the buildings must be retained or enhanced.

Accessory Apartments – This article essentially removes the prohibition against collecting rent and allowing persons who are not either relatives or domestic help to occupy an accessory apartment. It also increases the maximum size to 1200 square feet, but retains the limit of 30% of the primary dwelling (thus, only houses larger than 4000 square feet would qualify for an accessory apartment up to 1200 square feet). It puts Sherborn in line with other similar towns including Carlisle, Dover, Lincoln, Wayland and Weston (see attached table).

Flood Plain District – This is a housekeeping measure that updates the references to the FEMA flood maps (which have been redone and will be dated June 4, 2010. It also adds a phrase (at the request of FEMA) that the section of the bylaw applies whether or not such land is within a “Regulatory Floodway” designated by FEMA. Our bylaw makes no distinction between Regulated Floodways and other land anyway so adding this phrase really has no effect.

Sponsored by Recreation Commission (Withdrawn)

Accessory Municipal Use and Height Exception – This article does two things: it allows an accessory municipal use (which is private use of municipal property though a contractual arrangement) to exceed 250 square feet in area and adds temporary municipal uses to the list of uses exempt from the height requirement (municipal uses are already exempt).

SCENIC ROADS AND DRIVEWAY CURB CUTS

2009-12-09T12:44:00.001-05:00

In recent months there have been multiple efforts by homeowners to relocate and/or expand driveways, especially to create circular driveways. In some cases, it appears that they are unaware that there are rules governing such actions. One of the features that makes Sherborn a great place to live is its rural and historic character. One of the primary contributors to this character is the preponderance of heavily treed scenic roads lined with stone walls.

There is a state law called the Scenic Roads Act that is designed to allow local governments to protect its scenic roads. When a Scenic Road is designated, trees within the street right-of-way cannot be removed and stone walls within the right-of-way (or on the property line) cannot be altered without a hearing before the Planning Board. Such hearing must be advertised in the newspaper for two consecutive weeks and abutters within 500 feet must be notified of the proposed action and the place, time and date of the hearing. For new or moved driveways, there are specific rules pertaining to design (including width) and there is a rule that allows only a single "curb cut" (meaning any vehicular connection with the street) per lot. This means that circular driveways are not allowed because they require two curb cuts.

The Rules and Regulations for Scenic Roads can be found in the Planning Board Rules and Regulations just after the rules pertaining to subdivisions. They are posted on the Planning Board web site. The application form for applying for a Scenic Road hearing can also be found by clicking on "Forms" on the front page of the web site.

What if you are not on a designated Scenic Road? Or what if you are on a Scenic Road but there are no trees or stone walls in the way? There are also Community Maintenance and Development (CMD) rules pertaining to connecting driveways to public ways. Those rules also limit such connections to one per lot.

EATON APOTHECARY STAYING!

2009-12-07T11:31:00.000-05:00

According to a story by Kathleen Moore in the "Community Briefings" section of Globe West on December 6, 2009, Walgreen's has decided to keep Eaton Apothecary open. The store will now be called "Eaton Apothecary - a Walgreen's Pharmacy."

EATON APOTHECARY CLOSING

2009-11-02T15:34:00.002-05:00

As you may have heard, Walgreens has purchased the Eaton Apothecary chain and is apparently planning to close the Sherborn store on North Main Street. When I first heard the news of the sale, I was hoping that Walgreens might expand the apothecary into the entire first floor of its building, because I knew the 2500 square foot size of the current Apothecary is way too small for Walgreens. However, obviously even the entire floor of about 5000 square feet is too small for them since their normal size is about 12,000 to 15,000 square feet.

Obviously, this is another blow to efforts to improve the Town Center. The first floor retail space of the building at 19-23 North Main has been half empty since the building was completed in 2006. Now the entire first floor will be empty, at least for some period of time. The septic capacity of the building precludes types of tenants that use lots of water, like food establishments.

I have heard that there is some sort of petition being circulated asking, I believe, that Walgreen's not close the store. I am not sure how effective that will be. In any case, feel free to leave any comments here.

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS: IS SHERBORN TOO RESTRICTIVE?

2009-09-28T11:40:00.000-04:00

Sherborn’s Zoning Bylaw currently has a very limited provision for accessory apartments. In essence, they are allowed only to house up to three persons related by blood, adoption or marriage or by up to two domestic employees of the family residing in the main part of the dwelling. Rent is not allowed for such units. There are various other restrictions that include limiting the area to the greater of 30% of the gross floor area of the dwelling or 800 square feet; the design must be such that the facilities of the accessory apartment can be readily removed or reintegrated into the main dwelling, and approval in the form of a special permit from the Board of Appeals must be obtained.

There is one other option that does allow the collection of rent: if the accessory apartment qualifies as a “Low or Moderate Income Unit” under state law. Among other requirements is that the unit must be fairly available to all eligible persons, and this usually means they must be selected by a lottery. In this situation the owner is not able to select the tenant. Other requirements are similar to those presented above but the unit size is allowed to be as large as 1200 square feet. This bylaw was adopted in 1991 and no one has ever taken advantage of it.

There has been some discussion that the accessory apartment requirements may be too restrictive and should be loosened somewhat to allow occupation by non-relatives and to charge rent for such apartments. One argument in favor of this position is that many older persons who have lived in Sherborn for many years would like to stay in town but are not comfortable in their large houses due to property taxes, maintenance issues or other reasons. An accessory apartment would provide some income and would also provide another person in the house who might be available to assist with household tasks or in the event of an emergency.

On the other hand, there is concern that allowing accessory apartments could change the character of Sherborn by converting single family homes to “duplexes.” Also, creating additional housing units could result in more school children, thus increasing costs to the Town.

Of course, the impacts depend to a large extent on how an accessory apartment bylaw were structured. If allowed only by special permit, the Town would retain much control. Also, the bylaw could specify maximum size of the unit, require that the single family character of the residence not be altered, and it could even limit the total number of such units that could be created.

It should be noted many similar towns, including Dover, Carlisle, Lincoln, Weston and Wayland all allow accessory apartments. Their restrictions differ, but they all allow occupancy by non-relatives as well as the collection of rent.

SHERBORN ZONING HISTORY

2009-06-22T15:32:00.005-04:00

The first Zoning Bylaw in Sherborn was adopted at a Special Town Meeting on June 7, 1937. It established two classes of districts – one for Residences and one for Businesses. It required a minimum of 1 acre in the Residence districts and at least ½ acre in the Business districts. [Unable so far to find a zoning map and there is no reference to one in the Bylaw].

A major change in the Zoning Bylaw was adopted on December 13, 1954. That Bylaw put in place the major features that remain the essence of the Zoning Bylaw to this day. It established three residential districts requiring minimum lot sizes of one, two and three acres, respectively.

There was a single type of Business district, but there were five separate locations to which it applied. One of those locations was essentially what is now the Business-General (B-G) district along North Main Street, with the exception that the Sherborn Inn property was not yet a part of it. Also, what is now the Business-General district along Washington and South Main Streets also existed except that the portion on the east side of South Main Street extended from the Split down to the Pilgrim Church property. This district has since been reduced.

There was also a district on the south side of Kendall Avenue. Except that a portion of this was rezoned to EA in 2001 (resulting in the development of Sherborn Meadows), this district still exists. The other districts, which have since been repealed, include the 4 corners at the intersection of Western Avenue and Washington Streets, and a strip along the railroad tracks just north of Forest Street.

The next significant zoning change impacting the Town Center occurred in 1983 when the Business-Professional (B-P) district was adopted for an area on the east side of North Main Street. This change allowed the construction of the office building known as 20 North Main Street in the mid-1980’s. Since that rezoning also included the Clark House, it also led to the restoration of that property and its adaptive reuse as an office building. Another significant change occurred in April 1984, when Town Meeting voted to extend the Business-General district across Powderhouse Lane. This allowed the construction of the Sherborn Inn in the late 1980’s.

At the 1998 Annual Town Meeting in April, the Town adopted the Planned Unit Development (PUD) provision of the Zoning Bylaw. This bylaw did not make any changes in the business district boundaries. However, it does allow for business development to occur on parcels with at least 25% of its area within the B-G or B-P districts, by special permit. The PUD bylaw allows more flexibility than the B-G or B-P with regard to setbacks and other provisions, but it also requires significant public amenities and provides for greater Town control than the B-G and B-P districts require. The PUD bylaw limits the size of any retail outlet to 2500 square feet, exclusive of any kitchen, storage or mechanical space, and promotes traditional, pedestrian-friendly Town Center development. No development has taken place under the PUD bylaw. In 2008 and 2009, the Planning Board proposed amendments to the PUD bylaw to allow a single retail outlet to exceed the 2500 square foot limit and to allow residences as part of a PUD. These proposals fell short of the necessary 2/3 vote needed for approval.

At the 2000 Annual Town Meeting, the B-G district was extended slightly on the east side of North Main Street to encompass the entirety of the parcel on which Rose Automotive is located. For the rest of the east side of North Main Street, the B-G district extends only 150 feet back from North Main Street. No expansion has taken place as a result of this extension of the B-G district.

BICYCLE RACKS COMING

2009-06-15T11:03:00.002-04:00

Thanks to a program administered by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Sherborn will soon have several additional bike racks to encourage and facilitate bicycle use in Town. MAPC has $898,000 available to distribute among its 101 cities and towns. The funds are distributed by population, but with a minimum allocation of $3000 per town. Being one of the smaller towns in the MAPC region, Sherborn is eligible for the minimim of $3000. Installation and shipping ($400) are not included.

There are three vendors participating in the program with several styles available. After reviewing what is available, I selected a style called "Hi Roller" from Dero Bike Rack Company located in Minneapolis. This style consists of a series of "humps" with the "humps" bent for greater stability.

We have ordered two 7-bike racks and six 4-bike racks. They will be installed by CMD at Jameson and Fessenden Fields, Laurel Farm Fields, Town Hall and the Library, and Farm Pond.

ARTICLE 10 - PUD AMENDMENTS

2009-03-30T13:06:00.005-04:00

As noted below, the Planning Board is again sponsoring a warrant article to amend the Planned Unit Development provision of the Zoning Bylaw. One of the posts below is in "question and answer" format and it addresses most questions that may arise. However, I also wanted to present this map because many have the mistaken impression that the PUD bylaw is for the benefit of a single property. The map above indicates the properties (outlined in blue)that are eligible for a PUD right now (because they meet the minimum size requiremnent of 60,000 square feet, as well as the location requirement). However, ALL of the properties within the Business General and Business Professional zoning districts are potentially eligible if they were to collaborate with their abutters to meet the minimum size requirement. The Planning Board wishes to encourage development under PUD because it provides more flexibility and more Town control. In fact, it allows the type of development that was most preferred by residents who attended two forums sponsored by the Planning Board last year, while the regulations of the Business General and Business Professional district actually prohibit that style because they require a 60 foot front setback which guarantees parking in front of any building.

As is the case with the proposed adaptive use special permit discussed below, there is currently no protection for any historic structures that are in PUD-eligible locations (except for the Clark House, which is eligible for PUD and is within the local historic district and subject to the regulation of the Historic District Commission). One of the express purposes of our PUD is to "preserve historic buildings by providing economically viable uses for them." Thus, PUD adds some protection of historic resources where none is currently in place.

Also, the article last year would have allowed a single retail outlet to be as large as 7500 square feet, excluding storage, kitchen and utility space. The proposal this year is to allow only one retail outlet up to 8000 square feet GROSS (including storage, kitchen mechanical and any other space). Thus, Article 10 is roughly the same as last year's article.

It is important to note that Planned Unit Development is not by right. It is only by special permit from the Planning Board. In order to approve a special permit the Planning Board must find that the project meets certain standards. Among these are the following:

-- "building designs that are complementary in scale and style to those of abutting properties and that are, in general, appropriate for a small New England village;

-- significant public amenities on or off site which may include, but are not limited to the following: landscaped open area with walkways, benches, fountains, monuments, and/or other features; bike racks and/or separate bicycle access; hitching posts and/or separate horse access; drinking fountains; awnings or pavilions; or other suitable amenity;

-- pedestrian linkage(s) with abutting properties that is (are) well defined and of a design and quality that will encourage significant use;

-- vehicular linkage with abutting properties.

These are in addition to the dimensional requirements that must be met. Also, among the submittal requirements in the application is a written statement comparing the effect of the proposed PUD to a conventional development that could be built on the parcel in terms of expected impact on tax base; town services; traffic; wetlands; groundwater; views from public ways and lands; historic structures; recreational wildlife, agricultural and forestry uses of land, and other relevant and applicable subjects.

These standards are already in the PUD bylaw. The only changes that Article 10 would make are to allow ONE retail outlet to be up to 8000 gross square feet and to allow residences to be part of a PUD project.

Please feel free to contact the Planning Board office at 508-651-7855 if you have any questions about Article 9 or 10.

ARTICLE 9 - ADAPTIVE USE SPECIAL PERMIT

2009-03-30T11:37:00.005-04:00

At the request of affected property owners, the Planning Board is sponsoring an article that would allow, by special permit only, limited business uses in two properties (36 and 32-34 North Main Street - see map) with certain conditions. Among the conditions are that at least one residence must be maintained on the property and very limited building alterations will be allowed. The regulations of the Sherborn Historic District Commission will be used as a guide, though not strictly applied. The only business uses allowed would be professional offices, design studios and retail sales of art, handcrafted merchandise or antiques.

Some have argued that it would not be fair to allow something for these residential properties that is not allowed for others in the Residence districts. There is a big difference. These two properties are unique in that they are the ONLY residential properties on North Main Street whose frontage is directly across the street from the Business General district. One principle of zoning is that a street should be a spine and not a border between 2 zoning districts.

It has also been suggested that current zoning already allows offices in these properties with a special permit from the Board of Appeals. That is true except the current opportunity is very limited. First, under current rules, ZBA can only grant a special permit for a professional use if the professional lives on the premises. However, there is more to it than that. It is a very limited use under the current rules. For example:

(1) The professional use must be "clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the premises for residential purposes." Article 9 would not have this requirement. Using an entire first floor for professional use would clearly not be incidental and secondary.

(2) Only 1 person other than a resident can be employed, and no more than 1 member of the public may be served at a time under current rules, unless the ZBA grants permission for more. Article 9 would not have this restriction. It is likely that there would be more than a single employee and more than a single member of the public served at a time if an entire first floor were used for professional purposes.

(3) There could be no retail sales under current rules. Article 9 would allow limited retail sales of handcrafted merchandise, art works or antiques.

As stated above, these properties are unique due to their location. They are also historic buildings. There are currently no protections in place to preserve these buildings. This bylaw adds some protection by both providing economically viable uses and by requiring that the any adaptive use project "shall include restoration, renovation or improvement of the primary existing building(s) to maintain, restore or enhance the building's original integrity."

PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT

2009-03-26T13:02:00.003-04:00

This year, the Planning Board is again sponsoring an article to amend the existing Planned Unit Development provision of the Zoning Bylaw. The article proposed represents modest changes from articles proposed last year that received strong majority votes in favor, but short of the 2/3 required.Many questions have arisen about both the article itself and Planned Unit Development in general. In an attempt to answer some of those questions, the Planning Board has prepared the following:

What is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) – The Planned Unit Development provision of our Zoning Bylaw was adopted in 1998 in order to allow for more flexible commercial development but with more Town control than is provided by the business district rules. It also allows up to 75% of a development to consist of abutting land that is zoned residential. It is by special permit only and allows more flexibility in siting buildings but requires more aesthetic sensitivity as well as public amenities, and has more limits on what can be built than the business districts allow. To qualify, properties must have at least 60,000 square feet.

In what way does the PUD provide more Town control? – First, all of the standards for site plan review and approval for development in the business districts are also applicable to PUD’s, plus more. The applicant must submit a statement comparing the effects of a PUD to a conventional development in terms of the impacts on the tax base; town services; traffic; wetlands; groundwater; views from public ways and lands; historic structures; recreational, wildlife, agricultural and forestry uses of land; and other relevant and applicable requirements. Second, the Planning Board must determine that the PUD “will not result in a detrimental impact to the neighborhood or the Town and that it meets the design and linkage (with neighboring properties) requirements and includes significant public amenities. Finally, as a special permit, the Planning Board has wide discretion as to whether or not it approves a PUD.

Why is the Planning Board proposing to change the bylaw? – The existing PUD bylaw limits retail outlets to a maximum of 2500 square feet (excluding kitchen, storage and mechanical space). Our survey of residents in 2008 indicated strong support for a small market up to 7500 ft2. Also a recent market study indicated that Sherborn could support a market of 6000-8000 ft2. Therefore, we propose to increase the maximum size of just one retail outlet to 8000 square feet (gross).

Is that the only change? – No. The current PUD bylaw does not directly allow residences to be included. Our survey of residents did not indicate strong support for residences in the Town Center, but the survey did not address mixed uses. Mixed uses are consistent with Smart Growth/Smart Energy and sustainable development principles, and residences add vitality to a Town Center. Therefore, we are also proposing to allow residences to be included in a PUD, but limited to 50% of the total area of a PUD development, and with the requirement that at least 10% be affordable if 10 or more are included in the project.

Will this article expand the business district, contrary to the General Plan? – No. The business district boundaries will not change. The PUD bylaw, if viewed as an extension of the business district, was already in place when the General Plan was adopted. Responders to the 2008 survey indicated some acceptance of the idea of making better use of what was already business zoned. This article only allows a single retail outlet to increase and provides for residences within a PUD. It does not change where a PUD could be built.

Is the PUD intended to benefit a single property? – Absolutely not. Right now five properties in the Town Center could qualify for a PUD (plus 2 other properties – the Citgo station on South Main and Sunshine Farm on Kendall Avenue). Potentially, all properties within the Business General and Business Professional districts could qualify if the owners of abutting properties worked together to meet the minimum 60,000 square feet of area.

Could a retail outlet of 8000 square feet be built currently in the Business General district? – Yes. The only size limit in the business districts is that building footprints cannot exceed one-third of the lot, and the height cannot exceed 35 feet. Six of 11 parcels are more than an acre in size. Thus, they could each host buildings with footprints of 15,000 square feet or more.

What is the point of Article 10 if an 8000 square foot building can already be built in the Business General district? – The point is that PUD results in a preferred style of development with more flexibility but more Town control. For example, the preferred style of development that was favored by the people who attended the two forums held by the Planning Board last year is actually prohibited by the Business General district because it requires a 60-foot setback which guarantees an auto-oriented development with parking in front of the building. By contrast, the PUD bylaw allows for a 20-foot setback and includes the following requirements:

· building designs that are complementary in scale and style to those of abutting properties and that are, in general, appropriate for a small New England village;

· significant public amenities on or off site which may include, but are not limited to the following: landscaped open area with walkways, benches, fountains, monuments, and/or other features; bike racks and/or separate bicycle access; hitching posts and/or separate horse access; drinking fountains; awnings or pavilions; or other suitable amenity;

· pedestrian linkage(s) with abutting properties that is (are) well defined and of a design and quality that will encourage significant use;

· vehicular linkage with abutting properties.

PUD would allow parking to be in the back of buildings, requires appropriate building designs and requires public amenities, all of which will result in a more attractive and more pedestrian-friendly streetscape.

Will the proposed PUD amendments threaten historic structures and the character of our Town Center? – No. In fact the purposes of the PUD, stated right in the bylaw, include to “preserve historic buildings by providing economically viable uses for them” and to “perpetuate and enhance the appearance of Sherborn’s traditional small town New England center.” Other purposes include greater integration of land uses and promoting better building location and overall site planning than is possible under the Business General district.

Why is Article 10 needed when we already have business vacancies in the Town Center? – This is a forward-looking measure that we hope to have in place prior to the next upswing in the economic cycle.

How will these amendments affect well and septic requirements? – These amendments will have no effect on well and septic requirements. Any new development will still need to meet Board of Health regulations, as well as any other requirements of the Board of Appeals, Conservation Commission, Planning Board, etc.

What will be the impact on traffic? – According to the latest MassHighway traffic counts, about 27,000 vehicles per day pass through the Town Center. Any new development (whether PUD or not) would have to conduct a traffic study to determine its impacts and recommend measures to mitigate those impacts. However, if we assume a project of 20,000 square feet of retail space and 20,000 square feet of residential space (20 1000 ft2, residences) such a project would require about 100 parking spaces for the retail space and 30-40 for the residential units. Assuming that the retail spaces were full all day and turned over 5 times each, that would add 500 trips to the 27,000. Considering that the spaces would not likely be full all day and that many of those using them would be either residents who already make those trips or commuters who are passing by anyway, it can be estimated that the impact on traffic would not be significant. The residential units might add another 150 trips, which, again would not be significant.

What is the fiscal impact of Article 10? – That would depend entirely on whatever is ultimately built. Using the same example as above, based on estimated assessed values and the current tax rate, it would generate approximately $81,000 to $109,000 in new tax revenue. Depending on the size and type of residences built (and the special permit process would give the Town considerable control over this), the residences would not likely result in the number of children that single family houses would, but in any case the Town would be required to provide services to the new development that would offset the revenue to some degree.

TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES

2009-01-22T16:26:00.007-05:00

The Planning Board is sponsoring three articles on this year's Town Meeting warrant. One is simply a housekeeping measure. The first substantive measure is similar to a proposal last year to amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) section of the Zoning Bylaw in order to allow a single retail outlet to be up to a maximum of 8,000 square feet and to allow multidwellings and single family dwellings as part of a PUD. The other substantive article would establish a special permit process that would allow some limited business use of two historic buildings on North Main Street in return for some commitments to enhance or restore those buildings.

Last year, there were two proposals to amend the PUD section. One would have allowed a single retail outlet to be occupy up to 7500 square feet excluding, storage, mechanical and kitchen space. Some felt this was too open-ended and could lead to a very large facility. The Planning Board has responded by changing the upper limit to a flat 8,000 gross square feet, so that all space including storage, mechanical and kitchen space would be included in this figure. The limit on all other retail space would remain at 2500 square feet. This has no effect on building size. Building size is limited by the maximum lot coverage and height limits of the Business General and Business Professional districts, which are still applicable to a PUD.

It should be noted that this proposal does not expand the Business District in any way, nor does it allow larger buildings than are already allowed as part of a Planned Unit Development, nor does it allow larger stores than are already allowed in the Business General district. The Business General district has no limit on the size of stores or buildings other than the requirement that the building footprint cannot exceed 1/3 of its lot. This article would allow a single retail outlet, within a Planned Unit Development, to have a maximum area of 10,000 square feet. It has nothing to do with the size of the BUILDING. A building can be 25,000 square feet (or more) as long is it is broken up into 2500 square foot retail stores or is used as offices of any size. Planned Unit Development is by special permit only and gives the Town much more control over the details of the development than a similar development built under the rules of the Business General district.

The other proposal from last year was to allow multidwellings as part of a PUD. This is in accord with Smart Growth and sustainable development principles which encourage mixed uses and compact development. This year's proposal also allows single family units in an effort to encourage a village-style development around a Town Green. Dwellings would be limited to 50% of the square footage of any PUD, and a minimum of 10% of the dwelling units must be affordable if 10 or more units are included. Both the increase in the maximum retail outlet size and allowing the dwelling units as part of PUD are combined in a single article.

The second substantive article would establish a special permit process that would include two historic buildings on North Main Street. The qualifying properties must have its entire frontage be directly across North Main Street from the Business General district, and have at least a half acre of area. The special permit would only allow business uses such as offices, art or photography studios, or retail sales of crafts or antiques. At least one dwelling unit would be required to be maintained on the premises. Also, such business use would be required to maintain, restore or enhance the building’s original architectural integrity.

The Planning Board held a hearing on these articles on February 25, 2009 in Town Hall. Advisory Committee will hold its hearing on these articles on Monday, March 9, 2009 at 7:00 PM. Your comments are welcome and encouraged at or anytime before that hearing.

TOWN CENTER PLANS

2008-11-12T14:55:00.004-05:00

It should be noted that the images presented at the Town Center Forum (See post below) are based on a rough conceptual plan drafted by the Town Planner for the properties at 27 and 29 North Main Street. The purpose of the conceptual plan was to determine whether a "sense of place" and a village atmosphere could be established in the Town Center without a major expansion or dramatic changes. This is in accord with the General Plan goal to "Create a visual signature for the Town Center to enhance a sense of place or identity."

The conceptual plan proposes only to replace a single building and add a second new building to an existing adjacent property. It utilizes an existing driveway (next to C&L Frosty) from North Main Street (and upgrades its status) and access to Powderhouse Lane to create two new village blocks. The first new building would face the existing driveway with a sidewalk in front of it and storefronts facing the sidewalk. The second building would be positioned at the end of the driveway where it would be visible from North Main Street to serve as a vista that draw in visitors. While the existing building housing the Post Office, liquor store, bank, and cleaners would remain, the main entrances would be moved to what is now the rear of the building to face a park-like setting.

Most parking is pushed to the back of the buildings closer to the railroad tracks. The plan does include parking to the side of one of the new buildings up to North Main Street, but it is screened with a decorative fence and plantings to enhance the pedestrian atmosphere. There also is a passageway through the new building to facilitate access from that parking lot to the two new village blocks that are created.

Two versions of the plan were created. One plan would include a vehicular access out to Powderhouse Lane between the Post Office building and the building at 5 Powderhouse Lane as well as a second access at the end of Powderhouse Lane by the tracks. The alternative would include only the access by the tracks while the area between the Post Office Building and 5 Powderhouse Lane would be incorporated into the park that is proposed behind 5 Powderhouse Lane. Both versions can be seen on the Planning Board web site.

This plan was created prior to the visualization exercise conducted by MAPC. However, once the favored buildings were selected in June, two of those favorites were plugged into what are simply footprints on the plan and the 3D model was created (See Planning Board web site).

The conceptual plan proposes approximately 12,200 square feet of new space in two 2-story buildings. One building with about 3200 square feet would be replaced for a net gain of 9000 square feet.

TOWN CENTER FORUM -- OCTOBER 22

2008-10-08T14:15:00.004-04:00

On June 11, 2008 the Planning Board sponsored a forum regarding the future of the Town Center. The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) assisted by facilitating the forum and presenting images of buildings from other places. Those in attendance then commented on the various designs and voted on which ones they liked and didn't like. More information on the results of this process are available on the Planning Board web site.

On October 22, 2008 the Planning Board held a followup forum. On that night, MAPC staff presented another set of images. These included a review of the results of the June 11 forum as well as pictures of the existing Town Center with some of the favored buildings identified in June superimposed on them in order to illustrate what Sherborn might look like if one or more of the buildings were located here. A pdf version of the MAPC presentation is available on the Planning Board web site. Of course, everyone is invited to provide input on the images and other measures that should be considered as we evaluate steps that might help improve the Town Center.

POTENTIAL SHERBORN BUS SERVICE

2008-09-25T16:12:00.003-04:00

The Town is seeking input from Town residents regarding interest in initiating bus service from Sherborn to the Natick commuter rail station (and/or possibly other destinations). The Town is a member of the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority. Under legislation sponsored by Senator Karen Spilka, the Town can redirect the funds that are already taken from the Town for its MBTA assessment to the MWRTA to fund local service. Thus, the service can be provided at no additional cost to the Town.

The Town of Medway took advantage of this option about a year by initiating service to the Norfolk train station. The bus has four stops in town and makes four runs in the morning and three in the evening. Initially about 6 or 7 riders per day used the service. By January, the average had risen to 17 and by July it had risen to 29 so it has been very successful.

If you are interested in such service, I encourage you to contact the Selectmen's Office at 508-651-7850 or go to the Town web site .

WESTERN AVENUE TRAFFIC CALMING

2008-06-27T09:39:00.005-04:00

Traffic Solutions, Inc. made a presentation this week to Selectmen about its findings to date on Western Avenue concerning average speeds, pedestrian and bicycle activity, crashes, etc. They will present recommendations of traffic calming measures in August.

I have a traffic calming idea that I have advocated for several years. I believe that Fessenden Field is the most critical spot on Western Avenue in need of traffic calming because kids cross the street there to access those fields. I suggest that the street be widened about 3 feet on each side (or a total of about 6 feet, not necessarily equal on both sides) and that a 6-foot wide island circumscribed by a 6" sloped granite curb be placed in the middle of the street for the entire distance of Fessenden Field.

This would create a relatively narrow lane in each direction that would slow down the traffic in this area. It would also create a "safety zone" in the middle of the street so that children (and adults) would need to cross only a single lane at a time. A bonus would be that the island could be planted to create an attractive boulevard effect. A complementary idea would be to also install raised crosswalks like the ones recently installed in Holliston center where there is much more traffic than on Western Avenue.

MARS PHOENIX

2008-06-27T09:20:00.004-04:00

So, what does Mars Phoenix have to do with Sherborn planning issues? Well, I suppose it has nothing to do with it. However, as a lifelong space aficinado (and who still has not quite given up on the idea of someday going into space), I am a little bit unsettled about a potential moral or philosophical question. Of course, it is my expectation that Mars will eventually become a home to humans. The issue that unsettles me is how would the discovery of life on Mars affect the decision to populate it with humans.

As you may know, preliminary results of soil tests conducted by Mars Phoenix have found soil chemistry that has been described as "similar to what you might find in your back yard" and with the potential for supporting life. I have not yet heard that there has been confirmation of ice just below the surface, but I will assume that that is the case.

If no life is ever found, my assumption is that it would make any decision to establish Martian settlements (I won't call them "colonies") an easy one. With no life to affect, we have free rein to build bases, cities, industry, etc.(and, of course, we will need planners in that effort!), as well as to induce global warming and alter the atmosphere to make it Earth-like and to facilitate significant develpment.

However, suppose life IS found. Even if it is only microscopic life, do we need to respect it? Would that mean that we could not alter the climate if it would have a deleterious impact on native life forms, however primitive? Would we be depriving Martian life the opportunity to spread and evolve as it did on Earth even though that may take a billion years or more? Or would we need to confine our settlements to underground facilities or enclosed facilities that limit Earth-like conditions to the built space only leaving the existing biosphere intact to develop on its own?

PRICE WOODLANDS WATER TEST RESULTS

2008-06-23T10:02:00.002-04:00

The recently-released results from the analysis of water drawn from the test wells on the Price Woodlands site provide some very good news. While the initial preliminary results indicated high levels of iron and manganese that would have required an expensive treatment system if that water were used as public water supply.

It had been suspected that the high levels in the initial tests were caused by the rust in the steel well casing used for the test. This time the test well was flushed by pumping 6800 gallons of water before the samples were taken. This time the analysis showed that the water quality meets all Massachusetts primary drinking water standards. No volatile organic compounds were detected. Manganese and pH levels were slightly above secondary standards, but these can easily be addressed.

Regardless of whether a public water supply for the Town Center is appropriate or a good idea at this time, these test results are very good news. It is always beneficial to be prepared for the future. Whether a system is pursued now or not, these test results provide evidence that a solution to water quality and/or supply issues is available should it be necessary. It is precisely for this reason that the Planning Board supported the acquisition of Price Woodlands in 1997 with the proviso that it be set aside as a future municipal well site.

The report with the water test results is available on the Planning Board web site.

HISTORIC COMMISSION MISSTATEMENTS

2008-04-25T13:02:00.003-04:00

It is sad and disappointing to see that the Historical Commission is continuing to assert false information about the Planning Board’s proposed amendments to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) section of the Zoning Bylaw. They do this in spite of multiple sessions with me and the Planning Board Chairman to explain both the existing PUD and the proposed amendments. Yet their letter to the editor in the April 24 issue of the Dover Sherborn Press includes the false and inflammatory information.

Most important, they claim that the PUD amendments would endanger the Whitney-Paul Tavern. This is patently false. The fact is that there is presently NOTHING that protects this property from alteration or demolition. On the contrary, one of the express purposes of the PUD bylaw is to “preserve historic buildings by providing economically viable uses for them.” Any proposal that does not achieve this purpose would not meet the criteria for eligibility for a PUD development.

Secondly, the Historic Commission claims that the PUD amendments would allow intense development that will have a major, negative impact on the look and character of the historic district in the Village Center. This is patently false for two major reasons. The PUD amendments grant no development rights. Any development under a PUD is by special permit only. Also, again, one of the express purposes of the PUD is to “perpetuate and enhance the appearance of Sherborn’s traditional small town New England center.” Again, a development that fails to achieve this purpose would not be eligible for a PUD special permit.

Thirdly, the Commission asserts that the scale of retail establishment would triple from 2500 to 7500 square feet and would deteriorate the setting of the tavern and streetscape. This again, is false. The size of a building under a PUD would not change. The only change is that a single retail establishment could be 7500 square feet. Retail buildings can already be 7500 square feet or larger, but they must be divided into 2500 square foot businesses (by the way, the building housing the Post Office, liquor store, cleaners and bank is exactly 7500 square feet). They also assume that “condo-style” tall buildings would loom over the tavern, and that the property would be a visually cluttered landscape dominated by tall buildings. Again, this is simply a scare tactic with no basis in fact, since such a proposal could not qualify for a PUD special permit.

It is certainly the right of the Historic Commission to oppose the Planning Board’s proposed zoning amendments for whatever reasons they choose. However, it is certainly a misuse of its status as a Town Commission to use knowingly false information and scare tactics to do so.

ARTICLE 10 -- 23 WASHINGTON STREET

2008-04-10T15:22:00.003-04:00

Article 10 on the Town Meeting warrant is to authorize the purchase of a 2.17 acre parcel that abuts Town Hall and the Town "campus" that also includes the Police Station and Library. Advisory Committee has recommended "no action" on this article. They (at least the majority on a 6-3 vote) contend that the Town's current fiscal condition does not allow it. Furthermore, they point out that there is presently no plan for future use of the property, and when there is, it will result in substantial addiitonal expenditures. Finally, they contend that the purchase price of $495,000 is above the appraised value of $465,000.

The Advisory Committee position is shortsighted. The three members in the minority do grasp the long-term benefits of this purchase.I guess the difference between an Advisory Committee and Planning Board (or Planner) is that Advisory has a short term view while planning has a long term view. I think that failure to acquire this property now, when it is available, hurts the long term interests of the Town.

The purchase price of $495,000 will very likely appear to be a bargain in the not-too-distant future. Just last Fall, the appraised value was about $80,000 more than it is now. Of course property values have dropped in recent years, but they are likely to begin to rise again shortly (they always have!). Furthermore, the cost could be handled by a 1-year tax rate increase of about 43.5 cents. For the average house assessed at $770,000, that would result in a one-time cost of about $335 added to the average tax bill of $12,000 -- a 2.7% increase. [It should be noted that there are leftover funds of about $225,000 from other projects that are proposed to be used to offset the cost of this land. Only $270,000 more is needed, which would require a tax increase of just 25 cents and a one-time payment for the average house of about $192, but since those leftover funds could be used for other purposes, I thought a fair analysis should consider the entire cost]

As for additional costs for future improvements, those would have to be approved by the Town first. If the future improvements are deemed worthy and would provide a valuable role in improving Town services, it would likely be more cost effective and efficient to make those improvements on an expanded Town campus than on another site that the Town does not yet control.

The argument that there is no firm plan for future use of the site also falls flat. The point of long-range planning is to keep options open and to provide the flexibility to adjust and respond to future needs. Adding those 2.17 acres to the Town campus does exactly that.

Regarding the current fiscal condition of the Town, this is a once in a generation (or maybe once in 3 or 4 generations) opportunity. It is available now and the Town must act. As a debt exclusion, the purchase will not detract from other Town needs (with the exception of the $225,000 of leftover funds that could be used for other purposes).

Opportunity is knocking. Will Sherborn answer the door?

The Next Slum?

2008-03-03T12:10:00.003-05:00

Atlantic Monthy magazine has an interesting article on future development trends in suburbs. The article is entitled "The Next Slum?" and is written by Christopher B. Leinberger, who is a fellow at the Brookings Institute, an urban planning professor at the University of Michigan and a real estate developer. He discusses the current subprime mortgage crisis and some of its impacts on neighborhoods but emphasizes that it is only the tip of the iceberg of changes that are impacting suburban development.

He notes that surveys in Boston and Atlanta indicate that about of third of respondents prefer close-knit walkable neighborhoods with services as opposed to another third who prefer conventional large lot development that requires driving to access services with another third with mixed feelings. He notes that while households with children constituted more than half of all households when baby boomers were growing up, they were only about one-third by 2000 and will decline further to about a quarter by 2025. Furthermore, the number of households with children in 2025 will be about 4 million more than in 2000, but more than 10 million single family homes have already been built. He speculates that the demand for large lot suburban housing on the fringes of metropolitan areas will decline and the some of the "McMansions" being built there today will be divided into apartments and become the slums of the future as urban living becomes more desirable. He says that suburbs with mixed use, walkable Town Centers will also remain desirable.

Town Center Survey Results

2008-03-03T10:07:00.002-05:00

As part of the Planning Board’s study of development issues in the Town Center, a survey was sent out to all residents in January. The survey drew over 800 responses. The Planning Board appreciates the efforts of those who took the time to answer the questions and, for many, to provide written comments – some of which were refreshingly out of the box.

On the issue of establishing a public water supply primarily for the Town Center businesses and Town buildings, 54% of respondents supported the idea, slightly less than support indicated on last year’s ballot question, while 28% were opposed (the rest being neutral). The younger the respondent, incidentally, the more supportive the response – the under 40 crowd running at 71% versus 47% for those 60 and over. Assuming town-wide financial support for such a system, i.e. debt service, the responses overall flipped, with 26% in favor and 53% opposed. Those unsupportive numbers were virtually unchanged if residential properties along the water line were included. The lack of information about costs, how they might be shared and the uncertain location of the well may well have been factors contributing to significant opposition.

There was strong support (70%) for expanding business development within existing business district boundaries while only 31% were in favor of expansion beyond the boundaries. Similarly, respondents also indicated a significant interest (63%) in having an “anchor” outlet up to 7,500 sq. ft. while only 28% were interested in having a store as large as 10,000 sq. ft. Desires for retail establishments included a market similar to the Dover Market, a coffee shop, general store and specialty shops.

Somewhat surprising to us, the idea of additional residential development in or near the Town Center attracted only 25% support and only 36% were in favor if housing was age restricted to 55 and older. The idea of having affordable housing in or near the Town Center mustered a less than enthusiastic 33% support. We speculate that respondents felt that too much housing of any kind would compete with space that could otherwise be used for desirable retail outlets.

As a demographic footnote readers might be interested in knowing that according to the 2000 census 20% fell into the 25-39 year age group, 55% in the 40-59 year range and 25% were 60 and over. Relative to those numbers and the 2010 census projection, the younger group showed a substantial under-response to the survey while 60 and over were overrepresented by the same percentage point margin.

Copies of the survey results are on the Planning Board web site.

Planning Board Zoning Articles

2008-02-06T14:22:00.000-05:00

The Planning Board is proposing five zoning articles for consideration at the 2008 Annual Town Meeting. Two are essentially housekeeping measures. One clarifies how the front setback is measured (from front line, not road pavement) and the other merges the M and EA multifamily districts. Currently, the M district has a set of requirements and then the EA district says M applies except for the following differences. It makes it difficult to follow because one has to flip back and forth in the Zoning Bylaw to read the provisions of the EA district. Furthermore, there is no land currently zoned as M and everything that can be done under M can be done under EA as well. This article helps simplify our bylaw while making no substantive change.

There are three substantive articles. One would create a Design Review Committee to make recommendations about design (including buildings, signs, lighting, landscaping, etc.) to the Planning Board for projects subject to site plan review or a special permit. It does not affect single family homes. Another article would allow multidwellings as part of a Planned Unit Development with certain restrictions (no more than 50% of the square footage could be residential, at least 10% of units must be affordable and there could be no more than 4 units per acre). The fifth article would amend the maximum allowable size for a retail outlet (currently 2500 square feet, excluding any kitchen or storage space) by allowing a single outlet to be up to 7500 square feet (and all others would still have to comply with the 2500 square foot maximum).

The text of these articles can be seen on the Planning Board web site.

Town Center Water District

2008-01-16T17:15:00.000-05:00

One of the major initiatives currently underway that could affect the future of the Town Center is the possibility of a establishing a water district or otherwise providing a public water supply. A workgroup initiated by the Sherborn Business Association has been studying this possibility. The workgroup submitted a report to the Selectmen last October. That report is posted on the Planning Board web site which can be accessed by clicking on the underlined words. The link to the report can be found in the "News" section of the web page.

That report has been followed by test wells drilled on Price Woodlands off Morse Road. When that parcel was acquired by the Town in the 1990's, it was designated for future use as a municipal well site since it overlaps with one of the Town's aquifers. The test wells indicate that there appears to be sufficient quantity at the site. However, the tests for water quality have not yet been completed. When that information is available it will be posted here.

Design Issues

2007-10-22T10:21:00.000-04:00

Among the many issues affecting the Town Center, one of the major ones pertains to design. Thought is being given to establishing a Design Review Committee that would make suggestions regarding site design, building design, landscaping, parking, lighting, signage etc. for any project that requires a site plan review or special permit from the Planning Board.

In addition to reacting to development proposals, one task of such a committee would be to draft a set of design guidelines that would assist applicants and their architects, engineers and landscape architects in designing a project that would be a good fit for Sherborn.

Any thoughts on this concept as well as any specific issues that should be addressed would be approeciated.

Town Center Issues

2007-10-15T11:46:00.000-04:00

The first topic I would like to discuss is the Town Center. There have been a number of development proposals over the past few years and there is currently an effort by a Sherborn Business Association work group to establish a water district in the Town Center. A possible district is illustrated in the post below.

The Planning Board is currently preparing a study of the Town Center. I will post more information about that study shortly. One part of that study is to conduct a survey of Town residents. You will hear more about this soon. In the mean time, please free to comment on any aspect of the Town Center that you feel is appropriate. This can include what you see as the good and bad features of it as it currently exists, your thoughts about the future of the Town Center, or any other related topic that you wish.

You will also have the opportunity to react to more specific information after I post it on this blog.

Town Center

2007-10-15T11:20:00.000-04:00

Welcome to Sherborn Planning Issues!

2007-10-15T10:42:00.000-04:00

As noted in the box on the right, this blog is intended to serve as a forum on planning-related issues in the Town of Sherborn. It is hoped that this can be facilitate two-way communication between the Planning Board and Town residents.

As Town Planner, I will periodically post comments about current issues in Town and will solicit your feedback. I hope that you will take advantage of this opportunity to learn about things that are happenning in Town as well as to provide your input on issues that are important to you or that you believe are important to the Town.