There are costs associated with Brickstone’s Sharon Hills that were not accounted for in the alleged $3.2 million benefit promised by Brickstone and Town officials. Mitigation offered by Brickstone is also far less than promised. Some of the liabilities that the developer did not include in revenue projections are examined below.

School Costs
The Brickstone project will result in the need for 69 additional units of affordable housing, adding approximately 121 children to the school system. The developer repeatedly stated that the senior living facility would draw approximately 16% of its elderly occupants from the Town of Sharon. This means that approximately 100 houses in Sharon would be put up for sale, and likely purchased by families with children, resulting in an additional 175 children entering the school system. Therefore, a total of approximately 296 children would enter the Sharon school system as a direct result of this project, negating much of the alleged fiscal benefit. At a cost of $11,681 per year per child for education (source:MA DOE), this will cost the town approximately $3 million.

Water Supply Costs
Brickstone, on top of all the other development coming to Sharon, will likely drive up water use over Sharon’s DEP-permitted water withdrawal limit. Sharon’s town wells pumped approximately 586 million gallons out of the ground in 2005 and 521 million gallons in 2006. Sharon is limited to a maximum of 649.3 million gallons per year. Water use associated with Brickstone and the other recently permitted development in town result in a total additional demand of 75 million gallons per year. Water use fluctuates each year and based on our previous usage, Sharon will require connection to an alternate source of water such as MWRA. Higher water costs would lead to higher water bills for everyone in town.

Affordable Housing Costs
Brickstone’s share of Sharon’s 40B affordable housing quota comes to 69 affordable housing units, which Brickstone refuses to integrate into their exclusive development. Instead, the development agreement calls for a contribution of $1,888,000 for the town to generate affordable housing. That’s under $28,000 per unit, which is clearly insufficient.

Water Infrastructure Costs
Brickstone promised the Town of Sharon $6 million worth of water infrastructure improvements for a high pressure service district and a newwater tank. However, when you look at the numbers closely, you find that the Town will end up losing money on the deal as structured in the development agreement.

$6,000,000 – Brickstone’s “gift”
-$3,000,000-Will only service Brickstone’s Sharon Hills water needs
-$2,500,000-Waiver of hookup fees
-$   500,000-Pond Street water main to be paid by Sharon

= ZERO BALANCE

- Unknown Cost District and Tank
-Annual Maintenance of the High Pressure Service

THERE WILL BE A NET COST TO THE TOWN INSTEAD OF A $6M “GIFT”

Sharon is building without planning
Our selectmen have been pushing an unprecedented number of building projects in the last few years without waiting for the consequences. Unfortunately, this rush to approve developments has resulted in mistakes. So far we haveseen:

- Hunters Ridge – Request to the planning board to lift the over 55 age restriction as they can’t fill the units.
- Pine Woods – The selectmen supported this project, which was canceled due to the Inspector General discovering the builder had committed fraud.
- Sharon Commons – Coming back to town meeting for a much larger anchor store. The developer won’t say what store, but the larger size is not what most voters had in mind when they approved the lifestyle center.
We haven’t even seen the impacts all the new development will have on our town. Everything all at once is NOT smart growth.

Wastewater Issues
Brickstone’s on-site wastewater treatment system would discharge over 100,000 gallons per day of effluent into the local groundwater without removing pharmaceuticals and personal care products. This would threaten the water supplies of neighboring homes on private wells with contamination, and subject the town to costly lawsuits. As a result, taxpayers may see increases in their tax bills to settle lawsuits and connect nearby homes to municipal water to protect them from contamination.

Will Brickstone build a 40B?
The May vote to re-zone does not prevent Brickstone from continuing to pursue a 40B instead of senior housing . According to the Development Agreement, if Brickstone decides for any reason that it wants to do a different kind of development, it can (see Section 11.2 of the Development Agreement).

The Sharon Zoning Board of Appeals is concerned about excessive density at this site. When the ZBA issued its 2003 40B permit to the previous property owner, it allowed 120 dwellings with a total (maximum) of 406 bedrooms. The ZBA said of this density of 406 bedrooms:

“The Board’s review of all of these matters has led the Board to find that the public health and safety of the residents of the Project can not beassured, and will be threatened, if the Project is allowed at a density greater than that approved below. Given the site topography and geology, as presented at the Hearing, the Board finds that as extensive a development as the Applicant proposes may lead to a degradation of groundwater and abutting wells, due to limited available area for the relocation or expansion of a wastewater treatment facility serving a 250 unit development.”

In contrast, note that Brickstone is proposing 1,404 bedrooms – almost 1,000 bedrooms more than the ZBA allowed. Should the abutters’ wells become contaminated or destroyed, data such as this ZBA permit could be used as evidence in a lawsuit of the Town’s negligence in allowing such high density at this site.

Land donated by Brickstone valued at $25 million? (as stated by Selectman Bill Heitin in an e-mail dated April 2, 2007) Brickstone purchased the entire 337-acre property for $10 million, so how could 250 acres be worth $25 million? Much of the 250 acres is not
buildable, which is why every previous proposal donated a large portion of the land to the town.

What $3.2 million in annual tax benefits?
This number is suspect because it comes from the developer (one who has never built this type of development). Also, the following items were never included: the cost of purchasing additional water supply from MWRA, the cost of litigation from private well owners in Sharon and surrounding towns when contamination occurs, costs related to creating Brickstone’s quota of affordable housing, and the associated schools costs.

A More Appropriate Alternative
There is a much better chance now than in the past that the entire property could be preserved as open space. Governor Patrick has pledged $50 million for open space this year alone, and The Nature Conservancy has recently designated Rattlesnake Hill as a “Highest Priority Area for Habitat Protection.” Any claims by the developer that they are not interested in selling the land may change for many reasons (i.e. lack of residential interest, lack of commercial interest, permit restrictions, lack of funding).

Alternatively, a 9-lot subdivision such as the one Brickstone submitted preliminary plans for, would preserve a large amount of open space. Wetlands, ledge and priority habitat would limit the developable areas, leading to homes surrounded by natural open space. Far less water and far fewer affordable units would be needed. Overall, it would have less negative impact to the town and the environment, and would not contaminate surrounding wells. Vote YES on Article 1. Let’s require the developer to build something in keeping with the character of our town. There are more appropriate outcomes for this precious open space that are consistent with the natural character of Sharon than a massive high-rise apartment complex.

Cheryl Weinstein,
NADD, Neighbors Against Destructive Development
In association with PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility)
2000 P Street,
NW Suite 240
Washington, DC 20036

10-22-2007 – Glut of Age Restricted Housing

To The Editor:

Vote YES on Articles 1, 2, and 3, at Town Meeting on Monday, November 5th, to undo or modify the rezoning of Rattlesnake Hill that was approved for Brickstone’s proposed 8-story development. NADD (Neighbors Against Destructive Development) sponsored these articles because we are concerned about (1) information withheld by public officials, and inadequate review time for boards; (2) promises that may not be kept, like $3.2 million in Town revenues; (3) serious environmental and health impacts; and (4) the unsuitability of eight-story apartment towers adjacent to conservation land and in a single-family residential neighborhood.

This e-mail addresses the uncertainty of the promised tax revenue to the Town.  If Brickstone doesn’t fill its age-restricted buildings, will the Town get the promised $3.2 million in revenues?  Or will the development of 87 acres of Rattlesnake Hill have destroyed its prime geologic and environmental resources for nothing?

There is a glut of age-restricted housing in Massachusetts.   Towns that are hoping to improve their tax base and avoid overloaded schools with age-restricted housing may be disappointed.   In Upton, Hopkinton and Quincy developers are coming back to the town requesting to change their over 55 developments to allow persons under the age of 55.  The Village at Ames Pond in Stoughton has recently drastically reduced prices because they cannot fill the units.  North Hill in Needham, right off 128, (~$600,000 entrance fee for a two bedroom) has plenty of room! 

CHAPA (Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association) published a comprehensive study of the age restricted housing market in June 2005 ( http://www.chapa.org/pdf/AgeRestrictedHousinginMA.pdf ).  This Massachusetts study gathered information from many sources including, state and local officials, regional planning agencies, real estate professionals, and representatives of various trade organizations such as the National Association of Home Builders.  Excerpts from their 2005 report follows in italics.

The sheer volume of new units coming onto the market in the next 24-36 months means there will be much greater competition going forward. Housing developments that are not well-located, well-designed and well-priced are unlikely to succeed.  (page 6)

(Note that the Brickstone property is 20 minutes from the nearest highway off a narrow, dangerous, winding road.  Most existing age restricted housing units are within 5 minutes of the highway.) 

Ironically, the more successful an age restricted development is in providing an attractive, alternative housing option for the community’s older homeowners, the more likely the town is to experience an increase in the school age population as families with children move into the “empty nest” the seniors vacate.  (page 43)

CHAPA also identified more than 150 age-restricted active adult developments existing or under construction in 93 communities, which will provide more than 10,000 units of housing. An additional 14,000 units were planned, proposed, or in permitting (CHAPA, page 33). And that was before the housing slump; now people are unable to sell their houses so they can move. CHAPA estimates that the number of individuals purchasing in age-restricted communities in 2010 throughout the state is only 264 individuals (ages 65-74) and only 98 (ages 75+) (CHAPA, page 32).

This study, together with requests to lift age restrictions on units in neighboring towns, supports the possibility that these units may not sell.  The consequences of this could result in:

1.   Brickstone requesting that persons under the age of 65, including children, be allowed in the units.  If the town refuses;

2.   Brickstone could seek to have the complex turned into affordable housing or;

      3.   The buildings could stand empty resulting in no mitigation or tax benefits to the Town. 

Please vote YES on Article 1 to rescind this rezoning. At least let’s keep the impacts more manageable: vote YES on Article 2 (cuts project from 624 to 325 units, from 150 to 75 nursing beds, four-story buildings) and YES on Article 3 (substitutes special-permit review for by-right site-plan review, giving boards more control).

NADD (Neighbors Against Destructive Development) is an organization dedicated to preserving the quality of life in local communities. 

Neighbors Against Destructive Development
Cheryl Weinstein
NADD Project Manager

The following is NADD’s response and an explanation of the citizen petition Articles 1, 2, and 3. The entire text of the email is included and has been quoted exactly.

Article One
Email:
“This seeks to force the outright elimination  the Sharon Hills , reversing Town Meeting’s recorded decision.    It would push Brickstone as owner to transform the property into 88 or more homes, under existing zoning, and provide no infrastructure improvements,  no expansion of police and fire services, no contributions of conservation land,  and no enduring tax financial benefits to Sharon .”

NADD:
Article 1 – Revoke Senior Overlay District and Return to Rural 2 (R-2) Zoning
This article reverses the zoning for the Senior Overlay District.   However, it does not “push” Brickstone to build 88 or more homes.  Due to rock ledge, wetlands, certified vernal pools, and endangered species habitat, it is likely that far fewer homes could be permitted under R-2 zoning.  ANY development on Rattlesnake Hill would have to include a large parcel of conservation land due to these environmental constraints. 

Moreover, since the zoning would revert to the R-2 zoning that was in place before the May 7, 2007 vote, Brickstone would either have to comply with that zoning or return to Town Meeting for a different zoning overlay.  At that point, the Town would be able to renegotiate another development agreement that is more beneficial to the Town. 

Article Two
Email:
“This would  require Sharon ‘s Zoning Board of Appeals to seek the approval of  the Stoughton , Easton , and Canton ZBA to grant  construction permits at the local level.  It seeks to make  May Town Meeting’s approval vote  contingent on a unanimous external review process, without exception, undermining Sharon ‘s sovereign right to determine its own growth direction.  The objective is to force the Sharon Hills project into an indefinite delay, expensive litigation for Sharon ,  and eventual termination of the project as negotiated.”

NADD:
Article 2 – Reduce Size and Scope of the Project
The current Brickstone proposal always needed permit approval from the Town of Stoughton for the access road.  None of the Articles, (Articles 1, 2, or 3), requires any further or different approval from Stoughton , Easton , or Canton ‘s ZBAs or any other boards.  

Article 2 reduces the number of bedrooms in the development from 1,404 to 650; reduces the nursing home from 150 beds to 75; reduces the height of the buildings to be consistent with zoning in the rest of Sharon (4 stories or 60 feet, whichever is higher); retains natural vegetative buffer strips to abutting properties at 50 feet; retains 75 foot buffers between rear and side property lines.   The objective of Article 2 is to allow Brickstone to develop its age-restricted housing complex, but at a size that would fit better with surrounding residential areas and that would result in less water use, hopefully avoiding the necessity of hooking up to MWRA water.

Article Three
Email:
“This article is presented as a last gap effort to derail the ZBA permitting process should either of the previous two articles not receive 2/3 votes of those attending Town Meeting.  The intent here is to nullify the Memorandum of Understanding by adding, editing, and omitting a vast number of minute details related to construction of the residential buildings, the nursing/rehabilitation facility, set-backs, vehicular access, waste water treatment, indemnification, and numerous other components carefully negotiated by Sharon ‘s Board of Selectmen, under guidance from Town Counsel.” 

NADD:
Article 3 – Special Permit Required for the Proposed Development
This article brings the permitting scheme of the Brickstone project in line with other large projects around the Commonwealth.  It requires that the developer obtain a special permit rather than “by right” permitting.  According to Tom Houston, the engineer who helped write the Senior Overlay District bylaw, a special permit gives Town boards more control and enables a stricter review.  However, the developer refused to be governed by a special permit review. 

The Selectmen who negotiated the Senior Overlay District bylaw did not require that Brickstone be subject to special permit review.  Only “site plan review” is required, but a presiding ZBA has no power to make any changes to the developer’s plans.  Article 3, requiring a special permit, would ensure that the presiding ZBA have the requisite oversight capabilities as the preliminary plan that has been presented to date moves into a more definitive project plan. 

Requiring a Special Permit for such large-scale developments is typical throughout the Commonwealth.  The following projects were all approved (or are in process) by special permit:  Rockville Meadows (Millis), Pin Oaks (Norfolk), Village at River’s Edge (Norfolk), Southport  (Mashpee), Oak Hill (Franklin), Legacy Place (Dedham), Westwood Station (Westwood),  and Glen Ellen (Millis).  A special permit requirement will restore local discretion.  Note that Article 3 does not seek to limit the size or scope of the project.

Email:
“All three initiatives share the same objective:  to reverse the will of Town Meeting and terminate the project.  Each article requires 2/3 majority vote to pass.  These articles appear as citizen initiatives but are being legally and tactically advised by non-residents.  If you want Sharon’s future to be financially stable, our police and fire departments  to meet  increasing service demands, expanded water capacity, and our schools able to provide urgently needed  resources, then you mst come to Town Meeting, Sharon High School, 7pm, Monday, November 05 and vote down all three articles.”

NADD:
All three articles will change the zoning passed on May 7, 2007.  However, we believe that the zoning change passed at Town Meeting in May was based on misinformation.  We do not believe this development is the answer to Sharon ‘s financial situation and we believe that it will, in the end, cost the town money.  

Moreover, the Selectmen deliberately withheld information from the voters regarding alternatives to the project.  There are alternative plans that would not release a high number of contaminants into private drinking wells, endangering the health of hundreds of people.  The 9-lot subdivision plan that Brickstone recently filed would be one such option.

Finally, the author of the email objects to the fact that nonresidents are advising Sharon residents on this matter.  However, the Selectmen are advised by nonresident Town Counsel and nonresident Brickstone officials.  It is common practice for Towns and their residents to seek experts who do not live in Town. 

Please vote YES on Article 1 to rescind this rezoning. At least let’s keep the impacts more manageable: vote YES on Article 2 and YES on Article 3.

NADD (Neighbors Against Destructive Development) is an organization dedicated to persevering the quality of life in local communities.

Thank you,

Cheryl Weinstein
NADD Project Manager

In association with PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility)
2000 P Street, NW
Suite 240
Washington , DC 20036

1. 250 acres of land to be deeded back to town is NOT a good deal because the Brickstone site will be built so that adjacent Borderland State Park and the 250 acres are split. There will be lights shining over both properties 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There will be pesticides and fertilizer run off from the golf course and landscaping. Wildlife habitats will be divided. PPCP’s (Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products) regulations are still being developed by the government and therefore any treatment or monitoring system Brickstone installs will NOT treat or detect these contaminants. A project this size has implications for groundwater contamination not only for abutters to Brickstone but for Sharon resident’s miles away depending on groundwater flow away from site. Keep in mind there will be no sewer hook up so all wastewater ends up in the ground.

2. 40B housing and 88 single family homes is NOT a threat. These developments would not make the project sufficiently profitable for Brickstone. Brickstone is not in the business of building 40B developments. Also, Sharon has met their 40B quota.

3. This massive project creates the requirement for 69 additional units of affordable housing, which will add approximately 121 children to the school system. The senior living facility would draw approximately 16% of elderly from the Town of Sharon. This means that approximately 100 houses in Sharon would be put up for sale, and likely purchased by families with children, resulting in an additional 175 children entering the school system. Therefore, approximately 296 children would enter the Sharon school system as a direct result of this project, negating much of the alleged fiscal benefit.

4. There is a glut of age-restricted housing in Massachusetts. Developers in the towns of both Upton and Hopkinton have received approval for age-restricted housing developments. Both developers have returned to the respective towns, requesting that the developments be opened up to all ages, as they cannot fill the housing with seniors.

The Director of Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA), a non-profit organization, stated that not only is there a glut of age- restricted housing in the state, but the downturn in the housing market prevents seniors from selling their existing homes so they can in turn move into age-restricted housing.