The FINANCIAL IMPACTS of Brickstone

A Look at the Financial Impacts of Brickstone

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

From Sharon Resident

Some of my concerns about Brickstone include:

 

  • Water: Will the 1,300-plus housing units coming to Sharon (plus the 10-acre mall and 150-bed nursing home) force the town to import costly MWRA water, negating some of the tax benefits of all the new development? Shouldn’t we be requiring new developments to employ the most water-efficient plumbing fixtures (the Water Commissioners waived this requirement for Avalon Bay, Intoccia and the community center renovation)? Shouldn’t we require Brickstone to contribute to the water conservation fund to which Intoccia contributed $400,000? Shouldn’t we require Brickstone to contribute to restoring the degraded cedar swamp that filters and stores a large percentage of our drinking water like Intoccia did (to the tune of $250,000)? After all, Brickstone will increase demand for water beyond just the 624 units.  The nursing home will need thousands of gallons per day. The higher water pressure in the Hampton Road area will lead to higher water use in summer when water is scarcest. Homes switching to town water in the Briggs Pond area will increase demand for municipal water. The 69 additional 40B affordable units engendered by Brickstone will also need water.

 

  • Wastewater: Will the wastewater treatment plant contaminate the nearby private wells and/or the nearby ponds? My understanding is that if the neighbors in the Briggs Pond area on private wells would prefer not to become “canaries in the mine,” they would have to pay thousands of dollars to hook up to town water. Shouldn’t Brickstone pay for that? Will water mains and fire hydrants reach every home in the Briggs Pond area? When I mentioned to a wastewater engineer with 30 years of experience that Brickstone said the effluent from their wastewater treatment plant would meet drinking water standards, he laughed and said if I believed that, he had a bridge to sell me.

 

  • Blasting: I am glad I do not live in the vicinity. Rattlesnake Hill is a granite dome. I have to assume the shock waves will travel.

 

  • Fire insurance: Why are we allocating Brickstone’s $3 million gift to the town for constructing a High Pressure Service District (HPSD) that would only affect 10% of the town when Sharon’s ISO fire insurance rating, which affects everyone’s homeowner insurance rate, is only 5 on a scale of 1 to 10? Shouldn’t we find out what kind of improvements would most cost-effectively improve the town’s fire insurance rating and spend the money on that, so that everyone in town would benefit, and our fire-readiness would improve? Who decided that the money should be spent on the HPSD as opposed to, say, fixing fire hydrants (see attached) or providing the folks in the Briggs Pond area with town water and real fire hydrants, or building a second fire station, or hiring a consultant to tell us how to most cost-effectively improve our fire insurance rating?

 

  • Affordable Housing: The scheme to provide Sharon with 69 units to satisfy Brickstone’s 10% 40B affordable quota looks to me like it would only lead to creation of 69 units if the town kicks in a lot of public open space, the value of which may well be greater than Brickstone’s contribution, in effect a subsidy for the developer. Even at that, statistics indicate that cash payments in lieu of affordable units frequently fail to generate the intended amount of affordable housing. I would prefer that Brickstone set aside 10% of the 624 units as affordable, or else offer existing homeowners cash in return for deed restrictions on their homes, so that public open space would not be sacrificed. In the latter scenario, homeowners on fixed incomes struggling to stay in their homes in Sharon could receive value for their equity on better terms than a reverse mortgage. Although there is a plan for Sharon to reach the 10% 40B threshold involving the Avalon Bay, Simpson, Wilber School and Intoccia projects, there is many a slip between the cup and the lip, as they say. What if we fail to get 10% out of Brickstone, and then one of these projects fails to materialize (consider the Pine Woods scandal)? 

 

   • Effect on schools: Brickstone and the Selectmen claim there would be zero additional school kids as a result of the development. How about the kids who would move into the 69 affordable units that the development might engender? How about the school kids who would move into homes vacated by Sharon residents who move into the Brickstone development? 

Whatever the number of additional school kids would be, it would be more than zero, raising questions about the credibility of the proponents of this project, as well as the net effect on our taxes. This is an example of a hidden cost of the project. Another example is the cost of MWRA water.

 

  • Safety on Bay Road: What is Brickstone going to do to improve lines of sight for cars pulling out from side streets onto Bay Road? Would they be allowed to make such alterations to an officially designated scenic road?

 

  • Height of the buildings: Eight stories is a radical precedent in Sharon. Couldn’t they make the buildings twice as wide and half as high? Wouldn’t that better accommodate parking under the buildings (106 units per building means over 100 cars per building) reducing the need for supplemental outdoor parking areas exposed to the weather?

 

  • Questionable financial assumptions: Will the Brickstone project be successful (rumor has it that the Hunter’s Ridge units are not selling well)? What happens if it’s not? Will all this development really bring tax relief? I have seen studies that correlate more development with higher taxes in the long run, due to residential development being stimulated by commercial development. Sometimes things don’t work out as intended. The expression, “There is no such thing as a free lunch” comes to mind. Is Sharon responding to societal financial pressures by cashing in our natural resources for short-term relief rather than examining our affluent lifestyles and choosing to live more modestly so we can afford to maintain our excellent schools while protecting and preserving the natural resources and tranquility that differentiate us from Norwood and Stoughton?

 

  • Character of the community:
What makes Sharon special? Why do people choose to stay here despite the high taxes? We just rushed to approve a huge new mall plus 168 housing units on South Main Street without even looking at the preliminary traffic study (which came out the weekend before Monday, March 12 Town Meeting). Over 1,300 new homes in various stages of planning or construction in Sharon, plus major development such as the Patriot Place mall just four miles away in Foxboro with 30 acres of retail floor space, will increase traffic in Sharon. Are our roadways adequate? Until now, Sharon has been a quiet bedroom community, “a nice place to live because it’s naturally beautiful.” How will all the additional traffic affect our daily lives? Twenty years ago there was only one traffic light in Sharon. Today there are six, with three more coming as a result of the mall.  I recently met someone who moved to Sharon from Natick because the mall traffic in Natick became unbearable. Will they end up moving again?

 

  • Alternative outcomes: Brickstone said they would build 88 homes on Rattlesnake Hill if the town refuses to re-zone. They would presumably be expensive homes paying high taxes. Many would send their kids to private schools. They would presumably be clustered in areas away from vernal pools and other wetlands, and away from areas where ledge would not allow a septic system, so large areas of open space would remain. Is that such a terrible outcome? There seems to be a lot of hysteria about large numbers of 40B units, but Brickstone said that is not their fallback plan. Brickstone started out at 1,800 units. Then they went to 624 units. Given enough time, the natural trajectory of this negotiation suggests an outcome around 300 to 500 units, which might be more palatable to a lot of people, especially if it meant lower buildings, less water and wastewater, fewer affordable units, and less traffic. That outcome would presumably still be more profitable to Brickstone than 88 homes. Rattlesnake Hill is the largest developable tract of land remaining in Sharon. The ConCom has been trying to save it for decades. The town should bargain hard to preserve as much of the character of the town as possible.

 

• Fast-track, non-inclusive decision-making process: The Selectmen and the developer apparently struck a deal, and then jointly presented it to the boards, committees and the public for approval less than two months after we just approved the huge new lifestyle mall without hearing contrary views. It feels to me like they just want our rubber stamp of approval, not our input.

How clear are the number$? Potential heavy burden for school$

Is the additional burden that will be placed on the public school systems being factored into Brickstones equations?

It’s been said an estimated 15 to 20% of the 624 units will be purchased by current Sharon residents. Using the low end, 15% of 624 units equals 93.6; meaning potentially 93 houses in Sharon will be sold by the people moving into Brickstone. This will lead to young families or young couples about to start families moving into Sharon. Using 1.5 children per family which I believe is a conservative number to figure how many more students would be enrolling into Sharon’s school system we come up with 139.5 (93 x 1.5).

The link below to the Mass Dept of Educ shows Sharon as having a per pupil expenditure of $11,681.
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/ppx.aspx

-Using this amount times 139.5 potential new students comes out to a total increase of more than $1.6m.
-Using a more conservative cost per pupil of $9,000 in case these $’s are inflated due to recent investments into the school system (randomly selected to make a point) , the total increase is over $1.2m.

These are huge amounts for a town already having very high tax rates and, if you’ll notice, I believe these factors were all conservative. Using the same numbers that get us to $1.2m and replacing 15% of the buyers being from Sharon with 18% the $1.2m becomes greater than $1.5m.

I believe these numbers are on the conservative side of very realistic. What about the Revenue?

What is the assessed value that is being used to calculate the revenue and how concrete are those numbers?

Bob Barbell
Stoughton, MA