Selectmen should not allow Mountain Street use

Wed Jun 18, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

Brickstone came to the Selectmen’s meeting on Tuesday, June 10, to propose 12 or more significant changes to the Development Agreement or the Memorandum of Understanding that townspeople voted on at Town Meeting months go. One of these changes is to use Mountain St for the construction of the buildings. They were not specific as to how Mountain Street would be accessed. Would they come from Rte 95 through the center of town, past the High School and Middle School; Rte 95 through the center and down Massapoag and Capen Hill and Morse to Mountain (seems highly unlikely), from Cobb Corner to East to Mountain, from Hampton Road to Mountain, from the other end of Mountain off Bay Road, with its several sharp curves?

If you live in this area, come to the next Selectmen’s meeting on June 24. The conversation with Brickstone will continue. The meeting is likely to be held at 8 PM at the Adult Center in the Community Center.

This Thursday, June 19, Brickstone is presenting an "informational" session at the Community Center from 6-8:30. This is yet another example of a developer coming back to town boards after the townspeople have voted on a proposal and then asking for large changes.

Rita Corey, Mountain St.

Group thanks Selectmen for stand

Wed Jun 18, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

NADD (Neighbors Against Destructive Development) would like to commend Selectman Roach for his strong stand against Brickstone’s new proposal to use Mountain Street for construction access to the Sharon Hills site. As Selectmen Roach stated, this is contrary to the contract signed between the Selectmen and Brickstone, and contrary to what voters were promised before Town Meeting. The current Development Agreement states that the Mountain Street entrance would be gated and used only for emergency access. As Selectmen Roach noted, he – and the other two Selectmen - promised the voters Mountain Street would not be used.

Although we do not know what route Brickstone is planning to use to access Mountain Street, any route will affect many Sharon residences between Route 95 and the site. Moreover, portions of Mountain will likely be unable to bear the traffic. This type of traffic flow was not anticipated or discussed when the project was approved. Using Mountain Street as a construction access may impact the Middle School, which is located on Mountain Street, the residences along East Street and Mountain Street, and Borderland State Park creating safety and environmental problems. Additionally, Brickstone anticipates that they will need to close Mountain Street at various times. This will also create public safety issues for residents.

We call on other Town officials to support Selectman Roach and require the Brickstone developers to keep their promise to the voters.

Cheryl Weinstein, NADD Project Manager, Coach Lane

Traffic will burden residential roads

Wed July 2, 2008

TO THE EDITOR

Our Selectmen and concerned citizens were dismayed and angered at the June 24 Selectmen’s meeting to hear Brickstone’s representatives say that now they want to and plan to use Mountain Street alone, not Bay Road, for the first two and a half to five years of construction of their project on Rattlesnake Hill. Despite Mountain Street being the most fragile road in Sharon and despite repeated statements by Brickstone’s owners that Mountain Street would have a gated, emergency exit and this provision being written into the development agreement, voted for, passed, and signed by the town, they are asking that the town reverse this provision. When questioned by Selectman Roach, Brickstone’s representatives stated they have had NO meetings with the relevant boards in Stoughton to discuss the Bay Road entrance requirements in the year since the town voted to allow their mammoth project which further shows their duplicity in their presentations to the town.

What this means to Sharon is that for the five year plus estimated construction period and possibly permanently, all traffic for Sharon Hills would be routed directly through town from either I-95 or Route 24. Brickstone’s own traffic consultant presented figures of 100-200 heavy vehicle trips, 100-200 medium vehicle trips, and 600-700 workers truck trips per day going through past schools, through town center on Route 27, and on all roads leading to East Street and then onto Mountain Street during construction. Not only is Mountain Street a totally inappropriate road for anything but the gated, emergency exit, all of Sharon’s residential streets are not appropriate for the predicted type and amount of traffic.

Please show your support for our selectmen as they insist Brickstone adhere to the agreement they signed which expressly states bay Road is to be Sharon Hill’s main access. Sharon cannot afford to be taken advantage of by another, less than truthful developer.

Elizabeth Essex, Mountain St.

Traffic from project concerning

Wed Jul 02, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

I am amazed, every time I attend a Selectmen’s meeting (or other information meeting) about the Brickstone development, that the citizens of Sharon actually approved such a drastic re-zoning to allow this incongruous and gargantuan project in our town. At the last two Selectmen meetings I listened to the proponent’s dramatic changes and their customarily presented fashion (in a typically perfunctory manner). It occurred to me that some of our Selectmen are still “laying the tracks” for this project instead of re-assessing the proposed material changes in development format and the associated adverse effects on a large portion of our community. It concerns me to learn that our town has not undertaken a peer review traffic study to evaluate and mitigate the tremendously challenging and impactful trucking and material deployment during construction phases. I also found it unusually surprising that the selectmen have unconditionally accepted the developer’s request to install and operate the equivalent of a large commercial stone and gravel operation at this pristine site.

I wonder if those who voted in favor of these six eight-story buildings, a project nearly as large as the South Shore Plaza, would have voted in favor if they knew that a large majority of town was going to be flooded with construction vehicles and 18-wheelers every day for four years or longer. I mean from 95, down Main Street, East Street, Bay Road, Mountain Street and who knows which other streets. Isn’t anyone worried about not only the effect this will have on an entire town, but the safety of our school children waiting for school buses, our young drivers, and anyone else who drives, rides a bike or walks on our roads? I, for one, am very concerned about this, and I hope all the citizens of Sharon will take a long hard look at the negative impact this will have on our town and voice your concerns to your Selectmen.

Beth Cohen, Briggs Pond Way

Russian roulette with water

Thu Jul 10, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

Major development projects coming to Sharon could put our water supply at risk. The 79-apartment Wilber School redevelopment project would generate 18,000 gallons of sewage daily, one third of a mile uphill from Sharon’s biggest municipal well.

The Sharon Commons mall (plus 168 proposed housing units) would generate up to 100,000 gallons of sewage daily in a groundwater protection district uphill from two municipal wells. The 2,000-car parking lot would shed an array of pollutants.

The 624-unit Brickstone high-rise apartment complex and 150-bed nursing home proposed for Rattlesnake Hill would generate up to 100,000 gallons of sewage daily, uphill from a neighborhood of homes on private drinking water wells.

We are told that high-tech wastewater treatment plants and storm water filtration systems that would cleanse the sewage and contaminated storm water from these developments would prevent any contaminants from reaching our drinking water. State authorities would supposedly ensure that no harm would befall our water supply.

However, in 2007, 48.7 percent of the sewage treatment facilities regulated by DEP were in significant non-compliance with requirements. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products dissolved in wastewater are totally unregulated, despite mounting evidence that these substances can cause health problems.

The new developments will require about 75 million gallons of water annually. The harder Sharon pumps its wells, the more contaminants they will draw in from nearby septic systems.

How can we be sure the proposed projects coming to Sharon will not contaminate our water supply? What about the potential cost of lawsuits, or having to import expensive MWRA water? Are the purported tax benefits of these projects really worth playing Russian roulette with Sharon’s vital water resources, not to mention our health?

Let’s hope government authorities will be able to exercise the necessary oversight of these projects to protect our drinking water. Meanwhile, we should turn off our irrigation systems when not needed, and install high efficiency toilets and front-load washing machines for which the Sharon Water Department offers generous rebates. These measures would offset the additional water needed by new development, while reducing our water bills.

Paul Lauenstein, Gavins Pond Road

Selectmen can’t be trusted

Thu Jul 17, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

I am writing to complain about the lack of notice to town residents of continued discussions about the Brickstone development of Rattlesnake Hill.

On June 6, I came to the Selectmen’s office to get a copy of the amendments to the Development Agreement. I had heard that there were substantial changes and that the Selectmen would be meeting on June 10 with Brickstone. I told Ben Puritz and Bill Heitin that notice of such meetings are of interest to a wide number of residents in town and that they should be reported on in the Advocate at least a week before. Both Ben and Bill agreed that this would be done in the future.

When I attended the meeting on June 10, I learned that the Conservation Commission had never received a copy of the document mentioned above. That seems very odd, since the Commission is mentioned in it. What kind of communication is that for such a large-scale development?

The Advocate had an article in June 13 to report on the Brickstone matter and announced the next meeting for June 24, likely at the community center or library. The library wasn’t available and the correct technology isn’t installed at the Community Center for Sharon Cable to broadcast the meeting live. What kind of planning was that, after having spent lots of money on redoing the center? With the Selectmen’s hearing room being so small, wouldn’t this have made sense?

Again by word of mouth, with just a few people receiving unsigned letters with no return address, Brickstone held an informational meeting on June 19.No public notice was given and only a dozen or so people came.

At the June 24 Selectmen’s meeting, we were assured that letters would go out to residents on all the affected streets. Again, nothing appeared in anyone’s mailbox. A few people were called late on July 3 and told the matter would come up on July 8.Was there anything in the July 4 edition of the Advocate? Of course not!

The conclusion: your promises are worth nothing.

Rita Corey, Mountain Street

Personal opinions don’t impact my government obligations

Thu Jul 17, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

As a member of the Board of Health, I have been under increasing pressure from the Developer’s and Town Counsel to recuse myself from official dealings on Brickstone owing to my personal concerns about the size and location of the project. It is claimed that any vote I participate in might create “procedural due process” and “the appearance of bias” which could enable Brickstone to appeal a Board decision.

I have been a public servant for the state and the town for 23 years and understand my duty to review a project on its merits under the law when acting as an official regardless of my private opinions. In the past six years, I have voted in favor of four large projects in Sharon because they met applicable wastewater standards, despite my concerns about their aesthetic, quality of life, density and traffic impacts which were beyond the Board’s jurisdiction.

I will continue to consider the arguments for my recusal and make a decision before this matter is pending before the Board. But residents must know that a strong trend to find, appoint and elect pro development officials is prevailing in Sharon. Process is certainly due to citizens and taxpayers as well, which should include a balanced review of our unprecedented growth.

A friend who lives on an island in northern Maine recently visited and remarked what an evident oasis Sharon was in the tangle of Boston suburbia; he knew he was here when he arrived despite having gotten lost along the way. His observation made me proud and reminded me of why I am staying after arriving for the schools 13 years ago.

Anne Bingham, Sherwood Circle

Brickstone should pay to pave Mountain Street

Thu Jul 17, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

Will the Selectman miss the opportunity to have Brickstone pave Mountain Street? They neglected to negotiate this into the original agreement, but now that Brickstone has asked the town to change the agreement to allow the use of Mountain Street for its vehicles, the Selectman have another chance. Historically, there have been two arguments made against paving the road. One is that it would increase the value of the land to developers. This is now irrelevant since the land has already been sold to developers. Second, it would increase traffic on the road. Since Brickstone has admitted that traffic will increase by hundreds of cars per day, this argument is also now irrelevant. Paving the street and putting sidewalks in is the only way to ensure that the road is safe to drive and walk on.

After the fire station is built on Mountain Street and emergency vehicles start using the road on a daily basis, it will become absolutely necessary to pave the road. If the Selectman do not require Brickstone to do it, they will be coming to the town to ask us to pay for it. The road is going to be dug up to install the water lines and that will be the perfect time to then have it paved. The alternative is to have Brickstone restore the road back to its current state of dirt. That would be shortsighted and negligent if the Selectman allow that to happen.

Sharon Grady, Mountain Street

Unsafe at any speed and time

Thu Jul 31, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

Over the last week as I have walked on Mountain Street, I have been forced onto the shoulder of the road by a number of very large trucks. To navigate the sharp curves on very narrow stretches of the road these trucks have to cross the centerline and occupy much of the opposite lane threatening on-coming traffic and pedestrians alike. Had a vehicle been coming the other way, it would have been hit.  On such straight sections of Mountain Street as the 14-foot-wide paved stretch in front of my house, when a large truck and another vehicle encounter each other, they have to stop and one of the vehicles has to crawl by the other often using the raised area beyond the road in order to fit through.  Hazards are present along all sections of winding, narrow Mountain Street.
Yet, despite all these dangers, Brickstone Corp. now declares that it intends to use Mountain Street as the only access to its property atop Rattlesnake Hill during the five years they estimate for construction of the first phase of their project.  In addition to being a violation of the construction plans they devised and the town approved last year, these new plans, if allowed to proceed, will constitute a threat to every driver and pedestrian, bicyclist and jogger, adult and child who dares to venture onto Mountain Street.
Brickstone stated at a Selectmen’s meeting in June that they estimate that large, 18-wheel trucks and cement mixers will make 150 trips per day through Sharon center, down Pond Street, around the traffic circle, onto East Street, and onto Mountain Street during a 5-year construction period along with 300 mid-size trucks and 600 small trucks. That’s per day for five years, and that’s Brickstone’s estimate. Misleading arguments suggesting that Mountain Street is safe have used measurement figures based on 1960s projections for dramatic changes in the road, which never took place. As Mountain Street stands today, large construction vehicles pose a substantial threat to the safety of everyone who uses the road.

Paul Bookbinder, Mountain Street

Keep developers to their promise

Thu Jul 31, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

Our Selectmen have expressed sympathy and concern for the residents of Chessman Drive, Bishop Road, Castle Drive, and Eisenhower Drive in relation to the detour necessitated by the temporary closure of Bay Road. (“An Open Letter to Residents from Selectmen”, Sharon Advocate, July 25). The Selectmen state “These streets were not planned to handle this amount of traffic and the residents- especially the children- living in these neighborhoods are used to a much lower level of traffic. This combination makes for a dangerous situation.”

With the exception of Mr. Roach, the Selectmen at recent meetings have expressed much less concern about projected traffic on Mountain Street associated with the planned Brickstone project as the developer has requested that Mountain Street be the only access used for the construction period. The Bay Road detour and traffic increase is projected for several months; the Mountain Street traffic increase Brickstone estimates will be two to five years. The Bay Road detour is limited to “residential traffic” while Mountain Street will see a dramatic number of construction vehicles (Brickstone’s own estimate of 100-200 heavy vehicles, 100-200 medium vehicles, and 600-700 worker vehicle trips per day).

The residential streets on the Bay Road detour are straight, wide, and have sidewalks. Designated a Scenic Rode, Mountain Street is narrow, has sharp turns, limited visibility, and, for the most part, no sidewalks. At many large sites trees are only inches away if an unexpected vehicle emerges around a corner.

Surely Mountain Street was “not planned to handle this amount of traffic” either! The size and number of construction vehicles needed for this mammoth development will without doubt create a “dangerous situation.” Should the safety of residents and children on Mountain Street be of any less concern than the safety of those on the temporary detour?

Please insist that our Selectmen hold Brickstone to the voted on and signed development agreement keeping Mountain Street as having only a gated entrance for emergency vehicles.

Max Essex, Mountain St.

Is a 40B coming to your neighborhood?

Thu Aug 07, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

Sharon is short of its 10 percent quota of affordable housing as required by state law (Ch. 40B). There are no affordable housing units planned in the 624-unit Brickstone high-rise development. Sharon's development agreement with Brickstone specifies that Brickstone will pay the Town of Sharon a lump-sum payment of $1.88 million for Sharon to build Brickstone's quota of 69 affordable housing units somewhere else in town. We have a few questions:

- $1.88 million divided by 69 housing units comes to about $27,500 per unit. What will $27,500 build? That is certainly not enough to pay for a finished housing unit. Are the Sharon residents going to have to pay the difference?

- Where are those housing units going to be built? If the local zoning bylaws do not have to be followed, they can be built anywhere in town. Why can't Brickstone build these 69 affordable units on their property?

Brickstone is currently requesting the Town of Sharon to alter our original development agreement to include conditions more favorable to Brickstone. (naddgroup.org has information on the requested changes.) They want a revision...well so do we. Any revised agreement should require Brickstone to provide their fair share of affordable housing.

Unless Sharon can reach its 10 percent affordable housing quota, there may be a high-density 40B housing project coming to your neighborhood .

Roby and Jay Zabinsky, Wilshire Drive

Civil discourse and action

Thu Aug 14, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

I received this note last week in an unmarked envelope:
“Anne, Your problem is that you come across as a raving lunatic. Calm down, It’s a BOH job in a town of 18,000; you’re not the surgeon general. Quit or be quiet.”
I assume it refers to my vocal challenge to many aspects of the Brickstone project over the past 18 months.
I will admit to many character flaws, but being a crazy person just trying to get attention on this matter is not one of them. Then again, why do dissenting, sane people speak their conscience and contribute their time and experience in exchange for ridicule?
We’ve all seen this phenomenon drive good people away from volunteerism in all sorts of contexts. Let’s not do it in Sharon.

Anne Bingham, Cedar Street

Residents continue to be misled

Thu Aug 14, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

In response to Mr. Hauser's letter in the August 8 Sharon Advocate, I feel that the residents were tricked. The Board of Selectmen withheld critical information from Sharon residents, which led to the vote approving Brickstone's zoning change. The District Attorney found that the Selectmen repeatedly and significantly violated the Open Meeting Law. Meeting minutes obtained by the District Attorney show that the Selectmen plotted behind closed doors to keep other options for Rattlesnake Hill away from the public. There was another option - a smaller development - with less traffic, less 40B quota, less water usage, and less wastewater - but because the Selectmen decided the public shouldn't hear it, it wasn't heard.
As for working with the developer to address neighborhood concerns, Brickstone agreed not to use Mountain Street except for emergency access. Now they want to change the development agreement to allow construction vehicles to use Mountain Street, which would divert big trucks through Sharon for years.
Brickstone’s final plans were presented only two months before Town Meeting. Two months was not nearly enough time for a two-way communication process with boards, committees and concerned citizens. Changes were still being made to the development agreement in the last week before Town Meeting, yet the Selectmen ignored a petition signed by 600 Sharon citizens to postpone the vote to allow time for consideration of all the ramifications of this major project.
We are beginning to feel the effects of our haste as the developer’s true plans are slowly being revealed.

Cheryl Weinstein, Coach Lane

Brickstone should keep their end of the bargain

Thu Aug 14, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

In his letter to the editor last week, Eli Hauser had his fairy tales confused. Rather than falling prey to the trickery of seed corn and candy, I believe that we have fallen prey to, and been living in, the blindness of The Emperor's New Clothes. Congratulations to our community as more and more of us are opening our eyes to the fact that some of our elected officials cannot discern the best interests of the Town. These quasi-representatives appear to only hear and see the ka-ching of dollar signs, regardless of the impact on us all as we have to live with the consequences.
Yes, we had the opportunity to evaluate the proposed development on Rattlesnake Hill. We agreed that the developer should use Bay Road, not Mountain Street, for construction access. We should require that they uphold their end of the agreement.
Yes, we agreed to Brickstone's avoidance of affordable units and its mitigation strategy of a payment to subsidize Simpson's development on Route 1. Apparently the Simpson development is not going forward, and Sharon is now in an even deeper hole regarding affordable housing stock. We should require Brickstone to supply affordable housing within its own development.
We will be better served if Mr. Hauser and the others would truly listen to the vox populi, instead of chastising us patronizingly in letters. This means take our comments to heart; don't pretend to pay attention and then go on your merry, foregone-conclusion way.
If our government is going to propose, promote, and agree to such developments, it should require the developers to hold to their end of the agreement, and it should monitor them for compliance. After all, it was Mr. Hauser's Planning Board that permitted Hunter's Ridge, and we know how well that has turned out.

Laura Nelson, Edgehill Road   

Letter: 1,400 vehicles per day?

Thu Oct 23, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

Brickstone’s traffic consultant reluctantly answered “1,400 vehicles per day during the peak construction period” when pressed several times at the selectmen’s meeting on Thursday, Oct. 16, to estimate how many vehicles would be traveling each day to and from the Brickstone site on Rattlesnake Hill. One might ask: what difference does this number make to most people in Sharon, since the agreement that two Town Meetings approved calls for all traffic connected with the Brickstone development to enter and leave the property via Bay Road on the Stoughton border?

Now, however, according to statements by Brickstone spokesmen John. Twohig and John Tocci, it’s too expensive to construct the access road to the property from the Bay Road side. Instead, they want to use what was to be a locked emergency entrance on Mountain Street during the construction period, which they estimate will be about 18 months. So they want the Selectmen to alter the agreement voted by Town Meeting so Brickstone can use the Mountain Street entrance until they complete their project — unless they have another reason not to use Bay Road later.

And those 1,400 vehicles per day — tractor-trailers, cement trucks, dump trucks, etc. — will not simply appear at the base of Mountain Street. Brickstone’s traffic expert also reluctantly acknowledged that vehicles would probably travel from I 95, up Route 27 to Post Office Square, onto Pond Street, past the high school, around the traffic circle at Massapoag Avenue, onto East Street, and up Mountain Street, past the middle school, to the crest of Rattlesnake Hill. One-thousand four-hundred vehicles per day for 18 months (maybe). That’s about three vehicles per minute for seven hours — continuously through the heart of Sharon, along residential streets, past schools.

This must not happen.

Sue Swisher, Mountain Street

Sharon not right for Brickstone

Thu Oct 30, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

I agree with the other writers that Mountain Street does not have the infrastructure to support its use as an entrance site for the construction of the Brickstone project. The inference however that Bay Road is the ideal access is equally wrong. Bay Road is only eighteen feet wide with limited line of sight visibility at the proposed Bay Road entrance. As a Sharon resident of Bay Road it is disconcerting to read that our town and our town leaders are distressed and angry at the prospect of thousands of construction vehicles going through the “heart” of Sharon while showing no similar concern for their fellow citizens who live on Bay Road and its side streets. Through no fault of our own we have been consigned to a living hell of years of construction vehicles and construction activity imperiling the safety of our families.

What comes through loud and clear is that the town of Sharon wants the money. But it does not want to deal with any of the messy details like construction vehicles coursing through town. If the project is built through a Bay Road entrance then all the vehicles will go through the streets of Stoughton and Easton. Of course these towns will not be remunerated for any of this calamitous activity on their streets. Way to go Sharon, money without the stress. Have you no shame?

If you take the time to visit Bay Road and Mountain Street at the proposed entrances you will see that this is not the right place for this huge project, it’s wrong for Mountain Street and Bay Road, it’s wrong for Borderland, it’s wrong for our town water supply, it’s wrong for our neighbors in Stoughton and Easton and it will ultimately be wrong for Sharon.

Norm MacInnis, Bay Road

Article 1 will flood Sharon streets

Thu Oct 30, 2008

 TO THE EDITOR:

I urge everyone to vote NO on Article 1 at Town Meeting on Nov 17. Brickstone wants to bring its construction vehicles through residential roads in Sharon, terminating on Mountain Street. This street, like Bay Road, also has culverts under the road in wetland areas. Are they, too, going to collapse because of the daily weight they have to withstand? Sharon’s consultant estimates 444 vehicle trips per day using Mountain Street during the first 1.5 years of construction. During the remaining 3.5 years of construction, they estimate 1418 trips per day on Bay Road, and an additional 368 trips per day on Mountain Street. This means approximately 400 construction vehicles going through Sharon’s residential roads each day for five years.

Stoughton officials say they will not give Brickstone the permission to change Bay Road for the proposed entrance. They also say that that it will be several years before Bay Road is reopened. If we allow Brickstone to begin this project via Mountain Street, we will be asked in 18 months to allow the rest of the construction (steel girders for the buildings, etc.) through Mountain Street and thus through the center of our town.

Therefore, before this issue comes to a vote, our Selectmen should insist that all permissions from Stoughton and for the rest of the project be in place FIRST. This article should be withdrawn and placed on the warrant for spring Town Meeting.

Article 1 allows Brickstone to use Mountain Street, in addition to Bay Road, for construction access to and from the Project; “or to take any other action relative thereto.” I am very concerned about the last phrase: are we giving carte blanche to the Selectmen for other changes?

Please join me in saying a resounding NO! Our safety and quality of life are at risk.

Rita Corey, Mountain Street 

Is Brickstone still feasible?

Thu Oct 30, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

The numbers have changed in the Brickstone debate, and voters should be aware of it before voting at Town Meeting on November 17.

The U.S. economy has changed since the Brickstone project first came before the Town, and we are in a recession. The real estate market is completely different than it was three years ago. There are at least eight houses for sale on Mountain Street, some on sale for over a year. This week Newsweek reported that the housing downturn is preventing seniors from moving into retirement communities because they cannot sell their homes. How is Brickstone going to fill 624 units of senior housing?

Brickstone assured us last November that they would build six towers, allegedly giving the town $3.2 million in annual tax revenue. In June, they said they would just build two buildings to start because of the economy. When will Sharon see this tax revenue? Will we ever see it? Has the alleged amount of tax revenue for Sharon been reduced because the value of real estate has decreased so much? Are we confident that Brickstone has financing for the whole project from a lender that will remain solvent?

The Finance Committee should get answers to all of these questions before it makes a decision on whether to support Article 1. Sharon voted to rezone Rattlesnake Hill primarily to obtain the alleged tax benefits from the project, and to prevent a threatened 40B from going in instead. The current economy can support neither of these projects. Before we allow roughly 400 construction vehicles rumbling through our town for five years, we should reassess whether there is any financial benefit to doing so.

Alice Cheyer

Hold Brickstone to their agreement.

Thu Nov 7, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

From the many new attendees at the recent Selectmen and Finance Committee meetings to discuss Brickstone’s new demand, it appears residents from parts of town other than Mountain Street are beginning to realize what this project, the size of South Shore Plaza, will mean to our quality of life. Brickstone is demanding a change in the Development Agreement passed at Town Meeting in May 2007 so that all construction vehicles will use Mountain Street for the contractor’s estimate of 19 months for phase one. Phases two and three could take up to five years.

It has begun to sink in that the 500-1000 construction vehicles per day entering Sharon from I-95, traversing Norwood Street or South Main Street to the town’s center, passing the railroad station at peak morning commute, down Billings or Pond Street to East Street and Mountain Street by the Middle School, all between 6 a.m.-4p.m., will have profound effects on traffic and safety.

Police Chief Bernstein has previous stated that using Mountain Street will cause significant hazards. He has not been consulted on the safety plans Brickstone has tentatively proposed for police details at key intersections which the large trucks will pass. No plans are offered for the 600-700 workmen’ vehicles using all town streets to arrive at the site. Mountain Street was to be a gated, emergency entrance only. Brickstone proposed and agreed to this. We must hold them to it with a NO vote on Article 1 at Town Meeting on Monday, Nov. 17.

B.J. and Chung Hee Park, Mountain Street 

Brickstone delay gives more times to answer questions

Thu Nov 13, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

In a sensible move at their Thursday, Nov. 6, meeting, the Sharon Board of Selectmen removed Article I from Monday’s Special Town Meeting warrant. Passage of this article would have granted Brickstone LLC the use of Mountain Street for construction access to their Sharon Hills project, changing the development agreement voted by the citizens at the May 2007 Town Meeting and creating loopholes harmful to our town's future.

Numerous letters in last week’s Sharon Advocate outlined the wisdom of removal of the article. An even more compelling reason, not yet mentioned, is that Brickstone, by their own admission, has not been able to secure financing for this project. When asked by a member of the Finance Committee at the Monday, Oct. 27, public informational meeting if Brickstone has a guarantee of financing, a representative for the developer mumbled a quick and quiet “No, we don’t.”

Other compelling reasons for removal include incomplete information regarding: traffic and safety issues requiring massive police detail according to Brickstone, who had never discussed this matter with Police Chief Bernstein; the need for Stoughton’s permission in reengineering the proposed Bay Road entrance, although Brickstone’s two exploratory meetings with Stoughton have not yielded any positive results; Brickstone’s threat of worse development nightmares visited on our town if we don’t allow them to build on their own terms, even though geology and economic realities may make their imagined scenarios impossible to build.

The Finance Committee asked the right questions, the citizens spoke loudly and the Selectmen listened and acted. Let’s hope this pragmatism continues when the site plan review comes before the ZBA, into whose purview the Selectmen have shifted the responsibility. Because the ZBA can only suggest but not enforce changes to the Memorandum of Understanding during the site plan review process, I urge citizens to remain vigilant, vocal and present at upcoming ZBA meetings dealing with this project.

Leslie Koval, Briggs Pond Way

Make developers pay for access

Thu Nov 20, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

I am writing to voice a concern about the use of Sharon's streets to accommodate frequent and numerous heavy truck trips through the Town. I am aware that this would continue for some indeterminate time --at least over a over a year. While much has be said about the chaotic inconvenience these large trucks would cause, I have heard little about physical damage to the streets. Heavy trucks create small crack and fissures in asphalt pavement admitting water which may freeze or erode the soil beneath the pavement. This damage may take years to show itself, long after the developer is gone. The eventual costs conceivably could cut deeply into any financial benefits we receive from Brickstone.

I think the Town should assess the potential damage that may result and make sure the costs of repair are passed on to the developer.

Further I suspect, if Brickstone is allowed to use our town streets that, gaining one foot in the door, it wouldn't be long before Mountain Street became the permanent de-facto access for all future Brickstone service and resident's traffic. I know, as this happened on our street years ago. If developers are not officially granted the access they seek they just wear away their own path .

I cannot believe the earlier promises the developer made that construction traffic would use Bay Rd. while all the time the developer had made no attempt to square this intention with Stoughton officials.

This speaks volumes regarding their overall integrity not to mention planning acumen.

Kurt Buermann, Furnace Street 

 Who is calling the shots?

Thu Nov 20, 2008

TO THE EDITOR:

Reading last week’s issue of the Advocate carefully reveals a major discrepancy concerning the important issue of the use of Mountain Street by the Brickstone Company for all its project construction. In a front page article, the Board of Selectmen and Town Council take credit for withdrawing Article 1 on the warrant for Town Meeting because of the unanswered questions about the effects of all the construction vehicles going through Sharon center and on many town streets.

But in the full-page advertisement from Brickstone, the company states it asked for withdrawal of this article. In the almost three-year history of the town’s dealing with Brickstone, it has never been clear as to who is controlling the demands this huge project will make on Sharon, the town officials mandated to protect the residents’ interests or the developer whose only interest is profit line. We have been asked to believe Brickstone’s estimates of benefits to the town, bust these are now suspect as they proposed to build one-third of the project in the near future and that they don’t have financing for that.

Since July, the Selectmen have asked questions and expressed their doubts about Brickstone’s plans and said they would postpone the vote on the use of Mountain Street unless all these concerns were satisfactorily addressed. Sharon residents made clear their outrage at Brickstone’s new demand to use Mountain Street. The proper decision to postpone Article 1 was made. It is imperative that we all continue to watch carefully the next moves this company makes, at the Zoning Board of Appeals, before other town boards, or at Town Meeting to make sure our interests are protected.

Elizabeth Essex, Mountain Street