DRB’s Sunset Hill Decision
Won’t Be Public for Weeks
By Sandy Cooch

The Randolph Development Review Board has reached a decision on whether to grant site plan approval for a nine-unit apartment building on Sunset Hill Road—but it will likely be three or four weeks before that decision will be made public.

The project has been proposed by Kevin Blakeman, a Sharon realtor and developer, who owns 5.8 acres on the road. Last year the DRB denied a similar application from Blakeman.

The delay in producing the new decision reflects the time needed to take the verbal agreement reached at Tuesday night’s deliberative session and translate that into a written decision that is signed and approved by all DRB members, explained Zoning Administrator Mardee Sanchez yesterday.

Sanchez said the board has agreed, in essence, on its decision, but will need more deliberative (non-public) sessions to review and make changes to the draft written decision.

The DRB denied Blakeman’s site plan application last year, on the grounds that project’s sewer allocation was not adequate, and that the project would be out of harmony with the neighborhood, and that it would unreasonably affect the use of adjacent properties—all single-family homes.

However, Blakeman came back this year with a revised site plan, a sewer allocation for all 18 of the apartment’s bedrooms, and with an Environmental Court ruling that overturned the DRB’s "out of harmony" ruling. The E-Court did support the DRB’s finding that the nine-unit development would negatively affect neighbors’ use of their property.

45-Day Limit

By law, the DRB must render its decision on the new application within 45 days after public hearings are closed. Those hearings, which opened in July, closed last Tuesday, Sept. 19, in a session that attracted about 20 people, with nine testifying about the project before the DRB.

Previous hearings had drawn several opponents—primarily Sunset Hill Road residents—but last Thursday four Randolph residents spoke in strong support of Blakeman’s proposal. The project, they maintained, conformed with zoning regulations and would result in an attractive building that would provide needed moderate-cost housing.

Blakeman’s project needs only site plan review, as a multi-family dwelling is a permitted use in the Rural 5-Acre zone.

Two of the four site plan criteria require that projects "meet the provisions of the zoning regulations and the intention of the town plan," and that they be of such a size, location, and character to be in harmony with their surroundings. Project may not create traffic or pedestrian hazards, and they may not "unreasonably affect" the use of adjacent properties.

Both Blakeman and his attorney, Brice Simon, suggested that, when it comes to judging harmony, the DRB ought to consider the "build-out scenario" envisioned by the town plan and zoning. These documents "assume growth," not the preservation of "how it is now," Simon said.

Blakeman noted that critics tended to assume the worst about his development, including that 36 people would inhabit the nine apartments. He suggested that a realistic number might be lower than that, adding that the sewer allocation is built on an assumption of 2.54 people per residence.

Atty. Simon volunteered that the DRB might wish to condition a permit on there not being more than a certain number of occupants per apartment.

Simon pointed out the that town plan calls for a mix of "rental property and owner-occupied housing" and he noted Blakeman’s Sunset Hill parcel is only about a mile away from other multi-family units on Route 66.

"Mr. Simon seems comfortable moving the established multi-housing line over one mile," countered Sunset Hill resident Alan Heath in his testimony.

Simon, Blakeman, and his engineer Karen Kerin, noted modifications made to meet abuttors’ concerns. These included moving the project back another 30 feet from the road, adding screening, and moving a parking area and dumpster away from the adjacent property owned by Dan Baginsky.

Last year, the DRB denied Blakeman’s project, in part, because it found the apartment building, which encompasses nine garages as well as nine two-bedroom apartments, would "dramatically interfere" with the view from the Baginski home.

Too Big

Baginski said he felt that a two or three-family unit might be acceptable, but that the present design is "seven or eight times larger than anything else on the road."

Baginski added that he and his family were "outdoor people" who often hosted gatherings, and suggested that moving the project further away from his property line would lessen the impact. Blakeman has said his project already has a side-line setback of 75 feet, 2.5 times the minimum required.

Stewart Skrill, another Randolph resident who attended to lend his support to the project, dryly suggested that the Baginski "parties" might interfere with Blakeman’s tenants’ enjoyment of their property.

Also speaking in support of the application was Leigh Wright of Randolph, who said he felt the design "lived up to the letter of the zoning ordinance and was consistent with the present Town Plan."

Wright also suggested that Blakeman’s project was being subjected to "lots of nitpicking."

Randolph building contractor Bill Kevan said the "well-designed" project would be energy efficient and he suggested that multi-unit housing, with its higher density, helps to deter sprawl.

Blakeman said some residents told him that the project might be more acceptable if units were sold as condominiums, as opposed to rented.

He seemed to indicate he’d be willing to consider that option, but DRB Chair Joel Tillberg cut off that line of discussion, noting that the application before the board was for rental housing.

‘Junkyard’ Appeal

A second item on the DRB’s Sept. 19 agenda, an appeal by Alfred Lund on Sanchez’s determination that his property was in violation because of an accumulation of junk and junk vehicles, was not held.

Sanchez said after the hearing that the property was being cleaned up and she had determined that it was no longer a "junkyard."

____________