DRB Denies Permit
For Sunset Hill Project

By Sandy Cooch

For the second time in 16 months, Randolph’s Development Review Board has rejected a Sharon developer’s proposal to build a nine-unit apartment building on Sunset Hill Road. The vote was 4-3.

Kevin Blakeman, who appealed the DRB’s July, 2005 denial of his site plan application to the Environmental Court, told The Herald last week that he has already filed an E-Court appeal on the new decision.

However, history is not repeating itself—not exactly anyhow. Neither Blakeman’s new application nor the latest DRB denial are carbon copies of the first go-round.

Blakeman had modified his project design in response to the first denial. And this time, his project had a full, nine-unit allotment from the municipal sewage system.

As for the decision, only four of the seven-member DRB voted to deny Blakeman’s site plan this time. The DRB’s 2005 denial was signed by six members, with only Krista Rumrill casting a dissenting vote.

And, for the first time in the DRB’s existence, the minority—Rumrill, Trini Brassard, and Frank Reed—issued its own dissenting opinion, in support of Blakeman’s site plan application.

The majority decision, signed by DRB Chair Joel Tillberg, and members Ken Currier, Ken Roger, and Chris Recchia, found that the project would meet only two of four site plan review criteria.

The minority found conformance with all four criteria.

Both decisions—each running about nine pages single-spaced—extensively cite Randolph’s 2004 Town Plan in their respective decisions.

Blakeman’s proposed multi-family dwelling is a permitted use in the Rural Use-5 Acres (RU5) District. As in all site plan reviews, the project must meet the four site plan criteria, which require projects to:

A) Meet the provisions of the town’s zoning ordinance, other pertinent regulations, and the town plan.

B) Be "in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the surrounding area."

C) Not create pedestrian nor vehicular hazards; and

D) Not interfere with the appropriate development or use of adjacent land.

Back in 2005, the DRB rejected Blakeman’s project on three points: An inadequate sewage hook-up; and findings that the development was not in harmony with the surrounding area (criterion B); and that it interfered with the view of neighbors Dan Baginski and Barbara Paulson (criterion D).

In her 2006 ruling on Blakeman’s appeal of that decision, Environmental Court Judge Meredith Wright found that the DRB’s conclusion under criterion B was not justified, because the DRB never identified what "appropriate development" would be. However, she upheld the other two components, and the overall decision to deny.

New Findings

This time around, the DRB—both the majority and the dissenters—found that Blakeman’s revised design met criterion D, and no longer interfered with the view of the neighbors.

However, the majority still found Blakeman’s proposal to be not "in harmony with the appropriate … development of the surrounding area," (criterion B) and this time the DRB defined what it meant as "appropriate."

Appropriate development, the majority held, "would include structures of similar size to the existing structures or slightly larger." And all those structures, the majority wrote, are "low density residential."

The "surrounding area," the four DRB members held, is Sunset Hill Road.

Under criterion A, the majority found that Blakeman’s design met the criterion’s "development standards"—setback, allowable coverage, height, and parking—but failed to meet some provisions of the town plan.

The majority cited three goals of the town plan in support of its finding.

Dissent Opinion

The dissenters referred to the town plan even more extensively in their opinion, citing the document’s five general goals, four land use goals, and eight housing goals.

The dissenting trio found that Blakeman’s proposal met TP provisions on all counts, specifically challenging the majority definitions of appropriate development and "surrounding area."

The minority found that the project would be "compatible" with surrounding structures. It would conserve "open space resources for future generations and reduce sprawl that would occur if nine residential units were spread across 45 acres," the minority wrote.

Like the majority, the dissenters also referred to "advisory" maps in the 2004 town plan, but reached a different conclusion based on them.

The maps suggest several new districts—"gateway commercial" and "residential" districts—which are not reflected in the town’s 1988 zoning ordinance.

Randolph’s Planning Commission is working on developing a new ordinance, based on the town plan approved two years ago. For now, however, there is a gap between the land use visions set forth in the Town Plan, and the old and much-amended regulations presently in place.

"It complicates things when the zoning regulations aren’t implementing the town plan," Randolph Zoning Administrator Mardee Sanchez said this week.

Another unfortunate reality, she indicated, was that "the whole zoning ordinance is inadequate."

Sanchez noted that the DRB regularly cites the town plan in its decisions.

That is not "using" the town plan as zoning, she pointed out: Conformance to the town plan is one of the criteria outlined IN the zoning ordinance.

However, the Blakeman decisions, majority and minority, probably had the most extensive TP references to any decision she could recall, Sanchez said.

The DRB held four deliberative sessions on the Blakeman decision before producing its written decisions. Sanchez said she could not comment on the content of those closed discussions, but noted that she did not argue for one side or the other.

"I was there strictly as staff," she said.

Sanchez drafted the majority opinion for the DRB, based on their deliberations, as she usually does. The dissenters wrote their opinion, she said.

Blakeman Comments

Blakeman, who has been vocally critical of the DRB, this week continued his criticisms—of the majority—in the wake of his new denial.

"It seems obvious that certain members of the DRB don’t support the town plan or zoning and think they have the authority to supercede it when it’s convenient," he said. "I think the dissent explained very succinctly why it (his project) should be approved."

Blakeman also said he felt the zoning regulations make it clear what should or should not be permitted, adding, "I designed it to fit everything that zoning says."

"This is law, and people have a right to read it and understand it," he said.

Those who don’t agree with the zoning law, he added, should work to change it, not to vote against a project for "bogus reasons."

Although Blakeman sought to characterize site plan review as a clear-cut activity, Sanchez countered that claim this week.

Although "there are things in [site plan] development standards that are black and white—setbacks, lot coverage, height requirements," she said, there is also "this other set of criteria that are very subjective, which require interpretation and deliberation."

A project can meet all of the measurable standards and still not meet "subjective site plan standards," Sanchez emphasized.

"If all of the criteria were black and white, we wouldn’t need a seven-member board to decide. It would be something I could look at."

The zoning review process was set up, Sanchez added, so that there wouldn’t be "one person to make this subjective call."

However, one person—an Environmental Court judge—will be reviewing the recent decision reached by the DRB.

Blakeman said this week he did not know how long it would take to get a decision.

"Last time it took 10 months between the time I appealed and got a decision," he said.

____________