Sharon boards deny 99‑unit ‘Sunrise Sharon’ assisted‑living proposal after six months of hearings

The Sharon Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals voted to deny a special permit for a 99‑unit assisted‑living development proposed by Sunrise Senior Living after a Feb. 4, 2026 joint public hearing ended without an approving supermajority.

Attorney Michael Khoury, representing Sunrise Senior Living, opened the continued hearing by arguing the project met the town’s six special‑permit criteria, pointing to the 2023 Housing Impact Production Plan, DEP‑compliant stormwater design, a planned sewer connection to Norwood and projected revenues. Khoury cited a written fiscal estimate that he said would yield roughly $400,000 in annual tax revenue and a negotiated $10,000 yearly contribution for five years to the Council on Aging; a separate fiscal memo referenced approximately $800,000 in early years.

Planning Board member Oanh Nguyen presented an alternative fiscal analysis and raised concerns about the facility’s net impact on emergency medical services and the accuracy of revenue projections. Chief Madden and Deputy Chief Greenfield of the Sharon Fire Department said ambulance billing does not cover all costs but does generate revenue that can fund equipment and staffing; they also said increased staffing was already planned separately from the Sunrise proposal.

Board members considered each of the six statutory factors for a special permit: traffic and parking (members discussed possible conditions and noted Sunrise’s planned shuttle service), adequacy of utilities (applicant and town engineer said sewer access to Norwood had been secured), stormwater and environmental protections (the Conservation Agent had raised concerns and members said conditions or outside review could be required), social and economic need (supporters cited demographic data and local demand for senior services), neighborhood character (several members said the proposed building’s scale, visibility and setback deviate from neighborhood context) and fiscal impact (members disagreed on tax estimates and EMS effects).

Several board members explicitly questioned the proposal’s size and profitability if reduced, noting the building would exceed existing zoning by a substantial margin; the record contains differing 40B‑inventory percentage figures cited during deliberations (examples in the minutes: 10.4%, 10.47%, 10.71%). Proponents including Select Board member Pasqualino Pannone and planner David Wluka said the project would serve a clear need and be fiscally beneficial.

At 9:07 p.m. Chair Robert Maidman moved to deny the proposal; that motion (seconded by Oanh Nguyen) failed on a 3‑against, 2‑in‑favor tally. A subsequent motion to approve the project as presented failed, and a later motion to approve with conditions also failed. The minutes record a final determination that the application was denied, citing the board’s inability to impose conditions that would reconcile the project’s economic viability with concerns about neighborhood character, affordability and outstanding information requested from the applicant.

The boards closed the public hearing at 9:52 p.m. and adjourned. The minutes state the applicant did not provide all requested information the boards considered necessary for approval.