HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Brd Min_5261993i r
f'
PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES
May 26, 1993
Present: Chairman Madan, Clerk McClanahan
Planners: Annino, Caponigro, Flynn, Sullivan
'. I`3
Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development
Richard Lewis, Environmental and Conservation Planner
Mark Bobro�:ski, "Great Woods Land Use Study" Consultant
1. Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M.
2. 7:00 P.M. - Land Use Study Workshop
a. Mark Bobrowski's memo to the Planning Board dated May 5, 1993
was the main topic of discussion during the first workshop. The
memo suggested several revisions to the existing wetlands by -laws.
Specifically, the Planning Board along with Shaun Burke, Director
of Planning and Development; Richard Lewis, Environmental and
Conservation Planner; Marilyn Powers, Conservation Commissioner;
and Mark Bobrowski, Land Use Study Consultant, discussed who should
be the special permit granting . authority, the process in which
plans would be reviewed by the Conservation Commission with regard
to the Determination of Applicability and Conservation Commission's
review of the site for a recommendation only vs. review of the site
for issuace of a Determination of Applicability; and lot size
requirements for lots containing a portion of a waterbody.
Shaun Burke, Director of Planning and Development, recommended that
the proposed lot size by -law require that the buildable area be
"contiguous ".
Chairman Madan began a discussion of increasing minimum lot sizes.
Conservation Commissioner, Marilyn Powers, requested that "wildlife
habitat" be added to the proposed Section 4.8.A.1 to read as
follows: "Purpose..., to conserve natural conditions, wildlife,
wildlife habitat, open space,..."
Richard Lewis, Environmental and Conservation Planner, suggested
that maybe increasing front setbacks could be a step towards larger
sized lots.
b. Joint Worskhop with Zoning Board of Appeals
The workshop with the Zoning Board of Appeals concentrated on a
memorandum from Mark Bobrowski, Land Use Study Consultant, to the
Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals dated May 14, 1993, in
which revisions were requested to use variance requirements,
special permit by -law, and non- conforming uses by -laws.
Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals Present for the Discussion
were:
Karl Clemmey Eric Butler
Leonard Flynn
Eric Butler sited use variances which have been granted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Leonard Flynn stated that he feels home occupations should require
a special permit rather than be a use by right.
Chairman Madan stated that he would like to keep use variances in
the business and industrial districts only but that there may be
some other areas that need flexibility.
Leonard Flvnn stated that he would like to see use variances
tightened.
A concensus of the Planning Board showed that the Planning Bord
feels that use variances should be allowed in all but residential
zones.
Special Permits
Land Use Study Consultant, Mark Bobrowski suggested the addition of
several criteria to this by -law.
The Planning Board and 'Zoning Board of Appeals discussed each of
the suggested criteria at this time.
Non - Conformities
Chairman Madan stated that he feels that the finding by -law should
apply to commercial uses also.
Discussion of change of a nonconforming use to a less detrimental
use.
John Sullivan stated that if one non - conforming use ends the use
should have to follow current zoning requirements.
Mark Bobrowski suggested specific changes to the Zoning By -Law
which would be permissible with a special permit or finding.
The subjectiveness of the terms "less detrimental" when considering
a change in a non - conforming use and one of the suggested non-
conforming structure criteria "Reconstruction of a structure after
demolition" were both discussed at this time.
Eric Butler stated that he would like clarification of how great
the expansion of a non- conformity can get.
The workshop ended with Mark Bobrowski stating that he would put
together an draft of his requested revisions to the Zoning By-
Law for the Board to consider.
3. Adjournment - 10:25 P.M.
Memorandums discussed during both workshops dated Tlav 3 and May 14,
1993, are attached.
glerk's e Dat e of Approval
MARK BOBROWSKI
ATTORNEY AT LAW
F' 17 COCASSET STREET
1 FOXBOROUGH, MA 02035
(508) 543 -0408
May 5, 1993
TO: MANSFIELD PLANNING BOARD
FR: MARK BOBROWSKI
RE: SUGGESTED REVISIONS /SECTION 4.8
On April 23rd, the chairman, town planning staff, and the
consultants met to discuss revisions to the soil based zoning
provisions which affect the Great Woods Study Area. We also
outlined a few other zoning changes deemed important in light of
my memorandum of April 7, 1993.
Please consider the following alternative to your existing
Section 4.8, governing "Waterbody Setback and Wetlands
Protection." The purpose of the article is twofold. First, the
simpler waterbody setback regulation is separated from the more
complex wetland provision. Second, areas of poorly drained soils
which do not contain vegetative wetland areas are provided with a
special permit mechanism to proceed with development.
ARTICLE TO SEE IF THE TOWN WILL VOTE TO AMEND SECTION 4.8,
WATERBODY SETBACK AND WETLANDS PROTECTION," BY MAKING THE
FOLLOWING CHANGES THERETO:
Item 1. Delete Section 4.8 in its entirety and substitute the
following therefor:
4.8 Waterbody Protection
4.8.1 Purpose. This section is intended to protect and preserve
the areas along existing rivers, streams, ponds, and lakes from
adverse development; to protect the community against costs which
may be incurred by the detrimental or unsuitable use of the areas
along existing rivers, streams, ponds, and lakes; to protect
persons and property against the hazards of flood water
inundation by assuring the continuation of the natural flow
patterns of wetlands and waterbodies; and, to conserve natural
conditions, wildlife, open space, and the amenities of the town.
4.8.2 Applicability.
a. Along the Wading River, canoe River, Rumford River
(south of Spring Street to the Norton town line), and
Hodges Brook (south of School Street to the Norton town
line), construction of primary use buildings shall not
be permitted within 100 feet of said waterbody, as
measured by the high water line.
b. Along all other brooks and streams, and around all
lakes and ponds, construction of primary use buildings
shall not be permitted within a distance to said
waterbody which is equivalent to the minimum rear yard
setback of any district, or twenty (20) feet, whichever
is greater, as measured by the high water line.
4.8.3 Plan. On any lot containing a protected waterbody, or
adjacent to a protected waterbody, the Building Inspector shall
require an applicant for a building permit to submit a plan
showing the boundaries of the lot, the location of the proposed
structure, the exact limits of the waterbody or waterbodies, and
the necessary computations to show that development will conform
to the requirements herein.
4.8.4 Lot Size. Any lot located in the Residence 1, Residence
2, or Residence 3 Districts which contains a portion of a
waterbody, or a portion of any setback described in section 4.8.2
a or b, shall possess, in addition to the lot area set forth in
Schedule 4.2.1, the following minimum buildable area:
Residence 1 /No sewer 37,000 sq. ft.
Sewer 33,000 sq. ft.
Residence 2 /No sewer 17,000 sq. ft.
Sewer 13,000 sq. ft.
Residence 3 /One - family 10,000 sq. ft.
Two - family 13,000 sq. ft.
No portion of the waterbody or portion of the lot within the
Protected setback from the waterbody may be used in computing the
minimum buildable area required in the district in which the lot
is .located.
Item 2. Add a new section 4.8A, as follows:
4.8A Wetland Protection Districts
4.8A.1 Purpose. This section is intended to protect and
preserve wetlands and the areas along existing rivers, streams,
ponds, and lakes from adverse development; to protect the
community against costs which may be incurred by the detrimental
or unsuitable use of wetlands and the areas along existing
rivers, streams, ponds, and lakes; to protect persons and
property against the hazards of flood water inundation by
assuring the continuation of the natural flow patterns of
wetlands and waterbodies and by preserving natural floodwater
storage areas and other areas subject to seasonal or periodic
flooding or which may provide safe floodwater storage capacity;
and, to conserve natural conditions, wildlife, open space, and
the amenities of the town.
4.8A.2 Applicability. The Wetlands Protection Districts include
all wetland areas, as defined by the following poorly or very
poorly drained soil associations:
Whitman
Scarboro
Medisaprists
Ridgebury
Walpole
and a setback of twenty (20) feet from the wetland area.
These poorly drained or very poorly drained soil
associations are shown in a document entitled "Soil Conservation
Survey or Bristol County (Northern Part)," prepared by the Soil
Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Said
document is incorporated by reference into the Mansfield Zoning
By -Law.
Where the boundaries of the district are in doubt or
dispute, the burden of proof shall be upon the owner of the land
in question to show where they should properly be located. At
the request of the landowner, the town may engage a soil
scientist or a qualified wetlands specialist, at the sole expense
of the landowner, to provide technical assistance in the
delineation of the district boundary. The board of appeals may,
by special: permit, waive the applicability of this section where
the landowner demonstrates that the land proposed for development
does not contain any of the above - referenced poorly or very
poorly drained soil associations. '
4.8A.3 Permitted Uses
K3
Conservation Commission wi in y p
review and recommendations.. Failure , by_the - conservation
commission . -to` report to the board of appeals within thirty (30)
".days - thereafter shall'be deemed:a lank`of'- opposition to'the
proposed Where the decision of the board of. appeals
differs from the recommendation or report- of.the Conservation
Commission, the board of appeals shall state the reasons therefor
in-writing
4.8A.5 Lot Size.- Any lot located in the Residence 1, Residence
2, or Residence 3 Districts which contains a: portion of "a. wetland
area, "or a'portion of'the'setback' described in section 4:8A 2,.
shall possess, in addition to the lot area set forth in Schedule
r 4 2 the following minimum buildable area z,x t3'�
c �r
'Resldence.l /No sewer 37,000�sq: ft
Sewer,, - ,33,000 sq ft
Residence.2 /No sewer 2 17,000 °sq. ft
Sewer 3.3,000r sq.
ft d
``' Residence_ 3 /One - family ` t �' 10,.0,00 sq ,ft ' + "` a
r � r
+4 Two family 2 13,000 sq ft
,zA y -,}r t� +.
No portion the - ,wetland area or'oortion of -the lot within the`
t, proe bted'setback from the wetland area may`; be used in ,computing x 0.
t ahe minimum buildable area required in.tb,6 district in which the
4
The
following uses are permitted as of right in the Wetlands
Protection Districts:
a,
conservation of so water, plants and wildlife; "
b: ":outdoor
recreation, _nature study," "boating, fishing and
hunting, ' where legally "permitted, - =<
c:'
agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, and .
silviculture;
d.
driveways and roads where alternative means of access
are inappropriate and -'not feasible. -`'
4.8A.4 Uses Permitted by Special Permit
Any
use' permitted in the underlying district in which the "
land; is located
may be permitted_ by- special 'permit;; in the > >z
-
:Wetlands
Protection Districts provided- that -;all of _the following
`findings
are''made by the board of appeals
a.
that the land ly containing the poor or very poorly, "
`:drained soil associations is not a wetland area;_ as
defined by G.L. c. 1311 S. 40,
'r
b. ="
that the proposed use will not be.in'conflict_ with any
of the purposes set forth in Section 4 8A.1
The board of appeals shall refer all applications tot Y
5 da s "of recei t for
Conservation Commission wi in y p
review and recommendations.. Failure , by_the - conservation
commission . -to` report to the board of appeals within thirty (30)
".days - thereafter shall'be deemed:a lank`of'- opposition to'the
proposed Where the decision of the board of. appeals
differs from the recommendation or report- of.the Conservation
Commission, the board of appeals shall state the reasons therefor
in-writing
4.8A.5 Lot Size.- Any lot located in the Residence 1, Residence
2, or Residence 3 Districts which contains a: portion of "a. wetland
area, "or a'portion of'the'setback' described in section 4:8A 2,.
shall possess, in addition to the lot area set forth in Schedule
r 4 2 the following minimum buildable area z,x t3'�
c �r
'Resldence.l /No sewer 37,000�sq: ft
Sewer,, - ,33,000 sq ft
Residence.2 /No sewer 2 17,000 °sq. ft
Sewer 3.3,000r sq.
ft d
``' Residence_ 3 /One - family ` t �' 10,.0,00 sq ,ft ' + "` a
r � r
+4 Two family 2 13,000 sq ft
,zA y -,}r t� +.
No portion the - ,wetland area or'oortion of -the lot within the`
t, proe bted'setback from the wetland area may`; be used in ,computing x 0.
t ahe minimum buildable area required in.tb,6 district in which the
4
1 lot is located.
f
In addition; the following zoning changes will be reviewed
at the June 9, 1993 meeting of the Planning Board. A copy of the
proposed changes will be circulated at least one week in advance.
1. Nonconforming use /structure regulations;
2. Special permit /variance clarification;
3. Landscaping, screening and buffer provisions for site
- plan review;
4.- Minor housekeeping amendments.
1
I
5
GREAT WOODS AREA LAND USE STUDY
IMPLICATIONS OF EXISTING ZONING
AND POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
0
May 5,1993
Prepared for:
Town of Mansfield
Planning Board
❖ The LandUse Collaborative •3
Great Woods Area Land Use Study Implications of Existing Zoning & Potential Development
CONTENTS
Introduction..................................................... ............................... 1
Potential Loss
of Open
Space ......................... ............................... 1
Relationship of
Route 140
Extension to Zoning and Build- Out...... 2
Consistency with 1988 Master Plan Goals ...... ............................... 3
Consistency with 1989 Open Space and Recreation Plan
Goalsand Objectives ...................................... ............................... 6
Industrial Park vs. Commercial Strip — The School Street
Corridor.........................................:................. ............................... 8
Summary and Conclusions .............................. ..............................1 0
The LandUse Collaborative May 1993
GREAT WOODS AREA LAND USE STUDY
IMPLICATIONS OF EXISTING ZONING
AND POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Introduction
This report reviews the implications of existing zoning and land use trends in the Great
Woods study area. First, the report quantifies the amount of open land that would be lost
to development under "build- out ", and identifies general locations where such land use
changes would occur. Second, the potential implications of an extension of Route 140 into
the study area are discussed. Next, the report reviews the Town of Mansfield's land use
goals and objectives as set forth in its Master Plan (1988) and Open Space and Recreation
Plan (1989), and identifies ways in which the development that is permitted under current
zoning (as projected in the build -out analysis) is inconsistent with these goals and
objectives. Finally, the report focuses on the School Street corridor in the "Golden
Triangle ", an area where special care should be taken to ensure that development does not
seriously compromise the town's land use goals.
Potential Loss of Open Space
The study area contains a total of approximately 1,286 acres, of which 106 are already
developed as single - family homes in the R -1 Residential zoning district, and another 106
acres are occupied by the Great Woods Center for the Performing Arts. Of the remaining
1,074 acres, 285 acres are in public ownership, leaving about 789 privately -owned acres
that are theoretically available for development. Of this land, 38 acres are developed for
single residences on land that could support additional residential development; 38 acres (in
the "Golden Triangle" area) are developed for residences but zoned for industry; and the
remaining 712 acres are currently undeveloped.
The build -out analysis estimated that a total of 336 acres (43 percent) of this privately -
owned land would be excluded from development because of soils conditions or the
presence of wetlands. These areas comprise two north -south corridors through the study
area, following the drainage patterns of Hodges and Great Brooks and their tributary
streams (and abutting the 197 acres owned by the Town of Mansfield and the Natural
Resources Trust and held for conservation purposes). Whether or not these parcels are
completely unbuildable under the town's zoning regulations may be open to interpretation;
nevertheless, the extent of wetland soils and stream systems in these corridors, combined
with the difficulty of providing access to the area, suggests that these areas are unlikely to
be developed in the foreseeable future.
The remaining open land that could be lost to development under existing zoning
regulations totals 453 acres, which is equal to about 35 percent of the total study area
jacreage, 45 percent of the undeveloped land in the study area, and 64 percent of the
The LandUse Collaborative May 1993
GTeat Woods Area Land Use Study Implications of Existing Zoning & Potential Development
undeveloped land in private ownership. Because of the patterns of public land ownership,
drainage systems, and soils indicative of wetlands areas, this land is primarily located
around the northerly and southerly edges of the study area.
On the north side of the study area, there are three principal areas where currently open
land could be developed:
• The large open area within the "Golden Triangle" (in the area bounded by
School Street, Route 140 and Interstate 495), including the existing farm,
would appear to be a prime candidate for development because of its zoning (for
industry) and access;
• A portion of the Tri- County Beagle Club's property adjacent to Interstate 495 is
upland and could be developed for residences upon provision of adequate
access; and
• A parcel abutting the town conservation land and the Tri-County Beagle Club
land, adjacent to the railroad line, has potential for residential development,
although the issue of access is problematic.
There are also three areas of potential development on the south side of the study area:
• Several large parcels between Interstate 495 and the Great Woods Center for the
Performing Arts (the Kraska, Clemmey and Vazza properties) are zoned for
industrial development. These parcels have potential access from South Main
t Street as well as potential future access from the proposed continuation of Route
140 through the Great Woods into Norton.
• A smaller parcel (also owned by Kraska) on the Norton town line, to the west
of the Great Woods Center, is zoned for residential use but adjoins commer-
cially -zoned parcels in Norton that are in common ownership.
• An 85 -acre parcel between Oak Street and the town's conservation property is
currently assessed as farmland but is zoned for residential use. The build -out
analysis estimated that at least 80 percent of this parcel could be developed.
The above areas are delineated on the map of Existing and Potential Development.
As noted in the build -out analysis, there has been discussion of a potential extension of
"new" Route 140 southward from the Interstate 495 interchange through the Great Woods
and into Norton. If built, such a road would probably skirt the westerly side of the Great
Woods Center for the Performing Arts and would provide improved access not only to the
Performing Arts Center but also to the adjacent industrially -zoned parcels (the Kraska,
Clemmey and Vazza properties). Improved access might also be provided to additional
properties to the north and west of the new roadway, which are currently landlocked (the
"Central" subarea as described in the build -out analysis).
The LandUse Collaborative Page 2
Great Woods Area Land Use Study Implications of Existing Zoning & Potential
A question has been raised as to how the introduction of such a major road into the
interior of the Great Woods would affect development in the study area. Because the build -
out analysis assumed that every parcel could eventually achieve access to the existing public
road network, there would be no impact on the quantity of development projected;
however, the timing of such development could be significantly advanced.
A more important question, however, relates to the town's own policy response to the
construction of a new roadway into the study area. An extension of Route 140 would
significantly improve the study area's accessibility from Interstate 495, and this in turn
would tend to create demands for zoning changes to allow for additional nonresidential
development. In fact, such demands might precede the decision to build the road in order
to provide the economic rationale for the state to support a costly project in an environmen-
tally sensitive area.
However, in some cases the existing zoning of the area is already inconsistent with
previously expressed town policies regarding open space preservation in the Great Woods
(these inconsistencies are discussed in detail in the following sections). The town's
formally adopted policies call for both increased land acquisition and regulatory changes
that are more protective of sensitive natural resources. Therefore, if the town is to continue
supporting its stated goals and objectives, both the Planning Board and the Board of
Selectmen should make a clear policy statement to the effect that they will oppose the
rezoning of existing residentially -zoned areas to a more intensive uses, regardless of the
quality of access or the type or level of development of neighboring properties.
Consistency with 1988 Master Plan Goals
The Master Plan prepared in 1988 for the Town of Mansfield by Connery Associates
resulted in a comprehensive rezoning of the town in 1989. This town -wide rezoning was
designed to achieve the goals set forth in the Master Plan, and reflected a new emphasis in
town policies on managing growth so as to preserve the character of the community and to
minimize expenditures for infrastructure.
The Master Plan identified the following six "basic goals ":
• Preserve the small-town character and open space
• Retain some central role for downtown Mansfield
• Maintain a diversified and affordable housing stock
• Protect and preserve existing older neighborhoods
• Protect and preserve the existing groundwater supply
• Minimize the need for public expenditure
The LandUse Collaborative Page 3
Great Woods Area Land Use Study Implications of Existing Zoning & Potential Development
These basic goals were then used to evaluate three "alternative development options" or
t == scenarios:
• "Trends extended" — a continuation of existing policies favoring continued
suburbanization
• "Trends adjusted'— incorporating minor adjustments to existing policies; and
• "Trends modified" - representing a significant departure from the town's
existing policies.
For each goal and each alternative development option, specific planning strategies
were identified. The following outline lists the goals and principal strategies, and identifies
their relationship to current zoning in the Great Woods Study Area.
1. Preserve the small -town character and open space
Strategies;
• Reduce densities in outlying areas
Residential densities were reduced in the Great Woods area through the creation of
the "Natural Resource and Scenic Residential" (Rl) district, raising minimum lot
areas to 45,000 square feet (40,000 square feet if served by public sewers).
• Use clusterin to o keep development hidden from main roads
Cluster residential development is allowed through the Special Permit process, but
has not achieved great popularity in the town. A more proactive stance such as
mandatory clustering might be considered. However, little of the residentially -
zoned land in the Great Woods study area is visible from "main roads ", so that this
goal has little relevance.
The town also has a provision allowing "residential compounds" of between two
and six units in the Rl district by special permit. This is essentially a special type
of cluster development for small groups of dwellings, where at least 35 percent of
the total area must be set aside as permanent open space. One residential compound
has been created in the study area.
2. Retain some central role for downtown Mansfield
• Reduce non - residential development outside downtown
The creation of the Industrial Park (11) district did not reduce the potential for non-
residential development outside the downtown. Permitted development intensities
are higher in the Central Business (B 1) and Downtown Mixed Use (112) districts
than in the Il district. However, because of the substantial amount of undeveloped
land in the Il district and the broad range of allowed and permitted uses, the School
The LandUse Collaborative Page 4
Great Woods Area Land Use Study Implications of Existing Zoning & Potential Development
Street corridor has the potential to compete with the downtown area for commercial
space. This is discussed in detail later in this paper.
• Retain downtown commuter rail station
A new commuter rail station was considered for the School Street site, but the
proposal is not currently active.
3. Maintain a diversified and affordable housing stock
Strategies:
• Clustering, PUD "village" development, and multi - family development on older
- industrial sites to diversif_y supply
Not applicable to the Great Woods (no "older industrial sites ").
• Incentive zoning and housing trust fund to create affordability
The provisions allowing increased density as an incentive.for the development of
affordable housing do not apply in the Rl district, and therefore have no impact on
the study area.
• Protection of older neighborhoods to help maintain older stock
This goal applies to the denser residential neighborhoods close to the downtown.
Residential areas in the study area (i.e., primarily between Elm Street and Hodges
Brook) are newer single - family neighborhoods.
4. Protect and preserve existing older neighborhoods
Strate 'es:
• Cap development density
Not applicable to the Great Woods.
• Allow residential reuse of older industrial areas
Not applicable to the Great Woods.
5. Protect and preserve the existing groundwater supply
Strategies:
• Reduce total growth allowed to stay within limits of capacity of water supply
Total growth allowed was reduced through increases in minimum lot area.
• Greatly reduce density in critical water yield areas
The Master Plan recommended that a "Zone T' study be undertaken to define
aquifer boundaries with the ultimate purpose of applying further development
restrictions and/or acquiring additional public open space. The Master Plan also
included maps of water yield and groundwater recharge areas indicating that the
The LandUse Collaborative Page 5
Great Woods Area Land Use Study Implications of Existing Zoning & Potential Development
Great Woods study area included some areas of "secondary water yield" (along the
Hodges Brook corridor and on both sides of School Street) as well as primary and
secondary recharge areas. However, these maps do not bear any relationship to the
"Water Supply Protection Districts" established in the Zoning By -Laws, which do
not encompass any part of the study area. This is a potential area of conflict
between the Master Plans goals and the existing zoning which should be
investigated further. `
• Sewering to protect groundwater
The permitted residential density of the majority of the study area was reduced in
order to avoid the need for sewering. Public sewers could be accessed by the
industrial properties in the South Main Street portion of the study area.
• Aggressive and priority land acquisition in critical water yield areas
The Master Plan recommended that the town prioritize open space acquisition in
five types of areas, including "favorable and secondary water yield areas ". As
noted above, the "secondary water yield areas" include the Hodges Brook corridor
and much of the "Golden Triangle" on both sides of School Street.
6. Minimize the need for public expenditure
Strategies:
• Reduce growth to stay within limit of water supply and sewage treatment plan t
Total growth allowed was reduced through increases in minimum lot area.
• Reduce density allowed in outlying areas to avoid need for sewers
This strategy was addressed through the increase in minimum lot area to 45,000
square feet.
• Reduce allowed growth in certain areas to avoid major road improvements
This strategy was not addressed in the Great Woods area. On the contrary, the
Master Plan emphasized the need to upgrade the South Main Street interchange of
Interstate 495. The impacts of potential growth on School Street are addressed later
in this report.
Consistency with 1989 012en Space and Recreation Plan
Goals and Objectives
The Open Space and Recreation Plan was prepared by the Conservation Commission
and Recreation Commission in 1989, includes an inventory of conservation, recreation and
historic resources, a statement of conservation and Recreation needs, a statement of goals
and objectives, and an action plan. The statement of needs included the results of a 1987
survey completed by 462 of the town's residents, which identified the three most serious
problems facing the town as (1) protection of the water supply, (2) loss of open space, and
The LandUse Collaborative Page 6
Great Woods Area Land Use Study Implications of Existing Zoning & Potential Development
(3) overburdening of town services. A public meeting in December 1988, held to inform
t = residents about the progress of the Plan and to hear their concerns about open space and
recreation, confirmed the high priority given to open space acquisition by residents.
Among the summary statements included in this section of the Plan were the following:
• Additional conservation areas and recreational facilities are needed.
• Existing areas need to be better maintained and managed.
• As much as possible should be done to protect water supplies.
Based on these conclusions, the Plan set forth four general goals, with detailed
objectives relating to each goal. The following discussion lists each goal and highlights the
statements regarding objectives and recommended actions that are relevant to the Great
Woods study area.
1. Acquire more open space lands
The Plan gives priority to acquisition of additional open space and conservation land,
considering this to be an urgent need. Four general areas were identified as targets for land
acquisition within the next five years (i.e., from 1989 -90 through 1993 -94): the Great
Woods, the Canoe River watershed, the Wading River greenbelt, and "Areas of Special
Concern", which were defined to include "areas identified by the state as important wildlife
habitats and areas important to the town for the protection of drinking water supplies." The
Plan shows a large portion of the Great Woods study area as an Area of Special Concern,
including land currently owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Tri- County
Beagle Club, and several private owners (including the entire Central subarea as described
in the build -out analysis). Clearly, development of any of these parcels would conflict with
the goals of the Open Space and Recreation Plan, which focuses on them both as part of the
Great Woods and.as areas of particular environmental significance.
2. Protect aquifers and groundwater recharge areas
The Plan's objectives echo the recommendation of the Master Plan for a "Zone 2" study
for existing and proposed town wells, as well as recommending that the town's Water
Resources District be modified based on the results of the study and that land acquisition
activities take the delineated Zone 2 areas into consideration. Since it is quite possible that
portions of the Great Woods study area would be included in a Zone 2 delineation,
continued development within the study area could be in conflict with this goal. However,
in the absence of the recommended Zone 2 study it is not possible to draw any firm
conclusion in this regard.
3. Provide for public access to conservation lands and manage In accordance
with community needs
The plan recommended that trails be developed in the town -owned conservation
properties within the Great Woods. The development permitted under existing zoning
t would not impact on this recommendation.
The LandUse Collaborative Page 7
Great Woods Area Land Use Study Implirations of Existing Zoning & Potential Development
4. Expand and Improve recreational facilities
The plan recommended that satellite playground and park areas be developed for the
East and West Mansfield areas, to serve the new residential growth. However, a location
suggested for such facilities include the undeveloped recreational property on West and
Pine Streets, and the Great Woods area is not identified as a potential location.
Industrial Park vs. Commercial Strip — The School Street Corridor
The stretch of School Street between Interstate 495 and "new" Route 140 is zoned
"Industrial Park" (I1), reflecting the town's strategy of providing additional development
space with good access to the regional highway system. According to the Master Plan, the
Il zoning district was designed to reserve certain areas, including the "Golden Triangle ",
"Primarily for the expansion of industrial and office uses." As inducements to such uses,
greater building heights and floor area ratios were permitted in the Il district for office and
industrial buildings than for retail uses, and these intensity standards are also more
permissive in the Il district than in other industrial districts in the town.
The Master Plan stated that "the amount of retail development [in the Il district] is
restricted in order to restrain the growth in traffic and encourage the retention of a strong
downtown Mansfield." However, in addition to industrial and warehousing uses, the Il
district permits a broad range of business uses as of right, including retail stores, office
buildings, restaurants, amusement facilities, and automobile repair and body shops, and
dealerships. Special permit uses in this district include malls, fast food restaurants, gas
stations, and motor vehicle salvage yards.
The "Golden Triangle" is abutted on the north by the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes
industrial park, and the I1 zoning was created specifically to extend the CC &F land use
pattern. However, there are two characteristics of the School Street corridor that
distinguish it from the existing development to the north and that will influence what
specific uses are established there. First, the parcels on the northerly side of School Street
are relatively narrow, with the railroad line behind them. Parcel depths range from about
600 feet near Route 140 to less than 200 feet at the intersection with a dead -end street, with
two additional parcels in a narrow triangle adjacent to Interstate 495. It is not clear whether
such parcels could be developed for industrial uses comparable to those on the north side of
the railroad line, which are on substantially larger lots: for example, of the three buildings
directly north of the tracks only one would fit on the north side of School Street even if the
existing small lots were consolidated.
Second, School Street serves as one of two major collector roads for the residential
areas of West Mansfield. A build -out analysis conducted for the town by SRPEDD in
1988 identified this section of road as one of two "areas of concern" with respect to
business and industrial traffic generation. The SRPEDD report noted that School Street
"will probably bear the burden of ... the majority of the traffic generated by the new
residential growth in the western end of the town and a portion of the business and
industrial traffic." Because School Street provides an important access to the existing
The LandUse Collaborative Page 8
Great Woods Area Land Use Study Implications of Existing Zoning & Potential Development
industrial park area (via Plymouth Street), and also serves as a major connector between
downtown Mansfield, West Mansfield neighborhoods, and Route 140, there will be
increasing pressure to develop frontage parcels for roadside service uses and convenience
stores. To the extent that these parcels are less desirable for industrial and office uses due
to their sizes and configurations, this pressure could easily result in their development for
retail and service uses.
Thus, although the purpose of the Il zoning district is to promote industrial and office
uses with a modest amount of supporting retail and service uses, the realities of parcel
configurations and market forces may well result in a very different outcome for School
Street: the emergence of a commercial strip. By creating a new suburban shopping
corridor, this would clearly conflict with the primary Master Plan goal of preserving
Mansfield's "small -town character".
Furthermore, commercial roadside development along School Street would have a
considerable negative impact on the visual quality of the corridor because Mansfield's
Zoning By -Law contains only minimal landscaping and design standards for parking areas.
In particular, the following aspects of the regulations should be noted:
• Driveways may be up to 50 feet wide (and wider if divided), and may be spaced
as close as 30 feet apart.
• Parking lots must be screened at lot lines, but only a ten -foot landscaped strip is
required at the street line.
• There are no requirements for internal landscaping of parking lots.*
• There are no requirements for locations or setbacks of parking areas.
These standards are appropriate for development within industrial parks and downtown
areas, but are inadequate for a roadway like School Street with potential conflicts between
local and through traffic and high visibility by passing traffic. For example, under these
standards, driveways could take up nearly two - thirds of the street frontage, with less than
two car lengths between each pair of potential turning movements.
In order to preserve the quality of the School Street corridor the town should make
several changes in its Zoning By -Laws. First, the table of use regulations should be
revised to expand the list of retail and service uses that would require a special permit.**
Second, detailed landscaping and screening regulations should be developed for
commercial uses in the Il district in order to preserve the appearance of the corridor.
* For a parcel with the minimum required area of 40,000 square feet, the requirement that 35 percent of
the lot area be maintained as open space could be achieved with a 20 -foot landscaped strip around the
perimeter of the parcel
** Alternatively, the town could consider establishing a special corridor business district along the
School Street frontage in recognition of the greater potential that this area has for retail and service uses in
comparison to industrial development.
The LandUse Collaborative Page 9
Great Woods Area Land Use Study Implications of Existing Zoning & Potential Development
m Finally, the regulations regarding driveway design and spacing should be modified to take
( ") into consideration the relatively high traffic volumes along collectors such as School Street
and the safety and congestion implications inherent in commercial strip development.
Summary and Conclusions
The build -out analysis estimated that under existing zoning regulations, approximately
450 acres that are now open space could be developed for residential commercial, or indus-
trial uses. This total represents about 45 percent of the undeveloped land in the study area,
and 64 percent of the undeveloped land in private ownership. Because of the patterns of
public land ownership, drainage systems, and soils indicative of wetlands areas, this land
is primarily located around the northerly and southerly edges of the study area, including
the "Golden Triangle" area and several large parcels that are currently participating in
preferential open space taxation programs. The amount of development estimated by the
build -out analysis would not be affected by the introduction of a new roadway into the
interior of the study area; however, such a roadway would advance the timing of that
development and would also put pressure on the town for zoning changes to permit even
more intensive development.
The review of Mansfield's Master Plan and Open Space and Recreation Plan has
identified the following actual and potential inconsistencies between the town's stated land
use goals and objectives and the development policies that are implied in its zoning
regulations:
The extensive array of business uses allowed as of right and by special permit in the
Il district is inconsistent with the goal of limiting business and service uses outside
the downtown area.
The lack of a scientific delineation of the town's groundwater recharge areas (i.e, a
"Zone 2" study) has precluded a clear understanding of the potential impacts of
development on the groundwater supply. The Master Plan recommends reduced
density in recharge areas, and both the Master Plan and the Open Space Plan
recommend increased town acquisition of open space in such areas.
• The relationship between zoning and roadway capacity does not appear to have
been addressed in the establishment of the Il districts along School Street and
South Main Street.
The Open Space and Recreation Plan targets the Great Woods area in general, and
the central core of the study area in particular, for open space preservation. The
"Area of Special Concern" includes the Tri- County Beagle Club property, the state -
owned land adjacent to the interchange of I -495 and Route 140, and the privately -
owned parcels in the interior of the study area. Development of any of these
parcels, although currently permitted by zoning, would conflict with the goals and
objectives of the Open Space and Recreation Plan.
The LandUse Collaborative Page 10
Great Woods Area Land Use Study Implications of Existing Zoning & Potential Development
• In addition to the permissive zoning that applies elsewhere in the I1 district, School
Street between the I -495 overpass and Route 140 has two characteristics that will
tend to make retail and service development more likely than industrial uses: (1) the
street's dual role as a collector for the West Mansfield residential neighborhoods
and an access to the CC &F industrial park (via Plymouth Street), and (2) the
configuration of parcels on the north side of the street. Extensive roadside
commercial development with minimal site design controls, as currently permitted
under the town's Zoning By -Law, would conflict with the stated purpose of the Il
district, with the goal of concentrating future retail and service development in the
downtown area, and with the primary goal of preserving Mansfield's "small -town
character."
The LandUse Collaborative Page 11
MA.RK EosRowsxz
ATTORNEY AT LAW
17 COCASSET STREET
FOxBOROUGH. MA 02035
(608) 543-0408
May 14, 1993
TO: Mansfield Planning Board
Mansfield Board of Appeals
FR: Mark Bobrowski
RE: Proposed Zoning Revisions
My review of the Mansfield Zoning By -laws for the Strategic
Planning Grant identified several issues of mutual concern to the
Planning Board and the Board of Appeals. Accordingly, I
suggested that the boards meet jointly on May 26th to discuss
these matters.
First, your existing provision governing "use variances" is
unclear. Second, I suggest adding several special permit
criteria for general consideration. Finally, the provisions
governing nonconformiites should be further updated to remain
consistent with case law. Each item will be discussed in turn.
1.. Use Variances
Section 6.2.2.c states, in part, that a variance may be
awarded "where a particular use is sought for which no permit is
required, with respect to a particular parcel of land or to an
existing building thereon I am unable to construct a
workable interpretation of this clause. To the extent that it
purports to authorize "use variances," it is ambiguous, at best.
A use variance "is one which permits a use of land other
than those prescribed by the zoning "regulations." G. L. c. 40A,
s.10 states, in part, that "(e)xcept where local ordinances or
by -laws shall expressly permit variances for use, no variance may
authorize a use or activity not otherwise permitted in the
district in which the land or structure is located." In other
words, a use variance must be expressly permitted by local by-
law, or it may not be properly issued. Even then, use variances,
at least. since the adoption of the modern Zoning Act in 1975, are
greatly disfavored. I know of no reported post -1975 appellate
decision upholding the award of a use variance.
In order to obtain a use variance, a petitioner must
demonstrate that all of the statutory prerequisites have been
satisfied. As a threshold test, the petitioner must be able to
demonstrate that the use variance is necessitated by soil, shape
or topographical circumstances. Kirkwood v. Board of Appeals of
Rockport, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 423 (1984), provides an illustration
of these principles. The petitioner received a use variance to
construct a multi - family building in a single - family residential
district. Among other claims, the petitioner asserted that the
property, which was located directly on the oceanfront, would
require an extensive sea -wall, foundation work, and site
alterations to serve as a residential lot, and that these changes
would be cost prohibitive for a single - family home.l After the
use variance was issued, abutters appealed.
At trial, the lower court reversed the decision of the
board of appeals. The appeals court agreed, noting that had the
petitioner showed "that utilization of his land for a single
family residence would be economically unfeasible," the use
variance might be warranted. Although the Appeals Court reversed
the award, Kirkwood shows how the prerequisities of unusual site
conditions and hardship apply in the context of a use variance.
The use variance must also avoid substantial detriment to
the area and derogation from the local ordinance or by -law. In
Cavanaugh v. DiFlumera, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 396 (1980), the court
stated its interpretation of the interaction between these
prerequisites while reviewing a classic petition for a use
variance. The appeals court held that findings on detriment
"apply with equal force to the substantial derogation question."
The requirement of substantial derogation recognizes that
the 'effect of a variance is to give a landowner a license
or permit to use his property in a manner otherwise
violative of the zoning ordinance,' and that a use variance
in particular 'permits a use which the ordinance prohibits'
Because of this, some derogation from the by -law's purpose
is anticipated by every variance.
In Boston Edison Co v Boston Redevelopment Authority, 374 Mass.
37, 66 (1977), the court reviewed the usual approach to the
detriment /derogation prerequisites for a use variance:
1 Petitioner cited the cost of the seawall as $150,000.
Allegedly, the extensive foundation work necessary to protect any
structure from the ocean and an existing oversized septic system
on the premises also served to drive up the cost of a single -
family home.
When an area is zoned for residential purposes and the
(' district has retained its essentially residential character,
a variance allowing the introduction of commercial
enterprise is improvidently granted. The inquiry which
these cases require is whether the introduction of the
nonconforming use 'would unquestionably alter the essential
character of an otherwise residential neighborhood. "'
On the other hand, where preexisting uses are mixed, "the
standard for determining whether a variance should be granted
often seems to be less strictly applied."
In order to fix Section 6.2.2.c, you should decide on one of
the following approaches to use variances:
* prohibit all use variances;
* prohibit use variances in specified (probably
residential) districts; or
* permit use variances where statutorily appropriate.
Most towns of Mansfield's size and character probably ban use
variances.
2. Special Permit Criteria
Section 5.5.6 sets forth various factors to be considered in
weighing special permit applications, including:
* health, safety, and the general welfare (5.5.6.1);
* protection of adjoining premises (5.5.6.2);
* vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety (5.5.6.3); and
* adequacy of municipal services (5.5.6.4).
I suggest that several additional criteria be added to this mix,
including:
* detriment to the environment;
* neighborhood character and social structure; and
* fisacl impact on the community.
Arguably, these criteria are already encompassed within the
notion of 5.5.6.1's "general welfare" clause. However, it does
3
no harm to inform applicants that they will be expected to
provide information to the granting authority on these items
of concern. The environmental factor is particularly noteworthty
in the Great Woods Study Area.
I also suggest rewording Section 5.5.6 to state a clearer
standard of review:
No special permit shall be approved until the designated
special permit granting authority has determined that the
application and plans meet the submission and technical
requirements of this by -law and that the benefits of the
proposed project outweigh its detrimental effects, after
consideration of all of the following criteria ....
The criteria should be slightly reworded to preserve the grammar
of the sentence.
Finally, Section 6.2.2.b should be reworded. I suggest the
following:
Special permits. To grant a special permit as provided in
this by -law when it has has determined that the application
and plans meet the submission and technical requirements of
this by -law and that the benefits of the proposed project
outweigh its detrimental effects, after consideration of
all appropriate criteria.
The reference to "an extension" is confusing, in that it seems to
limit the board's powers to nonconformities.
3. Modification of Nonconformities
Article 28 of the annual town meeting substantially rewrote
Section 3.10 of the zoning by -law. However, these changes did
not go far enough. I suggest that the section be scrapped in its
entirety and that the following choices be considered, largely in
an attempt to bring the by -law up to date with case law.
G. L. c. 40A, s.6, paragraph 1, sentence 1 provides that
a zoning ordinance or by -law shall not apply to structures
or uses lawfully in existence . . . but shall apply to any
change or substantial extension of such use . . . to any
reconstruction, extension or structural change of such
structure and to any alteration of a structure . . . to
provide for a substantially different purpose or for the
same purpose in a substantially different manner or to a
substantially greater extent.
The statute also adds, in sentence two:
4
(p)re- existing nonconforming structures or uses may be
extended or altered, provided, that no such extension or
alteration shall be permitted unless there is a finding by
the permit granting authority or by the special permit
granting authority designated by ordinance or by -law that
such change, extension or alteration shall not be
substantially more detrimental than. the existing
nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
The first sentence suggests that a municipality has the power to
regulate or prohibit changes to nonconformities. On the other
hand, the second sentence appears to instruct municipalities to
allow changes if the requisite finding may be issued.
In Blasco v Board of Appeals of Winchendon, 31 Mass. App.
Ct. 32, 35 -39 (1991), the appeals court interpreted the statute
to provide for maximum local control of nonconformities. At
issue in Blasco was a proposed change in use, which would have
converted a nonconforming gravel removal operation to a
nonconforming demolition landfill. The Winchendon by -law was
silent on change from one nonconforming use to another.
Accordingly, the proponent asserted that the second sentence of
the statute, which purports to allow alterations on a finding,
was controlling. The board granted a special permit for the
change, and abutters appealed.
The appeals court held that the statute "prescribes the
minimum of tolerance that must be accorded to nonconforming uses,
existing buildings and structures, and the existing use of any
building or structure." The "minimum tolerance" required is
recognition that the local regulation shall not apply to
"structures or uses lawfully in existence or lawfully begun, or
to a building or special permit issued before the first
publication of notice of the public hearing on such ordinance or
by -law." However, unless a municipality has specifically
authorized:
change or substantial extension of a use;
reconstruction, extension or structural change of a
structure; or
alteration of a structure to provide for a
substantially different purpose or for the same purpose
in a substantially different manner or to a
substantially greater extent
such modifications will not be permitted. Where the ordinance or
by -law does not expressly speak to such changes, by setting forth
special rules for the alteration of nonconformities, the
otherwise applicable regulations will govern and invariably lead
to a prohibition of the change. Resort to the statute will not
overcome local silence on the matter.
t'
Application of Blasco to the Mansfield Zoning By -Law reveals
its flaws. Section 3.10 is entitled "Non- Conforming Uses ". It
does not mention nonconforming structures. Nor do Section 3.10.1
or 3.10.2, which define nonconforming uses (incompletely, by the
way) without reference to nonconforming structures.
At a minimum, Section 3.10 should indicate that the by -law
allows
* change or substantial extension of a use;
* reconstruction, extension or structural change of a
structure; and /or
* alteration of a structure to provide for a
substantially different purpose or for the same purpose
in a substantially different manner or to a
substantially greater extent.
Ideally, the by -law should specify those types of changes
permissible upon a special permit or finding:
* change from one nonconforming use to another;
* change from a nonconforming use to a permitted use
provided that no reversion to a nonconforming use will
be allowed;
* reconstruction of a structure after catastrophe;
* reconstruction of a structure after demolition;
* changes to nonconforming single or two family
residential structures.
Please consider which of these changes should be allowed.
Three minor matters deserve mention. In changing Section
6.2.2.d to authorize some modifications by a finding, you should
be clear that a finding requires only a majority vote, and not a
supermajority. In changing Section 3.10.4.b to allow for changes
on a finding to residential structures, you have been overly
generous - the statute only mentions single and two family
residential structures. Finally, the last sentence of 3.10.4.a
does not apply to nonconforming residential structures, which
case law authorizes to add new nonconformities by special permit,
not a variance.
�' 6