HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Brd Min_551993Present:
Planners:
MINUTES
May 5,.1993
Chairman Madan, Acting
Annino,'Sullivan
Clerk Flynn
Richard Lewis, Environmental and Conservation Agent
1. 7:00 P.M. - Land Use Study Workshop
Both Consultants, Mark Bobrowski and Rick Taintor, were present
during the workshop.
The workshop began with Rick Taintor presenting a report of
"Implications of Existing Zoning and Potential Development ".
A copy of Pir. Taintor's report is attached. Mr. Taintor's
presentation was broken down into five sections:
A. Potential Loss of Open Space
B. Relationship of Route 140 Extension to Zoning and Build -Out
C. Consistency with 1988 Master Plan Goals
D. Consistency with 1989 Open Space and Recreation Plan Goals and
Objectives
E. Industrial Park vs. Commercial Strip - School Street
Board /Public Comment:
Planner Flynn asked what effect the extension of Route 140 would
have on zoning in the area.
Leonard Flynn of the Natural Resources Trust commented on the
extension of Route 140 and wetlands and soils maps.
Karl Clemmey commented on land within the study area owned by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Attorney Mark Bobrowski presented several recommended amendments
to Section 4.8 Waterbody Setback and Wetlands Protection of the
Zoning By -Law. A copy of Attorney Bobrowski's report is
attached.
Following Attorney Bobrowski's presentation, his suggested
amendments were discussed by the Planning Board and the public.
During discussions it was suggested that the Board of Appeals not
be the Special Permit granting authority as stated in proposed
Section 4.8A.4 Uses Permitted by Special Permit because the
Zoning Board usually does not deal with this type of information
and is not as familiar with it as another Board may be.
Planner Flynn stated that it would be helpful if the Board
members could receive the consultants 'reports two or three days
in advance of the workshop in order to have a better understand-
ing of the reports and allow for the Board to be more involved in
the'discussions.
Planner Sullivan stated that proposed Section 4.8.3 "Plan" should
reference that the plan shall be stamped by a Registered
Professional - Engineer.
Attorney Bobrowski stated that he would like to discuss who
should be the Special Permit granting authority at a future
meeting. Attorney Bobrowski also stated that he would like the
Planning Board to hold a joint meeting with the Zoning Board to
discuss use variances, non - conforming uses, and special permits.
Karl Clemmey stated that the consultants should look at the
soils /land in the study area.
At the conclusion of the
consultants discussed addi
purpose of the meeting
amendments to Section 4.8
variances, non - conforming
Zoning Board of Appeals.
workshop, the Planning Board and the
ng an additional workshop meeting. The
would be to discuss the proposed
at a greater length and discuss use
uses, and special permits with the
The additional meeting will be held on May 26, 1993 at 7:00 P.M.,
and the Board of Appeals will be invited to the meeting at 8:30
P.M.
2. Correspondence
MOTION: Planner Flynn to be Acting Clerk.
(Annino - Sullivan) All in favor. PASSES.
Chairman Madan stated that since the Annual Town Meeting is over
he would accept nominations for Chairman.
Planner Flynn suggested that reorganization be put off until the
full Board is present.
MOTION: To delay reorganization until the full Board is present.
(Flynn - Sullivan) All in favor. PASSES.
Memo from Daniel B. Clifford, Subdivision Inspector, to Shaun Burke,
Director of Planning and Development, recommending that $27,509 be
released for the Katherine Court subdivision
MOTION: To release the.above amount.
(Annino - Sullivan) All in favor. PASSES.
Memo from Bert Cook, Inspector of Buildings /Zoning Enforcement
Officer, with attached letter from Elizabeth Clemmey requesting a
surplus removal permit
Following a discussion of the request the following action was
taken:
MOTION: To send a positive recommendation to the Building Inspector
provided the material is :surplus..
(Sullivan- Flynn) All in favor. PASSES.
Letter from The Bonwood Company, Inc. to Shaun Burke, Director of
Planning and Development, requesting a permit to remove excess fill
in the Massapoag Estates subdivision
MOTION: To table until we hear from Mr. Clifford as to whether the
material is excess or if an earth removal permit is
required.
(Flynn- Sullivan) All in favor. PASSES.
MOTION: To send a letter to the Building Inspector regarding water
pressure in Massapoag Estates and how it relates to the
Building Code.
(Annino- Flynn) All in Favor. PASSES.
Letter from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts regarding Mill Farm
Estates
Memo to Shaun Burke, Director of Planning and Development, from Dan
Clifford, Subdivision Inspector, regarding Van Gemert Estates and
Trowbridge Woods
Petition to the Board of Selectmen to abandon Old Maple Street from
residents of the area
Memo to William Madan, Chairman, Planning Board, from Shaun Burke,
Director of Planning and Development, regarding Article 39 of the
Annual Town Meeting warrant
3. Public Discussion
Karl Clemmey requested that the Planning Board present their
recommendations to Town Meeting in a less confusing manner.
4. Adjournment - 9:30 P.M.
ClevI's Signature Date of Approval
r ,
MARK BOBROWSKI
ATTORNEY AT LAW
17 COCASSET STREET
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 Ridgebury
Scarboro Walpole
Medisaprists
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.
o
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
3
The following uses are permitted as of right in the Wetlands
Protection Districts:
a. conservation of soil, 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
Wetlands Protection Districts provided that all of the following
findings are made by the board of appeals:
a. that the land containing the poorly or very poorly
drained soil associations is not a wetland area, as '
defined by G.L. c. 131, s. 40;
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 to the
Conservation Commission within five (5) days of receipt for
review and recommendations. Failure by the Conservation
Commission to report to the board of appeals within thirty (30)
days thereafter shall be deemed a lack of opposition to the
proposed work. 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
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.
5
Jx
No portion
of the wetland area `or
portion of the lot within the
protected setback from the wetland area maybe used in -computing + `
the minimum buildable area required in the'district in which the
4
lot is located.
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.
l
r
GREAT WOODS AREA LAND USE STUDY
IMPLICATIONS OF EXISTING ZONING
AND POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
9
May 5,1993
Prepared for:
Town of Mansfield
Planning Board
d• The LandUse Collaborative ❖
G7eat 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 1,988 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
IntrodUctlon
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
acreage, 45 percent of the undeveloped land in the study area, and 64 percent of the
The LandUse Collaborative May 1993
Great 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
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.
Relationship of Route 140 Extension to Zoning and Build -Out
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 Development
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 anew 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
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 fists 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
Strate 'es:
• Reduce densities in outlne 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 clustering to 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
trategies:
• Reduce non - residential development outside downtown
The creation of the Industrial Park (I1) district did not reduce the potential for non-
residential development outside the downtown. Permitted development intensities
are higher in the Central Business (BI) and Downtown Mixed Use (112) districts
than in the II 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 mull- family development on older
industrial sites to diversify 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
Strategies:
• 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.
• Aggessive 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 outing 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 Open pace 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
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
would not impact on this recommendation.
The LandUse Collaborative Page 7
Great Woods Area Land Use Study Implications 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
I1 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 I1 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 I1
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 I 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
speck 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
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
I1 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 T' 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 I1 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 Il district, School
Street between the 1 -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 I1
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