HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 3/5/1997RECEIVED
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES } (}V; -?, C!_i- °l`,- OFFICE
March 5, 1997
97 FiAR 28 AM 8:30
Present: Thomas French, Chairman; John Sullivan, Clerk; Planners Bernie Dolan,.. - r,
Marydee Flynn, Duane Frederick and Ralph Penney. Also present was Shaun 1 � Cr l �
B
Director of Planning and Development. ,'{�SACIllSE 1 TS
Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Correspondence
1. Minutes of February 19, 1997
It was noted that on page 2, Special Permit for Donald P. Zecher of the Old
Country Store, the motion was made by Mr. Penney, seconded by Mr. Sullivan
and passed 5 -0. Also noted was that the parking lot markings and signage were
to make motorists aware of pedestrian traffic and to provide protection for the
handicapped ramp extending out into the parking lot. During the discussion of
Mayhew Farms, Mr. Dolan questioned the traffic counts given for School
Street and asked when they had been done and that the applicant and engineer
volunteered to make an informal presentation. Mr. Sullivan had stated that
additional drainage documents had been submitted which contain a pre and post
drainage map.
With regard to the discussion of filing fees in Item 20 on page 3, Mr. Sullivan
also expressed concern that the three different categories for fees may not all be
changed when the regular subdivision fees are changed.
Motion: To approve the Minutes of February 19, 1997 as amended.
(Sullivan- Penney) 4 -0 -2 with Mr. Frederick and Mrs. Flynn
abstaining. PASSES
2. Memo from MEPA re: meeting on Sewer Extension -Sturbridge Estates
3. Copy of letter from David Johnson of P.M.P. Associates to Board of Selectmen
requesting a fee waiver for a residential compound off Bird Road
4. Copy of memo to Town Manager from Shaun Burke re: street acceptances for
Town Meeting - Mr. Dolan questioned the acceptance of Necco Road when
the Board had received a memo from Dan Clifford saying the work has not
all been dune. Mr. Burke explained that this was a subdivision that was in
default and that the town is completing the work. Board members asked
if this was costing the town money and questioned the fact that the costs
detailed by Mr. Clifford exceed the surety balance. Mr. Burke assured the
Board that this was a situation involving litigation and that a settlement had
been reached whereby no expense was being incurred by the town.
5. Public Hearing Notice - Foxboro Planning Board
6. Public Hearing Notices (3) - North Attleboro Planning Board
7. Public Hearing Notice - Attleboro Planning Board
8. Public Hearing Notices (2) - Easton ZBA
9. Public Hearing Notice - Sharon Planning Board
10. Public Hearing Notice - North Attleboro ZBA
11. Trust for Public Land
12. New England Economic Indicators
13. New England Planning
13. The Beacon
14. George Washington University seminar notice
15. Community Links newsletter
16. EPA's Transportation Partners awards application
17. Bristol Conservation District Earth Day notice
18. Memo from Dan Clifford re: partial release of surety - George Fram Estates,
$10,000. for landscaping work completed, leaving a balance of $130,076.77
Motion: To release $10,000. as requested
(Sullivan - Dolan) 6 -0 PASSES
19. Letter from Carol Connelly of 22 Smith Road re: Hodges Brook Estates
20. Memo from Dan Clifford in response to letter of Carol Connelly
21. February 1997 Building Construction report
8:00 p.m. - Public Hearing on Subdivision of parcel of land on Creedon Street
Michael Carchedi
Clerk Sullivan read the advertisement for the public hearing as it had appeared in the
Mansfield News and correspondence received from the applicants requesting a fee
waiver. Mr. Burke explained that the application was before the board because the ZBA
had granted a variance for the property, but the Planning Board cannot sign a Form A due
to the non - conforming lot being created and that the variance cannot remedy the problem.
No additional structures are being created and the reason for the request is to remedy a lot
line problem whereby the applicant's driveway encroached on the abutter's property. The
abutter was agreeable to the proposed land swap and Mr. Burke recommended that the
Planning Board approve the plan.
Mrs. Flynn asked how long the house has been there and Mr. Penney asked when the
driveway was constructed. Mr. Carchedi said the house has been there for thirteen years
and that the driveway was constructed when the house was built. Mr. Penney asked
about the jog in the lot line of the proposed plan and Mr. Carchedi explained that he had
to have 18,000 sq.ft. Sharon Introini, the abutter participating in the land swap, asked if
not having 100 feet frontage will cause her any problem in the future and was told that it
would not, provided the variance is recorded at the Registry of Deeds.
Motion: To close the hearing at 8:20 p.m.
(Sullivan - Dolan) 6 -0 PASSES
Motion: To waive the frontage requirement for Lot 6 on a plan prepared by RIM
Engineering dated August 25, 1996, last revised September 20, 1996, and to sign
the above - mentioned plan since the frontage requirement has been waived by the
the ZBA, the existing encroachment of Lot 5's driveway on the lot line has
gone undetected for years through no fault of the owners, and the request does not
derogate from the intent of the Zoning By -law.
(Sullivan- Dolan) 6 -0 PASSES
Motion: To waive the normal Form C filing fees; however, the applicant will be
responsible for recording the notice and any costs incurred by the town in the
processing of this request.
(Sullivan - Dolan) 6 -0 PASSES
Mrs. Flynn questioned why the Building Department hadn't become aware of this
problem when the as -built was submitted. Mr. Penney noted that driveways are not
shown on the as -built plan submitted. Mrs. Flynn requested that we add review of as-
built procedures to the Planning Board worklist in order to avoid this problem in the
future.
8:30 p.m. - Public Hearing on Zoning By -Law Amendments sponsored by Richard
Devine for March 10, 1997 Special Town Meeting
Clerk Sullivan read the hearing notice and advertisement as it appeared in the Mansfield
News on February 14th and February 21st, as well as the opinion of Town Counsel
regarding the proposed amendment. Chairman French stated that the Planning Board is
required to hold a public hearing on any by -law amendments and will be asked at Town
Meeting to make a recommendation.
Mr. Devine presented his amendment regarding the limitation of building permits,
explaining that it is similar to the article presented by the Planning Board at the
September 1996 Special Town Meeting and subsequently withdrawn. He stated that his
amendment is based on a by -law of Blackstone, MA, which has been in effect since 1979
and is based on Appeals Court decisions. He stated that he is unsure what Town Counsel
means regarding "unused authorization" and that this is the language which was used in
the Appeals Court interpretation of the Blackstone by -law which Town Counsel probably
hadn't read. Mr. Devine agreed to amending 4.2.3.2.1 "Grandfather Protection" by
deleting the last third of the proposal, starting with "The Building Inspector shall not
issue building permits..." and ending with "...effective upon adoption of this by -law"
which he had added to clarify the Court's decision. On 4.2.3.2 "Applicability" it was
agreed that the applicant would add a definition of "unused authorizations" as "the
issuance of a building permit which has not been used."
John Bryson of the Bristol - Norfolk Home Builders Association stated that it appears the
applicant is basing his amendment on Blackstone and not taking into consideration the
history of building permits issued in Mansfield since the recent by -law amendment
increasing lot size. He further pointed out that not only are home builders affected by a
limitation on building permits, but that local tradespeople and suppliers are also affected.
He stated his belief that the problem can be resolved without capping building and
controlling business.
Mr. Devine responded that 100 to 115 homes is what he believes to be a reasonable
number and that economics shouldn't dictate growth because the resulting need for
additional schools has increased our tax rate. He further stated that 1,600 homes have
been built over the last 10 years and that we need a strategic plan to plan for future
services. Mr. Bryson responded that it's important to see where the growth is coming
from and that you can't apply different standards to industrial and residential.
Mallory Diggs of O'Brien and Meeks said that this plan does not appear to tie into the
town's Master Plan and asked where the math is that shows that it's houses that create the
tax burden. She also pointed out that the homes being built are generating tax revenue
forever and that no consideration has been given to how many years these homes will be
providing school -age children and how many years without.
Mr. Devine replied that the need to build additional schools for the children living in all
these new homes is placing a tax burden on the elderly and that we need responsible,
controlled growth or we'll be building another school in seven years.
Ms. Diggs pointed out that the town is also receiving state reimbursement for the schools
and that each of these new houses is generating $4,000 to $6,000 in local real estate tax
revenue each year.
Mr. French pointed out that the town also has a problem with water and that the board has
been asked how we can allow new homes to be built when we have water bans every
summer trying to supply the existing homes.
David McCarter of 152 Dean Street stated that he has heard the Planning Board will be
presenting a similar article at the Annual Town Meeting and asked what the difference is
between Mr. Devine's article and the Planning Board article. Mr. Burke said there are
two different issues - -that the "rolling" 12 -month period proposed by Mr. Devine would
be an administrative problem and that the Planning Board proposes a 12 -month calendar
year. Mr. Burke also stated that Planning Board proposes an appeals process whereby if
after six months the permits are not projected to reach 115 by the end of the year, parties
who had already applied for and received 12 permits could seek to get additional building
permits by the special permit process, as long as the 115 limit is not exceeded. Mr.
McCarter asked how many permits would not have been issued this year if the by -law
had been adopted in the fall and questioned the urgency of calling for a Special Town
Meeting. Mr. Burke said that there would probably be no permits denied this year had
the amendment been "adopted in the fall. Mr. French stated that a citizen's petition has
generated the need for a Special Town Meeting. Mr. McCarter asked if Mr. Devine had
consulted with the Planning Board before proposing the amendment. Mr. Devine said he
had not and just took the Planning Board's article and modified the language to
Blackstone's by -law and added the "grandfather" section.
Mr. Penney stated that if the warrant article had passed, the limit would be 115 with no
one developer being granted more than 12 per year. He further pointed out that just last
month a single developer was issued 6 permits.
Roy McDonald of 59 North Street asked if a duplex would be considered one or two
permits. Mr. Burke said that it would be one building permit for the structure but, under
4
the proposal, would count as two units toward the limit. Mr. McDonald asked if that
results in eliminating the building of condos.
Greg Spier of Maystar Development stated that he owns apartments in Foxboro and has
many elderly residents. He said that this proposal would eliminate housing for the
elderly. Mr. Devine replied that they would be exempt from the Zoning By -Law under
Chapter 40B and a determination could be made by the ZBA. Mr. Spier said that
provision only applies to Federally assisted housing and that this proposal eliminates the
building of privately funded elderly housing. He further pointed out that with lot sizes
now at 60,000 sq.ft. and with increasing costs for land and road development, houses
being built are $300,000 and that young people are being priced out of the market. He
also said that the recent change in lot size as a means of limiting growth has not yet been
given a fair chance.
Paul Folkman of 190 Winter Street spoke on the economic impact of the proposed by -law
and stated that Mr. Devine is taking a simplistic view of the growth problem and not
considering the economic impact limiting growth will have on those individuals eaming a
livelihood in the town. He continued, saying that Mr. Devine is only looking at the
schools and not presenting any figures to back up his proposal.
Karl Clemmey of 750 South Main Street spoke against Mr. Devine's proposal, stating
that it should come from the Master Plan. He also stated that houses don't use the bulk of
the water in this town and that the contamination of the Cate Springs well was the biggest
problem and that it was the increase in lot size that caused the building rush.
Ms. Diggs contended that the well contamination was due to improperly working septic
systems in older homes and that septic systems installed in new homes must meet Title 5
requirements. Rick O'Brien, also of O'Brien and Meeks, stated that half the people
moving into the houses he's building in Mansfield are already town residents and, in
selling their older homes, their septic systems must be brought up to Title 5 standards if
there is a problem with them. He also pointed out that many older residents sell their
homes to move into retirement homes and will not be able to afford to sell their homes if
prices drop.
Mr. Folkman asked if amendments can be put forth on Town Meeting floor after the
public hearing. Mr. Burke responded that it was up to the moderator and that it's not so
much what's discussed at the public hearing as how it's advertised and whether an
amendment to the proposed by -law substantially changes it. Mr. Folkman also made the
point that linking building in general to the cost of schools and the number of children is
ridiculous in his opinion because you could build ten one - bedroom homes that will not
contribute any children to the school population. He went on to state that building runs in
cycles and that there's a need for the ability to bank permits from year to year when
building is slow.
Mr. Bryson asked what's to stop a large developer with 20 -30 people holding
construction supervisors licenses to come in and tie up all the permits for a whole year.
Stan Feck of Elmwood Court expressed concern that this proposal would make it difficult
for him to build in his own town.
Clerk Sullivan stated that the applicant has included a statement of purpose in his
proposal. Mr. Penney said that he has read the purpose, but would like to hear the
purpose stated in the applicant's own words. Mr. Devine responded that he has lived in
town for 21 years and that over the years there's been an explosion of growth. As more
people move in, he cannot drive up to the center with all the traffic, that there's been a
problem with the water and the need for the Jordan - Jackson School in 1989 and now
other school additions are necessary. He believes there is a need to stop growth and
stabilize the tax rate and was amazed to see that Blackstone has had such a by -law since
1979 and that we need to plan in a reasonable, responsible manner.
Mr. Penney recognized that Mr. Devine is attempting to even out growth and that the
issues of water, sewer and schools is clearly related to the issue of children, but
questioned where the "115" came from. Mr. Devine said that he derived that number by
averaging numbers from a variety of sources.
Mr. Dolan asked how many buildable lots are presently out there. Mr. Burke replied that
there are potentially 2,000 to 2,500 with an additional 500 grandfathered and that build -
out is projected by the year 2020.
Mrs. Flynn questioned 4.2.3.5 "Notification" and Mr. Devine said he would be willing to
delete it.
Mr. Frederick said that he is concerned about the affect the proposal would have on the
ability to construct elderly housing. Mr. Devine said that relief could be granted through
the ZBA. Discussion continued regarding the need for the amendment and various issues
related to it, including suggestions on how to do it fairly and equitably and the need to
compromise. Mr. Frederick stated that he too is aware of the cyclical nature of the
building industry and the economic impact of such an amendment.
Mr. Devine was asked to better define "applicant" in Section 4.2.3.4 Building Permits
Standards and agreed that he would do so.
This portion of the public hearing closed at 10:10 p.m. and the public hearing on the
zoning by -law amendment relating to adult bookstore and adult material compliance
commenced.
Mr. Devine stated that he had read the opinion of Town Counsel and that he was
( presenting this amendment in response to the situation that had occurred in Foxboro this
past summer whereby an individual with a past criminal complaint was employed by a
video store, during which time he was charged with another offense. Mr. Devine stated
that although the police were aware of the individual's history, they were unable to do
anything to prevent a reoccurrence and could only take action against him when he
actually did something. He further stated employment should be based on character and
that it is his belief that any individual convicted of distribution of pornography to minors
should not be allowed to run a facility providing any form of adult entertainment. He
also expressed the opinion that he didn't know if such action is "legal " - -it's "just right."
It was his further intent that this by -law apply to any operation supplying any form of
adult material, regardless of whether the facility was classified as "adult."
It was suggested that "police chief" be changed to "building inspector" in Section 1.5.4d,
since the building inspector is the zoning enforcement officer.
Mr. Burke suggested that the issue is too broad and that, although well- intentioned, could
be viewed as a violation of an individual's Constitutional rights. Mr. Penney stated that
we have been down this road before and that the board was advised by Town Counsel
that it is not a licensing body and therefore does not have the right to request police
background checks. When asked by a member of the press who he would have pay for
the background investigations, Mr. Devine stated that it would be the responsibility of the
employer and would be part of the normal cost of doing business.
Mr. French voiced concern that the town could be held liable if an individual was denied
employment as the result of such a background check and the Attorney General later
struck down the by -law. He also asked the petitioner why this was being done at a
Special Town Meeting rather than the Annual. Mr. Devine replied that he had never had
any luck at the Annual Town Meeting and that he believed people would be better able to
focus on the issue at a Special Town Meeting when there weren't as many things to
consider.
Motion: To close the public hearing. (Sullivan- Dolan) 6 -0 PASSES
Mr. Burke prefaced discussion on action to be taken by advising the board that Chapter
40A requires the Planning Board to hold the public hearing and that the Planning Board is
required to report to l own Meeting. The board then discussed the procedures to be
followed in considering their recommendation and the possible effect that their
recommendation on Mr. Devine's building limitation by -law would have on the Planning
Board's proposed amendment at the Annual Town Meeting.
Motion: To support the intent of the article for establishing a cap on the number of
building permits with the following changes that were discussed and offered by the
applicant at the public hearing:
4.2.3.2.1 Grandfather Protection
To delete portion starting with, "The Building Inspector shall not issue building
permits..." and ending with "...effective upon adoption of this by- law."
4.2.3.2 Applicability
To add a definition of "unused authorizations" as "the issuance of a building
permit which has not been used."
4.2.3.4 Building Permits Standards
Better define the "applicant" to be consistent with building permit procedures.
4.2.3.5 Notification
Delete portion of last sentence starting "...and send written notice..."
4.3.2.2 Building Permit Limitations
Change the words "twelve (12) month consecutive period" to "calendar year."
(Sullivan - Penney) 4 -2 with French and Frederick opposed. PASSES
Motion: Not to support the adult entertainment by -law because the language is too
vague, it has the potential of violating an individual's Constitutional rights, and is not
enforceable.
(Dolan- Frederick) 5 -1 with Flynn opposed. PASSES
Around the Table
Mrs. Flynn reported that she was approached by an individual who was concerned about
the Planning Director being harassed while on the job and public officials being
castigated and vilified at public hearings. The individual wanted to let the Planning
Board members know that most people in town feel they are doing a good job and that
the Planning Director should not have to meet with individuals without a member of the
Planning Board being present.
Mr. Frederick said that he would be unable to be present at the March 19th meeting and
left the meeting at 11:40 p.m.
Mr. French reported on the Committee Chairmen's meeting with the Board of Selectmen.
ivir. Burke advised the board that he had received the Town Manager's revision to the
Planning Department budget and that scheduled overtime had been cut by over 50
percent. The board discussed the ramifications of this action and agreed that a letter
should be sent to the Board of Selectmen advising them of the Planning Board's concern
and that the Planning Board may have to go for a Reserve Fund transfer or be forced to
cut back on their public meetings by 50 percent.
Adjournment
Motion: To adjourn at 11:45 p.m.
(Sullivan- Penney) 5 -0 PASSES
Date of next meeting: March 26, 1997 at 7:30 p.m.
3�1F�
nature of Clerk Date of Approval