Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin of planning brd 05202009 Planning Board Minutes May 20, 2009 . rJ Present: Tom French, Chair; Beth Ashman-Collins, Clerk;Don Cleary, Tony J6di:C~; Olivier Kozlowski and Shawn MacDonald, alternates iJn~ y 2:] :::J 3: II 1. Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. I 2.Correspondence 1. May 19, 2009 memorandum from Mr. Burke re: Release from Covenant for Lot 21 (#15) Village Road / Release from Covenant for Lot 21 (#15) Village Road Motion: To sign the Form J release (Kozlowski-MacDonald) All in favor. PASSES 2. April 29, 2009 minutes Motion: To approve as submitted (MacDonald-Jodice) All in favor. PASSES 3. May 5, 2009 letter from Police Chief Arthur O'Neill re: Mansfield Crossing security patrols 4. ZBA decision - Mansfield Crossing Signs - Granted (positive recommendation) 5. Public Hearing notice - Attleboro, Easton, North Attleboro, Norton 6. The Beacon 7. Form I Covenant for Forest Heights (Perry & Feck, LLC), Williams Street Motion: To accept the covenant and sign the Forest Heights mylar (Cleary-Jodice) All in favor. PASSES I 3. Form A (ANR) Plans 4. Special Permit Public Hearing - Modification to Autumn Park - Essex Street - Perry & Feck, LLC The clerk read the public hearing notice. Mr. French explained how the public hearing would be conducted. [During the transfer of one of the lots in Autumn Park, it was discovered that the survey for the abutting subdivision, Hallett Crossing I, was incorrect. The result is that 30 feet of the land Perry & Feck, LLC planned to use as part of the 50-foot no disturb zone for Autumn Park does not belong to the them, but rather is "owner unknown." The proposed amendment to the special permit is to change condition #8 from a 50-foot no disturb area to a 20-foot no disturb area. Practically speaking, the 30 foot "owner unknown" parcel will remain unbuilt, but it does not belong to Perry & Feck, LLC and cannot be part of their plan.] Mr. Maloon showed the board the approved cover sheet ofthe Autumn Park subdivision plan, which is under construction in Mansfield and Norton. Lot 5 was conveyed with no problem, but during the conveyance of Lot 7, the surveying error was discovered. The Hallett Crossing line was established using ancient deeds, and the surveying for Autumn Park used that same information. The plan shows the 30 feet between Lots 4-8 and Nathan Lane as "owner unknown." There are homes under construction on two of the Autumn Park lots and the 50-foot no disturb zone as approved has been honored. Planning Board 5/21/2009 11 Mr. Maloon said in effect, the abutters would still have the 50-foot buffer because as owner unknown land, no one would be able to use it. Mr. Kozlowski asked what the purpose of the 50 feet was. Mr. French said it was to provide a buffer between the existing and new homes. Mr. DiMascio said that 30 feet of owner unknown land will be unbuildable because of its size. He said the 30 feet of owner unknown land plus the remaining 20 feet will keep the 50-foot no disturb zone as approved. Mr. Maloon said none of the lots will be made non-conforming with the loss of the 30 feet. He said the owner unknown land has no frontage and runs the length of lots 4-8. Mr. French asked what could be done with the 30 feet of owner unknown land. Mr. DiMascio said the land is too narrow to be built on and comply with the setback requirements, and has no frontage. The clerk read a memo from Mr. Burke. Public Comment Richard Detch, 20 Nathan Road, asked how the developer ran the water line through the 30 feet ifhe does not own it. Mr. DiMascio said the installation of a utility cannot be prevented. Mr. Detch showed the board an undated survey plan showing the 30-foot strip; Mr. Maloon said that was the mid 1980s survey plan, which is where the difference of opinion among the closing attorneys developed. Mr. Detch asked if the title reports are available. Mr. Kozlowski said the board is only being asked to amend condition #8 of its special permit, and does not have the authority to decide who owns the land. Mr. Detch said the board should not amend the special permit and leave the 50-foot buffer. Mr. Maloon said the deed for Lot 5 does include the owner unknown land because it was conveyed without the title being questioned, but the other lots along that line will not include that land. Mr. French explained this was approved as a cluster, which allows for smaller lots clustered together, leaving large tracts of open space. The 50-foot no disturb zone was not part of the open space; rather, the board required it to buffer both the Nathan Lane and the new subdivision residents. Mr. Jodice asked if the board has any control over the owner unknown land. Mr. Maloon suggested a condition that if the 30-foot piece is acquired by the developer in the future, it cannot be cleared and remains part of the original 50-foot no disturb zone. Mr. DiMascio suggested a condition that the developer or subsequent owners of the Autumn Park lots not be allowed to clear anything beyond the 20-foot line. Mr. Cleary suggested adding that the purpose ofthe condition is to maintain a 50-foot no disturb buffer between the two subdivisions. Planning Board 2 5/21/2009 .,.. Mr. Kozlowski suggested the no disturb zone be defined as the 20-foot no disturb strip plus any portion of the 30-foot owner unknown land that may be acquired by the developers of Autumn Park. He said if the "owner unknown" is not involved with this development, the board doesn't have the ability to put restrictions on the land. Mr. Maloon said practically speaking, the 30 feet will likely remain owner unknown forever, because of the time and expense it would take to claim ownership over such a small, narrow parcel. Mr. French said the only value the strip would have is to the people on either side, but the problem would be not knowing who to buy it from. Lisa Grandin, 19 Nathan Road, said she doesn't want just a 20-foot buffer if the 30 feet is bought by someone. Mr. Kozlowski said the board is attempting to find a way to maintain the 50-foot buffer, but can only do that if these developers own that 30 feet. However, if they do not, the board has no ability to restrict the 30 feet. Mr. DiMascio said practically, that 30 feet will remain in an unbuildable state. Chris Smith, lot 5 Autumn Park, said if someone wanted to attempt to buy that 30 feet, Mr. DiMascio would be involved because he may have a claim to ownership based on his purchase of the remaining Hallett Crossing land. Mr. DiMascio said the minimum lot size in a cluster is 15,000 square feet, and even without the 30-foot strip, the smallest of the lots is still 25,000 square feet. Mr. Kozlowski suggested the no disturb zone be defined as the 20- foot no disturb zone plus any portion of the 30-foot (plus or minus) owner unknown strip ofland that may become part of the Autumn Park subdivision. Motion: To grant the modification to the special permit, condition #8, with the following conditions: 1. Amend condition #8 of the September 28, 2006 Autumn Park special permit to read as follows: "Deed restrictions shall be included on each deed for lots 4-8 inclusive in order to maintain the 20-foot "No Disturbance Area" shown around those lots as shown on the plan dated May II, 2009. The "No Disturbance Area" shall be further defined as the 20-foot (plus or minus) strip ofland plus any portion ofthe 30-foot (plus or minus) owner unknown strip ofland that may become part of the Autumn Park subdivision." 2. The September 28, 2006 Autumn Park special permit is incorporated into this decision by reference and attachment, and all terms and conditions of that special permit, with the exception of condition #8, remain in force. (Kozlowsk-Cleary) Planning Board 3 5/21/2009 11" MacDonald - In favor. I do not believe the owner unknown land will be claimed, so the 50-foot buffer will remain. Kozlowski - In favor. For practical purposes, I am confident the 50-foot buffer will remam. Jodice - In favor. I believe the intent of the original special permit approval remains. Cleary - In favor. This will be no more detrimental than the originally approved plan. Ashman-Collins - In favor. I believe this preserves the original intent of the special permit while clearing up the legal issues. French - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, this will help clarify the title issue, and the change does not deviate from original intent of the special permit. 6 in favor. 0 opposed. 0 abstained. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (Cleary-Collins) All in favor. PASSES I 6. Public Comment Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Jodice said they are unhappy with the traffic back ups on School Street at Mansfield Crossing. Mr. French said Mr. Masiello is coming to next week's meeting to talk about adding outdoor kiosks to the mall, and that can be another topic. The board discussed whether it is time to revisit the right-out onto Route 140 issue. Mr. French suggested the board consider adding a condition to all its permits saying that if the information provided to the board proves to be incorrect, the board has the right to revisit the issue. Mr. French said following Mr. Feck's resignation, the board is down one member. He asked the alternates to think about applying for the full position. [S.AdjoUrBDlent Motion: To adjourn at 9: 15 p.m. (Jodice- ) All in favor. PASSES Next meeting: Wednesday, May 27,2009 at 7:00 p.m. fJ~ Av~ ~ Signature of Clerk S-.2 ~ -oCi Date of Approval Planning Board 4 5/21/2009 1lI'