Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 12/28/1977MANSFIELD PLANNING BOARD AGENDA December 26, 1977 1. Call to order (7:30 P.M.) 2. Clerk's Report a. Correspondence b. Minutes of December 14, 1977 3. Warrant 4. Visitors Agenda 5. Old Business a. Status of Plans 1) Leon Grant - Site Plan - Wood Avenue 2 W.R.C. Properties, Inc. - Forbes Boulevard b. Business Zoning c. Board of Appeals 1) Town of Mansfield - Sign 2) John P. Smith - Appeal from Decision of Inspector of Buildings 3) Carl A. Nelson, Jr. — Appeal from Decision of Inspector of 'Buildings. 4) John G. Walsh - Appealsfrom Decision of Inspector of Buildings 6) New Business ,00(2)107C>Lti' 7 /9 ✓:'soC a. Status of Plans - New Submissions b. Correspondence c. Public Discussion d. Date for Next Meeting e. Around the Table 7) Adjournment MANSFIELD PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 28, 1977 Present: Chairman Parsons Planners: Tighe, Mahana,Mangiaratti, Hartmann* Planning Director Maurer 1. Motion: To appoint Planner Tighe acting clerk. (Mahana-Mangiaratti, all in favor) VOTED 2. Letters were read from the following: Conservation Commission to Planning Board regarding Granada Park Habitat Courses Massachusetts Advocate Massachusetts Department of Community Affairs Land Use Manager Status of Planning Board Acccounts List of applicants for the Downtown Advisory Committee Town Manager to All Departments,Boards and Committees regarding Xerox Copier Congresswoman Margaret M. Heckler to Planning Director regarding application to the National Endowment for the Arts Livable Cities Program. Board of Health Minutes of December 7, 1977 Board of Health Minutes of December 14, 1977 Board of Selectmen to Planning Board regarding zoning petition. Planning Board to R & R Realty Trust regarding Preliminary Plan for Granada Park Planning Board to Leon Grant regarding Site Plan Application - Wood Avenue. Planning Board to Lester S. Epstein regarding Preliminary Plan for Hobbit Hollows Plannning Board to Board of Appeals regarding application of Donald Ploof Planning Board to Board of Appeals regarding application of Peter John Fontanini Minutes December 28, 1977 Page 2 3. Motion: To approve the Minutes of December 14, 1977 as presented. Tighe-Mangiaratti, all in favor) VOTED Motion: To alter the order of the agenda. (Mahana-Mangiaratti, all in favor) VOTED Board discussed the Board of Appeals applications for an appeal from the decision of the Building Inspector for John P. Smith, Carl L Nelson, Jr., and John G. Walsh. It was noted that the applicants were appealing the decision of the Building Inspector to stop operations for earth removal as the property was used as a gravel removal operation prior to zoning and was registered with the Building Inspector in 1965. Planning Director Maurer noted that when the Zoning By-law was amended in 1964 there was a provision adopted for earth removal operations which was commonly referred to the grandfather clause. In 1975 it was amended again through Town Meeting Vote. In 1974 the Building Inspector became concerned about some of the operations under the grandfather clause and he consulted Town Counsel, who noted that the grandfather clause was a misnomer as there was nowhere in the zoning by-law a reference to a grandfather clause, and that the registration of the gravel pits does not eliminate the need for an eprth removal special permit. He noted that there are two pits that came forward and showed that they had special permits or court -,orders to operate and that there are still three pits which are now before the Board of Appeals as an appeal to the decision of the Building Inspector. He noted that the concern of the Building Inspector was whether or not he could impose standards on these and the TownCounsel ruled that they would need to go through the special permit procedure. Mr. Smith noted that when he received the first letter of cease and desist in 1974 that he contacted his attorney and that his attorney felt that he complied with the Zoning By-law and that the letter did not apply to him, to keep on working. Mr. Smith noted that he does not operate his pit regularly and that he uses it in his landscaping business. He noted that he received another order to stop operations in 1977 so he came to talk to the Building Inspector to see if he could get this straightened out once and for all. Chairman Parsons questioned whether appropriate standards are followedwhile he is working the land and noted that there are no means of enforcement. Mr. Smith noted that he owns the land and there would be no value to him to destroy it and he is operating the same as he has for years. Planner Mahana questioned if he had contacted the Building Inspector in 1974. Mr. Smith noted that he did not. Planner Mangiaratti questioned how often he takes material out. Mr. Smith noted that this varies with different jobs. Planner Mahana noted that it bothered him that he did not at least reply to the 1974 letter and felt that his attorny should have at leasttold him to reply to the letter. Mr. Smith noted that he had talked to the Building Inspector but there was nothing in writing. Planner Mahana noted that if the Building Inspector sent written notices in 1974 and they were not replied to then it would indicate that they were not going to operate any more. Mr. Nelson felt that the gravel removal operation was a job in which you are harrassed by everyone. He noted that he was on the Planning Minutes December 28, 1977 Page 3 f Board back when the registration clause was put in the zoning and, at that time, they talked to the old Building Inspector, Arthur Ferrier, and questioned how he determined pre-existing pits. Mr. Ferrier had advised that if they had trees above a certain size he would say this is a pre-existing pit. Mr. Nelson noted that in order to narrow things down they put in the registration clause where they required the registration of the pit and during this hearing an attorney said it did not matter because if it was a pre-existing pit prior to zoning and the people can prove it is pre-existing, then they can operate anyway. He noted that the three applicants have gone to three separate attorneys and they all said they are pre-existing usesand the courts would not stop them from operating. He noted that in order to square this away they talked to the Building Inspector, Mr. Cook, and advised that they are going to appeal his decision to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Nelson noted that the Board of Appeals has previously heard two decisions and in both instances noted it was a pre-existing pit and did not apply. Clerk Tighe questioned why they decided to appeal the decision instead of applying for a special permit. Mr. Nelson noted that he did not feel they should go for a special permit because it is not a new pit. He noted that he felt zoning is unconstitutional and the only thing that makes it constitutional is the right to appeal. Mr. Nelson noted that his operation could extend to the full extent of his property put he could not add property on and call it an existing pit. Mr. Nelson note that he had submitted a subdivision plan which showed the proposed finished grades. Mr. Nelson claimed that the Planning Board had lost his subdivision linens. Chairman Parsons noted that the Planning Board had not Lott them but had returned them to Mr. Nelson. Mr. Nelson questioned why two other pits were allowed to continue. Planning Director Maurer noted that Mr. Gonsalves had +been before the Board of Appeals and received an appeal from the deci�idn of.the Building INspector back in 1973 and was granted and Mr. Willis applied for a special permit for additional land and was denied by the Board of Appeals but granted by the courts. He noted that both the applications of Gonsalves and Willis preceed the amendment to the zoning by8law and the decision of Town Counsel. Mr. Nelson noted that they are still a pre-existing use the same as these last three pits. Mr. Nelson noted that he was interested in the Planning Board's thoughts. Planner Mangiaratti felt that these specific cases should be referred to the Town Counsel as it is a strictly legal question. He felt that Town Counsel has not directly answered the question. Planning Director Maurer noted that his concern with this is that three years ago they imposed standards for earth removal operations and one was the condition the ground is left after the operation is completed and there is a standard that no operation can be less than 6 feet above the water table. He noted that there is no question that the pits were in operation prior to 1965 and felt that the Planning Board should sustain the decision of the Building Inspector and put appropriate standards on the operation. He noted that Mr. Nelsons plan was very crudely done and that only a small portion of the parcel is shown as the earth removal operation. He noted that Mr.Smith,at least shows the topography. Minutes December 28, 1977 Page 4 Planning Director Maurer noted that Mr. Nelsons plans only shows a small area of operation and that he does not show the limits of future operation. Planner Mangiaratti (felt that this was still a legal matter and that they need a good definition from Town Counsel regarding prior existing uses. Motion: To sustain the decision of the Building Inspector on the Cease and Desist orders for John P. Smith, Carl A. Nelson, Jr., and John G. Walsh and to send this recommendation to the Board of Appeals. (Mahana-Tighe, Parsons in favor, Mangiaratti opposed) VOTED Planner Mangiaratti felt that they should highlight the fact that there is not enough information in the Town Counsel's decision to make a decision on this matter and to advise the Board ofappeals that this is essentially a legal decision and clarification should be made by the Town Counsel regarding these applications as to whether or not they constitute a prior existing use. Motion: To add in the recommendation to the Board of Appeals that if they grant this appeal that the pits would be able to operate without any standards, such as going below the water table or within 25 feet of the property lines, to enclose a copy of the non -conforming use section of the Zoning By-law and also a copy of Town Counsels letter. (Mahana-Tighe, all in favor) VOTED 6. Board reviewed the site plan application of Leon Grant for land on Wood Avenue. It was noted that a note was added to the plan for the existing signs. Mr. Grant advised the Board that instead of putting a sign on all three buildings that he would only have one sign for all three buildings and when it is sold it would just be a non-cofforming use. Mr. Grant noted that on the refuse disposal he would be submitting a letter to the Building INspector on this. Motion: To approve the site plan application of Leon Grant for land on Wood Avenue subject to the Building Inspector receiving a letter on the refuse disposal. (Tighe-Mangiaratti, all in favor) VOTED Mr. Grant took the linen with him from the meeting. 7. Board reviewed the Form A Plan for W.R.C. Properties, Inc. for land on West Street. It was noted that the plan was endorsed by the Board on July 20, 1977 and that the linen did not get recorded. Motion: To approve the Form A Plan for W.R.C. Properties, Inc. for land on West Street. (Tighe-Mangiaratti, U1<1 in favor) VOTED 8. It was the consensus of the Board to postpone discussion on the Business Zoning until more members are present and to have a workshop meeting at the next meeting for this discussion. Minutes December 28, 1977 Page 5 9. Board reviewed the Board of Appeals application for the Town of Mansfield for signs to be relocated. Planning Director Maurer noted that the sign proposed in East Mansfield would be on the same parcel as the East Mansfield Sign and would clutter the area. (Planner Hartmann entered the meeting at this time.) Motion: To recommend that the variance for the Town of Mansfield not be granted. (Mapgiaratti )MOTION LOST FOR WANT OF A SECOND Motion: To recommend that the variance be granted. (Tighe-Mahana, Hartmann in favor, Mangiaratti opposed ) VOTED 10. Board discussed the vacancy on the Downtown Advisory Committee along with the list of applications. Planning Director Maurer noted that the Committee had asked Gilbert Olden and Rodney Stearns to apply as they are local businessmen in the area. Planner Mahana suggested that Jim Douglas be appointed as he is part of the business of Douglas Real Estate and they have done a good job in renovating the house in the downtown area. Planner Tighe noted that when the Committee was organized he was opposed to having real estate persons on the Board. He noted that the committee themselves went out of their way to prevail on the two new applicants to apply. Motion: To appoint Rodney Stearns to the Downtown Advisory Committee. (Mangiaratti-Tighe- all in favor) VOTED 11. Board discussed the letter from the Board of Selectmen regarding the petition to the zoning by-law on variances. Planner Tighe noted that the Board is already on record in this matter as they held the public hearing and made a recommendation. Felt that they should forward the recommendation of the Planning Board to the Board of Selectmen. Planning Director Maurer noted that they should wait until all the petitions for rezoning are in before they hold the public hearings and they then can be held on the same evening. Motion: To forward a copy of the Planning Board's recommendation on the rezoning of use variances to the Board of Selectmen and advise that unless any new information is received at the future public hearing, which they are required to hold, then this will be the position of the Planning Board. (Tighe -Hartmann, all in favor) VOTED 12. Board reviewed the letter from the Conservation Commission regarding the drainage ditch from Granada Park. It was noted that the Conservation Commission did not realize where the drainage ditch was going until they reviewed the Planning Board's minutes. Motion: That the Planning Director be instructed to answer this letter from the Conservation Commission regarding the drainage ditch for Granada Park. (Tighe -Hartmann, all in favor) VOTED Minutes December 28, 1977 Page 6 13. Mrs. Jellinek came before the Board and questioned the Planning Director on the infiltration basins from the sewer plant. 14. it was the consensus of the Board to hold the next Planning Board meeting on Wednesday, January 4, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. 15. Planner Tighe noted that the Board has the final report of the Capital Improvement Program Committee and that he and Planner Hartmann will answer any questions the Board has at the next meeting. 16. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M. Clerk DateC7-1�/ ��