Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 03/17/1976MANSFIELD PLANNING BOARD AGENDA March 17, 1976 1. Call to order (7:00 P.M.) 2. Clerk's Report a. Correspondence b. Minutes of March 3, 1976 3. Warrant 4. Visitors Agenda 7:15 P.M. Mr. & Mrs. Ceccarelli re. Peter's Park Bond Estimate 7:30 P.M. Anna Prohodsky re. Fowler Street 7:45 P.M. Frank Vaz re. Fowler Street 5. Public Hearings 8:00 P.M. - Zoning Amendment for Business Parking Requirements 8:30 P.M. - Rezoning From Agriculture to Business C land on Route 106** (Karl Clemmey petitioner) 6. Old Business a. Status of Plans 1) Woodland Park - Def. Sub. - Edgewood Street/Fruit St - 4/7/76 2) Edward Johnson - Form A - West Street - 3) Louis Brugliera - Form A - Dean Street - 3/17/76 b. Amendments to Zoning Enabling Act - Chapter 808 of Act of 1975* c. Unaccepted streets 7. New Business a. Public Discussion b. Date for next meeting c. Around the Table S. Adjournment *draft letter to Town Counsel enclosed **memorandum enclosed Public Hearings - March 31, 1976 - Zoning By-law amendments - Kennels MANSFIELD PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 17, 1976 Present: Chairman Dunn, Clerk Wellington Planners: Latham, Tighe, Parsons, Mahana, Dupont 1. Letters were read from the following: Town Clerk to Frank Vaz Jr. regarding Paper Street Lots Legal Notice of Public Hearing from the Sharon Planning Board Easton Planning Board to Mansfield Planning Board regarding Chapter 807, Local Growth Policy Mansfield Public Library to Planning Board regarding Community Attitude Survey, 1976. Planning Board to Board of Appeals regarding application of Gelino G. Repucci Planning Board to Board of Appeals regarding application of George Boyajian of Mansfield Feed and Farm Supply Planning Board to Board of Appeals regarding application of Wallpaper City, Inc. Planning Board to Board of Appeals regarding application of Calvin J. Vizedom Planning Board to Board of Appeals regarding application of Dennis Vassalotti Planning Board to State Industrial Finance Board regarding Fairfield Optical Company - Industrial Revenue Bonds Planning Board to Francis Vaz, Jr. regarding Form A application Fowler Street Planning Board to Edward Johnson regarding Form A Plan - West Street Planning Board to Gene Ceccarelli regarding bond estimate for Peter's Park. SRPEDD to Planning Board regarding appointment of delegate Cooperative Extension Service Rural Development Zoning Bulletin - Transition From Old Chapter 40A to new Chaper 40A New England River Basins Commission - Final report of the Southeastern New England Study _2_ Minutes March 17, 1976 Zoning Board of Appeals application of Frank Signoriello Zoning Board of Appeals application of Steven M. Goldberg 2. Motion: To approve the Minutes of March 3, 1976. (Tighe Board noted that there were discrepancies in the minutes that should be taken care of. Planner Tighe withdrew his motion. Motion: To postpone the approval of the Minutes of March 3, 1976. (Tighe -Latham, all in favor) VOTED 3. Board discussed the warrant of March 23, 1976 in the amount of $151.95. Board questioned the gas for the Town Managers car as it was for 84 gallons during a month in which there is no activity going on in sub- divisions. Motion: To approve the warrant of March 23, 1976 in the amount of $151.95. (Tighe - Amendment to the Motion: To approve the warrant in the amount of $112.28 which excludes the $39.67 for the gas for the Town Managers car. (Wellington -Latham, all in favor) VOTED K` 4. Board met with Mrs. Gene Ceccarelli to discuss the bond estimate for the the Peter's Park subdivision. Mrs. Ceccarelli noted that she received the bond estimate and that there was a fee, which is a 10% contingency, to be held for a period of one year and that under the regulations that she had there was nothing that says she has to post a 10% contingency. She noted that other than the contingency she had no complaints regarding the amount of the bond estimate. Chairman Dunn noted that he has a copy of the 1972 Subdivision Regulations and that item 10 calls for a 10% of the value of the bond shall be held by the Town. Mrs. Ceccarelli noted that the road will be constructed and that she will not be posting a bond. She noted that she was advised by the Planning Director that the only reasen he could see was in case of damage to the road and that the Board had never had a road of this type before and that the only place there may be a problem is with the sidewalks and that the amount of the sidewalks is less than the total 10% contingency. Chairman Dunn advised Mrs. Ceccarelli that the 10% contingency is held through a winter in case there is a problem with the roadway. Mrs. Ceccarelli felt that it was a large sum of money to be held for a dead end road and felt that it should be reduced to a nominal fee. Mrs. Ceccarelli noted that there is no through traffic and there there will be very little traffic on a road of this type. Clerk Wellington noted that they have to assume that the Ceccarelli's are the developers and that they mayput the binder on and then decide to sell the lots and once the lots are released, what guarantee does the Town have that the water line won't spring a leak and if it did, who would be responsible. Mrs. Ceccarelli noted that they are not developers, that they just had this one piece of land and that if things are inspected there should be 3 Minutes March 17, 1976 no problems. Clerk Wellington noted that even if they are inspected that unforeseen things can happen and that the Town has to have a guarantee. Mrs. Ceccarelli again noted that they are not developers and questioned if there was any way that they could reduce the amount to be held for the one year period. Board to take this matter under consideration and advise Mrs. Ceccarelli of their decision. (Planner Dupont entered the meeting at this time.) 5. Board met with Anna Prohodsky who questioned the status of the lots on Fowler Street. The Board advised that the Town Clerk has certified that the road serving the lots in question is maintained by the Town and considered a public way. Miss Prohodsky stated that the Town only comes as far as the driveway of 70 Fowler Street and that they only plow the snow to :serve that property at 70 Fowler Street. She noted that she cuts the grass when she mows .her, lawn to keep the land looking neater. Miss Prohodsky stated that she did not agree with that letter because no maintenance has been done on it by the Town past the point of 70 Fowler Street. Chairman Dunn advised that he could see where the plow ended just before the frontage of Miss Prohodsky's property. He noted that it might be passable but it was not maintained. Miss Prohodsky questioned if the lots are considered buildable and a gravel road is put in and no drainage who is going to be responsible for maintaining this gravelled way. It was noted that it has not been established if it will be a gravelled way or how wide it will be or anything. Frank Vaz noted that they brought in a map during past discussion which showed how the drainage was proposed and that there is one low spot which will be taken care of in the roadway. Miss Prohodsky noted that the accepted part of the street slopes towards the rear and that the house across the street had a water problem and the town came and dumped gravel to keep the water on her side of the street and questioned what will happen to the water if there is not proper drainage, would it flood her land. Miss Prohodsky noted that the lots in that area had been laid out in 25 foot lots back in the early 1929's and that the accepting of zoning in 1953 would mean that the Town accepted this particular layout. She then questioned who owned the 40 foot strip. Mr. Vaz noted that this was settled with the Selectmen and here that who- ever owns the lots owns to the center of the roadway. MissProhodsky questioned if itwas a public way if no one uses it. It was noted that it has to be a public way, or a way certified by the Town Clerk as a public way, a way that is in existance when subdivision control became effective in Mansfield. Miss Prohodsky noted that this 40 foot street has never been accepted by the Town. Chairman Dunn noted that if you can prove a way has been travel16d'on. and maintained by the Town then it is considered a public way. Miss Prohodsky noted that the letter from the Town Clerk has the road as being maintained by the Town and that the only maintenance that has been cone was by her own lawnmower. She noted that she has maintained it since 1945 on both sides of the paper street. She noted that it is not a travelled way or a public way. -4 - Minutes March 17, 1976, Planner Tighe noted that they originally began with the petitioner submitting a plan and that it was up to the Board to see that he conformed to the rules._ He noted that the road did not seem passable so they asked for an opinion from the Town Counsel. Town Counsel _gave three criteria which could be considered as public ways. The Board noted that this plan did not fit, into this three criteria so they disapproved the plan. They also pointed out that he had options which he could take. He chose the Town Clerk certifying that this is a public way. Planner Tighe noted that when the Board arrived tonight they had a letter from the Town Clerk which stated that it is a public way. He noted that their job is not to try to make anyone happy or unhappy, it is just to see that the rules are followed. We now have to review what the Town Clerk has said and make a decision. That decision will have to be made in accordance with the rules and regulations. Miss Prohodsky noted that she wondered if it is a gravelled road who is going to be responsible for the breakdown in the gravel road. She noted that she is also interedted in the Campbell Street area as these are also considered paper streets. At 8:00 P.M. the Planning Board held the required Public Hearing for the Zoning amendment for parking requirements on North Main Street in the Business B and Business C zones. — Transcript of that hearing is onfile. Board met with Frank Vaz to discuss the lots on Fowler Street. Mr. Vaz noted that it is blacktopped,toa point and questioned why he could not just black top to get to the proposed dwelling. Miss Prohodsky noted that the Town blacktopped up to the hydrant and that she blacktopped part of her property to give the children someplace to play. Mr. Vaz questioned why he could not blacktop up to his driveway. Mr. Vaz noted that at the last meeting he was given 3 to_4 options and that he chose to go to the Town Clerk and he said it was okay as long, as he went along with the Planning Board wishes. Chairman Dunn read the options from the Minutes of March 3 1976 and noted that the minutes have not been accepted yet. Planner Tighe felt that first the notice from the Town Clerk just came in and they could not just make a decision and that the Town Clerk's letter does not indicate what area is a passable way. Planner Latham noted that there have not been any vehicles through there for a long time. Mr. Vaz stated that he would drive his 4 wheel vehicle through there. Planner Dupont felt that they did not have sufficient information available to make a decision now. Planner Latham noted that the discussion of drainage, water main, hydrants, etc. are completely different from the subdivision regulations. Mr. Vaz questioned if the subdivision regulations were for a group of lots. It �rlas noted that it was for the dividing of 2 or more lots. Mr. Vaz advisedl that he was only interested in one lot. Chairman Dunn advised that the status of the right of way now is that the Form A plan was submitted and turned down because they did not feel it was a sufficient right-of-way and that Town Counsel has advised that if it was a passable way prior to zoning it can be ,considered a right-of-way and that the Board did not have enough information to determine this right now. He noted that they would have to decide whether it is a right-of-way and whether it has been maintained. Board felt that the letter from the Town Clerk was not definitive enough. Miss Prohodsky noted that there was no -8 - Minutes march 17, 1976 She noted that it is the Planning Board's law and was approved by Town Meeting and that it was their job to get in touch with the Building Inspector. She stated that she livid there since 1940 and there was never a sign that said Darto's and pointed in that area. Are you going to let billboards and other off-site advertising go by or are you letting any town official tell you that it was there before and fell down. She stated that she would like an answer to this. 18. Planner Parsons questioned when the site plan was approved for the establish- ment of the appliance store on Route 106 that there was parking facilities and the people are parking on Route 106 :as there doesn't seem to be any parking area being developed. Clerk Wellington noted that the hot top plants are closed now. 19. Planner Parsons questioned if the Board felt it would be appropriate for the Board to review the site for the proposed zoning on Route 106. Planner Tighe questioned the purpose of going out to the site. It was the consensus of the Board that this wouldnotbe necessary. 20. Planner Tighe reminded the Board that the Minutes of March 3, 1976 were to be put on the agenda forthe next meeting. It was noted that they were not approved because the showed Planner Dupont as being present. 21. Meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M.