Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 01/13/1975MANSFIELD PLANNING BOARD AGENDA January 13, 1975 1. Call to order (7:00 P.M.) 2. Clerk's Report a. Correspondence b. Minutes of January 8, 1975 3. Warrant 4. Preliminary Public Hearing on 1975 Zoning Amendments at 8:00 P.M. a. Background on Proposed Amendments b. Presentation and Discussion on Lot Dimension RequFrements c. Presentation and Discussion on Use Changes d. Additional Comments 5. Adjournment * NOTE: Planning Board will hold a Workshop Meeting on Wednesday, January 15, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. MANSFIELD PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 13, 1975 PRESENT: Chairman Zaffini, Clerk Grant Planners Wellington, Latham, Dunn, Parsons Planning Director Maurer 1. Meeting called to order at 7:45 P.M. 2. Motion: To appoint Planner Wellington acting chairman. (Latham -Dunn, all in favor) VOTED 3. Motion: To appoint Planner Latham acting clerk (Wellington -Dunn, all in favor) VOTED 4. Letters were read from the following: Planning Board to Building Inspector regarding Site Plan Approval Application for Karl Clemmey for Land on Copeland Drive. Planning Board to Bale Realty Co., Inc, regarding Oakleaf Estates bond release. Planning Board to Home Developers, Inc. regarding New Mansfield Estates performance bond. Planning Board to James F. Antosca regarding Camelot -at -Mansfield. Planning Board to Christian and Schromm regarding Village Estates Section 2 and 3. Planning Board to Casa Realty Co., Inc, regarding Walnut Park bond release. Board of Selectmen to Eleo Zaffini regarding reappointment to Planning ,i Board. Board of Selectmen to Francis Jones regarding appointment to Planning Board. Bristol Soil Conservation Service to Mrs. William Udall regarding Hodges Brook Watershed. Planning Board to Owens-Illinois, Inc. regarding fencing of Mansfield Plant. Southeast Region Cooperative Extension Service Ecogram regardfng Government Leadership Needed Department of Community Affairs to Planning Board regarding Getting the Community More Involved in Local Planning. 5. Motion: To accept the Minutes of January 8 1975 as presented. (Dunn -Parsons, all in favor) VOTED L (Clerk Grant entered the meeting at this time.) 6. Motion: To sign the warrant of January 14, 1975 in the amount of $87.66. (Dunn -Parsons, all in favor) VOTED) - 2 - Minutes January 13, 1975 7. Board met with Karl Clemmey to review the Site Plan Application for land on Copeland Drive. Mr. Clemmey reviewed the plans with respect to the Board's letter of January 9th and noted that the retaining wall, which will be approximately 65 feet long and approximately 3 feet.hl+gh had been added to the Paulson property. Mr. Clemmey noted that the dumpster had been spotted and shown with a fence. Mr. Clemmey noted that the letter from the Board had requested that he obtain the State's permission for the curb cuts and noted that these were existing. Mr. Clemmey noted that the major problem is the drainage as the Board was requesting him to connec-t to the State drainage system and he felt that the state drainage was inadequate to handle the drainage from this site, so he proposed to put catchbasins on his own property and have, an onsite system, as at the present time he does not have a water problem on his property, as the problem of water is all within the street system. Mr. Clemmey noted that the catchbasins were proposed at the low point on his property and he requested permission to do this and noted that he would maintain the drainage himself. Clerk Grant felt it might be advisable to obtain a copy of the original curb cut permit to check on the stationing. (Chairman Zaffini entered the meeting at this time.) Clerk Grant felt that they should have calculations as to how much water will be accumulating to see if the proposed catchbasins would be able to handlethe drainage from the parking area. The Board advised Mr. Clemmey that they would be getting back to him. 8. At :8:00 P.M. the Board held a preliminary public hearing on the 1975 Proposed Zoning Amendments. Planning Director Maurer advised the residents,that the reason for the preliminary hearing was to gather input on zoning and that some of the changes proposed were presented to the Board at the previous Open House held by the Planning Board. Planning Director Maurer noted that the Planning Board presented to the 1973 Town Meeting eadoeument,:which.presented a total revision of the Zoning By-law because the Board noted deficiences in the existing Zoning By-law. This comprehensive revision was not adopted so portions of the proposal will be presented to the next 2 or 3 Town Meetings to;p,resent,:these changes. In 1973, 5 provisions were adopted and in 1974, 4 provisions were adopted, plus revisions to the Zoning Map. "Planning Director Maurer noted that the Board is proposing the elimination of the cumulative effect and also the revision of the dimensional requirements, and noted that they were presenting them for discussion and may not be the final presentation or only a portion may be presented, depending upon the input. Planning Director Maurer presented the proposed changes in the dimensional requirements and the following was noted: Agriculture Zone: Residents felt that by increasing the fronta9e to 150 feet of frontage that they are putting the cost burden on the buyer. Noted that by increasing the lot dimensions they are telling people to stay out and felt that 8,000 squre feet is adequate for a house lot as the proper use of the property should be considered. Noted that 120 feet of frontage with a 30,000 square foot lot area and felt thatincreasing this would limit the type of structure on a lot. Other residents felt that 150 feet of frontage makes a better looking lot however it makes the value of the land higher and would cost the builder more in site development. Some residents noted that they would be in favor of the 150 feet of frontage for esthetic reasons and felt that since the actual lot size is not increased it should not make the cost of the land higher, but possibily it may increase the cost of the road and utilities. It was noted that the Board of Health requires the septic system in the front of the building for future connection to sewer and they also require a reserve area of equal size and sometimes with only 120 feet of frontage, -3- Minutes January 13, 1975 this cannot be achieved. Others felt that the 120 feet of frontage should remain as they make nice looking developments and they are easier to maintain. It was noted that increaseing the frontage could be discriminating against the poor people by increasing the value of land and it would be to the towns benefit to remain with 120 feet of frontage to have lots people can afford instead of forcing the federal government to build low income homes that can be detrimental to the town. It was noted that, sooner or later, the roads are deeded to the Town and with the increase in lot frontage it will increase the lengths of roads within a subdivision and the cost of the care of the roads will be a burden to the taxpayers. Several persons expressed the importance of having the extra leaching area in the front yard area.; It was noted that it was a.,good idea to have the setback at 40 feet because alot of the roads within the town will eventually have to be widened and this will allow room for this without great expense. It was noted that alot of the surrounding towns have not only increase frontage but also lot size as the town should grown at a rate that it can provide service for. Residence A: Residents noted that the setback should be 40 feet so that the town would have a standard setback in all zones. Others felt that the setbacks should remain as they are presently. It was noted with a sma.i-la's.ide'yard setback it makes it difficult for a person to add on to a home after it is built. It was noted that there are instances in which new homes have been built and they have left room to add on a garage or extra room and if the new by-law provisions are passed, then they would not be able to add-on. It was noted that there could be the possibility of having a grandfather clause added in. Residence B; No Comments Residence C: No Comments Business A: No Comments Business B: 1t was.,noted that the requirements for the Business B Zone would put great limits on the property on Bristol Street and Church Street, which was just rezoned last year at the Town meeting as it is a corner lot and the setback would have to be met from both streets. It was noted that with a 25 foot setback from the property line that there would be a grass strip, which might not be taken care of and rubbish could collect there. Business C: noted that the 25 foot setback would be crippling this zone as well. Industrial: It was noted that there would be no problem with the 50 foot frontage requirement but with a large area ofsldeyard;-over 20 feet, would be difficult for the Industries to maintain. Others felt that there should be no change in the Industrial Zone as the two Industrial Parks which presently exists have not experienced any difficulty. In regards to the floor area ratio Mr. Dalton of Cabot, Cabot and Forbes felt it would work alright, it was noted by a resident that in some areas it is difficult to determine the floor area as the buildings are high. It was noted that if a building were allowed within 15 feet of the property it would preclude rail service, however 20 feet with a waiver of the rail would be proper. Planning Director Maurer presented the proposed changes in the cumulative effect in all zones and the following was noted - 4 - Minutes January 13, 1975 Residence AA: No Comments Residence A: The residents noted that it might be better to list the homeoccupations involved and some felt that they should leave the renting of rooms to not more than two persons. It was noted by a resident that under the old regulations only family members could work on the home occupantion and now it would be two employees. it was noted that there is no provision for a tradesman anywhere in the by-law and felt that this should come under home occupation as the tradesman is very important to the community. Residence B: It was noted that there was a provision for changing a single family to a two family as long as it did not alter the exterior of the home and felt that this was too restrictive as they should be allowed to put a dormer on. Residence C: No Comments Agriculture: Question was raised as to the fact that it is called an agricultural zone when there is very little farming left in Mansfield. It was noted that on the camp grounds there was nothing to regulate the size of the area per camper and felt that this should be regulated. Business A: No Comments Business B: it was the consensus of the Board to add the provision back to this zone for the shop for customwork such as that by a cabinet-maker, decorator dressmaker, showmaker, tailor, upholsterer or woodworker. It was stated by a resident that the crematories should be taken out on account of the air pollution. Business C: A resident felt that automobile parking should be left in. Planner Parsons felt that theatures should be left in both Business C and Business B. Industrial: Mr. Dalton of Cabot, ;,Cabot and Forbes noted that any industry housed should be acceptable as when you start enumerating uses you leave out alot of services, and that he felt that retail service centers 'should be allowed to accomodate the industrial centers, such as''Zerox copy retail centers. Mr. Dalton stated that he would like to submit a letter stating the usess whidh they feel have been left out and felt that a motel is needed in this area to serve the industries. He noted that Hospital and clinics, service repair instaltattons. Mr. Dalton noted that on section 6 on sereening that lumber yards stackavood:�h'ichimil,ghtshow-above a fence and in some instances the roadway i s higher than the lot, which makes it so people on the roadway are looking down into the fenced area. He also noted .that the word "Equipment" isnot clearly defined. He further questioned research centers in which repairs are incidental. Board noted that they would be grateful to have any written comments submitted by anyone. The following general comments were received: Question was raised with regard to a definition for a trailer park and coach and also if the definition for non -conforming use was going to be changed as one resident felt it should be that a non -conforming use can be extended to the limits of the building and not the limits,of the property. It was noted that it might end alot of confusion if the Agriculture Zone was changed to RA30. -5 - Minutes January 13, 1975 Planning Director Maurer advised that the next step to be followed will be for the Board to form a proposal, based on the comments received, and advertise for the formal public hearing prior to Town Meeting. 9. Board reviewed the Site Plan for Francis Stevenson and Brian McLaughlin, along with a letter of consent from the abuttor, Mr. Souza, for permission to drain the lot on Copeland Drive onto his property. It was noted that if Mr. Souza sold his property there would be no agreement. It was the consensus of the Board to require a document be recorded at the Registry of Deeds for this drainage easement. 10. Board reviewed the Site Plan Application for Karl Clemmey for land on Copeland Drive. The Board noted that the retaining wall does not go to the full extent of the Paulson property. It was the consensus of the Board that drainage calculations should be obtained to determine if the two catchbasins proposed would handle the drainage water and that the calculations should be put on the plan. Mr. Clemney stated that he would be willing to let the Planning Board reinspect the catchbasins after they are<-Anstalled and if they do not work properly he will redesign them as the Planning Boards recommendations are holding him up from obtaining a building permit. Motion: To recommend to the Building Inspector that the.si•te plan application for Karl-Clemmey for land on Copeland Drive be approved, subject to the design of the leaching basins, based on a IO year storm, be put on the pian with the capacity of the leaching basins and the capacity of the area, and that the retaining wall be required the entire length of the property of Paulson or proper sloping of 2-1 be used instead of the retaining wall, Prior to the issuance of a building permit. (Grant -Parsons, all in favor) VOTED IT. Board reviewed the letter to Owens-Illinois regarding the fencing of the Mansfield Plant. It was noted that they are waiting for Owens-Illinois to return the signed copy. 12. Planner Latham noted that in the site plan provision of the Zoning By-law it calls for proper drainage, however, it should be a standaed storm such as the 10 year storm. Planner Wellington felt that a 5 year storm would even be sufficient. 13. Planner Wellington felt that the Board should offer a suggestion to the Board of Selectmen for an appointment to the Planning Board. Planning Director Maurer suggested that they ask the Board of Selectmen for an opportunity to make a recommendation. 14. Clerk Grant questioned the status of the base maps and it was noted that this is for next years appropriation. 15. Planner Parsons noted that the level of Fulton Pond was quite high. It was noted that there may have to be some sloping done. 16. Planning Director Maurer noted that the town is coming up with a program for the Regional Sewer System and the 3 towns will be meeting on Tuesday Evenings until Town Meeting and the first meeting is January 14, 1975 in Foxborough. 17. Plan Parso s�noted th the next SRPEDD is next week I n Mansfield. Date