Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 12/11/1974MANSFIELD PLANNING BOARD AGENDA December 11, 1974 1. Call to order (7:30 P.M.) 2. Clerk's Report a. Correspondence b. Minutes of December 4, 1974 3. Warrant 4. Visitors Agenda 8:00 P.M. Margot Jellinek re. 'Watchdog Report 9:00 P.M. Ralph Maloon re. Gene Ceccarelli 5. Old Business a. Status of Plans 1) Camelot at Mansfield - Definitive Subdivision - Williams St. -1/9/75 2) Gene J. Ceccarelli - Preliminary Plan - Park Street - 1/8/7$ 3) Francis Avenue Association - Site Plan - Francis/Conners Ave. 4) Village Estates #2, #3 - Definitive Subdivision - Off Elm St - 2/3/74 5) Minute Man Estates - Street Acceptance Plan - Heritage Lane b. Zoning Amendments for 1975 Town Meeting c. Zoning Board of Appeals - Application for Leon C. Grant 6. New Business a. Planning Board Annual Report b. Around the Table 7. Adjournment MANSFIELD PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 11, 1974 Present: Chairman Zaffini Planners: Dunn, Latham, Wellington, Parsons Planning Director Maurer 1. Motion: To appoint Planner Dunn Acting Clerk. (Wellington -Latham, all in favor) VOTED 2. Letters were read from the following: Planning Board to Building Inspector regarding Site Plan approval for Francis J. Stevenson and Brian McLaughlin for land on Copeland Drive. Planning Board to department heads regarding definitive subdivision plan for Village Estates 2 and 3. Planning Board to Owens-Illinois regarding fencing - Mansfield Plant, Planning Board to Gene J. Ceccarelli regarding preliminary subdivision plan. Massachusetts Federation of Planning Boards Planning And Zoning Newsletter Universal Engineering Corproation Memorandum to Planning Board regarding revisions to Chapter 131, Section 40, The Wetlands Protection Act. Southeastern Region Cooperative Extension Service notice of meeting. Sun Chronicle Voice of the Public Mansfield Group Sees Flood 'i0angerst:- in paper of 12/11/74. 3. Motion: To accept the minutes of December 4, 1974 as presented. (Dunn -Latham, all in favor) VOTED 4. Board met with Mrs. Margot Jellinek who noted that there is no provision made in the Mansfield Subdivision Regulation, nor in the Mansfield Zoning By-law, that the Planning Board "shall" approve a retention area in any subdivision, nor that the town has to.;maintain any retention area. She noted that the Board has given the impression that they have to approve a subdivision plan with a retention area by comparing it with the roads in a subdivision, such roads to be taken over by town meeting vote and the Town being responsible for their maintenance. In absence of any provision the Planning Board can refuse a retention area in a subdivision for several reasons. On page 1 in the Mansfield ZoningiBy-law it states the purpose of this law is to promote health, safety, convenience, protect and conserve the value of property, and increase the amenities of the Town. Mrs. Jellinek felt that retention areas to control the speed of the water flow in wetland areas, where owners like to build houses, is fairly new in residential subdivision and none have been built anywhere in the surrounding towns. The thoughtof X numbers of small one and two acre retention areas in residential subdivisions springing up a.il over town is unthinkable. Even if the town would not maintain thousands of feet of drain pipes and retention ares, this adventure shows no planning by the Board, or by the Town Planning Director. 2 Minutes December 11, 1974 Mrs. Jellinek felt that in no way should the Town be responsible for the maintenance of any retention area anywhere in Mansfield, and that unfortunately the Board has already committed the Town to maintain a retention area in an industrial subdivision, without any safeguards. She noted that Foxboro was wiser in their dealings with Homart's shopping center, their retneion area has to be within their property and that there is a master filter in the retention area and several more to keep the salt, oil, etc, out of Robinson Brook, and the maintenance of drainage and ponding area will be Homart's responsibility. She noted that in a residential subdivision the individual home owner can not be made responsible for maintaining the drainage (there is a parcel in the common sewer proposal of Mr. Rizzo and Town Counsel's opinion.) She felt that the Planning Board can not legally justify any retention area in a residential subdivision. Mrs. Jellinek questioned if the Planning Director had been attending the meetings regarding the Homart Center. Planning Director Maurer noted that he was not authorized to attend these meetings. 5. Board discussed the Camelot at Mansfield definitive subdivision pian. Planning Director Maurer noted that a few points had been raised at the Public Hearing regarding the design of the 'internal drainage system and the design of the retention area and the .alignment of the crowns of the pipe. Planning Director Maurer noted that with respect to the correspondence the developer still has a few items of information that need to be submitted and they are as follows: a) Covenant to be submitted and properly cross-referenced on the pian to be recorded. b) A note added to+the subdivision plan cross referencing the easement across the property of Smith c) Compliance with the requirements of the Mansfield Board of Health. The Board of Health will require percolation tests on each lot within the development. Planning Director Maurer noted that last summer the develolser deposited the money with the Town Treasurer to have 18 tests done and he was awaiting the time of the season for Peres to be taken as he was denied a variance. d) Corrections of engineering discrepancies. e) Put a grate over the 42 inch pipe. f) At the end of the 18 inch outfall pipe put rip rap. The Board noted that there were largerpipes in Town than 42 inches that did not have grates over them. Planning Director Maurer noted that when the plans were first submitted that concern was raised with the down stream area and the developer had stated that he would invest the money down stream if this is what the Board desired and that it was now time to consider the alternative for participation with the Town for a down stream retention area. it was noted that there was a note on lot 16 limiting the lot for building purposes until the drainage and retention area is approved by the Planning Board. -3 - Minutes December i1, 1974 Planner Dunn noted that if the pipe under the road is going to be below the water table and if it is going to have a steady stream of water coming out that perhaps an asphalt type of outlet would be better to limit the erosion in the bottom of the retention area. Planning Director Maurer noted that a point was brought up by the residents in the area that Mr. Moy was limited in his report as not all information was available to hime, and that he would like to go on record that any information submitted to the Planning Board regarding this subdivision, including all copies of correspondence and copies of the subdivision plan were made available for Mr. Moy's review of this project and that Mr. Moy had also met with Engineer Maloon who gave him addition information and if there was a problem with Mr. Moy not getting information he either did not ask for it or it wasn't available to the Planning Board, as any information the Planning Board had was available for Mr. May in his report. Planner Parsons questioned at what point the development of the retention area should take place. Planning Director Maurer felt that it should be further clarified in the note on the plan and that an agreement similar to the one with Cabot, Cabot and Forbes could be set up with a bond posted so that if the retention area is not necessary it, does not have to be built. Planner Parsons felt that the money should be put into a fund so that if something down stream can be done in the near future the retention area will not be built unless it is absolutely necessary. Planner Wellington felt that it should be left as shown on the plan or disapprove the plan and bynot building the retention area they could be voiding the contract with Cabot, Cabot and Forbes. It was the consensus of the Board that the note on lot 16 was acceptable. Planner Wellington felt that the size of the retention area would'not have to beincreased as in Mr. Moy's report as Mr. Moy did not have the correct bottom elevation of the retention area, which made his calculations incorrect. Planner Wellington questioned why there was a catchbasin at Station 2. Planning Director Maurer noted that this was becuase of the way the water comes across the back of the property on lot 38. Planner Wellington noted that the pitch of the pipe was too flat on the proposed roadway. Planner Wellington noted thatthey could possibly put the elevation of the roadway higher as Williams Street is going to be rebuilt and new drainage will be put in that road by the Town and in this way the prpper pitch could be obtained for the drainage in the proposed roadway. It was noted that the Board had originally requested that the road be proposed without consideration of changes in Williams Street. 6. Board discussed the siteplan for Francis Avenue Association for land on Francis Avenue and Conners Avenue. It was noted that the fence for the railroad was not shown on the plan. Board noted that they had requested a final drainage plan and they are now changing the approved drainage. Planning Director noted in other developments that have not come under site plan in which they have added catch - basins or manholes in that were not on the approved subdivision plans. Motion: To approve the revision of the drainage with an open ditch as shown on the plan and request that the fencing for the railroad be shown. (Parsons -Wellington, all in favor) VOTED 7. Board met with Engineering Ralph Maloon to discuss the preliminary subdivision plan for Gene J. Ceccarelli. It was noted that the specifications for the light department were shown, the water line is shown from Park Street through to East Street as requested, there is a hydrant shown at the intersection of Park and the Proposed right-of-way, notes for hydrants and chlorination and air testing of lines - 4. Minutes December i1, 1974 are shown. it was noted that they have not applied to tie into the municipal sewer as of yet. Catchbasin is shown at station 2 plus 0 and the two catch - basins requested at the end of the cul-de-sac could not be done because of elevations however, they are pitching the roadway to run into the one proposed at the end of the cul-de-sac. Fire alarm pedestals shown on lot 5. Fire Department specifications shown. It was noted that the Planning Board had requested a more definitive layout of the existing lot as the proposed right-of-way is only 40 feet in width and the Planning Board requires 50 feet. Mr. Maloon presented a "blow up" of the entrance to the development, which included the existing lot. Mr. Maloon explained that if the entrance way is enlarged that he would be loosing one lot and that it would put the existing garage to within 8 feet of the property line. It was noted that most of the roads in this central area of Town are only 40 foot right-of-ways. Planner Wellington explained how to crown the cul-de-sac so that it would drain properly. Planning Board to take the plan under advisement. 8. Board met with Engineer Ralph Maloon to discuss the definitive subdivision plans for Camelot at Mansfield, Engineer Maloon presented plans to show the retention area increased and stated that he would present a sketch of the grate. He noted that the crowns and inverts were corrected for engineering discrepancies, and that he had increased the pipe size except for the 42 inch pipe. Chairman Zaffini noted that the pipe on King Arthur Way was pitched very flat and that the Board had discussed raising the profile of the road. Engineer: Maloon noted that if the profile is raised that they would not be able to pitch in from Willaims Street, and noted that the first set of catchbasins will be picking up water from back on Williams Street and Tremont Street. it was noted the the pipes running full will run over 2 1/2 feet per second. It was noted that the pipe size would be reduced if they were not picking up water from Tremont Street. Discussion was held on the possibility of putting in two leaching basins at the entrance of Williams Street and pitching the first section of the roadway towards William Street and raisethe profile of the roadway back so that a greater pitch can be achieved than is presently proposed. Planning Director Maurer suggested digging test pits in this area to see if a leaching basin was feasible. 9. Board discussed the Village Eastates Subdivision and it was noted that the hearing is scheduled for 0:00 P.M. on December 30th and that the plans have been circulated to the various department heads and no continents have been received. Planning Director Maurer noted that they need bearings on the lot lines along the brook on Sheet 1 and they should show if they are going from the sideline or the centerline of the brook and that elevations are needed on the brook. Sheet 3 the drainage easement on the lot lines are not shown and they are missing bearings and distances and it needs to show pitch of pipe and elevations along the river. The zoning classification is not shown. On the profile, the sideline is not shown. On the last page, the elevation of the brook is not shown and the drainage easement is not clearly shown. It was noted that this plan would come under the Wetland Protection and Water Body Setback Requirement of the Zoning By-law, which could make certain lots undevelopable. It was noted that Mr. Freeman had talked with the Water Superintendent and they discussed the possibility of obtaining an easement from this developer and from Eagan and Turninese and loop the water from the two subdivisions. It was noted that a turn around easement was needed on the end of Lantern Lane. -5 - Minutes December 11, 1974 10. Board reviewed the "As built" plans for Minute Man Estates "Heritage Lane". It was noted that there is a bond being held for approximately $15oo. It was the consensus of the Board to bring this up at the 1975 Annual Town Meeting for acceptance. 11. Board discussed the preliminary plan for Gene Ceccarelli as revised. Motion: To grant tentative approval for the preliminary subdivision plan for Gene J. Ceccarelli for land off of Park Street. (Wellington -Parsons, all in favor) VOTED 12. Board discussed the proposed zoning amendments. It was the consensus of the Board that the December 18, 1974 meeting be set up just for zoning discussion. 13. Board discussed the Zoning Board of Appeals application for Leon C. Grant to establish a business assembling and repairing electronic equipment in a cellar at 69 Creeden Street in a Business "B" Zone. Motion: To recommend that the variance for Leon C. Grant not be granted. (Wellington -Dunn, all in favor) VOTED 14. Planner Latham noted that the Fulton Pond excavation has been completed. IS. Chairman Zaffini questioned if the culverts on School Street had been replaced when the water line was put in from Witch PondWell. It was noted that some had been replaced. 16. It was the consensus of the Board to discuss the Annual Report at the next meeting. 17. Board discussedthe definitive subdivision plan for Camelot at Mansfield and noted that the following items needed to be complied with: 1) Covenant to be submitted and properly cross-referenced on the plan to be recorded. 2) A note added to the plan that will be recorded cross-referencing the easement description on the property of Smith. 3) Compliance with the requirements of the Mansfield Board of Health. The Board of Health will require percolation tests on each lot within the development. 4) Amendments to the retention area as follows: a) A note to be added to the healwall on the 42 inch outlet will be con- structed with a grate which will limit accessibility to the pipe. This grate should be capable of being removed in order to clean out debris which may accumulate. b) A paved channel should be constructed through the retention area for a low berm along the easterly side, which will control the flow of water through the retention area during low flow. Also, locate in the channel near the outfall site, stones to serve as baffles for the flow. ®6m Minutes December 11, 1974 c) On the outfall side of the 18 inch pipe rip rap should be installed to limit erosion, 5) Have their engineer investigate alternatives for improving the pitch in the pipe throughout the subdivision, 18. Meetl7n adjourned at 11;05 P.M. a Cie