HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 01/08/1973MANSFIELD PLANNING BOARD
mINu'rES
January 8, 1973
The Mansfield planning Board met at the Town Office Building on Monday,
January 8, 1973 at 7:30 P.M.
Present: Chairman Mendes, Clerk Grant
Planners: Zaffini, Latham, MacFarlane
Town planner Maurer
. Letters were read from the following:
Waldor Realty to Planning Board regarding release of performance bond on
Pine Needle Park w set aside to be discussed later.
SRPEDD to the Planning Board regarding community assistance
Announcement for publications for Resources of the Future.
Planning Board to John Morley regarding Canoe River Acres Subdivision.
Central Massachusetts Regional Pian
Joint Transportation Planning Group
rescheduling of meetings.
Bristol Community College regarding
Blayne Torkington to Carol Thomas re
Copy, of article "Neva Switches on 01
ing Commission regarding zoning by-law.
regarding cancellation of meeting and
courses relating to public officials.
arding typing corrections.
Abandoned Railroads".
Board of Appeals; notice of hearing for Mayfair Cleaners for a VARIANCE to
erect a sign larger than allowed.
Board of Appeals notice of rescheduled hearing for Norman Gray for a Special
Permit for a gravel removal operation.
Board of Appeals notice of hearing for Paul Boyden for a VARIANCE to erect
a sign larger than allowed.
Board of Appeals notice of hearing for Albert J. FasUlo for a VARIANCE to
erect a garage to house taxis larger than allowed.in a Residence C `Lone.
Board of Appeals decision for Gale Realty Company for a VARIANCE to allow
the building of houses in a non -conforming lot size - Granted
Board of Appeals decision for Frederick Iddings Jr. & Frank Johnston to
erect two single family dwellings in a non --conforming lot - granted.
December Report from the Building Inspector.
Board of Selectmen to Planning Board regarding Special Town Meeting.
Joint---nortating Planning Group regarding Relocation
~2~
Minutes
January 8, 7973
Permit to Use School Buildings from Lyman C. Avery' Supt. for January 16, 1973
at 8:00 P^M.
Southeast Region Cooperative Extension Service regarding "Air Pollution and
its Control" Seminar time.
SRPEDD to Town Treasurer regarding payments 6ua^
December Copy of the New England [wunom[* indicators.
SRPEDD to members of the Rumford River A6 Hoc Regional Sewer Study Committee,
from John F. Healey, Executive Secretary, Norton regarding Amendments to the
Final Plan,
SKPED0 Planner Jay U/Ko|>ly to Rumford River 8d Hoc 5cwmr Study Committee regarding
reply by Anderson -Nichols to recent memorandum from Mr. John F. Healey of Norton.
8. Planner Latham informed the Board that there will be a meeting on January 22^
1973 to gm over the comment* In the memorandums from John F. Healey and Jay
O/Km[l7y of the A6 Hoc Regional Sewer Study Committee. Planner Latham informed
the Board that Mr. Healey is trying to get water control of the Norton Reservoir
'
and that he was of the opinion that it has nothing to do with the board at all
/
that it is a matter for the Town of Norton.
�
`
], Bo&N/distusapd/the w$rrantrof B Fcmbxr. 31�j972`°,
Planner MacFarlane gux5ti0n
eJ
the reason why the Town Planner had gone to Boston an December 28^ 1972. Town Plannor Maurer informed the DumrJ that hc
had brought in original copies of
the planning program and the original copies of the summary report to Universal
Engineering.
`
Plot Yun: To approve the warrant of December 31^ 1972 in the amount of $26.02^
/Zuff|n|~Latham, all in favor) VOTED
4. Mot Ion: To approve the warrant of January 9» 1973 in the amount of 131^V0,
/Latham~Zaff\ni' all in favor) VOTED
5. Motion: To approve the minutes of December 28, 1972^
(MacFarlane°Zaff|oi^ all in favor) VOTED
� 6. Board discussed the Definitive Subdivision Plan for Magna Vista it on Lawnda7e
Road. It was noted that the plans had not been returned by the engineer. �
7. Board met with Mr. John Cook, Mr. Bob 8rannun°8rchitect» and Mr. Stonlny-Zo{na^
Town Planner Maurer informed the Board that last week he had met with gr^ tmmk
and M,. lolau and they wanted to come in to discuss kh&ir preliminary Intents
.
before the zoning was brought to the meeting and that they are interested in
` the Planned Unit Development. Mr. Cook informed the Board that they owned some
500 acres in the proposed R15, K30' and RS -18 zones, which they had their
architect review and Mr. Brannon has come up with some questions that they would
like to get straightened out. Mr" Brannon addressed the Board with the following
comments;
Planned Unit Development
g° Would like to know the concept in the PUOwheceit is only allowed
in the R30 district. Feels it would be more beneficial to the Town
to put It in the other residential districts.
~3~
o\nutes
January 8, 1973
b^
Since the PUD is a way of allowing each development to be planned
as a unit rather than be planned in accordance with now set
restrictions, you should reduce the number of restrictions in the
lot size, setback, etc. and Increase the amount of open spacm.
It was noted that in other Towns it was 60~70% for open space
'
but keep the 5 dwelling units per acre.
r}^ on the sotback.�6nftl��t��aPlnn\�a�J��
tl..
Assumes that 50% of the units would be single family dwellings but
the By-law only says 50% of one type of dwelling. In some cases
it may be best to have more than 50% and in some cases it may be
best to have less. Itshould be left to the.. discretion of the
Planning Board or Board of Selectmen to 6etomnine this and not
have m s*! %" You should also spell out the intent in the by-law
as you du not specify single family 50%^
/ 'e+
Five dwelling units per acres ~ It comes out to $A,2�30B per dwelling
unit, for land cost, which is doable if you are talking townhouses,
'
f,
50 Acres ~ it would be nice to find �someway to make it possible xm
that the whole 50 acres does not hav�- to be committed and can he
stmgo6^ as it will run the cost too high.
L y*
You require 15^000 square feet per single family dwelling unit.
It would be nice to leave that upun because some developments
^ /
would be better with 20'000 and some would be better wtih 10,000^
h.
if you have an apartment within the development you require 6^000 `
`
'
square feet per dwelling unit within the apartment. it would he
batter to say that it does not have to be contiguous within the
land. That will leave a large open land. It was rioted by the
Board that this Could be done and it was the intent of the Board.
. A.
Open space requirements should be reduced when adjacent to other
open land.
U^5~6~7 ~ they an:generally the restrictions. These could be
-
eliminated because you have one development building on 50 acres.
R4^
Chart for minimum size of apartments ~ Maximum size they will find
is 450 feet. Make it clear that 600 feet is gross and not net.
Suggested making an exception on square footage for elderly housing.
Chairman Mendes noted that there might be a duostiuo on legality
for making exceptions for the elderly.
I.^
You require 100% Bond. Would it be possible to have money in escrow
rather than give 100% Bond,
��,
If a large development :s going to be built, it should not have to
be Junm runtiginus. it should be up to the Planning Board or the
�� /
Board of Selectmen to determine when this should be done.
4 -
Mi nUtes
January 8, 1973
Apartments
a. Where a FAR exists it should not have to be 60 foot restriction.
b. Parking - Most generate at least two cars per apartment - i would
like to see the Board of Appeals have the right to reduce the
parking requirement when they see it is alright to do so. Have
an exception for parking for the elderly.
C. Two means of egress and two exposures - should be handled by the
building code. The Planning Board should not get involved.
d. Trash collections - enclosed on three sides - There should be a
sufficient number for proper operation and they be provided so as
not to be visual or sanitary problems.
Cluster
a. Why is it limited to the R30 Zone. it should be used also in the
RS -18 and R15 Zone, it would benefit all zones. Chairman Mendes
noted that RS -I8 is for single family dwelling units only and there-
for PUB could not be put in.
b, Every lot on the plan has to be 100% buildable. Questioned if this
would impose a hardship. It was noted that the 100% buildable is
after the land has been clustered.
c. If you agree that cluster is good you might give the developer a
bonus of 10% just to encourage it.
Wet Land Zoning
a. In the soil association map, I don't really understand what it Is.
Town Planner Maurer brought out a copy of the map.
b. Questioned if they could get a copy of an aerial map of the Town of
Mansfield. Board informed him that they did not have a TOPO snap.
Board gave them an address where they might be able to get such a
map.
Mobile Homes
a. Feels that mobile homes are not the right answer to the profession
of housing at moderate costs to the Town of Mansfield. It would
be detrimental to property values. Planner MacFarlane stated that
you cannot just think of the Town you have to think of the people.
Mr. Cook questioned if there was going to be a finalization of the By-law between
the Hearing and the Town Meeting. it was noted that it would depend on the
comments at the hearing.
Mr. Brannon congratulated the Board on a job well done on the Zoning By-law.
8. Board met with Mr. James Freeman regarding the Paul Jodice subdivision entitled
Village Estates off of Elm Street. Mr. Freeman informed the Board that there
are two non -conforming lots and questioned if he should include them in his plans.
® 5
Minutes
January 8, 1973
it was noted that there were two lots area size but not depth, Mr. Freeman
pointed out that there are 3 or 4 lots that are not being Included on the
plan because of Hodges Brook. Proposed an 18 inch open joint pipe for a
drainage easement to bring the water table down. Questioned on lot 29 if
they should eliminate it from the plans or put in a cul-de-sac. Mr. Freeman
informed the Board that he would like the plan considered a definitive plan
and have a hearing scheduled, Mr. Freeman pointed out that there is going
to be 8 inch pipe and hydrants are within the 500 foot area. There is a total
of 4 hydrants. it was noted that the linens did not have the bounds to be set
shown on it. Board requested a plan on a smaller scale showing the entire
property. it was noted that the road would be over 8 feet above the brook.
The high water is 122 feet and the road is 131.8 feet. Mr. Freeman stated
that they will grant a 15 foot or 20 foot easment on one or both sides of the
street for limited turn around service. Clerk Grant stated that he would 1€ke
to see a manhole on the catch basin, it was the consensus of the board to allow
cul-de-sac if 120 forst frontage on both roads. Hearing to be scheduled for
February 6, 1973.
9. Board requested Town Planner Maurer to get a copy of the environmental status impact
stateinehtthe Lincoln Planning Board requires submitted with plans.
10. Board discussed the preliminary subdivision plan for Richard Hallett on Fruit
Street. Town Planner Maurer informed the Board that he had gone to the High-
way Department, Water Department and Town Manager . The Highway Department
had no comments. The Water Department and Town Manager had the same comment
with respect to the fact that there is no water on Fruit Street. The Town
Manager said that if it is approved it should be approved on a preliminary
basis but to make it known because the plan is approved the Town is not
obligated to put crater in that area. it was noted that some lots are only
Form A approval required.
Motion: To approve the preliminary subdivision plan for Richard Hallett on
Fruit street and send a letter to Mr. Mallett informing him that
the Town is riot obligated to supply water in the subdivision at a
future date and to request a copy of the letter be returned with
his signature to confirm this. Failure to return the signed
letter will constitute disapproval of the preliminary plan.
(Grant- MacFarlane, Zaffini, Latham in favor) VOTED
11. Board discussed the Gravel Removal Permit Plan for Norman Gray. It was noted
that the excavation line on Route 140 was moved back further than was even
necessary, and the plan now conformed with the regulations.
Motion: To sign the Gravel Removal Permit Plan for Norman Gray.
(Grant-Zaffini, all in favor) VOTED
12. Town Planner Maurer informed the Board that the residents from Walnut Street
and West street had appointed Mr. Donahue as their spokesman and Mr. Donahue
came back to talk with the Town Manager and himself and they would like to
have an easment run down the street that Mr. scarpellini is going to put in.
Mr. Scarpellini said he would be willing to provide the easement or put a
pipe In the road if that is what is needed. The Town is talking of putting
four catch basins in cu. Walnut Street. if the catch basins go in it will
run the water back to Mr. ScarPellini°s development. Mr.Sca::rpelllh:I.would
increase the pipe size to 18 inches instead of 12 Inches. The Town will
approach Mr. scarpellini further. It was the consensus of the Board that
the pipe should be shown all the way on the plan.
®6m
Minutes
January 8, 1973
13. Board reviewed the compiled plan for Home Developers Inc. It was noted
that there was no signature block. Plan was returned.
14. Board met with members of the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee
informed the Planning Board that their budget had been cut by $700.
Chairman Mendes to meet with the Finance Committee on Tuesday, January 9,
1973 to discuss the cut.
15. Town Planner Maurer informed the Board that he had received the following
comments on the pronosed,ZonUng By-laws
a. Commercial Agriculture is taken out in the permitted RS -18 district.
b. Sign by-law is not strick enough. The two largest signs are permitted
in the residential zone.
c. Allow too much expansion for a non -conforming use.
d. No mobile homes should be allowed.
e. Land area owned by Fairfied Optical is being zoned from industrial to
Business. (Same is true for Sterling Manufacturing, and Richardson)
f. Expansion of non -conforming uses very excessive„ Should not be allowed
at all.
r'
g. Why have all the land around the airport industrial when there are
no industrial facilities.
h. The exceptions for multi -family dwellings to restrictive.
i. Elevations of mean high water to restrictive.
j. Size of floor area in mobile homes to restrictive.
Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Comments on Proposed Zoning
a. Site Plan Review ® not opposed to the concept review but are concerned
with the fact that it has to go before the Board of Appeals for a
public Bearing. They feel it could slow down the sale of their property.
Would like to see the site plan review procedure put in the hands of the
Building Inspector. They felt that 60 days was too long for a decision.
b. Performance Standards - Decimal level for industrial zones might be
higher than allowed in the residential zone. Same with smoke emission -
c. Concerned about building in the Wet Zones a they stated that it was
covered by the Hatch Act. It was noted that it went through the Board
of Appeals and the Conservation Commission and Cabot, Cabot and Forbes
felt it should go just through the Conservation Commission.
Jaycee's Comments on Proposed Zoning
a. RS -18 Iot size should be bigger or the area designated for RS -18
should be reduced in size.
7®
Minutes
January 9, 1973
b. Should have incorporated Flood Plain Zoning into the By-law.
C. In general the By-law is not strict enough.
d. What are the economic effects of the proposal2
e. Planned Unit Development density too high.
f. Need more land area for business and commercial.
g. Route 106 business zone will neet to include water and sewer and
what would the cost be to the Town.
h. Questioned the justification of making zoning districts primarily
on the basis of the soil conditions.
16, planner Zaffini noted that he had received the following comments on the
proposed Zoning By-law and map.
a. On mobile home. parks should reduce it from 600 foot trailers to 500
foot trailers.
b. On zoning map- up on the corner of Route 140 and Old Central Street -
Beatty Moving has requested being zoned for Business. It was the
consensus of the Board that this should be done.
c. Concern was raised about the wetland m no building other than
residential be located with 100 feet of a district boundry line.
It should be residential,business boundary.
17. Board discussed the proposed skating rink in Mansfield. Planner Zaffini
felt the Town Planner should go to Boston,ewith other Town officials,
on Thursday, January 11, to see if funds are available for Mansfield.
Motions To send Town Planner Maurer to Boston to discuss funds for
a public skating rink in Mansfield.
(Grant-Zaffini in favor, Latham4MatFarlane opposed) NOT VOTED
Planners Latham and MacFarlane felt that there were too many other
important duties for the Town Planner 'to attend to.
18. Board discussed the proposed procedure for the Public Hearing on the.
Zoning By-law and Map. It was the consensus of the Board that the
proposal prepared was alright® Planner Zaffini stated that he felt
Chairman Mendes and Town Planner Maurer should make the presentation
of the By-law. Town Planner Maurer questioned if the Board wanted
to have the articles handed out at the hearing. This matter to be worked
out later. Town Planner Maurer informed the Board that he is trying to
set slides that will help to introduce the Planned Unit Development and
that the Cluster Development can be worked into it.
19. Board discussed the proposed articles for the Special Town Meeting, it
was the consensus of the Board that Articles 1 through 15 was alright.
It was noted that the warrant would have to be posted by 8:00 on the
Monday preceeding the Town Meeting.
- 8 -
Minutes
January 8, 1973
20. Planner Zaffini questioned if there had been any reports received on the
Underground facilities in developments from the Board of Selectmen, it
was noted that there had been none.
21. Town Planner Maurer informed the Board that he was in touch with Mr. D'Annolfo
regarding the As -Built Plans for Magna Vista so that the recreational land
could be accepted at the Town Meeting but he has not received :them as of yet,
22. Town Planner Maurer informed the Board that Bristol Equipment Rental Co.
has asked for the release of the performance Bond in Magna Vista Subdivision
It was noted that the Town is holding a check in the amount of $14,000 and
Bristol Equipment Rental Co. is asking for $5,000.
Motion: To release $5,000 of the $14,000 check to Bristol Equipment
for work completed in the Magna Vista Subdivision.
(MacFarlane -Grant, all in favor) VOTED
It was noted that Town Planner Maurer would have to go to Mr. D'Annolfo's
with Bristol Equipment to get the check signed and that perhaps he could
get the As -Built Plans for Magna Vista while he is there.
23. Board discussed the request from Weldor Realty for $3,000 from the performance
bond on Pine Needle Park on the balance of $4,000. Asking for $3,000 for
the foaming of the grass strips and the Town will hold $1,000 for the com-
pletion of the work.
Motion: To release $3,000 of the $4,000 Benjamin Franklin passbook
$31986 for the completion of work in Pine Needle Park.
(Zaffini®MacFarlane, all in favor) VOTED
24. Board discussed the Board of Appeals notice of hearing for Albert J.
Fasulo to erect a garage to house taxis. It was the consensus of the
Board that plans should be submitted to the Board of Appeals application
along with the architecs design. The Board questioned if there were
any houses in the area of the proposed garage.
25. Board discussed the Board of Appeals application of Paul Boyden to erect
a sign larger than allowed. It was the consensus of the Board to request
the same restrictions as in other applications for signs.
26. Board discussed the Board of Appeals application of Mayfair cleaners to
erect a sign larger than allowed. It was the consensus of the Board to
request the same restrictions as in other applications for signs.
27. Meeting, adjourned at 11:38 P.M.
J �laJ✓d� 4� . .s1.r
Clerk l
i/ i3'
nate