HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 02/25/1972MANSFIELD PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES
February 25, 1972
The Mansfield Planning Board held a regular meeting at the Town Office Building
on Friday, February 25, 1972.
Present: Chairman Wellington, Clerk Latham
Planners: Chavaree, Grant, MacFarlane, Mendes
Town Panner Maurer.
1. Minutes from previous meetings.
Motion: To approve the minutes from the meeting of February 7, 1972
with the following amendments.
No. 4 should read "incorporate the rear of lots 5,6 and 7"
No. 10 insert the words "Suffolk Road" after Cabot, Cabot and
Forbes.
(Mendes -Latham, all in favor)
Motion: To approve the minutes of February 11, 1972
(Mendes -Grant, all in favor)
Motion: To approve the minutes of February 18:s 1972.
(Mendes -Grant, all in favor)
Motion: To approve the minutes of February 21, 1972
(Mendes -Grant, all in favor)
2. Letters were read from the following:
J. T. Cronin, Department of Public Works to Planning Board concerning
subdivision plan for Casa Realty Co., Inc.
Town Planner Maurer to Town Counsel Grady concerning subdivision plans
which do not show the individual house lots.
Attorney Ernest L. White concerning Public Nearing to re -zone from
Agriculture to Residence B, Land at the northwesterly corner of the Town.
Thomas Associates concerning 1971 Amendment to Chapter 40A
Town Planner Maurer to Yankee Builders concerning subdivision plan
entitled Minute Man Estates
Mrs. Carol Thomas concerning the Massachusetts urban renewal program.
Margot Jellinek concerning Board of Appeals permit granted to John T.
Cotterill.
Margot Jellinek concerning Maple Park swimming area.
Mr .Richard Lobel concerning damage done to his property caused by work-
men on the property of Robert Rizzo's Wayside Estates.
2
Decision from Board of Appeals on application of John T. Cotterill. Found
Relief may be granted.
Board of Appeals Notices:
Application of Theodore A. langmeyer to convert a first floor apartment to
a florist shop.
Application ofDonald G. Ranieir to divide a parcel of land into two separate
lots with non -conforming frontages.
Application of Thomas R. Goddard to allow the installation of a sign larger
than allowed in a Business "C" Zone.
Application of Fernandes Super Markets to allow the installaticn of two signs
larger than allowed in a Business "B" zone.
Application of Kevin D. Hunt to operate a part time printing service in his
home which is non -Conforming in an Agricultural Zone.
Application of Mansfield Conservation Commission to remove excess material from
Fultons Pond.
Application of John W. Day to allow the construction of an attached breezeway
and garage to a dwelling. Side yard is non -conforming in a Residence "A".
Application of Karl D. Clemmey to allow the temporary storage of motor
vehicles on a parcel of land in a Residence "A".
3. Motion: To approve the warrant in the amount of $136.63
(Mendes -Grant, all in favor)
4. The Board discussed the proposed amendments to Chapter 40A. Planner Mendes
presented the Board with a copy of SRPEDD's recommendations on the proposed
bill.
Motion: To send a letter to Senator Qulnlin and Representative Ames favoring
the passage of the Bill. Include in the letter SRPEDD's recommenda-
tions, which the Mansfield Planning Board also favors.
(Mendes -Grant all in favor)
5. The Board discussed Account 200-1 Secretarial Expense. It was noted that the
Finance Committee will not recommend increasing the amount to be appropriated.
However, the Board can hay the secretary what they want to and adjust the
amounts within the various accounts at the end of 1972.
Motion: To increase the secretary's pay at the rate of 5.5 percent or up to
$2.65 per hour, subject to Town Meeting appropriation and retroactive
to January 1, 1972.
(Chavaree-Mendes, all in favor)
6. The Board d,i'scussed the Engineering Fund Account 209-0. The Finance Committee
will not recommend the additional appropriation of $1,000 into that account
in 1972.
3
%. The Board discussed the Zoning Permit, Exception, and/or Variance Application
of John W. Day to construct a garage with a non -conforming side yard.
Motion: To write a letter to the Board of Appeals stating that the Planning
Board would not be opposed to the granting of the Permit, Exception
and/or Variance providing that the applicant can satisfactorily
demonstrate to the Board of Appeals that his application complies
with the following criteria:
1. That due to special conditions affecting the particular parcel
of land or building, but not affecting generally the zoning district
in which it is located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of
the zoning by-law would involve substantial hardship, financial or
otherwise.
2. That desirable relief may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good.
3. That it will not nullify or substantially derogate from the intent
or purpose of the Mansfield Zoning By -Law._
(Mendes -Grant, Chavaree® Latham in favor, MacFarlane opposed)
8. The Board discussed the Zoning Permit, Exception, and or Variance Application
of Theodore A. Langmeyer to Convert a first floor dwelling to a florist shop.
Motion: To write a letter to the Board of Appeals stating that the Planning
Board would not recommend approval of the variance for the following
reasons:
1. The Board questions the fact that to the best of their knowledge,
the applicant is not the owner of record and variances should not
be granted to other than record owners.'
2. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the power to vary the
application of a zoning by-law must be sparingly exercised and only
In rare instances and under exceptional circumstances peculiar to
their nature, and with due regard to the main purpose of the zoning
by-law to preserve the property rights of others. In the case of
Blackman vs. Barnstable Board of Appeals, the Supreme Court said
"CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN LEST THE BOUNDRIES OF -A RESIDENCE DISTRICT BE
PARED DOWN IN SUCCESSIVE PROCEEDINGS GRANTING VARIANCE TO OWNERS
WHO FROM TIME TO TIME THROUGH SUCH PROCEEDINGS FIND THEIR
RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES ABUTTING UPON PREMISES NEWLY DEVOTED TO
BUSINESS PURPOSE".
3, A hardship cannot be demonstrated by an applicant who does not
own the property.
4. The current use of the premises is non -conforming, i.e. parking
regulations. When one nonconforming use is changed to another then
the original non -conformity should meet: the current requirements.
These would be a need to require parking for the four remaining
units or eight spaces plus parking for the business use. The
Mansfield Zoning By -Law currently requires a minimum of ;three square
feet of parking for every one square foot of business floor area.
®44
{ 5. The approval of this application would derogate from the intent or
purpose of the Mansfield Zoning By -Law, i.e. a business use is not a
permitted use In a Residence B Zone.
(Mendes -Latham, all in favor)
�J. The Board discussed the application of Karl D. Clemmy for a Permit, Exception
and or Variance for temporary storage of motor vehicles in a Residence "A"
zone.
Motion: To write the Board of Appeals a letter stating that the Planning
Board recommends approval not be granted for the following reasons:
1. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the power to vary the
application of a zoning by-law must be sparingly exercised and only
In rare instances and under exceptional circumstances peculiar to
their nature , and with due regard to the main purpose of the
zoning by-law to preserve the property rights of others. in the
case of Blackman vs. the Barnstable Board of Appeals, the Supreme
Court said, "CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN LEST THE BOUNDRIES OF A RESIDENCE
DISTRICT BE PARED DOWN IN SUCCESSIVE PROCEEDINGS GRANTING VARIANCE
TO OWNERS WHO FROM TIME TO TIME THROUGH SUCH PROCEEDINGS FIND
THEIR RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES ABUTTING UPON PREMISES NEWLY DEVOTED
TO BUSINESS PURPOSE."
2. A hardship must relate to the land in question. When the
owner of a business owns adjoining land not zoned for business
and he wishes to expand, any hardship relating to the business
property does not apply to the adjoining land. In the case of
this applicant, he has indicated that he intends to move his
North Main Street operation to the Copeland Drive location,
therefore there is no hardship related to the specific property
described in the application. The Supreme Court also said
(In the aforementioned case) that "THE FINANCIAL SITUATION OR
PECUNIARY HARDSHIP OF A SINGLE OWNER AFFORDS NO ADEQUATE GROUND
FOR PUTTING FORTH THIS EXTRA ORDINARY POWER AFFECTING OTHER PROPERTY
OWNERS AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC."
3. The storage of auto salvage is not a permitted use in Business
"C" and therefore the non -conforming use should not, under any
circumstances, be extended into a Residence "A" zone.
4. Desirable relief may not be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good, i.e. creating a non -conforming use
in an existing residential neighborhood.
5. The granting of the Permit, Exception and/or Variance would
nullify and substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of
the Mansfield Zoning By -Law, i.e. putting 'a business use in a
Residence A zone.
(Mendes-Chavaree, all in favor)
p5®
10. The Board discussed the application of Kevin D. Hunt for a permit, Exception
and/or Variance to operate a part-time printing service in an Agricultural
Zone.
Motion: To write the Board of Appeals a letter stating that the Planning
Board would not be opposed to approving this application provided
that the applicant can satisfactorily demonstrate the following:
1. That due to special conditions affecting the particular par -cc]
of land or building, but not affecting generally the zoning district
in which it is located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of
the zoning by-law would involve substantial hardship, financial
or otherwise.
2. That desirable relief may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good.
3. That it will not nullify or substantially derogate from the
intent or purpose of the Mansfield Zoning By -Law.
(Chavaree®Mendes, all in favor)
11. The Board discussed the application of Fernandes Super Markets of Norton for
a permit exception and/or Variance to construct a sign larger than allowed in
a Business "B" Zone.
Motion: To write the Board of Appeals a letter stating that the Planning
Board voted to recommend that the Board of Appeals consider the
proposed sign regulations prepared by Thomas Associates when considering
this application.
(Mendes-Chavaree, all in favor)
12. The Board discussed the application of Thomas R. Goddard for a Permit, Exception
and/or Variance to Construct a sign larger than allowed in a Business C Zone.
Motion: To write the Board of Appeals a letter stating that the Planning
Board voted to recommend that the Board of Appeals consider the
proposed sign regulations prepared by Thomas Associates when
considering this application.
(Mendes®Chavaree, all in favor)
13. The Board discussed the definitive subdivision plan for Cabot, Cabot & Forbes
for the construction of Hampshire Street and Cabot Boulevard. (Planner Grant
left the room and did not participate in any discussion), It was noted that
the Board of Health has not yet approved the plan because they are waiting for
Cabot, Cabot & Forbes to present them with detailed sewer plans for 'Test Street.
Chairman Wellington reviewed the bond application and felt that it was low.
Motion: To write a letter to Cabot, Cabot & Forbes stating that the definitive
plan has not been approved pending approval of the Board of Health
and that the Planning Board would like to review the sewer plans in
West Street in conjunction with the approval of the definitive plan.
(Mendes -Latham, all in favor)
6
t 14.
Board discusses Minute Man Estates. It was noted that the applicant had
amended that plan to show the drain running to the Brook. It was suggested
that the applicant obtain a letter from Mr. Jeanquen€n stating that he is
aware that the drainage along the development will be flowing in the ditch
along his property line.
15.
Board reviewed the preliminary plan for Spruce Acres. It was noted the
drainage problem that exists In Hall Street could be worked out between the
Town and the developer. It was recommended that a meeting be set up with
the developer and the Selectmen next Friday at 9PM to discuss this possibility.
16.
Board discussed the preliminary plan application of Casa Realty on Walnut St..
Motion: To dissaprove the preliminary plan because of the information the
Planning Board has received from the Mass. Department of Public
f/
Works concerning Route 140 which will run through thect�A
portion of this property. The Board would like to see a revised
plan prepared taking In the proposed alignments %�ooez����t�
(Mendes -Grant, all in favor)
17.
Board discussed the definitive plan for Oak Leaf Estates on Oak Street.
The Board was concerned with the amount of cut in the roadway and felt that
they should ask the developer to raise the profile of the road. Chairman
Wellington noted discrepancies between the profile of the road and the
proposed topography. Planner Mendes suggest that Town Planner Maurer contact
the Town of Morton with regard to a joint meeting. Town Planner was advised
to set up a hearing.
18. Board discussed Canoe River Acres. Board agreed to advertise for public hearing.
19. Board discussed the street acceptance plans for the streets in Wayside Estates:
Old Farm Road and Black Pond Road, it was noted that before the Board would
release the performance bond on these two roads that they would require a
maintenance bond which would cover any failing in the road for a period of
one year after date of completion. Town Planner Maurer to contact Mr. Rizzo
and so advise him.
20. Board reviewed the Form A application of Francis Smithfor a lot on Copeland
Drive.
Motion: To sign the plan for Francis Smith
(Mendes-Chavaree, all In favor)
21. Board reviewed a Form A plan for Leo Costanza. It was noted that the following
information was left off the plan: areas, existing buildings, tied to nearest
street intersection, differentiate between lot A and B.
Motion: To return the plan to have the changes made.
(Mendes -Grant, all in favor)
22. Town Planner Maurer advised the Board that Edward Stivale.tta had requested the
release of a portion of his bond. The Town Planner advised the Board that
there is still work to be done in the road and that he would recommend that
any portion of the bond not be released until all the work is completed. He
further advised the Board that there is allowance for a corner rounding on the
road near McCrady°s property,
~7~
23^ The Board reviewed the preliminary subdivision plan for Capt. John Williams
Estates. planners Chavmrae and Grant did not participate in the discussion,
and after being requested to do so planner Nelson left the room~ The Board
utq*sd that they still request that an easement be put along the two property
lines and one to the Wading k|vmr^ Planner Mendes noted that they had requested
additional information which the applicant has not conformed to and felt that
the applicant should, before they consider approving the plan.
22~ Mrs. Margot Jellinek asked the Board if they were aware that Engineer Ralph
Nalunn had prepared engineering plans for the proposed Copeland Road.
Chairman Wellington stated that he was not aware that this had been done and
his opinion was that if Copeland Road was constructed then it should be
in accordance with specifications. Town Planner Maurer will look into this
matter,
23. Motion: To adjourn