HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 10/02/1972MANSFIELD PLANNING BOARD
AGENDA
October 2, 1972
Call to order (7:30 P.M.)
2. Clerks Report
a. Minutes of September 25, 1972
b. Correspondence
3. Warrant
4
Old Business
a. Status of Plans
1. Capt. John Williams Est. - Def. Sub. - William Street
2. Canoe River Acres - Def. Sub. - Ware Street - 10/7/72
3. Richard Hallett - Form A - Fruit Street - 9/19/72
4. Antosca Conts. - Form A - Williams Street - 9/19/72
5. Janet L. Sullivan - Form A - East Street - 9/27/72
6. Janet L. Sullivan - Form A - East Street - 9/27/72
7. Antonino Caponigro - Form A - Gilbert St. - 9/27/72
8. Keltacap Realty - Form A - Reservoir St. - 9/27/72
9. Edward Carl - Form A - County Street - 9/27/72
10. Nicholas Anagonos - Form A - Maple Street - 10/2/72
11. Magna Vista 11 Def. Sub. - Lawndale Road - 11/18/72
12. Oakleaf Estates - Def. Sub. - Oak Street
13. Mansfield Trust - Def. Sub. - Forbes Boulevard - 11/24/72
14. Allen L. Willis a Form A - Willow Street - 9/12/72
15. Frank Bisceglia - Form A - Jewell Street - 9/12/72
b. Proposed Zoning By-law.
c. 7_oning Application of Karl Clemmey
. Adjournment
MANSFIELD PLANNING BOARD
M|NUTES
October 2^ 1972 .
�
/
The Mansfield Planning Board met at the Town Office Building on Monday, October 2,
(
1971 at 7:30 P.M.
Present: Chairman Mendes, Clerk Grant
Planners: Nelson, MacFarlane, ZafFini, Wellington, Latham
Town Planner Maurer
1, Letters were read from the following:
Town Counsel Grady to Planning Board regarding Earth Removal and Cluster
Developments
Cooperative Extension Service to the Planning Board regarding Public Hearings
for the Hatch Act.
Grady and Kaplan law Offices to the Planning Board enclosing amendment to the
laws of Natural Resources and Wetlands Protection
SCA Disposal Services of Now England, Inc. to the Planning Board regarding
solid waste management
Planning Board to Richard Hallett regarding Preliminary Subdivision Plan
for land located on Fruit Street
Planning Board to James Grady, Town Counsel regarding Form A wetlands or
, other physical conditions
/ )
Town Treasurer, Joan Cut|7)0 to Benjamin Franklin Savings Bank regarding
Bank Books for Mr. L. Walter Mi{lette^ President of Wal6nr Realty
Mr, L. Walter M|l7mtLo^ President Wm!dor Realty to Planning Board regarding
' New Mansfield Estates
Mrs. Margot Jellinek to Department of Natural Resources regarding Gilbert
` Street Substation Site Preparation
Editorial regarding court cmor against the Norwood Board of Selectmen for
denial of a sewer connection permit
Mansfield Conservation Commission to Mr, Sidney Cov|ch, M|}haus Apartments
regarding construction work on the banks and river bottom of the Rumford River
Harvey C^ Schneider to Planning Board regarding pertinent information about
Mansfield and the surrounding areas regarding setting up a practice in optometry
Board of Ho7ath to Home Developers Inc. regarding Definitive Plan for a
Subdivision located on Lawndale Road
Ernest L. White, Jr^ to Board of Appeals regarding application for Sign Variance
}
Edward J. Protean ~ Copeland Drive
- 2 -
Minutes
October 2, 1972
2. Motion: To approve the Minutes of September 25, 1972 with the following amendments:
item 4 - should read"$3,500 when the base and top coat are installed"
Item 5 - should read "The Board noted that the zoning classification
was not shown on the plan."
item 7 - should read 1140,000 cubic yards of gravel"
(Wellington - Zaffini, all in favor) VOTED
3. Motion: To approve the warrant of October 3, 1972 in the amount of $67.70.
(Wellington - Grant, all in favor) VOTED
4. Board reviewed the Definitive Subdivision Plan for Capt. John Williams Estates
for land on Jewell and Williams Streets. (Planner Nelson left the room and
did not participate in any discussion.) Town Planner Maurer noted that the plans
did not contain the easements as required in the Planning Board's letter of
August 9, 1972. He also stated that with respect to the proposed elevation it
would be difficult to determine what the property would be like after excavation.
Planner Wellington noted that the proposed contours were not carried across the
existing Form A lots on Jewell Street, The Board noted that they have had no
communication with the applicant or his representative on this plan from the
time the plan was submitted and the Board noted that it was difficult to con-
sider the plan without being able to discuss it with the applicant.
Motion: To invite Mr. Nelson to come before the Board to discuss his plan.
(Wellington - MacFarlane, Zoff'ini &' Latham in favor, Grant abstained)
VOTED
Planner Wellington questioned Mr. Nelson concerning the lots and other property
regarding how the proposed elevations should join in with the existing lots on
Williams Street and Jewell Street. Mr. Nelson stated that the proposed eleva-
tion on the plan represented the maximum depth of the cut and the purpose of
presenting his plan was to establish a definitive plan for the gravel pit. Mr.
Nelson stated that the elevation on the plan may be incorrect because of the
limited shots that the engineer took on the property. Mr. Nelson stated that
he had checked some of the elevations and he did not agree with the engineer.
Planner Latham asked why Mr. Nelson did not come in for the Definitive Sub-
division Plan after the gravel was removed. Mr. Nelson stated that the easterly
section of the property is ready for development now and as he removes the gravel
he would like to develop the property in sections. He stated that it would
take 5-6 years to develop the subdivision in its entirety. Town Planner
Maurer asked Mr. Nelson if he thought the land would be suitable for housing
afterwards and Mr. Nelson stated that most of the land would be suitable for
development. He stated that he took 10 - 12 test holes to an average depth
of 10 feet. Mr. Nelson stated that the type of material varies all over the
property. In some areas there is gravel in other areas hardpan and in some
areas shale. it was the consensus of the Board that they should have data on
the text holes to determine whether the land could be used for residential
purposes or for street construction.
-3®
Minutes
October 2, 1972
Chairman Mendes asked Mr. Nelson why he did not provide the easement as the
Board requested, Mr. Nelson stated that he felt that the easement was not
necessary as the stream was intermittent. Mr. Nelson stated that the problem
with the easement is that the land is locked up and he felt that you only had
to put an easement where water is going in from a street. Clerk Grant stated
that the easement would not be a problem or tie the property up because the
Town would not take over the easement until the streets were accepted, Planner
Latham asked if it would be better for Mr. Nelson to show the easement and Mr.
Nelson stated that he did not show the easement as it was a matter of principal,
Mr. Nelson stated that he would do everything in the subdivision that the sub-
division regulations called for. He stated that if the Town wanted the ease-
ment they would have to pay the going price, The Board then asked Mr. Nelson
to leave the room in order that they may consider his plan.
Planner Wellington noted that the Plan was improperly drawn and not correct
in some instances from an engineering stand point. It was noted that the
elevation on the profile did not agree with the existing or porposed contours,
and the easement was not located in the same place on the profile plan as it
did on the lot plan. Clerk Grant noted that he felt that Mr. Nelson should
supply the Board,with borings. These borings should be taken below the septic
tank level,
Motion: To advise the applicant that the Planning Board does not consider
the plan as duly submitted and will not take any further action on
the plan until the applicant has submitted all of the following to
the Planning Board.
1) That all of the engineering errors on the plan be corrected,
2) That existing and proposed contours be shown on the adjacent
property owned by the applicant and that all contours be connected
3) That the drainage easement required by the Planning Board in
their letter of August 9, 1972 be shown on the lot plan and
properly dimensioned,
(Wellington - Latham)
Amendment, 4) That borings be taken along the proposed center line
of the roadways at a minimum distance of 200 feet
apart beginning at station 0-�-0 on Williams Street,
These borings shall be certified by a Registered
Professional Engineer and shall be taken to a minimum
depth of 2 feet below the finished grade of the roadway,
(Grant -MacFarlane, all in favor) VOTED
Amendment: 5) That the applicant submit a covenant which is properly
drawn and cross referenced to the Definitive Plan.
Said covenant shall include the following statement,
"Before any lots are released for building within the
subdivision, all required improvements will have to
be installed; or a performance bond covering the cost
of required improvements for the entire length of all
roadways within the subdivision, shalt be properly filed
with the Town of Mansfield,"
(Grant -Wellington, all in favor) VOTED
(Motion m As amended, all in fover) VOTED
4
Minutes
October 2, 1972
5. Board reviewed the draft of the letter for Canoe River Acres. Planner MacFarlane
questioned the words "the Planning Board will then consider approving the
Definitive Subdivision Plan" as he felt that if the underdrain system proved
that it functioned properly then the plan should be approved. Planner Latham
stated that he was concerned about the conditions of the land and that he would
not consider approving the pian in any form unless everything was adequately
installed. Chairman Mendes stated that he felt that the conditions of approval
of the Planning Board should be spelled out in the letter. It was the consensus
of the Board that the following be included as the conditions for approval.
That satisfactory percolation tests be taken on each lot as shown on the
Definitive Subdivision Plan with no evidence of ground water within 6 feet
of the existing elevation of the ground.
2. That the top of any cellar floor shall not be more than 5 feet below
existing grade.
3. That the time of the percolation tests shall be approved by the Planning
Board and the Board of Health.
Antonino Caponigro, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen met with the Board on
this matter and stated that the Board of Health was in general agreement with
the Planning Board. He felt that the Board of Selectmen would go along with
the Planning Board's recommendations. Chairman Mendes advised Mr. Caponigro
that the Planning Board will recommend to the Board of Health that they limit
the property to single family homes only, due to the problem with subsurface
drainage and the fact that the duplex housing could attach the drainage system
even with the subdrainage system. The Board agreed to sending a copy of the
Planning Board's letter to Mr. King to the Board of Health with a cover letter
stating that the Planning Board recommends that only single family dwellings
be constructed on the lots.
Motion: To approve the draft letter as revised and sending a draft copy to
the Board of Health for their review and not send the finished copy
to the applicant until the Board of Health comments are recieved
and to recommend to the Board of Health that only single family
dwellings be constructed on the lots.
(Zaffini - Wellington, Grant, MacFarlane, Latham in favor.
Nelson opposed) VOTED
6. Board reviewed the Form A Plan for Richard Hallett on Fruit Street. It was
noted that some of the items requested lastweek were still omitted. Missing
are the dimensions along the Town line, name of the abutting property owner,
and the dimension of the last lot as to the dimension on the Mansfield side
and Norton side. The land for the Penn Central Railroad belongs to the Town
of Mansfield. Town Planner Maurer noted that he had asked R.I.M. Engineering
to make the corrections and in the past they have returned the plans to the
engineer for correction as a courtesy now, he felt the plan should be returned
to the applicant stating why the plans were not accepted so that the applicant
would be aware of what the engineer is doing. A letter to be sent to Mr. Hallett.
-5 -
Minutes
October 2, 1972
7. Board reviewed the zoning application of Karl Clemmey. Planner Wellington
stated that he had reviewed the property along route 106 and felt that because
of the terrain on each side of the road, housing would be hard to develop, It
was the consensus of the Board that business should be developed along that area.
Planner Nelson noted that even if the land was zoned for business, the storage
of auto salvage may not be a permitted use. it was noted that there is no water
line currently servicing the property and the storage of gasoline could be a
fire hazard. The Board felt that the Fire Chief should make a recommendation.
It was also noted that the property would not have the required frontage and
that the applicant was not asking for a frontage variance and even if the
applicant received the variance to allow an auto salvage business, he would
have to come back and ask for a variance on lot frontage.
Motion: To write a letter to the Board of Appeals on the application of Karl
Clemmey indicating that it is the consensus of the Planning Board
that this area of Mansfield may, in the future, be developed for
business purposes and that the comprehensive zoning revision, which
will be presented to a future Town Meeting, will recommend business
zoning along some portion of Route 106 in East Mansifield. However
it is quite possible that the establishment of the sale of automobiles
and automobile salvage parts will not be a permitted use in the proposed
business district. The Board also noted that there are no municipal
utilities currently servicing the area. Problems may result in the
future with providing utilities for one property, which is located
a considerable distance from any utilities, i.e. water and electricity.
Prior to making a decission it may be advisable for the Board of Appeals
to get an opinion from the Fire Chief regarding safety problems.
The Mansfield Planning Board recommends that the above
VARIANCE not be granted for the following reasons:
1. The parcel of land has frontage of only 88.04 feet, which is non-
conforming in an Agricultural Zone. The VARIANCE application was
only for use and not for frontage.
2. The application before the Board of Appeals represents a proposal
to dramatically alter land use policy. Even though it may be a
proposal of the Planning Board to change this land use policy at
at future date, the Board of Appeals does not have the power, under
Chapter 40A, to change the Zoning Districts or the uses allowed
within a District (i.e. residence to business). These major
changes can only be made by a Town Meeting. If the applicant
feels that this is the best use for the area, then he should
present it to the Town Meeting. For only tkcitizens of the
community, throng[ Town Meeting action, have the power to amend
the Zoning By-law, as noted in Chapter 40A, Section 6.
(MacFarlane - Latham, all in favor) VOTED
8. Town Planner Maurer advised the Board that at the last meeting Waiter Millette
requested the release of a $10,000 bank book being held for the finished paving
and the berm for Pine Needle Park. The final paving and the berm is in except
for 300 feet, but there is a contingency bond being held.
Motion: To release the Benjamin Franklin Savings Bank passbook ##41987 in the
amount of $10,000.
(Zaffini a Grant, all in favor) VOTED
6
Minutes
October 2, 1972
9. Town Planner Maurer advised the Board that the subdivision plan for Magna Vista II
and the plan for Cabot, Cabot and Forbes were duly submitted and would be ad-
vertised for Public Hearing, It was the consensus of the Board to hold a Public
Hearing on October 30th, 1972.
10. It was the consensus of the Board to hold the next meeting on Wednesday,
October 11, 1972.
11. Board discussed the open house for Zayre Corp. The Board recommended that
Town Planner Maurer check in as to who was invited.
12. Planner Wellington stated that he felt the Planning Board should send a letter
to the Charter Commission stating the Boards opinion on the proposed charter
as it relates to the Town Planner. He stated that he felt that it was the
consensus of the Board, that they were not in favor of the Town Planner section
as it appears in the draft. Chairman Mendes stated that he felt that the
charter should state that the Town Planner should be responsible to the
Planning Board and not to the Town tanager. Planner Nelson stated that he
questioned if the Town Planner should be in the Charter, or if they should
even have a Town Planner, as he felt that the Town Planners duties come
under the Town Engineer.
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M.
Clerk
Date