Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMaster Plan Council 08/20/1987SEP 17 19v,I MASTER FLAN ADVISORY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 2i_r. 1987 t Members Present: Felli Baker Michel LaCasse Edward Broderick Carl Nelson Larry Harrington Steve Calvin Al Willis Steve Chapman Bill Madan Stuart Sweet The meeting was called to order by Ms. Baker at 7:40 FM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The first order of business was the APPROVAL OF THE MINUTEi:S of the meeting held on Mune 4, 1987. A MOTILIN to approve such minutes was made by Bill Madan; seconded by Steve Calvin. After- no discussion, the motion passed unanimously. Ms. Baker requested of the Council that a member volunteer to take notes as to the specifies of motions made, since no secretary was present and tape recordings sometimes cannot pick: up the individuals making such motions. Mr. Calvin volunteered for this duty. The second order of business was CORRESPONDENCE. Ms. Baker noted that she had, prior to this meeting, prepared a summary of all correspondence received since the last meeting of June 4, which was quite lengthy. She stated that if it was acceptable to the Council, she would entertain a motion to read the summary in Lfeu of'ithe actual correspondence itself. Mr. Chapman made a MOTION to read the summary and make the actual pieces of correspondence available to the public and press after the meeting. This motion was seconded by Mr. Sweet. After no discussion, the motion passed unanimously. Ms. Baker then requested that Mr. Harrington serve this evening as Clerk:, as Mr. Folk:man was not present. Mri Harrington then proceeded to read the correspondence as listed in the summary. Such summary is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. OLD BUSINESS A) Discussion,of Master Plan Stuff-_- Michel L.aGa-se / Mr. LaCasse noted that contracts had ;:been fully executed. between SRFEDD and the Town of Mansfield, and Connery Associate" -and the Town of Mansfield. He went on to explain in some detail:rthe areas of responsibility that would be held by each group. SRPEDD, for a cost of $6,800, will be responsible for a community profile and for updating various town maps. The maps, among others, will consist of updates to present road maps, sewer maps, water maps, parcel maps, etc., and will be available for use by any town department which may need the updated information. The community profile will contain the demographic information necessary to complete the raw data needed to begin the true master plan analysis. Connery Associates, for a cost of $25,000, will be responsible for taking the maps and the demographic information and putting it together in an analysis for the master plan. The scope of services is similar to the draft proposal distributed several weeks ago to the Council, but Mr. LaCasse noted that he would have photocopies of the actual contract made to be distributed to the Council at the next meeting. SRPEDD has, in Mr. LaCasse's estimation, completed approximately 75% of their contract. Connery already has in their possession several of the essential maps updated by SRPEDD to begin their study. SRPEDD still needs to deliver a few more of the maps. Connery's first report, on Existing Conditions and Trends, is due somewhere near the end of October. Proposed Alternatives will be presented somewhere in the November -December timeframe. Mr. LaCasse noted that the frequency of appearances by Connery will increase as the master plan gets further into the study process. It was felt by Mr. LaCasse that the best use of Connery's time would be to have them available more at the end of the study than at the beginning. Mr. LaCasse also noted that Connery's method of operation was to present present conditions (with an extended trends analysis, giving the "worst case" buildout possibilities), and then to develop two or three alternative scenarios for use by the Council and in public hearings to discuss the direction that Mansfield should take. Mr. LaCasse completed his update with a comment that both consultants, Connery and SRPEDD, were on schedule at this point. Mr. Harrington asked if Rande Wilson had reached any settlement with IEP. Mr. LaCasse replied that he did not know, but would be sure to settle that with Mr. Wilson and get the file from Mr. Wilson before Mr. Wilson left for vacation the following day. Mr. Harrington then asked if we had received any additional information back from IEP; Mr. Chapman clarified that by asking specifically if we ever received the surveys back. Mr. LaCasse noted that we had not, and that he suspected that TEP was holding the surveys and the additional materials with a view towards eventual settlement. Ms. Baker mentioned again that during a conversation with Jon Witten several months ago, he had promised that, Mansfield would immediately be receiving back: the presentation maps, the surveys, and the word processing disk: used to generate IEP" s reports. None of this material has been received to date. B) Discussion of Mobile Home "Field Tri}" 1. Ms. Baker opened the discussion by noting which members had been on the "field trip"; Mr. LaCasse noted that he took: pictures which had not yet been returned from developing. Most members present had either been on the field trip or had personally seen these parks. Conversation was opened with a general discussion of the two parkas seen. It was clarifed that the first park: (most members thought the name of the park was "Rolling Fines Estates", in North Attleboro behind the Registry of Motor Vehicles) was a formal tour, presented by the owner/developer of the park. The second parte:: (which is located in Plainville across the street from Fernandes on Route 52, and which nobody knew the name of) was simply a "drive --through'' on the spur of the moment, since all members were in two cars and we were in such proximity. It was generally agreed that Rolling Pines was a good, well - kept example of a mobile home park: ("mobile home" being a misnomer, since these trailers are permanently anchored on foundations), and that the other park: was a reasonably good example of what the Council. would not like to see in Mansfield. Discussions then went around the table with each member stating views as to the concepts of mobile home/trailer parks. Several members had strong feelings pro- or con-; other members displayed mixed emotions. Some points made during discussion: Mobile homes extremely suitable for the elderly. Would there be a possibility that the. Housing Authority could develop such a park? If the Housing Authority had an interest, would a mobile home park: be qualified for the appropriate fundings? With the elderly in mind, mobile homes are good particularly because of a one -floor- situation. One -floor situations particularly advantageous for several reasons: mobility factor- for the elderly; less space to heat.; etc. It was noted that a one -level conventional home or garden -style condominiums could meet: the same need. Negative stigma attached to mobile homes in some people's minds. Does Mansfield want to risk: the stigma'? Rolling Fines, -although an excellent example of its kind, was developed and is owned and operated by one single man. What happens if the owner/developer sells? dies? Would the next owner/operator take as meticulous care of the park? or does it die down to look like the second park we saw? It was felt that one major impetus for the owner of Rolling Pines to keep it nice was that he actually lived on site. What happens if the park: is sold to an off-site owner, or becomes part of an estate? How can you make the numbers work: to make a developer want_ to build a mobile home park? In Florida, where these parks ar-e very successful, and specifically Rolling Pines in North Attleboro, land is or was cheap at the time of purchase, and thus, the numbers can work. With the price of land in Mansfield today, how could a developer buy a piece of land and then build a park: on it at a price that would keep the homes "affordable"? Density a big key. In order to make numbers work:, lots would have to be very small. Cluster was discussed in relation to the aesthetics of the park. What about construction? The point was made that older trailers were not built under rigorous construction standards and thus are falling apart. Under present building regulations, trailers would have to meet today's building standards in Mansfield. Should Mansfield be "all things to all people"? Mr. l_aCasse noted a social stigma developed when an area or a complex was all one thing ("all elderly"; "all low-income', etc.). It was generally agreed that a program such as SHARP works better, i.e., Keith's new development, whereby 25% of the homes are low -to -moderate income, and the other 75% are mark:et.. value. Thus all parties are encouraged to keep the area nice and no social stigma is attached. It was noted that in Mansfield's present zoning regulations, mobile homes are already allowed as long as they meet the zoning area they are in and they are attached to permanent. foundations. Several other types of housing available that are more sound and more aesthetically pleasing than trailers, for not much more money. Does Mansfield need to go to trailers? Soundproofing in today's construction probably better in walls between units than between trailers in many parkas. It was noted that in many areas where mobiles are successful (Florida, etc.) that there are regulations that say that a mobile must be moved off the lot in 10-15 years, presumably due to the decreased 'longevity of the unit. Implication is that the trailer cannot last more than 10-15 years. It was discussed as to whether that type of regulation would need to be in effect if units are built under today's building codes. After discussions were complete, Ms. Baker urged the Council to think seriously on the points made this evening, seeing that the time was coming that the Council would have to either support or disapprove of the mobile home concept as presented by Connery. C) Discussion of Affordable Housing.Plan_ Ms. Baker opened discussions by noting that the affordable housing study is now in second draft form, and requested that the Council restrict their comments to any exceptions to the draft. f Mr. Willis noted that an entire section requested for inclusion during the discussion of the first draft with Bob Catineau had been omitted. Mr. LaCasse mentioned that he had discussed this with Mr. Catineau previous to this meeting, and that Bob Catineau reviewed his notes and recognized his omission. Such section had to do with adding a provision allowing for multiple dwelling complexes including housing for the elderly, elderly congregate housing co-ops, and other forms of mutual housing. Mr. Chapman pointed out that Connery still had not changed the wording of "Mansfield Growth Management Committee" to the "Mansfield Master Plan Advisory Council." It was agreed that this should be changed before final distribution. Mr. LaCasse pointed out that this study was not going to go to Town Meeting intact, but rather should be viewed as a smaller unit of the master plan study. There was a general consensus among the members of the Council that the concepts addressed .in the affordable housing study could be either supported or disapproved of after further sturdy of the master plan process, looking at things in the broader scope. With that in mind, the Council discussed whether it was appropriate to approve the study in its entirety, with a caveat that the concepts addressed were not necessarily approved of or disapproved of by the Council until further study of the master plan was complete, or whether it was even necessary to formally approve the affordable housing sturdy. Mr. Chapman made a MOTION that the Master Flan Advisory Council accepts the conclusions regarding affordable housing as presented by the Connery Associates' sturdy, and that we have reviewed the alternatives proposed by Connery to provide affordable housing, and intend to investigate them more thoroughly and possibly incorporate some of them into the Master Flan. Such motion was seconded by Mr. Broderick:. During discussion of this motion, Mr. Madan felt that we should refrain from making any such motions until after the joint meeting had been held with the Planning Board and the Board of Selectmen, as we had already agreed with both boards that we wound communicate via joint meetings before any positions were taken. Mr. Chapman and Mr. LaCasse felt that the Selectmen and the Planning Board would question the Council as to their position on this study, in our advisory capacity to both boards, but Mr. Harrington felt that we should adhere to the policy we had already agreed to with both boards, with regard to the concern for the "communications issues" raised a couple of months ago. After further consideration, Mr. Chapman withdrew his motion. It was noted that there are several pages numbered "i", f atc. in the draft, making the draft very difficult to follow. It was requested that Connery renumber- the pages appropriately. It was also noted that Appendix B had inadvertently not been included in several of the members' copies of the draft. It was agreed that Cannery should reinsert Appendix B before final. distribution. It was requested of Mr. LaCasse that he distribute photocopies of the affordable housing study to the Planning Board and the Board of Selectmen prior to the joint meeting, as it was felt that it would be impossible for the members of both boards to review this information in the middle of the joint meeting. D) Other- Old Business Ms. Baker brought up the matter of the recommendations of the Water Protection District Advisory Council, and noted that five of the members of the Council had met in a workshop format the previous Wednesday prior to the joint meeting between the Water Protection Committee, the Board of Selectmen, the Planning Board, and the Master Plan Advisory Council. She mentioned that the Council had gone through each recommendation one -by -one and had gotten about 3/4 through the report. She also noted that the Selectmen had already approved these recommendations daring the joint session. She requested that. Mr. LaCasse forward a copy of these recommendations to Connery Associates if they had riot already received them, for their review .in conjunction with the Master Plan study. Mr. LaCasse replied that Connery already had the report. Mr. Chapman questioned why we would include this report in with the master plan without having approved it. Ms. Baker replied that the water protection recommendations were no different than any other studies made which had been already given to Connery, i.e., downtown studies, sewer Studies, road studies, etc. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Chapman made a MOTION that the Chairman write a letter to the Mansfield News to correct misinformation that had appeared in the Mansfield News over the past two weeks, particularly regarding the "illegal meeting". Mr. Chapman clarified that a meeting had not been held, that the matter had been referred to Town Counsel for ultimate resolution, and that the public should be so informed. Such motion failed for lack of a second. Discussion followed as to the advisability of rebuttals of one-sided stories, and the possibility of an interview of the chairman by the newspaper to rebut the misinformation. Further discussion ensued as to how the public:: could be kept accurately informed of Council proceedings. a ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION Mr. LaCasse continued the vein of this conversation in round table discussions, as to how to keep the public accurately informed, and how to reach the public. Ms. Baker noted that she periodically received calls from both newspapers requesting updates as to Council meetings, and expressed surprise that no members of the press were attending this evening, as they had been in attendance all summer. The possibility of televising meetings was discussed. Ms. Baker expressed a hope that now that the affordable housing study was nearly complete and the master plan study was once again kicked off, that this would give a fresh start to the proceedings. Mr. Calvin explored the possibility of the Council, and possibly other town committees, participate in some sort of "convention" format, a sort of "What's Happening In Mansfield Day", perhaps by holding a booth. He mentioned that the Council on Aging, the Committee for New Schools, the Water Protection Committee, the Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives, etc., would all be viable candidates to help hold such a forum. This idea was discussed relatively extensively, and the merits of the idea were generally agreed upon, but nobody could agree on how such a complicated idea could be implemented. It was generally agreed that the idea of handing out literature at Special Town Meeting in the fall could be a viable idea. AUDIENCE QUESTIONS AND COMMEIUTS Ms. Marilyn Ouellette, in her capacity as committee chair for the Committee for Solid Waste Alternatives, mentioned that she had also had problems finding a secretary to document their meetings, and that Cable B was willing to come in and tape the meetings for the members' personal use. Ms. Baker noted that she had discussed this issue several months back: with No Prasad, who told her that due to lack: of volunteers, such a task would be impossible. Ms. Ouellette stated that Cable 8 had had success over the last few months in obtaining volunteers, and that should no longer be a problem. Ms. Ouellette told Ms. Baker to contact Laur.isa Lapuc at Cable S. Ms. Baker stated that she would, and also noted for the members' benefit that she had already arranged with John Gunn of Cable S to have the September 10 _joint meeting televised. The possibility of having all meetings taped and televised was discussed. NEXT MEETING Ms. Baker reiterated that a .joint meeting would be held on Thursday evening, September 10, at 7:30 PM, between the Ma=ster Plan Advisory Council, the Board of Selectmen, and the Planning Board. Such meeting would consist of a presentation by Connery Assor_.iates, and would be televised live by Cable S. MOTION TO ADJOURN At 10:40 RM, Mr. Chapman made a MOTION to adjourn; seconded by Mr. Willis. The motion passed unanimously.