1987-TOWN MEETING RECORDS - GREEN

Home Browse Search

ARTICLE 18. To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning By-Laws by amending the zoning map to change from I-1 Industrial to R-3 Residential those lands shown on the 1985 Mashpee Assessor's Maps as Map 81, Plot 1 and Map 87, Plot 5, all as shown on a map entitled "Proposed Route 28 Rezoning for Potion at March 23, 1987 Special Town Meeting". The Moderator read Article 18 Mr. Fudala: Motion to accept as printed with the exception of "or take any other action thereon" Moderator: Do I hear a second? Motion seconded. Mr. Ferragamo: The Planning Board held a public hearing on Article 18 and voted not to approve Article 18 in its present wording We did vote to recommend approval with a modification; changing the zoning from R-3 to R-5; The basis being that the parcel you see before you on the screen with the cross hatching; the parcel we are talking avout re-zoning abuts an R-5 parcel. The reason the 1-5 district was originally created was to allow a larger lot size of 60,000 square feet which then would provide more protection to ground water and other concerns we have by wanting larger lot sizes. We questioned the validity of going with the 40,000 square foot lot sizes, in that cross-hatched area. There was some discussion as to whether or not we could make that recommendation. (to go with R-5 instead of R-3) . The Town Planner was going to check with Town Counsel to see what was involved with that. Our concern is that it is obviously being done in conjunction with the whole Forward Development program with the 'Town. However, if the Forward Development program does not proceed, revised zoning will stay on the on that piece of land. we thought, in that case, it would be more appropriate to have it zoned R-5 . .60,000 square feet; where its basically abutting the R-5 district and is adjacent to the Quashnet River. Moderator: Any further discussion? Mrs. YUse: I do not believe we have heard an answer from Town Council, as to the up-grading of that Article. I think it is totally illegal. I believe you could go from R-3 to a less number of square feet but not to more making it more stringent. I'd also like it pointed out that this piece is not just the Forward Development piece. It is on the little Tax-payers Guide that it that it is Forward Development. . . .it is not just the Forward Development piece. It is four separate pieces of land. Forward Development does make up the major pieces of land. There are three other owners of relatively small pieces of land. They are very much affected. They have not even been mentioned. In addition, I do not believe that this is even necessary. The auspices of OSID with this whole plan of the forty acres can be re-zoned or not even be re-zoned but the whole plan can go immediately into effect as previously voted under OSID. I would like Joe Reardon to comment on that. Moderator: I can convey one answer . . . . . . .Town Counsel has ruled we can amend it to R-5. we do not have that motion on the floor now, but that is possible. Mr. Fudala: I'd like to go into the history of this change. We were approached for a change from I to R. The request was for R-4 zoning and that was rejected and R-3 suggested as a more reasonable alternative-one unit per acre-the R-5 seems like an area towards the center of town and the R-3 seems like a reasonable stepping down and a transition area from the center of town to the R-5 distruct, Seenext page. . . . . . . . . . . .