MANSFIELD — A proposal to close a land-use loophole was the topic of a recent government meeting where supporters claimed it would rein in development and farmers contended it would reduce their land values.
By:David Koch
The joint meeting was held June 7 by the Mansfield Township Committee, the Planning and Development Committee and the Planning Board to discuss amending an existing ordinance that some town officials say contains an unintended loophole benefiting developers.
The law, originally designed to preserve open space in environmentally sensitive areas, permits developers, under certain conditions, to "cluster" more houses on smaller land parcels than zoning laws normally allow.
Under the current zoning laws, a developer can build only one house for every three acres in a proposed development.
The township cluster ordinance allows developers to build homes on one-acre lots to preserve lands with special environmental conditions including wetlands.
"The cluster technique was a mechanism by which the township could get open space for free," said Lou Glass, planning consultant for Mansfield Township.
But unknown to the writers of the original cluster ordinance, there was a loophole for developers.
For example, if a developer buys a 30-acre piece of property that has 20 acres of wetlands, he can only build three homes on three-acre lots.
But that same developer could take that property and build 10 homes, each with a one-acre lot under the current cluster ordinance.
"We are trying to equal it out so that the cluster and the traditional layout is the same," said Township Planner Harry McVey.
The proposed amendment to the ordinance would first require a developer to submit a sketch plan for a proposed development in the traditional layout of one house for every three acres.
Then, if that developer chooses to use the cluster ordinance, the new development would have to have the same number of homes as it would under the traditional layout.
"We’re doing it to eliminate the uncertainty in the ordinance," said Mr. Glass.
But supporters of the proposed amendment also said that it could save the township additional costs caused by additional residents.
"The chief advantage from the township perspective is fewer homes, which means fewer residents, and fewer schoolchildren, which could reduce taxes," said Mr. McVey.
The township also could save additional costs in police, fire, and trash services.
Mr. McVey said Mansfield Township could hold an estimated 5,000 more homes before build-out, and the proposed amendment would reduce that amount by about 300 homes.
Township Committeewoman Molly Kaklamanis said that the reduction in homes for Mansfield is too small to make up for the loss in property values for area farmers.
"We’re not talking about land owned by the developers," said Ms. Kaklamanis. "We’re talking about land owned by farmers, and they’re the ones who are going to see a decrease in property value."
One local farmer at the meeting, Donald Shinn, said the value of a farmer’s land is tied into the potential development value of that property.
"I see nothing in the ordinance that gives the farmer any remuneration for the loss of property value," he said.
But Planning and Development Committee Member Raymond Stupienski said that the proposed amendment is just a procedural guideline, and would affect a small percentage of land that could be developed in Mansfield.
Mr. Stupienski said 80 percent of the land in Mansfield has too low of a water table to be affected by proposed amendment.
The proposed ordinance amendment could be presented before the Township Planning Board at its next meeting June 25. The Planning Board can then recommend the amendment to be passed by the Township Committee.
