HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 02/05/2020Planning Board Minutes
February 5,20209
Present: Donald Cleary, Chair; Richard LeBlanc, Clerk; Beth Ashman -Collins, Michael Feck,
Joseph Cerretani; Sharon Friedman and Adrian LeCesne, Alternates
Jennifer Davis, Administrative Secretary
1. Minutes January 29, 2020
Mr. McClanahan was not in attendance
p. 4 — Ms. Friedman asked how to structure a by -.law to encourage more bedrooms to attract
"families."
Motion: To accept as amended (Feck-LeBlanc) All in favor. PASSES ?=
2. Public Hearing notices — Attleboro, Easton, North Attleboro
None i-rj r-' i7 &.:s
Ms. Friedman said the Cultural Council is meeting February 6 at 7:15 p.m. rw
Ms. Ashman -Collins said the Downtown Committee is planning some exciting things, like
downtown banners.
Ms. Friedman said the Open Space and Recreation Committee website is up.
Ms. Ashman -Collins said there will be a new informational sign installed at Fulton's Pond.
Mr. Cerretani asked how the town tracks conformance with the affordable housing requirement.
The board discussed the various requirements to track that.
Mr. Cygawnoski presented the revised plan showing the six parking spaces on the pavement;
they will not use the unconstructed Chilson Avenue for parking. Mr. LeBlanc asked if the only
change to the plan is the location of the six spaces; Mr. Cygawnoski said it is.
Motion: To approve the special permit as drafted to convert an existing two-family residential
building to a three-family residential building in accordance with the plan dated November 5,
2019 and revised December 12, 2019, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc.
(Cerretani-Feck)
Feck - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, it has existed as a multi -family for years,
has adequate parking, will increase taxes and have a negligible impact on the neighborhood.
Planning Board 1 2/5/2020
Friedman — In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, it is an existing home that matches
the character of the neighborhood, the parking issue has been satisfied, there will be no impacts
on municipal facilities or the environment.
LeCesne — In favor. The use is appropriate and desirable, will provide a higher tax benefit for
the town with no increased burden on municipal facilities, and will have no environmental or
neighborhood detriments.
LeBlanc — In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments.
Cerretani — In favor. There will be no adverse effects to the community or public safety, and
there will be a positive fiscal impact.
Ashman Collins — In favor. There will be no negative impacts to the town, traffic, the
neighborhood or fiscally. It will be in the town's benefit to recognize this as a three-family.
Cleary - In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments and there will be no negative impacts.
7 in favor. 0 opposed. 0 abstentions. PASSES
Motion: To close the public hearing (Feck-Friedman) All in favor. PASSES
Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering, introduced Scott Goddard, Berlin Landing Realty Trust
and Attorney Edward Valanzola
Mr. Cygawnoski explained the owner has decided to designate one of the lots in the subdivision
as the affordable unit. He said there was one other outstanding issue with the proposed open
grass swale abutting property of Rapoza; that has been changed to a stone swale with a pipe so
there will be no open water. He said the swale has been moved as far from the abutting property
as possible, and a planted earthen berm will be added along the property line from Gilbert Street
to past Rapoza's property. Mr. Cygawnoski said he dropped the revised plan off at the abutter's
home, but has not heard back from him.
Department Head Comments
The clerk read a letter from Scott Goddard regarding the inclusionary housing conformance and
a memo from Mr. Alves.
Motion: To direct Mr. Burke to prepare a draft special permit with the standard conditions
(Ashman-Collins-Feck)
Ms. Friedman asked about the sidewalk on the new roadway. Mr. Cygawnoski said they will
add a two -foot wide pedestrian walking lane parallel to the edge of pavement on the same side of
the new roadway as the five house lots, ending at the driveway of the last house at the cul-de-sac
in place of a sidewalk.
Planning Board 2 2/5/2020
Mr. Cerretani asked about wetland issues; Mr. Goddard said all the work will be kept out of the
buffer zone.
Six in favor. LeCesne abstained. PASSES
Motion: To continue the public hearing to March 4, 2020 at 7:05 p.m.
(Feck-Ashman-Collins) All in favor. PASSES
Greg Cohen, MCG Mansfield, LLC
Attorney Valanzola explained the revised proposal to keep the space facing Crocker Street as
retail/office space, with the remaining space, about 3,400 square feet along the Mansfield
Avenue/Crocker Street curve, will remain as resident storage, a gym, office and meeting space.
Attorney Valanzola said those are similar uses to what the board allowed in 2018 at the North
Main Street/Thomas Street building. He said he does not believe this change requires an
amendment to the special permit, and asked the board to make a finding the special permit does
not have to be amended and that this is a by -right use based on what the Planning Board has
done recently. However, he said if the board finds the change does require the special permit to
be amended, he asked it to approve the amendment to the special permit with the decision based
on the proposal being consistent with what the board has already approved, as well as consistent
with Mr. Blackman's 2018 opinion.
Attorney Valanzola explained the January 31, 2020 letter from Rob Rabledo, CBRE, Inc., which
he said indicates the same thing several other real estate agencies have told them about the space.
He asked the board to keep in mind that the owners would not be here if they had a tenant
interested in the space. He said the owner is willing to pay for the tenant fit -out and said the rent
being asked is very fair. He said his clients want to rent the space, understand the history of this
site and want to figure out a way to solve this issue. He said they have met with Mr. Burke and
Mr. Dumas, talked about changing the traffic pattern, increasing parking times and discussed
prospective tenants. He said they have been trying to rent the space for almost three years, do
not want to be in front of the board, and the proposed first -floor uses will result in a financial loss
for his client.
Attorney Valanzola said if they find a tenant who wants to use more of the first floor space, they
would make it available.
Ms. Ashman -Collins asked if the corner space is the main entrance to the building; Mr. G. Cohen
said it is not. He said the corner space will have its own egress, and residents would be able to
take the elevator or back stairwell down, enter the amenity center and exit through the corner
space.
Department Head Comments
The clerk read a February 4, 2020 memo from Robert J. Blackman, Inspector of
Buildings/Zoning Enforcement Officer
Planning Board 3 2/5/2020
Ms. Friedman said the board has received opinions from Mr. Blackman and CBRE, and said she
thinks it is unfortunate the town does not have specific definitions of residential and commercial
uses. She said putting mixed -use buildings downtown to create foot traffic was part of the idea
of the overlay district; she said she is concerned about other large buildings with potentially the
same issues and she has concerns about retail. She said she is reluctant to make decisions based
on opinions without having a plan for building and development. She said these buildings were
approved to develop downtown and create foot traffic, and the board granted density bonuses to
help that happen. Ms. Ashman -Collins said she thinks the building inspector's opinion may not
be in step with what the board has been doing and with the Master Plan.
Attorney Valanzola said the Planning Board asked the building inspector for his opinion and has
to make its decision based on the existing by-law; he said for the board to rule differently than it
did on the building across the street would be an error. Ms. Ashman -Collins said the two
situations are not the same. Mr. Feck said the special permit for the second building on this site
was granted based on this building having retail.
Mr. LeCesne said Section 5.10(K) of the by-law talks about one of the ideas of the overlay
district is to provide development incentives to encourage the provision of community benefits.
He said the Planning Board is trying to decide whether providing an amenity to the residents of
the building advances that, and said while it may not violate the by-law, he has questions about
whether it advances the by-law's goals. He said he thinks it would if the gym were open to the
public, but said he is not sure it does if it is resident -only.
Attorney Valanzola said the owners are asking for some relief and said there was a discussion at
last year's Town Meeting about the empty first floor space. He said the residential space is
almost entirely rented, and they intentionally did not finish the first floor to allow future tenants
to fit it out as needed. He said the building's Crocker Street frontage will remain office/retail.
Public Comment
The clerk read a February 3, 2020 letter from Steve Schoonveld, 41 Newton Street
The clerk read a January 31, 2020 letter from CBRE. Attorney Valanzola said the CBRE letter
points out a number of retail vacancies in the area.
Mr. Cerretani asked when these owners bought the property; the answer was November 2018.
The residential was at about 45% leased when they bought it, and is almost 100% leased now.
Mr. Cerretani said he doesn't think the original owner marketed the corner commercial space the
way it should be; he said the new owners have done a good job marketing residential, but think
the commercial space needs more time.
Mr. LeBlanc asked if the changes were made as proposed, would the space still be available to
rent for retail. Mr. G. Cohen said the space could be available. He said they have had calls
about parking on the site, but have to tell potential tenants there is no dedicated parking on the
site.
Planning Board 4 2/5/2020
Ms. Friedman said there has been a perception there is no parking downtown, but the recent
parking study showed there is a lot of parking downtown, as well as a municipal lot, but which
may require patrons to walk some distance. Attorney Valanzola said 214 Rumford Avenue had a
restaurant interested, which did not work out because of parking issues. He said the municipal
lots next to Mansfield Bank and behind Jimmy's Pub do have ample parking, but are too far from
this site for people to walk. He said the parking lot at the bank tends not to be full in the
evenings, and the train station lots, which are free after 3 pm, are still full of commuter parking
until 5 or 6 pm, would not help with a restaurant use in this space.
Mr. Cleary asked if it would help if some of the train parking could be converted to public
parking. Attorney Valanzola said they have talked about that with Mr. Dumas. Mr. Cleary said
things are changing around the train station, which may impact the parking situation for this site.
Ms. Ashman -Collins noted the parking is exactly as the original developer built it. Mr. Feck said
he is concerned about setting a precedent by allowing the change from retail to residential use.
He said the board didn't feel there was enough parking in the first place, and he understands
these owners were not the original developers, but said he is concerned about how this change
could affect future developments that come before the board.
Attorney Valanzola said they have talked about changing the two-hour parking to four hours, and
about changing the traffic direction, but neither has happened.
Ms. Friedman asked how the owners would use the space to help promote downtown and make it
a pedestrian friendly environment. Attorney Valanzola said if someone came in and wanted to
use some or all of the storefront, they could minimize or eliminate the storage area. Ms.
Friedman asked how the owners would make the area more pedestrian friendly. Attorney
Valanzola said it is difficult because of train traffic; he said at the end of the day, commuters do
not stay downtown, they want to get home. He said his clients are not catering to the commuters,
they are catering to downtown residents. He said existing businesses have increased since all the
new residential has gone in.
Mr. J. Cohen Sr. asked if the 1 Mansfield Avenue building has already increased the pedestrian
friendly environment. Ms. Friedman said the board has been approving downtown development,
but now developers seem to be finding it is not working. Attorney Valanzola said he would like
downtown Mansfield to have more restaurants and boutique stores, but said we aren't there yet
and thinks we need more density.
Mr. LeCesne asked at how much of a discount the property is being marketed at; Mr. G. Cohen
said 20-40% below market. Attorney Valanzola said they are also willing to pay for the
buildout. Mr. G. Cohen said there is a rent range, depending on the experience of the tenant.
Mr. J. Cohen said retail has changed globally. Mr. G. Cohen said there is a shift with retailers
being unwilling to rent space to sell clothes when they could sell online.
Ms. Friedman asked what would stop that space become a professional office. Attorney
Valanzola said an office use may be the best chance they have to rent the space, and they already
have an accountant on the first floor. Ms. Friedman said the space could be built out as
Planning Board 5 2/5/2020
professional space; Attorney Valanzola said they have been trying to market that, but there is
limited parking.
Mr. Cleary said he is concerned that if storage is not allowing in the underlying zone, the
building inspector may not be able to permit it. He suggested installing a grease trap and
plumbing if office space or meeting space goes in.
Mr. Cleary suggested a renting to a non-profit and writing off the difference. Attorney
Valanzola that has been discussed, but there are concerns about that sort of business being able
to pay even reduced.
Motion: To find this proposed use is not a minor modification to the special permit
(Ashman-Collins-Cerretani) Motion Withdrawn
Mr. LeBlanc asked why the applicant is here if they feel they can do this by right; Attorney
Valanzola said because of the history of the site, the building inspector advised them to come
before the Planning Board.
Motion: To find the application is allowed by right (Feck-LeBlanc) Motion Withdrawn
Motion: To find that if the building inspector finds a non -retail use is allowed, the developer has
the right to do this by right (LeCesne-
Ms. Ashman -Collins said she would like to have Mr. Burke's advice on this motion.
Motion fails for lack of a second.
Motion: To not approve the special permit modification (Ashman-Collins-Cerretani)
Mr. LeBlanc said he thinks the main issue is about parking and traffic flow; he said the direction
of the one-way street will probably not be changed, which means the same conversation will
continue to be necessary. He said he feels like the board gave up 50% of the first -floor
commercial requirement is to help start redevelopment in the area, and now would lose another
50%, so he was concerned we are getting further away from the intent of the by-law. He said he
thinks the property was maximized and now we are trying to figure out the consequences of that.
Motion: To not approve the special permit modification to make approximately 3,400 square
feet along the Mansfield Avenue/Crocker Street curve resident storage, a gym, office and
meeting space. (Ashman-Collins-Cerretani)
Feck — Opposed to the modification to the special permit. There were two buildings in this
project, so this results in three quarters of the project not being commercial, which goes against
the by-law.
Friedman — Opposed. I do not see that this supports the intent of the by-law and the overlay
district and it would not support pedestrian traffic. I am hoping there will be some other
Planning Board 6 2/5/2020
conversations around resolving the more immediate parking issues and we can get something in
the building to benefit the town.
LeCesne — Opposed. The owner has received opinions about market viability, but I think there
may be other opportunities if we give it more time as the parking situation across the tracks
changes. I think the board members are concerned about a piecemeal approach.
LeBlanc — Opposed. I believe the impacts regarding amenities to the town are negative, the
proposal does not meet the objective of zoning regarding mixed use, though there will be no
impact on vehicular traffic or municipal facilities. I feel the intent of the zoning is not being met.
Cerretani — Opposed. When the board approved relief for the original developer, one of the
things he promoted was the circular space; he was excited about it and the board was excited as
well. I think the new owners need to spend more time on it. The intent of mixed use and density
bonuses was to create a vibrant downtown and this goes against that.
Ashman -Collins — Opposed. The benefits do not outweigh the detriments and I think this would
be giving up the mixed -use character of the neighborhood. I think the town has given up density
bonuses to accommodate the original developer.
Cleary — Opposed. I do not see any benefits, and while there may be no real detriments, it goes
against the Master Plan.
Therefore, with Seven (7) members present and voting, Seven (7) in favor and None (0) opposed,
the Special Permit was DENIED.
Motion: To close the public hearing (Feck-LeBlanc) All in favor. PASSES
►12=
Ms.
y of doing a Complete Streets project on Copeland
Drive from the underpass to the Paine School, which is seeing more foot traffic, but is a difficult
place for pedestrians. She suggested looking into adding sidewalks and street trees through the
Complete Streets program. The board discussed whether that stretch of Copeland Drive is town
or state-owned. Mr. Cerretani said there are a lot of residences in that area, with more and more
pedestrians.
Mr. LeBlanc suggested asking the building inspector to clarify his opinion; the board discussed
inviting the building inspector to a meeting. Ms. Ashman -Collins suggested that would be a
good discussion to have during the zoning article discussions. Ms. Friedman said she would be
concerned about making decisions based on opinions. The board discussed bringing the issue up
at the February 12 Master Plan meeting, or having the discussion with Mr. Burke.
Planning Board 7 2/5/2020
Motion: To adjourn at 9:15 p.m.
) All in favor. PASSES
Next Master Plan Meeting: February 12, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.
Next Planning Board Meeting: March 4, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.
M /'I M �(
Signature of Clerk
3-4 - 20 ZCD
Date of Approval
Planning Board 8 2/5/2020