Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 10/14/2020Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 MEETING HELD VIRTUALLY USING GOTOWEBINAR PLATFORM Present: Beth Ashman -Collins, Chair; Sharon Friedman, Acting, Clerk; Richard LeBlanc, Ralph Penney, Michael Feck; Adrian LeCesne and Diana Bren, Alternates Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development; Jennifer Davis, Administrative Secretary The chair read the following statement: Whereas both the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health have advised residents to take extra measures to put distance between themselves and other people to further reduce the risk of being exposed to COVID-19, Governor Baker has issued an order suspending certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law, Massachusetts General Law c. 30A, §20. In order to satisfy the Open Meeting Law requirements, today's Town of Mansfield Planning Board meeting will available for to public via GoToWebinar and Mansfield Cable. The instructions for joining via GoToWebinar are in the Meeting Notice on the Town's Website at www.mansfieldma.com and then clicking on today's date on the calendar. Motion: To appoint Ms. Friedman Acting Clerk (Penney - LeBlanc — In favor Feck — In favor Penney — In favor / Friedman —In favor Bren — In favor Ashman -Collins- In favor Six (6) in favor. Zero (0) opposed. Zero (0) abstained. PASSES 1. September 23, 2020 Minutes p.8 - Ms. Friedman asked why the applicant did not chose the VectorMD over the other option. [Mr. LeCesne arrived at 7:15 p.m.] Motion: To approve the September 23, 2020 minutes as amended (Friedman-Bren) LeBlanc — In favor Feck — Abstain Penney — In favor Friedman —In favor 1 Bren — In favor Ashman -Collins- In favor _, = LeCesne — In favor. ' �} Six (6) in favor. Zero (0) opposed. Zero (0) abstained. �ASS ` Planning Board 1 10/14/2020 None Attorney Jill Mann, Mann & Mann, PC was present. The board reviewed the draft special permit decision. Ms. Friedman asked about the hours of operation; she said the board had discussed not allowing mechanical work to start until 9:30 am. Ms. Bren said she thinks the 7:00 a.m. start time is in line with other businesses in the area. Attorney Mann said that was her recollection as well. Mr. Penney said the applicant had requested 6:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., but after the board's discussion with the owner about dispatch arriving at 6:30 a.m. and service work starting a bit later, consensus was the hours should be 7:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. for maintenance with a 6:30 a.m. start for the office. Mr. LeCesne asked if the permit should include special hours in case of extenuating circumstances like weather. Mr. Burke said the business can run outside regular hours in extraordinary circumstances and he does not think that has to be included in the special permit. Attorney Mann agreed. Public Comment The chair read the following statement: It is important to us that you have a platform for your questions and comments during this meeting, therefore to ask questions or make a public comment during tonight's virtual meeting you must have registered and joined the meeting via GoToWebinar where you now have the ability to submit your question or comments through the questions option in your control panel, or you can use the raise your hand option to be allowed to speak. For those who have joined the meeting via telephone who would like to ask a question or make a comment, you are now welcome to unmute your phone. We ask that you only have your phone unmuted while you are asking your question. Please mute when you are no longer live. You can unmute your phone by pushing *6. Please then state your name and address, and when acknowledge by the Chairperson you can then state your question or comment. When you are done with your comment please mute your phone again by pushing *6. As with any public hearing we ask you to be respectful of the Board members and the other residents who are making their comments by patiently and quietly waiting your turn. Thank you. Mr. Penney asked about the sidewalk across the front of the site and said the Town's plan for the new rotary includes sidewalk across about one-third of this property's frontage. Attorney Mann said the applicant did not agree to add sidewalk. Ms. Friedman said she thinks consensus of the board was not to require additional sidewalk. Mr. Penney said he had thought the Town's new sidewalk would going across the frontage of this property, but the plan he saw recently included only a partial sidewalk. He said perhaps in the future, the owner would work with the town to bring the sidewalk across his frontage. There will be No Parking signs installed at the front of this property. Planning Board 2 10/14/2020 Motion: To approve the Special Permit application pursuant to Mansfield Zoning By -Law Sections 230-5.5, Special Permit, 3.5.Q, Auto Repair and 5.T, Parking Facility, of the Mansfield Zoning By -Law to allow an automotive repair facility for school buses and parking facility for school buses and vans on an approximately 45,862 +/- square foot parcel in the Industrial 3 (I3) Zone at 8 County Street (Assessor's Map 19, Lot 211) with the following conditions: 1. Drawing C1.1, "Location and Existing Conditions Plan, 8 County Street, Mansfield, MA" and Drawing C2.1, "Proposed Layout Plan, 8 County Street, Mansfield, MA" dated August 12, 2020, prepared by Williams Sparages Engineers are incorporated into this special permit decision by reference and shall be recorded with the special permit decision at the Mansfield Town Clerk's office, and the special permit shall be recorded at the Northern Bristol County Registry of Deeds; 2. This special permit to allow an automotive repair and parking facility for school buses and vans on an approximately 45,862 +/- square foot parcel in the Industrial 3 (I3) Zone at 8 County Street (Assessor's Map 19, Lot 211) is issued to the applicant, John McCarthy; 3. The number of vehicles, including vans and buses, stored on site at one time shall not exceed forty (40). This does not include employee vehicles parked on/site during normal hours of operation; 4. The office portion of the business shall not open before 6:30 a.m., Monday through Friday. Hours of operation for vehicle service and/or maintenance shall be 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; 5. Any and all mechanical work shall be done inside the building. No outdoor mechanical work shall be allowed; 6. Vehicles that are no longer in service or unregistered vehicles shall not be stored on the site; 7. Vehicles shall be allowed to idle and/or warm up on the site for a maximum of five (5) minutes; 8. Any snow that cannot be stored on site shall be removed from the site; 9. In accordance with the "Site Plan of #8 County Street Parcel 211 in Mansfield, Mass," dated September 28, 1993, prepared by John R Anderson & Associates, the "Proposed Landscaped Areas" shall be planted by the applicant no later than May 15, 2021; 10. If the applicant seeks aXivariances from the Zoning Board of Appeals beyond what has already been granted, and should additional relief be granted, the applicant must return to the Planning Board for review, which may include a public hearing to revise or reissue this special permit; 11. Any changes to the plans shall be made within the 20-day appeal period; 12. Any significant change to the Property, building and/or its attendant parking, drainage and/or landscaping will require review and may require action by the Planning Board. A five percent (5%) change to any of the above -referenced aspects of this item shall be considered a "significant change" and shall require review by the Planning Board. A less than significant change shall require a new site plan to be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Board and approved by the Building Inspector. (Penney -Freidman) Planning Board 3 10/14/2020 Feck — In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments. There will be limited impact on existing traffic, it will be an economic benefit to have a business rather than a vacant site, and there will be minimal impacts to existing infrastructure. Friedman —In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments. I think the applicant heard and addressed the neighbors' concerns, this will not impact neighborhood in any negative way, vehicular and pedestrian safety and convenience issues have been met, and it appears there will be adequate maneuverability for fire and police protection. LeBlanc — In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, the proposed use in line with the I3 zone, there will be no negative impacts to the general welfare, neighborhood character, and existing municipal facilities and services are adequate. LeCesne - In favor. The use is suitable for the I3 zone, the statements made about taxes contributing to the town are positive, the applicant heard and addressed the neighbors' concerns, the proposed use in terms of level and scale would not be unreasonably harmful to the neighborhood, it will be good to have the lot put to use, and the nature of the business is one that comports with the values of the Town. Penney — In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, this is a permitted use in the area, fills a need, and the business will be a good neighbor. Bren — If favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, the use is appropriate for the zone, the applicant heard the neighbors' concerns and is doing what they can to address them, the use will be good for the Town and will have no negative impact. i Ashman -Collins —In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, there are economic benefits to having a new use on the site, the use is in line with the underlying industrial zone, and the conditions of special permit will address the neighbors' concerns. Seven (7) in favor. Zero (0) opposed. Zero (0) abstained. PASSES Motion: To close the public hearing (Friedman-Feck) LeBlanc - In favor Penney -In favor Friedman —In favor Feck — In favor LeCesne —In favor Bren —In favor Ashman -Collins —In favor Seven (7) in favor. None (0) opposed. None (0) abstained. PASSES The clerk read a request from attorney to continue the public hearing. Planning Board 4 10/14/2020 Motion: To continue the 500 School Street public hearing to October 28, 2020 at 7:10 p.m. (LeBlanc -Penney) LeCesne — In favor Penney —In favor LeBlanc — In favor Feck — In favor Friedman — In favor Bren — In favor Ashman -Collins — In favor Seven (7) in favor. Zero (0) opposed. Zero (0) abstained. PASSES Three articles were withdrawn before the 2020 Annual Town Meeting: FAR in 134; North Main Street Business Overlay District; and TOD. Two more, Floodplain and Short -Term Residential Rental, have come up recently. Floodplain - Mr. Burke explained the state is requiring additional language be added to each town's floodplain by-law; there are no proposed changes to the floodplain map. Short -Term Residential Rental — Mr. Burke said there have been some complaints recently about short-term rentals, as well as questions from residents interested in doing this type of use. He asked the board if it wants to propose a by-law, or if it would rather leave enforcement in the hands of the building inspector. Ms. Ashman -Collins asked if a single bedroom could be rented; Mr. Burke said renting out a spare bedroom is one of the short-term rental options, but under the by-law, there would be inspection requirement's, a limit on the number of days a year it could be rented, and a minimum residency requirement for the homeowner. Ms. Friedman asked how this is different from an accessory apartment; Mr. Burke said this is a short-term rental situation, where,,an accessory apartment is a more long-term rental that may include a lease. Mr. Penney asked if this would be similar to weekly rentals on Cape Cod; Mr. Burke said it is similar. He said the homeowners would have to pay taxes to the town and the state, and would have to be registered with DOR. Mr. Penney asked if surrounding towns have adopted this type of by-law. Mr. Burke said the enabling legislation went into effect July 2019 and a relatively small number of communities have adopted by-laws. Mr. LeCesne said when there is no by-law in place, towns lose out on taxes and the units are not inspected. He said as long as the town is looking out for things like safety and parking, this could be a positive thing. Mr. LeBlanc asked how the special permit would work; Mr. Burke said the owner of the house would have to get a one-time special permit from the Planning Board. It would only be for that owner and would expire when the house is sold. Planning Board 5 10/14/2020 Mr. Penney asked if this would result in boarding houses; Mr. Burke said that is not the intent of this by-law. Mr. Penney said he thinks this type of use is becoming more and more prevalent and he thinks we should have a by-law. Ms. Ashman -Collins asked about instances where the special permit could be revoked, such as excessive noise complaints. Mr. LeCesne suggested owners be required to notify the renters about local regulations and noise by-laws, and if there are too many complaints, the special permit will be revoked. Mr. LeCesne asked why the draft allows the use in R3 but not Rl and R2; Mr. Burke said Rl and 2 are primarily single-family zones, but R3, B 1 and B2 have more multi -family and business uses. Mr. LeCesne said single-family areas may be more appropriate for short-term rentals and would have less impact in terms of parking and density than in downtown neighborhoods. Ms. Ashman -Collins asked how this would go along with the Master Plan, which included concerns about the need for affordable units; she said she would not want to see short-term rentals taking away from the long-term rental market. She said she wouldbe concerned about homeowners making more on short-term rentals and squeezing out long-term rentals for people who live and work here. Ms. Friedman said absentee homeowners may not be there when the short-term renters are there, which could become a problem. Mr. LeBlanc said this may not need to be a special permit use and might be done through an administrative review procedure; Mr. Feck agreed i Ms. Friedman asked if this would apply to developments like the 55 and over apartment on Spring Street; Mr. Burke said it would not. Mr. Burke said the Annual Town Meeting usually opens in February, so the board does not have to make immediate decisions on the zoning articles. FAR in 134 — The draft has been amended to increase density from .80 to 1.0 and reduce building height from 45 feet to 35 feet. Mr. Feck asked about the FAR of other large parcels. Mr. Penney said the Patriot Tool,owners proposed the FAR increase last year because they intended to enlarge their business and add residential units above. North Main Street Overlay District — Ms. Friedman said she thinks 20 units per acre is too many units. TOD — Mr. LeCesne said he is concerned about the added traffic this could produce from Highland Avenue/Draper Avenue onto Chauncy and asked if signalizing that intersection has been considered. Mr. Feck said the board would not be able to approve new development there without the northern access in place. Ms. Friedman said she thinks 55-foot tall buildings along Chauncy Street would be too high. She said there are residential neighborhoods off Draper Avenue and Howe Street, and buildings that tall would create shadows. Planning Board 6 10/14/2020 Ms. Ashman -Collins suggested getting an update on which elements of the BETA Study the Town is pursuing. Mr. Burke said the BETA Study showed Draper Avenue as the primary access and noted additional development in the area would not work without two points of access. He said the BETA Study included numerous access improvements and the preferred access is at Draper Avenue with signalization. Mr. Burke said the town made a commitment to the neighborhoods around the train station that improved access and development have to go hand -in -hand. Mr. Burke explained the proposed density in the TOD draft, which is less dense than the original proposal. Ms. Friedman said she thinks 30 units by right is still high. Mr. Burke said the current by-law does not allow enough density to make development worthwhile. Ms. Friedman said she is concerned about increasing the height to 55 feet, which she thinks would be major urban design. She said she is concerned the density is really high. Mr. Burke said at 30 units per acre, TOD would have less than half the density of 1 Mansfield Avenue. Mr. LeCesne said the board has been talking about making the town more walkable, and he said if there is a part of town with relatively high density, there will be more pedestrian activity there. Ms. Ashman -Collins said she thinks the density and height will help make the residential units more affordable for people who want to live near the train or downtown. Ms. Ashman -Collins asked how the board can visualize the different choices so the members can be sure they understand what is being proposed. Mr. Burke said BETA has the ability to do 3D modeling of the site; Ms. Ashman -Collins said that would be useful at Town Meeting. Ms. Ashman -Collins said she wants to be sure thehy-law allows enough room for outdoor space. Ms. Ashman -Collins suggested scheduling a workshop to talk about density, especially as it applies to B4 and TOD, to help people visualize what the buildings could look like. Ms. Friedman said the Greenway in Boston is very dense, but has a lot of green space. She said developing the TOD area like that would be urban development. She said 1 Mansfield Avenue and Station Landing [300 North Main Street] are huge, dense buildings that are out of place right now. She said we should be careful about having that much or more density across the street. Ms. Ashman -Collins said the Chocolate Factory [150 Oakland Street] redevelopment included outdoor patio space for residents, but 1 Mansfield and Station Landing have almost none of that. Ms. Friedman said one of incentives for Station Landing was the 10-foot sidewalk, which she said is narrow. Ms. Ashman -Collins said the density bonus was intended to encourage outdoor spaces, which may not have worked the way the board intended. Mr. Feck said he thinks density bonuses based on units per acre rather than FAR would result in more predictable open space. Ms. Friedman said she will be attending a placemaking seminar and will share the information. Planning Board 7 10/14/2020 Appoint CIP representatives Mr. Cerretani has volunteered to serve as one of the board's representatives; Ms. Friedman said she would be happy to continue to serve. Motion: To appoint Ms. Friedman and Mr. Cerretani as the Planning Board's CIP representatives (Feck-LeBlanc) LeCesne — In favor LeBlanc — In favor Feck — In favor Friedman - In favor Bren — In favor Ashman -Collins — In favor Six (6) in favor. Zero (0) opposed. Zero (0) abstentions. PASSES Ms. Ashman -Collins said the town has hired a playground consultant to ensure an ADA compliant design for the pocket park, which will be called Harry Chase Place. f Ms. Friedman said the Open Space and Recreation Committee is working on its goals and is working with DPW on a budget for trail maintenance. Motion: To adjourn at 9:20 p.m. (Friedman -LeBlanc) LeCesne — In favor LeBlanc — In favor i Feck — In favor Friedman - In favor Bren — In favor Ashman -Collins — In favor Six (6) in favor. Zero (0) opposed. Zero (0) abstained. PASSES f/ Next Planning Board Meeting: October 28, 2020 at 7:30 p.m. Signature of Clerk z c{, ),_0, � G L Date of Approval Planning Board 8 10/14/2020