Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 10/28/2020Planning Board Minutes C E I J F p October 28, 2020 ' MEETING HELD VIRTUALLY USING GOTOWEBINAR PLATFb1�1VIC r FI CE j 'p CEO 10 P 3: 15 Present: Beth Ashman -Collins, Chair; Joseph Cerretani, Clerk; Richard LeBlanc, Michael McClanahan, Ralph Penney, Michael Feck, Sharon Friedman; Adrian LeCesne azi Dihiialren, 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.mansjieldma.com and then clicking on today's date on the calendar. July 8, 2020 minutes Motion: To approve the July 8, 2020 minutes as submitted (Feck-Cerretani) Feck — In favor Friedman —In favor Cerretani — In favor Ashman -Collins — hi favor McClanahan — Abstained ` Penney — Abstained LeCesne —Abstained Four (4) in favor 2. October 14, 2050 minutes Motion: To approve the October Bren — In favor LeCesne — In favor Feck — In favor LeBlanc — In favor Ashman -Collins — In favor McClanahan - Abstained Cerretani — Abstained None (0) opposed. Three (3) abstained. PASSES 14, 2020 minutes as submitted (Feck-Bren) Five (5) in favor. None (0) opposed. Two (2) abstained. PASSES [Ms. Friedman arrived at 7:10 p.m.] Planning Board 1 10/28/2020 None Attorney James Gallagher introduced Applicant Steve Chomey; Architect Christopher Drinan; Doug Rhodes; Odor Mitigation Consultant Kyle Baker; and Security Consultant Mitchel Susan The board reviewed the draft special permit decision. Mr. Cerretani asked the applicant to briefly explain the odor mitigation system to the board. Mr. Chomey explained the first line of defense is closed cell spray foam, which is impenetrable for gasses, so it will be impossible for odors to make it out of the building. The second line will be B1ueZone technology, which uses ionized tablets to break down molecules and make them inert; then chlorine dioxide to filter particulates, followed by heating and a high plume fan to get any remaining particulates into the jetstream. Mr. Feck asked about a condition to address repeated violations or issues that aren't being fixed or cannot be fixed triggering reopening of special permit. Mr. Burke said there could be a condition to require the applicant to come back to the Planning Board if the issue cannot be resolved with the Building Inspector. Ms. Ashman -Collins said she is comfortable with the building inspector handling issues, but asked what would happen if the issue could not be-fesolved in 48 hours. Mr. McClanahan said enforcement of the special permit is through the Building Inspector. Ms. Friedman said the Planning Board's jurisdiction is to make sure everything complies with zoning and to issue a special permit within the parameters; she said larger issues rest with the Building Inspector and failing that, litigation, which she said no one wants to go through. Ms. Friedman said the applicant's submission materials included details about two types of high plume exhaust fans, one of which was more high -end than the other. She said she would like to be assured they will use the higher -end model and not the more mediocre one. Mr. Chorney assured the board they plan to use the best equipment, and when they chose the high -plume fan, they will choose th"est one made. Ms. Friedman asked if that would be the "MV" model. Mr. Chomey said that would be the type they use, but it may not be that brand. He said it would be the same piece of equipment from a different manufacturer, and said there may be an even better fan available. Mr. LeCesne said the exact piece of equipment may not be within the board's purview. Ms. Friedman said she doesn't want to have to revisit the odor issue and she thought the specs the applicant submitted were for the actual equipment they plan to use. She said she wants to make sure what they do what they say they are going to do. Mr. LeCesne suggested amending Condition 14 to say "Any and all odor complaints made to Permittee shall be documented and reported to the Mansfield Building Inspector or other designated liaison within 48 hours of receipt." Planning Board 2 10/28/2020 Mr. Feck said if the Building Inspector investigates and verifies there is a problem, it should be addressed or there should be a plan to address it. He said the odor issue could cause detrimental effects to residents and their properties. Mr. LeCesne said the board has to think about what kind of response within 48 hours would be sufficient. Ms. Friedman said the Building Inspector should contact the company, determine what the issue is, figure out how long it will take to resolve so everyone knows it is being addressed. Mr. LeCesne said he thinks that is reasonable. Mr. Chomey said he thinks 48 hours is a good timeframe to start working on a solution; he said if there is a problem, he will know why and be able to provide an answer. He said he is confident he will be able to talk with the Building Inspector and have a plan in place within 48 hours. Ms. Ashman -Collins said she understands odor is the chief concern for the community. Ms. Friedman asked about getting feedback to the person who complained; Mr. Burke said he and the Building Inspector work together to communicate with complainants. Mr. Penney suggested Condition 14 be amended to say "The facility operator shall respond to the building inspector within 48 hours of receiving notice of a complaint with proposed corrective action." The board agreed. Mr. Penney said this small area is exactly where Town Meeting voted to allow this use. Mr. Penney asked about the fagade of the building; Mr. Burke said Condition 7 was intended to help break up the long fagade, but noted he would not want any more intrusions into the wall than necessary because that could allow odor to escape. Mr. Penney said anything the applicant can do to try to make the building fit better into the neighborhood would be appreciated. Mr. Chomey said they have discussed a mural on the front of the building and said he would rather not put holes in the building. Mr. Penney said he thinks a mural would be fine. Ms. Ashman - Collins said she understands the applicant wants to keep the building inconspicuous; Mr. Cerretani said there will be g,six-foot fence in front of the building, so it will not be very visible from the street. Mr. Chorney said they could add landscaping in front of the building, like cherry trees that will flower and bring in some color. Mr. Penney asked about the traffic signal at School Street/Plymouth Street. He asked if the board could add a condition similar to one in the Reservoir Street/South Main Street hotel/medical building special permit, which says the certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the intersection is upgraded to a full traffic signal. Mr. Burke said the board could do that, but said he worded Condition 25 to make it more of a partnership between the Road Commissioners and the applicant. He said the Reservoir Street/South Main Street applicant came in with plans showing lane widening and intersection signalization; it was their proposal, which the town supported. Mr. Penney said it would benefit the applicant to have a signal at School Street/Plymouth Street. He noted the School Street street cut moratorium will expire in the spring of 2021. Planning Board 3 10/28/2020 Attorney Gallagher said they plan to discuss signalization with the Town Manager in the future, but said it would be an immense financial commitment to require it before the building's certificate of occupancy. Mr. Penney said the recommendation for signalization came from the applicant's consultants. Attorney Gallagher said they will continue to discuss the issue with the town, but asked the board not to make the building unusable until the town decides to act on signalization. Ms. Bren said the facility will have 7-30 employees, and while she understands there is a traffic issue there now and agreed the applicant should partner with the town, she said the increased traffic will not be like the hotel/medical office on Reservoir Street and she did not think making the certificate of occupancy contingent on the signalization would be a good idea. Mr. Penney said the traffic will not be only employees, there will be delivery and waste removal trucks. Mr. Feck agreed, but said this applicant has not caused the existing traffic problem and it wouldn't be fair to hold up this project because the town has not done the project yet. Mr. Chorney said the host community agreement includes payment for negative impacts from this use, so his attorney can work with the town on how to use those funds. Ms. Ashman -Collins asked about amending Condition 7 to include additional trees. Mr. Drinan said they did investigate adding landscaped islands, but they would have lost parking spaces. He said they are flexible about adding trees where possible, but said they cannot lose parking spaces for landscaped islands. f Mr. LeBlanc suggested the "may" included in Condition 25 ["The applicant may be required by the Road Commissioners to financially participate in the full signalization of the intersection of Plymouth Street/School Street/Community Gardens driveway"] does not really mean anything, so if the board is not requiring the applicant to do something, it could be taken out. Ms. Bren suggested making it contingent on the host community agreement and further discussion with the Town Manager. She said she understands this applicant is not fully responsible for the traffic problems there, but they will be partially responsible for the increase. Mr. Burke suggested deleting "may" and amending it to say the applicant "shall be required to negotiate with the Road Commissioners and to financially participate" and leave the amount up to the Road Commissioners. Mr. Penney said traffic there is an issue and is something the Planning Board is supposed to address. Mr. Cerretani said safety is a concern at this location, with traffic coming over the bridge and cars coming out of this parking lot. Ms. Ashman - Collins said it would be in the property owners' interest to have the safety issue addressed. Mr. Feck suggesting amending the condition to encourage the applicant to participate to the point the Road Commissioners are satisfied; if they cannot come to an agreement, they would not be meeting that special permit condition. Attorney Gallagher said they have discussed this issue with the Town Manager and Select Board. Ms. Friedman suggested changing "may" to "shall," which compels the applicant to participate. Mr. Penney said the applicant's own traffic consultant said signalization at the intersection is warranted and he encouraged them to participate in the signalization. He said it will greatly benefit the business because they are going to find it difficult to pull out of their own driveway. Mr. Chorney said the money from the host community agreement could be used for the traffic light, but he doesn't want to be responsible for both the host community agreement money plus Planning Board 4 10/28/2020 the signalization. Ms. Ashman -Collins said without knowing when the town is planning to do or when, she would not want to tie the applicant's hands. Mr. Penney said the board is supposed to address traffic issues on and around the site and encouraged the applicant to work with the town because a signal would involve their entrance. Mr. Penney said he is comfortable with the condition as drafted. Consensus was to leave Condition 25 as drafted. 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. There was no public comment. Motion: To approve the special permit for Community Gardens at 500 School Street as drafted, including the amendment to Condition #14: The facility operator shall respond to the building inspector within 48 hours of receiving notice of an odor complaint with proposed corrective action (Bren-Cerretani" LeBlanc — In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, the use is in line with the overlay district, there will be minimal impact on neighborhood character or on existing municipal services and facilities.' Penney — In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, this is the area the town agreed was the best place to house this type of facility, and I am encouraged the applicant has agreed to work with the Road Commissioners in the future on having the intersection signalized with a turning lane. Feck — In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, this is where Town Meeting zoned the use, and the applicant has addressed the board members' and abutters' issues. I share the neighbors' concerns about potential odor issues and think the board has worked hard to address that within the special permit, and I hope the applicant will be expedient in addressing any problems. Planning Board 5 10/28/2020 McClanahan — Abstained. Friedman — In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments. There has been significant discussion about health and safety in the community, I think the applicant will have a neutral effect on the natural environment and they have adequately addressed their relationship with municipal facilities. One major issue will be traffic safety and I have confidence the applicant will work with the Town to successfully mitigate that. I am looking forward to the positive fiscal impact. Cerretani — In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, the impacts on health, safety and general welfare will not be a problem, the impacts on the neighborhood are a concern, but I think the applicant has a process to address potential issues, and I think the special permit puts measures in pace to avoid problems and I look forward to the applicant working with the town. I hope the applicant works with the town on the intersection signalization. The fiscal impacts will be a positive for the town. LeCesne — In favor. The benefits outweigh the possible detriments, any impacts on health and welfare, particularly odor, will be mitigated by the processes in the permit, this is the vision the town had for this overlay district the business will have positive tax and employment benefits. Bren — In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, the applicant has addressed health and safety issues and have been accommodating to requests regarding odor mitigation. I understand traffic is a concern, but I believe the applicant will work with the appropriate town officials. The business will have tax and employment benefits. Ashman -Collins — In favor. The benefits outweigh the detriments, we have talked at length about the possible negative impacts, but there are plans in place for odor and traffic safety issues, municipal facilities and services are adequate, the impact on the environment will be neutral and the fiscal impact will benefit the town's finances. Eight (8) ins favor. None (0) opposed. One (1) abstention. PASSES Motion: To close the publig hearing (Penney-Cerretani) Penney — In favor LeBlanc — In favor Feck — In favor McClanahan - Abstain Friedman — In favor Cerretani — In favor Ashman -Collins — In favor LeCesne An favor Bren — In favor Eight (8) in favor. Zero (0) opposed. One (1) abstention. PASSES Mr. Penney said the waste receptacles do not appear to have been installed at 1 Mansfield Avenue. Mr. Burke said those had been installed and were on the site for a short time, but they Planning Board 6 10/28/2020 have not been out in over a year. He said he will talk to the owners about replacing the receptacles. Mr. Cerretani asked if they were removed because of Covid; Mr. Burke said he does not think so because they were removed prior to February 2020. Mr. Penney asked if the receptacles will be the developer's or the town's responsibility; Mr. Burke said if they are on the public way, they will be the town's responsibility. Mr. Penney asked about the sidewalk at the Chocolate Factory. Mr. Burke said there have been some issues with that project and it has been a slow construction process. He said the developer is looking at residential occupancy in November, and there is one, possible two commercial tenants for the one-story building at the front of the site. Mr. Penney said that is a nice project, and the new Luciano's restaurant is a great addition to the neighborhood. Ms. Friedman said she attended a webinar on placemaking and she encouraged everyone to watch the video; she said she thinks it has good direction and ideas for downtown development. She said one of the biggest takeaways for her was the importance of getting feedback from residents about what they want, and the idea of having a lot of different uses around a square, which can help bring people together. She said the webinar could provide ideas about how buildings can become more active and alternative uses to traditional retail. Ms. Ashman -Collins said that will be timely while the board is looking at TOD. Motion: To adjourn at 8:40 p.m. (Penney -LeBlanc) Penney - In favor LeBlanc — In favor Feck — In favor Friedman - In favor / Cerretani — In favor Ashman -Collins — In favor LeCesne — In favor Bren — In favor Eight (8) in favor. Zero (0) opposed. Zero (0) abstentions. PASSES Next Planning Board Meeting: November 18, 2020 at 7:30 p.m. 'r-� a .' Signa e of C erI k Planning Board L(C C,_ (k_ t- r_ C, t; � C" Date of Approval 10/28/2020