Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 10/27/2021MA Planning Board Minutes h E C E I V E Q October 27, 2021 jOFFICE "HYBRID" VIR TUALLY Y USING GOTOWE INAR PLA"I`FQ0X L r` �NYS IR Present: Beth Ashman -Collins, Chair; Diana Bren, Acting Clerk; MichaelMc,GlalioV, Ralph Penney, Michael Feck, Sharon Friedman; Adrian LeCesne and Brendan Roph¢;i ljemates� Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development; Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Motion: To approve to appoint Ms. Bren as acting clerk. (Feck-McClanahan) Seven (7) in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstained. PASSES There were no Form A plans. October 13, 2021 minutes Motion: To approve the minutes as submitted. (Penney -McClanahan) Six (6) in favor, 0 opposed. One (1-Feck) abstained. PASSES F Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering, explained the proposal to expand the existing dental office, parking lot and lighting. Mr. Cygawnoski distributed a revised site plan to the board and discussed the site plan for the expansion of the existing 988 square foot dental office with 6,265 square feet of driveway and parking area at 235 Central Street to a 2,527 square foot building with 11,068 square feet of driveway and parking area with tree removal for parking with woodland buffer to neighbors. The two existing driveway entrances will remain and change to one-way entry/exits. Mr. Cygawnoski noted that they have permission of Conservation Commission to use previous wetlands plan. There will be one designated handicap space in accordance with the bylaw for parking spaces, with access via crosswalk to entrance. Discussion ensued relating to comments submitted and the Clerk read into record a memo submitted from Mr. Cygawnoski, Engineer, dated 10/27/21 addressing department head comments. A Department Head Comments September 29, 2021 memo from Amy Donovan -Palmer, Health Agent October 19, 2021 memo from Richard C Alves, Assistant DPW Director/Town Engineer October 25, 2021 memo from Richard C Alves, Assistant DPW Director/Town Engineer Board Comment The chair inquired where the main entrance would be and discussion ensued regarding handicap parking, ramp grade and distance to the entry. The chair inquired as to possible awning covering to the ramp. The owner stated that there are no current plans to add one. Mr. Penney inquired as to the extension of existing sidewalk and natural buffer in lieu of proposed fencing and if the screening/fence has been discussed with direct abutter at 243 Central Street. Abutter was not Planning Board 1 10/27/21 present for comment. Mr. Penney commented that the changes are a well thought out improvement to the commercial property including the use of infiltrators in lieu of retention/detention basins. Mr. Penney also inquired as to an addition of a bike rack. The owner was not opposed to adding one. Public Comment No comments from present or virtual audience. Motion: One October 27, 2021, the Mansfield Panning Board, with seven (7) members present, voted unanimously to approve the site plan application for the expansion of the existing dental office at 235 Central Street Plan titled "Existing Conditions site Plan at 235 Central Street in Mansfield, Massachusetts" dated September 28, 2021 and revised October 20, 2021, prepared by RIM Engineering with the following conditions: 1. Any and all department head comments (attached) must be completely addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit(s). 2. Hours of operation for demolition, construction deliveries, site work and construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. No work shall be done on Sunday. These restricted hours of operation shall not apply to interior work. All loaded vehicles shall be suitably covered to prevent dust and contents leaving the vehicle and to protect abutters and other residents, and the public way from material spilled from the load. All public rights -of -way shall be maintained free of all mud, stones or any other conditions that may result in a public safety hazard for vehicles or pedestrians. Sweeping or cleaning must be completed daily or more frequently as deemed necessary during the operation, as directed by the Mansfield Police Chief The applicant,may be required to have a police officer present during any hauling on or off site. The applicant shall consult with the Mansfield Police Chief as to whether or not this may be necessary and to discuss the best hauling routes. Erosion control measures should be installed around catch basins within the public right- of-way. 3. The applicant shall rebuild the sidewalk in front of the property after construction is complete. j 4. A bike rack shall be installed on the property. 5. The applicant should work with abutting property owner, Daniel E. Itano at 243 Central Street, regarding fencing along the property line. (Penney-LeCense) Seven (7) in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstentions. PASSES 01-vil rncuinan recuseu nerselr rrom this nearing. The clerk read the public hearing notice on the application of William McDermott for a Special Permit under Sections 5.5, Special Permits and 3.3.D, Multiple Residence, of the Mansfield Zoning By -Law to demolish two existing multi -family residential structures and construct one Planning Board 2 10/27/21 seven -unit multi -family residential structure at 20-22 Pleasant Street in the Business 1 (B1) Zone. Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering and owner William McDermott were present. Mr. Cygawnoski summarized the existing property in that the owner would like to raze the two existing 1950's buildings to build a new seven -unit townhouse style 20-foot wide by 126-foot long apartment building. The ZBA has approved side parking and drainage as located on plan. There will be required walkway in easterly and westerly sides to parking with 18 parking spaces and backing out area. Existing stockade fence would be replaced with new vinyl fence and buffer zone. The existing trees at rear property line will remain and existing rear chain link fence will be replaced with vinyl. Proposed dumpster and transformers as shown on plan. Mr. Cygawnoski explained he proposed landscaping at the front of the building with natural buffer as shown on the plan and the addition of a fence to block view of the parking area from the street. Department Head Comments October 19, 2021 memo from Rick Alves, Assistant DPW Director/Town Engineer June 10, 2021 memo from Chris Cox, MMED July 7, 2021 memo from Mr. Burke Response to Department Head Comments July 9, 2021 letter from Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering Mr. Cygawnoski addressed the department head comments`and noted that the drainage design has not been reviewed or commented on. He noted that the sidewalk would be replaced once the water and sewer connections are completed. Public Comment i October 19, 2021 email from Mary Haynes, 37 Pleasant St October 20, 2021 letter from Marcia Szymanski, 29 Pleasant Street Mr. Cygawnoski explained that the drainage concern mentioned by an abutter is not part of applicant's property and explained proposed property drainage overflow, which will be contained under the parking lot and noted a proposed berm will be added at the property edge to contain water on the property. Chris Lanza of 25-2,,7Pleasant Street, directly across street of subject property, via phone, expressed concern of the architecture aesthetics and appeal of the large elongated size of the proposed structure. No further public comments. Board Comment Mr. LeCesne commented on previous concerns about where potential children would play and if there would be consideration for this. Mr. Cygawnoski noted that there is no additional area on the property for a play area. Planning Board 3 10/27/21 Mr. LeCesne inquired as to where waste will be stored and Mr. Cygawnoski noted there will be a dumpster at the North end of the property. Mr. Roche inquired as to the reason for a large long building to which Mr. Cygawnoski noted that they have designed by right per bylaw with adequate 12 space parking. They have not yet identified which unit will be affordable. Snow will be plowed to one end or removed offsite. Ms. Ashman -Collins raised concern about the fencing extending in front of building to the sidewalk, which will create an out of place wall. Discussion ensued regarding line of sight with the current extension of fencing. Mr. Cygawnoski noted it could be reduced for clear sight lines. Mr. LeCesne noted his agreement of the building design. Mr. Penney stated that the plan will need to be revised based on current comments. Mr. Burke reiterated submission of revised plans with HVAC units shown, and the affordable unit noted would be required. Mr. Burke noted that the rear West elevation has seven units with eight doors and inquired as to what the eighth door is for. Mr. Cygawnoski confirmed that the door is to the basement utilities and that the middle unit loses basement space for utilities. Mr. Roche confirmed that all other units will have basement spaces. Mr. Penney requested that adequate snow storage or snow removal be shown on the plan. Discussion ensued regarding building aesthetics. No further board comments. Motion: To continue the public hearing to December 8, 2021 at 7:15 p.m. (Penney -McClanahan) All in favor. PASSES' Ms. Friedman returned to the meeting. Ms. Ashman -Collins referenced Article changes as distributed to the board for review. Mr. Burke noted that "black" type is existing, "red" as proposed at public hearing and printed in the Warrant, and "blue" are Town Counsel suggested changes. He referenced that the biggest change was to go from a maximum square foot building size to a Floor Area Ratio (FAR), as the larger the site the more flexibility there should be and the building would be scaled based on lot size. Counsel also recommended a setback similar to residential (RI) zone for the screened play area, which introduces flexibility for the applicant to be more responsive to the site. Counsel also recommended that page two new sections 10-17 "shall be included" on site plans. Mr. Burke stated that the changes were made to try to maintain the intent of the site plan provisions in keeping with proposed amendment that did not pass at spring 2021 Town Meeting and to add revisions to maintain the spirit, but make it more defensible. The changes do not alter what was advertised or make it misleading. Ms. Ashman -Collins noted that the article does not resolve all public issues raised and explained the process for introducing the changes at Special Town Meeting. Planning Board 4 10/27/21 Discussion ensued as to the format for presenting warrant language prior to public hearing and final language submission as printed draft and having it available to the public at STM. Amendment can be made at STM, but not typically successful. Mr. Penney requested a change to FAR language clarifying the "0.10" FAR by adding the words "point one zero." Ms. Friedman noted two language inconsistencies for correction. Ms. Ashman -Collins reiterated that the public hearing was closed on October 13, 2021. Discussion ensued for protocol to vote for submission for STM. Motion: To support Article 19 as amended by Town counsel. (Friedman-LeCesne) Four (4) in favor, Three (3) opposed, 0 abstained. PASSES Motion: to withdraw Article 19 if it failed as amended. (Feck-McClanahan) Six (6) in favor, One (1) opposed, 0 abstained. PASSES Ms. Ashman -Collins requested that revised color version of,, the Article 19 be added to the town website based on public inquiry. An audience member requested further explanation: to the FAR calculations to which Mr. Burke responded. Another audience member inquired as to the emergency access, traffic, and access on sites related to Article 19 and Mr. LeCesne'explained that it would be considered on each project Site Plan application on a case by case basis with public opportunity to voice concerns. Motion: To adjourn at 9:07 p.m, (McClanahan-LeCesne) All in favor. PASSES Date of Next Planning Board Meeting: November 10, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. Signature of Clerk Date of Approval Planning Board 5 10/27/21