HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 02/16/2022Planning Board Workshop Minutes
February 16,2022
RECEIVED
�' FRI'S OFFICE
1012 N„R I I A If: 21
MEETING HELD IN PERSON AND i it",td;�F 1 EL D
VIRTUALLY USING GOTOWEBINARPLATFORM,
> i i iC"TTc
Present: Beth Ashman -Collins, Chair; Joseph Cerretani, Clerk; Diana Bren; Sharon Friedman;
Michael Feck; Brendan Roche, Alternate; Adrian LeCesne, Alternate
Kevin Dumas, Town Manager
Noemi Kawamoto, Town Counsel
Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development
Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary
Absent: Michael McClanahan and Ralph Penney
The Board Chair noted that there were five members present and two members remote.
Mr. Burke stated that this is a listening session workshop between the Board and the Town's
consultant, Judi Barrett of the Barrett Group and two of her colleagues. He suggested that the
Board not take public comment at this session and that the Barrett Group has already held two
other sessions.
Ms. Bren stated that the meeting is for the Planning Board and there was public notice per Board
requirements. Ms. Barrett and her team will be holding other public sessions and this session was
not for public comment, but assured that if an article was to be presented at Town Meeting there
would be a public hearing that people can attend. She stated that the Barrett Group is a neutral
team to move forward, known for their creative approach to problem solving.
Ms. Barrett showed a slide presentation and explained her team's experience assisting towns and
that they are here to assist with the disagreement between residents of a neighborhood and the
proponent of a daycare center. Schools and daycare centers have some degree of protection
through the Zoning Act and have reviewed case law and spoken to Town Counsel, Town
Manager, and Town Planner, prior to holding the discussion sessions. She stated that she is not
sure that a consensus can be met between the parties and shifted back to the main concern being
the Municipality and starting to develop recommendations for the Town.
Ms. Barrett spoke of what it means to be "protected" as the statute lists a series of uses of
varying degrees and what will help the Town manage the permitting process for nonresidential
exempt uses. The team's work to date has been research, review of plans and documents,
Planning Board Workshop 2/16/22 Page 1 of 4
consultation, meeting the neighborhood residents, meeting with the owner of a child care center,
site visit, and they have started to examine regulatory options acceptable to the Town and Town
Counsel. She further spoke of MGL Chapter 40A, Section 3 (Dover Amendment) which
references uses that cannot be regulated, can be reasonably regulated, exempt uses, prohibited
uses, residential buildings, and other topics. She explained the most protected uses are farms on
5+ acres, religious uses, public or non-profit educational uses, interior of single-family
dwellings, temporary manufactured home where a house destroyed by fire will be rebuilt, and
amateur radio operators. Substantially protected from regulation are child care centers, in which
you cannot prohibit or require a special permit, the use of land or structures, or the expansion of
existing structures, accessory or incidental purpose of operation of a child care facility.
Reasonable regulations may be imposed concerning the bulk and height of structures, yard sizes,
lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements. In order to be
protected the facility must be a licensed child care facility. However, the rules cannot act as de
facto prohibition and finding balance can be difficult.
Ms. Barrett further explained a child care center does not have to be operated by a non-profit
educational organization but must be licensed by the Commonwealth and required age
restrictions. She then explained information from an informal survey they conducted of zoning
regulations of child care centers. The most common element was a maximum size of 2,500
square feet, but noted that interpretation is sometimes for "footprint" or "gross floor area" and
that typically the same rules that apply to residential structures also applied to child care centers,
but there were exceptions. Ms. Barrett noted that the question then arises that if all residential
rules are applied to a child care facility as if it were a single-family home, would it in effect
prohibit the use and as consultants they would want to avoid placing the Town in that position
and how to mitigate the impact of use.
Ms. Barratt then spoke of focus on recommendation to the Town to mitigate the impact of use.
She recommended a focus on Zoning Bylaw Section 230-5.3 Site Plan Approval in that the
existing Bylaw could be updated for clarity, standards, extent of review process and conditions
of appeal. The update would not change the Mansfield's use and dimensional regulations or
provide direction to applicants. The changes would clarify the areas within which the Board may
impose reasonable conditions of approval.
Ms. Barrett reviewed the site plan approval process and its purpose explaining that site plan
approval is used to determine compliance not to shape development or deny a use. The revised
site plan approval would be used to be sure the applicants comply with specifications of the
Town's requirements to their site and to minimize the impact on the environment, abutters, and
Town services through proper design and construction. She further discussed a proposed draft of
site plan approval criteria for findings to be made in a decision.
In moving forward with the Planning Board for a revised site plan approval, Ms. Barrett posed
the following questions for consideration:
1. Remove submission requirement from the Zoning Bylaw and relocate to Planning Board
Rules & Regulations?
2. Review at posted public meeting versus advertised public hearing?
3. Minor versus major site plan approval?
Planning Board Workshop 2/16/22 Page 2 of 4
Ms. Bren inquired regarding the Child Care Act and not necessarily schools in a residential area,
would schools be covered at another discussion where there are different guidance and
regulations and review holistically as they are close to being interchangeable. Ms. Barrett agreed
that they are close to interchangeable and recommended applying the same site plan standards,
and although the focus was on child care facilities, the points would not apply differently if
discussion was regarding a school.
Ms. Ashman Collins stated they are open to the idea of revising the site plan approval Bylaw and
the idea of thresholds under which a project may not need as much review. Ms. Bren was in
agreeance and also recommended further discussion for approval being a public meeting versus
advertised public hearing and further discussion for minor versus major approval. Mr. Feck
agreed that the change would provide actual language with standards for reference in the
approval process. Ms. Bren noted that if the applicant is provided a template in the application,
then all applicants are on the same level when coming before the Board for approval of site plan.
Ms. Friedman also noted that site plan approval standards will also enable the general pubic to be
aware of the process expectations and would help to alleviate the potential for litigation. Ms.
Friedman also spoke of mitigation of transition for abutting properties that are in different zones
and how to look at blending one zoned area to another zoned area, such as residential and
business zones abutting.
Mr. LeCesne suggested clarifying which part of the application process would be standard versus
procedural. Ms. Barrett noted that as being an important point, but that site plan approval does
not allow for discretionary authority that comes with a special permit.
Mr. Burke agreed with the idea of moving some of the submission requirements for an
application out of the Bylaw, especially like how many copies of documents are required for
submission as electronic submissions are now also accepted. Ms. Ashman -Collins suggested
further clarification of meeting postings and major versus minor applications and supports the
burden of submission be proportionate with the project.
Mr. Burke noted that public hearing notices are posted in local newspapers and the agenda and
pending business list is posted on the Town's website for both public hearings and meetings.
Ms. Barrett suggested that larger projects be published and posted as a public hearing.
Discussion ensued for delineation of minor versus major projects. Mr. Dumas inquired as to
examples of small and large projects. Mr. Burke spoke of a small site for a landscape business
versus a recent submission for a national corporate business with public access on a busy
roadway. He also spoke of an example that with the current site plan approval, a business in
Cabot Park would have to come before the board for site plan review in order to change an
exterior overhead loading dock door, which is extensive for a small change, and with Bylaw
change could be completed administratively. Mr. Burke expressed that site plan approval is
analogous to subdivision control law in that at the beginning of the statute it reads "...this is a
process for approval and the recording of plans..." so the statutory expectation is to get an
approval, but does not mean local regulation cannot be adopted to review a proposal.
Planning Board Workshop 2/16/22
Page 3 of 4
Ms. Friedman noted concern with the delineation between minor and major impact. Mr.
LeCesne suggested outlining a process that provides for an option to provide a letter of no
significant impact to bypass the site plan approval process for something that is moderate versus
substantive.
Ms. Ashman -Collins requested further explanation to residential impact and limitations to size of
child care facilities. Ms. Barrett spoke of an example not limiting size but of having the building
be set back further on the site in keeping with the residential homes in the same neighborhood
and not impose de facto prohibition.
Mr. Cerretani inquired if an educational facility use was large enough that the traffic impact is
too much for the road system how would that be mitigated. Ms. Barrett stated that care must be
taken for consideration of the public interest and a school's fundamental right to operate unless
the impact is so egregious that nothing can be done to accommodate on the specific location.
Ms. Friedman inquired as to the impact to other entities that may want to build a school and
impact to the Town to build another public school if changes are made. Ms. Barrett noted that
the change would simply lay out a process for an applicant to get approval of a plan.
Ms. Bren acknowledged that the Board agrees to partner with the Barrett Group and move
forward with options 1, 2, and 3 as discussed. Ms. Barrett noted having met with neighbors of
the site and proponent where they learned a lot, but still have a few more meetings. She stated
that the Town is their client and next steps would be to assist for what is most helpful to
Mansfield for application processing and will draft a site plan approval for Mr. Burke and Town
Counsel review and follow-up with Board review.
Motion: To adjourn at 8:44 p.m. (Bren-Roche) Roll Call Vote
Brendan Roche — in favor
Sharon Friedman — in favor
Diana Bren — in favor
Adrian LeCesne — in favor
Joe Cerretani — in favor
Beth Ashman -Collins — in favor
Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES
Date of Next Planning Board Meeting: February 23, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.
Signature of Clerk
Date of Approval
Planning Board Workshop 2/16/22 Page 4 of 4