Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 07/13/2022Board MeetingMinutes RECEIVED July 13, 2022 i ()'N' 1 CLERKS OFFICE ZUZZ JUL 28 A 8: S9 MEETING HELD IN PERSON IN MEETING ROOM 3 A/B AND VIRTUALLY USING GOTOWEBINAR PLATFORW H S F i E L D MAf ,;SACWJSETTS Present: Joseph Cerretani, Clerk; Sharon Friedman; Michael McClanahan; Adrian LeCesne; Ralph Penney, Michael Feck; Brendan Roche, Alternate and Mark Corsillo, Alternate Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Beth Ashman -Collins, Chair Mr. LeCesne attended the meeting remotely. Motion to appointed Michael McClanahan as acting Chair for the meeting. (Friedman-Cerretani) Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES There were no Form A plans submitted. 7: 04 Mr. Penney arrived at the meeting Minutes — June 22, 2022 Motion to approve minutes as presented and amended. (Friedman-Cerretani) Roll Call Vote Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Ralph Penney - abstained Michael Feck - abstained Mark Corsillo, Alternate — in favor Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Two (2) abstained PASSES Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/13/22 Page 1 of 16, Mr. Cerretani asked about the Chocolate Factory status. Mr. Burke replied that the work has stopped and the contractors have left the site with no date as to when construction will resume. The roof is weather tight but has not been completely reroofed. 7: 06 Mr. Roche arrived at the meeting. Mr. Cerretani asked of the status for the Cultivation Center. Mr. Burke said they are still waiting for steel and there is no further update for construction status. Mr. Corsillo asked about the status for the Chauncy St. Chase Bank. Mr. McClanahan said they are currently remediating asbestos. Special Permit for construction of an 111,412+ sf warehouse with associated employee parking area and loading and trailer parking areas; Berlin Landing Realty Trust, Applicant Nick Facendola, PE/Principal of Level Design Group, LLC and Jason Adams, PE, PTOE of McMahon Associates and Scott Goddard, Owner were present for the public hearing. Mr. Facendola shared a PowerPoint presentation for the warehouse portion and noted that Mr. Adams would share the traffic study information. He also noted that Scott Goddard, PWS of Goddard Consulting would be submitting the Wetland portion to Conservation. The presentation outline consisted of • Existing site conditions • Proposed development conditions • Architectural floor plan and elevation • Stormwater management • Wetland resource area impacts • Traffic review and assessment • Submitted site plan set Mr. Facendola explained that the existing parcel of land is located off Gilbert Street, comprised of two parcels owned by the owner/applicant. The total site area is 16.3 acres with 2.72 acres of wetland located in the Industrial I-2 Limited Industrial zone. Warehouse use is allowed with Special Permit through approval of the Planning Board. An aerial photo depicted the site as undeveloped with moderately dense forest coverage. Mr. Facendola noted that the site is not located within any environmentally sensitive or critical areas. Mr. Penney inquired about abutting homes and Mr. Facendola confirmed that there are four homes (also in the I-2 zone) abutting the site frontage along Gilbert Street and a commercial facility across Gilbert St. The Chessman Road subdivision is to the north of the property and the parcels at the rear of the site are R-1 Residential zone. The parcel to the South and across the street is I-2 Limited Industrial zone. Mr. Facendola spoke of the existing storm water pattern as running north to south off site to vegetated wetlands following the existing site grading. The onsite soils are classified as Hinkley Loamy Sands, as multiple onsite test pits confirm well -draining sandy/gravelly soils throughout the development area. Mr Penney inquired about bedrock. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/13/22 Page 2 of 16 Mr. Facendola said they did not hit refusal at any of the test pits to about ten feet. He noted that boring tests were not performed, which would likely happen further in the process once the building is fully designed. He referenced that all the information is in the submitted stormwater report. Mr. Facendola spoke of the proposed site conditions for the 111,412 square foot proposed warehouse building centrally located on the site with no proposed development near the vegetated wetland. There is a proposed 30-foot-wide access driveway off Gilbert Street. The employees would park to the North in a 109-space lot and commercial vehicles would continue around to the rear of the building. There are 34 proposed loading docks, 33 trailer spaces facing south towards undeveloped area, and 257,778 square feet of impervious lot coverage. Mr. Facendola said there will be a GrassCrete paver emergency access driveway long the westerly building face which will be maintained and cleared for access throughout the year. They will follow-up with the Fire Dept. to confirm the GrassCrete area would be acceptable for emergency access. Mr. Facendola referenced an access easement running from Gilbert Street to the center of the employee parking area to provide access to a second parcel, currently landlocked and owned by Berlin Landing Realty Trust. There are no current plans to develop the second parcel, but if this project is approved the applicant wanted to keep access rights to that parcel for future sale or use of the property. There is no Town sewer and the proposed site would be serviced by an on -site sewage disposal system, which has not been designed yet, but is anticipated to be less than 2,000 gal/day. 7:20 p. m. Motion to continue the scheduledpublic hearing for 194-196 Rumford Avenue for a mixed use building until July 27, 2022 at 7: 30 p. m. at the request of the applicant. (Cerretani-Roche) roll call vote Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Ralph Penney — in favor Michael Feck — in favor Brendan Roche, Alternate — in favor Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Mr. Facendola referenced a detailed landscaping plan which was submitted with the application site plans and explained the location of the proposed trees and screening. He further spoke of the existing buffer land between the site and abutting residential properties, in which it is an existing 112-foot vegetated land subject to a conservation restriction and not to be disturbed. Along Chessman Road there is a 50-foot wide open space area and 40-50-foot-wide vegetated buffer between the property line and the residential parcels. Mr. Cerretani noted that the conservation restriction is on the abutting property and asked why it was noted on the proposal. Mr. Facendola said it is an existing area that cannot be disturbed which will remain vegetated and wooded providing additional screening. Mr. Facendola presented the submitted architectural plans and elevations and noted that they are concept only as the plans have not been confirmed for the facility. He said that the space intent is to have two or three smaller users with less intense usage and that is how the space would be marketed. He then referenced the stormwater management plan and said that the proposal is for onsite sewage and Town water usage and explained the systems as designed and submitted on the plans. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/13/22 Page 3 of 16 Mr. Facendola then referenced the submitted Resource Area Impacts and said that they will be filing a Notice of Intent with Conservation. He noted that they have had preliminary conversations with the Conservation Agent and Mr. Goddard will be filing with conservation. There is a buffer zone disturbance within the 100-foot buffer zone. With about 66,714 square feet of impervious surface coverage. The remaining portion would be for clearing, grading, and stormwater. They are seeking to fill approximately 4,540 square feet of wetland area and seeking to provide a replication area of approximately 5,208 square feet. Mr. Adams then spoke of the traffic assessment as provided in the application submission. He referenced data of daily roadway volumes on Gilbert Street and reviewed available MassDOT crash data, which showed that there were no available crash data between 2015 and 2019 in the vicinity of the project site. They also evaluated the sight distance at the driveway for safety of vehicle entry/exit and it exceeds the required sight distance. They completed a review of trip generation of the project using data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. They anticipate the majority of vehicles to the site to be passenger vehicles and during peak times in the morning and afternoon they expect a vehicle every two minutes to the site. Mr. Adams said that they investigated the travel routes with passenger vehicles coming from all directions and commercial vehicles expected to travel along Gilbert Street making their way to School Street, Richardson Avenue, and Elm Street to Route 140. They also analyzed the operations of the project site driveway to understand if there would be any specific impacts related to the project operations, which indicated a level of service rating of B or better on a scale of A to F at the site driveway. Mr. Adams said that the conclusion is that the project would not have significant traffic impact. He explained that the tractor trailer trips would generate from Route 495 traveling to Route 140. Trips to the site are expected to turn onto School Street from Route 140, travel along Elm Street to Richardson Avenue taking a right onto N. Worcester Street which becomes Gilbert Street and then entering the site. Exiting would be in reverse direction. During peak commuter hours they forecast one or two trucks per hour and over the course of the day about a total of thirty trucks based on industry data. There are no current hours of operation as there is no identified use or tenants for the facility. Mr. Penney asked what type of tenants they anticipate. Mr. Facendola said they anticipate warehousing tenants and the facility would be open 24/7. Mr. Penney asked if they would consider limited hours of operation to accommodate the people living in the area and Mr. Facendola said they would take that into consideration and would consult with the property owner. Mr. Penney asked how they can assume truck traffic without a specific tenant identified. Mr. Adams said that there are many industry tenant options and they used industry standard national data for the calculation to forecast the number of trips. He also noted that there is potential for tenants with multiple staggered shift employees. Mr. Corsillo spoke of the mileage distance of each potential travel route to the site and asked why the longest route is the suggested buck route. Mr. Adams said they evaluated the routes and referenced that the trucks would not be able to make a turn from Otis Street onto Gilbert Street and that there are also other challenges from the routes. Mr. Corsillo said that the proposed route also assumes that the trucks would be going to Routes 495 and 95. Ms. Friedman asked if the road widths were considered in the traffic study, Gilbert, West, Balcolm and Otis Streets as an example, and if mitigation to widen the streets was considered. She also inquired if street surface/subsurface degrading due to truck traffic was considered in the traffic study. Mr. Adams said they did evaluate specifically at Gilbert Street which has about 10-foot travel lanes with a small shoulder and that Gilbert Street currently serves large truck traffic. He expressed that deterioration would not be caused specifically by any one end user. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/13/22 Page 4 of 16 Mr. Cerretani noted that Gilbert Street is a scenic roadway and that would not change. Mr. Burke commended, relating to the traffic study, that on West Street, Otis Street, and off West Street on Plain Street there are weight limited bridges and that there are not many options from these streets in and out of the proposed warehouse for multi-axel vehicles. Mr. Adams agreed and noted that is why they would expect the trucks to travel south to Gilbert Street. Mr. Penney referenced the Schedule of Use Regulations Warehousing, Industrial Districts which is allowed by right in the I-1 but in 1-2 is by special permit and asked Mr. Burke is that means a higher standard for approval. Mr. Burke responded that it is and that if a use is a use by right, it requires site plan approval only by the Planning Board with a simple majority vote. With a special permit a super majority vote is required in the affirmative to grant the permit. The reason that some projects require a special permit, it that there are issues associated with them such as traffic generation, noise, or hours of operation that require a higher level of scrutiny by the Planning Board. Mr. Penney noted that the Board must weigh the benefits and detriments of the project. Mr. Burke said that the Bylaw references what should be considered by the Board. Mr. Penney read some of the decision requirements from the Bylaw. Mr. Penney inquired if there is no tenant, how is the truck traffic count assumed. Mr. Burke responded that International Traffic Engineers (ITE) handbook is typically used for generation of daily trips in a 24-hour period. If the hours of operation are less, such as 9-5, the trips are then compressed into a smaller window and there would be more trips per hour. Mr. Burke reviewed his submitted observations. He requested that the sight distance triangle be shown on the plan so that it can show that there is no vegetation obstruction. He also requested that the truck turning radius be shown on the plan at the entrance driveway. He referenced different lengths of trailer trucks, traffic speed, and expressed concern of truck turning with oncoming traffic. Mr. Adams said that the site driveway has been designed to accommodate the larger truck movements and turning as anticipated for a warehouse facility. Mr. Facendola said that the entrance driveway is 30-feet wide with a 105-foot wide curb cut without curbing. Mr. Burke suggested that they look at the maximum width required for a driveway in an industrial zone as they may exceed it. Mr. Burke also requested that a detail of the retaining wall be provided to Conservation. He also noted that there may be a need for guardrails based on grading. He also stated that a variance may be required from the Wetland Bylaw for wetland filling as this is not a limited access project. Mr. Burke referenced the illumination plan and requested that the building elevation plans also show lighting at the loading dock locations. He requested that the plans show HVAC location. He encouraged them to contact the conservation agent relating to the wetland filing. Mr. Burke inquired if there will be,a free-standing signage proposal for site identification. Mr. Facendola said that there is currently no end user, but would work with perspective tenants for details of a proposed sign, but there is no sign proposal at this time. Mr. Burke requested that dumpster pad location and enclosure also be noted on the plan. Mr. Cerretani read the submitted memo from Rich Alves, Town Engineer dated June 29, 2022 into record. He also referenced the abutter/resident submitted letters but did not read them as they were posted online and can be reviewed there. Mr. Burke asked for clarification of the soils and referenced a Bylaw provision for poorly drained soils and noted the site is sand and gravel. Mr. Facendola referenced site test holes and said results are included in the stormwater report. He confirmed that Mr Alves, Town Engineer was at the site as witness of the testing. Mr. Penney noted that this lot was previously approved for a subdivision that was never built. Mr. Burke confirmed that there is a permitted subdivision plan for the now proposed warehouse lot. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/13/22 Page 5 of 16 Public Comment Samantha Robbin of 250 Gilbert Street commented that she manages seven industrial buildings and did not feel that future tenants would operate at less than 24/7. She expressed her disagreement with the traffic study and concern with traffic and trailer turning movements. She also noted there are no sidewalks on Gilbert Street. Valerie Kinds -Richardson of 417 Gilbert Street agreed with Ms. Robbin's comments. She noted that she moved to Mansfield 20 years prior to get away a warehouse facility that 24/7 truck traffic. She expressed concern of not if or could a warehouse be at the site, but a different question of should it happen in a residential neighborhood. It would change the scenic street and neighborhood and noted Town cost for maintenance of the street. Michael Papagno of 14 York Road expressed his opinion that the owner/applicant's presentation was a failure with no identifiable tenant with property usage and they did not mention daily school bus trips for drop -.off and pickup on the street. He expressed concern with traffic speed with lack of sidewalks. He noted that if the trucks are refrigerated, they would be idling all night to keep the refrigeration trailer cold. He suggested moving the project to the industrial park. Simon O'Leary of 291 Gilbert Street commented that the drainage into wetlands has a culvert under Gilbert Street that feeds into Sweets Pond, which feeds the water treatment plant. He expressed that Gilbert Street from Otis Street to the Norton town line has limited visibility, is narrow, and not suitable for trucks. Alex Robbin of 36 Saddle Ridge Road expressed concern about trailer truck noise and concern with traffic speed and trailer trucks driving up and over Gilbert Street rises into oncoming traffic. David Wilson expressed concern with warehouse in a residential neighborhood and further concem with trees, bridges, and turning radius. Jim Burke of 279 Gilbert Street referenced his letter submission opposing the project. He expressed concern with decrease in property value if the warehouse is approved. Todd Dean of 18 Bungay Road asked what the Town benefits would be from approval of this project and did not foresee a gain to the Town for approval of the project. Michael Joyce of 1801 West Street and expressed agreement with previous comments of Gilbert Street speed, traffic, and very narrow paved surface which then impacts West Street. He noted that there should be a global review of impact to the Town and all surrounding area streets. Jonathan Wright of 90 Gilbert Street referenced that the intersection of Gilbert and Bungay Streets is very dangerous and there have been numerous "close call" accidents. He expressed concern with large truck and delivery truck traffic. He spoke of the wetland impact of two 25-year storms and within the past ten years there have been multiple 100-year storms with wetland impacts and flooding. Scott Harrington of 396 Central Street agreed with previous comments relating to traffic. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/13/22 Page 6 of 16 Nicole Wright of 90 Gilbert Street agreed with her neighbor's comments and expressed that resource protected areas should be kept in mind. She further noted a conflict of interest with Berlin Landing Trust in which Scott Goddard is the trustee and is also affiliated with Goddard Consulting that has done research for delineation of wetlands for the property. She referenced a Conservation meeting of 2016 for this property subdivision, where a Board member questioned if there was a conflict of interest. She further mentioned that the transportation study was done in 2019 during the pandemic and that the study referenced February which was during school vacation week. She reiterated Mr. Wright's comments relating to the 25 and 100-year storms. She also expressed concerns with wetland disruption. Paul Burke of 154 Gilbert Street expressed his opinion that the traffic study is underestimated for truck traffic generation. He said that he measured Gilbert Street from the middle yellow line to the end to be nine feet and then measured a tractor trailer truck at ten feet six inches wide and expressed concern - with two similar size trucks passing on the street and potential pedestrian on the side of the street. He expressed that Gilbert Street can be a very dangerous street and that this project would severely disturb the neighborhood. Doug LaCamera of 4 Chessman Road agreed with previous comments and mentioned issues related to the reduced width of Gilbert Street when it snows which was not mentioned in the traffic report. Ed Freitas of 16 Saddle Ridge Road said that he walked the wetland behind the property and expressed concern with the potential of tractor trailer trucks leaking hydraulic fluid, which is toxic waste, and leaching in the waterways and wells. He also inquired if the warehouse is approved, in the future could the type of facility be changed, as example to a marijuana facility. Mr. Cerretani said that there is a zoned area for marijuana and that lot is not in the zoned area. Mr. Roche also noted that any approved changes would have to be revisited with the Planning Board. Karen Thompson of 425 Gilbert Street said that she witnessed a large truck at the rise on Gilbert Street at the Town well site where there was a couple and dog walking on the street and a pickup truck driving in the opposite direction of the large truck. She said that she witnessed the large truck purposefully swerving and nearly hit a pole, in order to avoid hitting the people walking. She expressed how she likes the neighborhood, neighbors and Town and does not want this project in the neighborhood. Attorney Kaitlyn Baptista of Hill Law spoke on behalf of residents of Chessman Road and Gilbert Street abutters to the project. She said that she echoed the department head and Planning Board member comments. She referenced her submitted letter to the Planning Board. Atty. Baptista said that she feels that the applicant/owner should not be relying on the buffer land area that is a part of her client's properties and the buffer does not necessarily mean to serve an industrial use. She appreciated the suggestion of limited hours of operation, and agreed with Mr. Burke's comment that it would condense the number of trips within an hour. She also expressed the opinion that the project is not ready to be decided by the board with the lack of information relating to sight distance, number of truck trips per day without a current tenant, and concerns with Zoning Bylaw compliance relating to setbacks. She noted that the detrimental effects of the project could outweigh the benefits and did not feel the Board could not properly evaluate the project based on what has been presented. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/13/22 Page 7 of 16 Ms. McGill read submitted online chat comments from Jacob Osborne and Jeri Ferrara inquiring if the Balcom Street bridge construction, which will reroute traffic to Gilbert Street, was taken into consideration for the traffic study. A day care facility and traffic related to pick-up and drop-off was referenced. It was asked if the impact on cyclists, including the PanMass Challenge was included in the study. Karen Wilson wrote that she echoes the point of delivery and work trucks parked on the side of the street and impact to passing tractor trailer. She also noted personally witnessing several accidents on West and Gilbert Streets. She expressed concern of danger to residents of the neighborhood. Anthony Cicchetti wrote that a truck turn onto Richardson Avenue is not possible from North Worcester Street and even more impossible from Richardson Avenue to North Worcester Street. Vicki Bailey of 89 Old Farm Road expressed concerns for the traffic from Route 152 and through Bungay Road and then up West Street and expressed that there are other potential traffic routes that could be considered. Michael Kaplan of 65 Gilbert Street referenced the facility abutting several residential homes, does not directly impact his property, but expressed concern for the abutting residents and potential impact to their homes. He further expressed opposition to the project. Adam Norige of 197 Gilbert Street, a direct abutter to proposed project, agreed to previous opposition points. He noted that he is a runner, and running on this street is very dangerous. He also referenced a spotted turtle endangered species in the area wetlands and expressed concern with potential disturbance of the habitat. There were no further comments. Mr. LeCesne recommended continuance of the hearing until after the applicant has met with Conservation. Mr. Burke asked if there has been a filing with Conservation and Mr. Facendola said they have not yet filed. Ms. Friedman referenced two smaller industrial businesses near this site and pointed out that they are smaller established business that have been around for quite some time. This application is new and three to four time the size of the established businesses. Mr. LeCesne noted previous comments relating to partial fill of wetland areas and buffers and the balancing relating to the detriments and benefits would be appropriate to the Conservation Commission's decision. Conservation's decision may affect the overall site arrangement and the Planning Board can reassess after their decision. Motion to continue the public hearing to September 14, 2022 at 7:15 p.m. (Penney-Feck) roll call vote Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Ralph Penney — in favor Michael Feck — in favor Brendan Roche, Alternate — in favor Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/13/22 Page 8 of 16 Mr. Burke noted to the public that any changes or notices to this hearing would be noted on the Town Website. 9: 00 p.m. Meeting in Recess 9: 08 p. m. Meeting Resumed 19 Knight Way; Definitive Subdivision "Field of Dreams" for a proposed subdivision road as a Private Way in order to create two conforming lots; FOD LLC, Applicant Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering and Emily Miller, Owner FOD, LLC (attended remotely) was present for the hearing. Mr. Cygawnoski referenced the previously submitted Preliminary Subdivision application for 19 Knight Way. There is an existing house 19 Knight Way and maker space building as part of the school. The purpose of the extension would be to create two building lots so that in the future the school could be separated from the house. In order to create frontage, the road would need to be extended. The application request is for an extension of 228.5 feet beyond the 650 feet that the cul-de-sac currently is at. Lot No. 3, a non -building lot, which would be intended to be a benefit to the Town abutting conservation Town owned land. Lot 3 does not have frontage and not intended to be a building lot. There is no intended future building for the house at #19 Knight Way. The Montessori school is a separate subject and at current time they only seeking to make building lots. Mr. Cygawnoski noted that they are asking for waivers because both existing building have access with an existing paved driveway or the school. There was an As -built for the existing driveway which was submitted to Town engineering department. He stated that with the current existing paved driveway, there would not be further paving and they are asking for a waiver to not build the road but to allow the creation of a private way/right of way in order to create the conforming frontage and access. Mr. Burke clarified that the application is for a Definitive Subdivision and they seek approval by the Planning Board so the plan of land can be on record. The plan of land creates frontage for lots that currently may have access but do not have frontage. The applicant's intent is to not construct the way and keep it a private way, not a public way. Mr. Burke noted that typically there is an expectation of acceptance as a public way. There are also liability, insurance, and maintenance issues when a municipality takes over a private way. The street residents are responsible for a private way, where a public way rests with the (tax -payers). Mr. Burke also clarified that if a private way were to be taken over by the Town, it would have to be brought up to current Town standards. Mr. Penney asked if there were any changes from the applicant's previous Preliminary Subdivision proposal and the current Definitive Subdivision proposal before the Board. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that there are no changes from the preliminary to the definitive plan. Mr. Penney noted that the Town has only extended the length of a cul-de-sac road two times for the benefit of the Town. Mr. Burke explained that the Bay Brook Farm cul-de-sac extension was approved for one crossing of the brook once instead of two times. He also explained that at Frain Estates there were two points of egress to the subdivision. One point of egress was next to an ancient cemetery on a hill and there was no way to put in the road without destabilizing the cemetery. The Board granted the waiver for the length of a Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/13/22 Page 9 of 16 dead-end street at the time of approval with one point of access, because to make them build a second point of access would have disturbed the cemetery. Mr. Penney noted that the maximum length of a cul-de-sac road is 650 feet and the applicant is seeking to extend the existing road by an additional 228 feet. Mr. Penney asked the applicant what is benefit to the Town to grant this. Ms. Miller referenced that she reached out to land use Attorney Lanza for response as to the benefit to the Town of Mansfield to grant the waivers. She quoted his response as "By law, the Planning Board can waive strict compliance with its rules and regulations regarding subdivisions if it "is in the public interest and not inconsistent with the intent andpurpose of the Subdivision Control Law ". Mr. Burke has asked about the public interest in terms of benefit to the community or town. Although the two terms are not synonymous, what benefits the community or town, is in the public interest. Approving the Definitive Subdivision Plan with the waivers will create the open space lot that will be donated to the Town for Conservation purposes. It abuts Town conservation land on two sides and part of a third side. This is clearly a benefit to the Town. Creating two lots that comply with street frontage requirements is clearly a benefit to the public as the main purpose offrontage is adequate access. The public will access the new facility. Extending the street and creating a turnaround area improves access to the new facility and existing house. The new facility will be used primarily by enrollees who live Mansfield. (Attorney Lanza) Ms. Miller said that the building of the main campus facility is not contingent on the frontage but there is a benefit for them (the applicant). Mr. Penney clarified that lot 3 is the land that is identified as open space. Ms. Miller said that Lot 3 includes the electric easement and acceptance would eliminate the need for an additional easement. Mr. McClanahan clarified that there is an existing driveway to the existing school and that the extension would be used for a future building. Mr. Penney referenced an aerial photo of the property and what is existing on the property. Mr. Burke confirmed that the Board had previously approved the site plan in front of the maker space. Mr. Cygawnoski said that the only changes from the preliminary plan and this Definitive Subdivision Plan are the requested waivers to not construct the road to the current Subdivision Control Law standards as it would be a private road with access only to the existing two lots. Mr. Burke clarified that the point of Subdivision Control Law is to create frontage and vital access. Neither of the lots for this application currently have frontage. There is access through a driveway, but no frontage on a public way. The applicant is seeking approval under Subdivision Control Law with a vote in the affirmative on the definitive plan that they can put the plan on record. That plan would show lot 1 and lot 2 have frontage on a plan approved by the Planning Board. Mr. Feck clarified that the land is currently only one lot. Ms. Friedman clarified that the application is to create three new lots, with two lots being viable, so that with the waivers in the future the house may be sold leaving the other structure with potential for future build of a bigger school, benefiting the land owner. Ms. Friedman noted that the preliminary subdivision plan also depicted a hammerhead design, which was denied by the Board. Mr. Burke noted that the purpose of a preliminary plan is to start a discussion so the Board is not obligated by a prior vote on a preliminary plan. The Board should be voting only on the current Definitive Subdivision plan before them. Mr. Cerretani said that the Board was anticipating that the new plan would have changes and not be the same as the preliminary plan. Mr. Corsillo asked if with the current island and cul-de-sac and a private road is added would it effectively make it a roundabout. Mr. Burke noted that as a practical matter it would become a roundabout. Mr. Corsillo also noted that the existing vegetation in the center island of the cul-de-sac would limit visibility for people leaving the driveway. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/13/22 Page 10 of 16 Mr. Penney expressed concern that by allowing waivers, it would set a precedence for allowing future roadway extensions of the existing street. Mr. Burke also expressed concern with the plan. He noted an alternative avenue would be for the applicant maybe to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance to create two lots with less than the required frontage. Mr. Cygawnoski said that in the past the Zoning Board of Appeals has not approved lots with out frontage, but it could be an avenue they could pursue. Ms. Miller referenced a letter of 1988 that she submitted to the Board, and noted that it was the Board's intention, in writing, to allow the subdivision of the law. Mr. Burke noted the Subdivision Control Law stated the Board should also" make provision for future extensions into adjacent undeveloped land". He suggested that many subdivision plans show paper streets projecting into adjacent undeveloped land that would later conform to Subdivision Control Law as another issue. Mr. Corsillo noted that there is an accessory building not shown on the submitted plans. Mr. Cygawnoski said it could be added, but has no bearing on creating the lot. Attorney Lanza, having technical issues, texted "a land division plan is needed to create a lot that doesn't exist," referring to lot 3 for donation. Mr. Burke explained that without frontage the Board would not have the authority to endorse an ANR plan so they have to come in with a definitive subdivision to create the lot even if one is non -conforming. Mr. Burke also noted that the Board does have the authority to waive its own subdivision rule and regs. That would be done individually and there should be some stated reason as clear benefit to the Town for granting or denying the waiver. The waivers should be voted individually. Mr. Cygawnoski spoke of the hammerhead option creation from a previous request of the Board due to not wanting a double cul-de-sac design. Mr. Burke explained the options as either continuing the hearing to allow the applicant to make suggested changes or vote what has been presented for a definitive subdivision plan. Public Comment Jill Keyes of 11 North White Pine Lane spoke of the current bylaws referencing the length of an existing permanent dead-end street beyond the 650-foot maximum and did not feel that precedence should be set by allowing the extension on an existing public way versus other dead-end streets in town that were new construction and the extension was allowed. Scott Harrington of Knight Way asked to confirm that what is proposed is a road extension through the existing easement. Mr. Burke confirmed that is correct. He also noted that this has been litigated a number of times and the courts found that the owner of the property has a right to cross and recross for the proposed use. The applicant is not proposing to create a public way. Mr. Harrington expressed concern that it is a non -conforming lot and by creating frontage the applicant is then making the lots conforming. As currently non -conforming there are additional protections in place regarding increasing the non -conformity of a non -conforming lot. By approving the Definitive Subdivision Plan, they are essentially taking all the protections away for non -conforming lots. Mr. Burke confirmed that when there is a non -conforming lot and an addition to an existing structure is desired the applicant would appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals for either a variance or a finding. In the case of expansion of non -conforming use, you have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/13/22 Page 11 of 16 permit to expand, extend, or alter an existing non -conforming use. Further clarifying that the additional protection is correct. Once there are conforming lots, the need for one to have to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a finding, variance, or special permit goes away. Mr. Harrington further expressed his concerns with the non -conforming property and did not see any benefit to the Town. Ms. Miller stated that 19 Knight Way is landlocked and non -conforming because someone gave up a road so that Mr. Harrington and the rest of the abutters would have frontage. She referenced a1988 memo, submitted with additional information, noting information pertaining to the land and frontage. Ms. Miller expressed frustration with abutters stating that her lot is non -conforming and the abutters are the ones benefiting from her lot being non -conforming. Mr. Burke recommended that the Board vote each waiver and plan individually. As a result of ongoing discussions of this parcel of land, without frontage on apublic way and proposed to be maintained as a private way and not proposed to be constructed in accordance with Mansfield Subdivision Regulations, between Town staff, the developer, residents and the Planning Board, the Mansfield Planning Board voted on the following waiver(s): 1. Motion to Deny requested waiver for Section 3.3.2.12 Plan and Profile Required as Plan and Profile is not being provided. (Penney-Cerretani) Roll Call Vote Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Ralph Penney — in favor Michael Feck — in favor Brendan Roche — in favor Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES 2. Motion to Deny requested waiver from Section 3.3.2.15 Drainage Study as no drainage study was conducted and a drainage study is important and it sets a bad precedent (Penney-Cerretani) Roll Call Vote Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Ralph Penney — in favor Michael Feck — in favor Brendan Roche — in favor Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Motion to Deny requested waiver for Section 3.3.2.16 Cross Sections because one is required and it sets a bad precedent (Penney-Cerretani) Roll Call Vote Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Ralph Penney — in favor Michael Feck — in favor Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/13/22 Page 12 of 16 Brendan Roche — in favor Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES 4. Motion to Deny requested waiver for Section 3.3.2.17 Lights and Sidewalks because they are needed and it sets a bad precedent (Penney-Cerretani) Roll Call Vote Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Ralph Penney — in favor Michael Feck — in favor Brendan Roche — in favor Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES 5. Motion to Deny requested waiver for Section 3.3.2.18 Tabular Study of all Construction Items should be provide because they are needed and it sets a bad precedent (Penney-Cerretani) Roll Call Vote Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Ralph Penney — in favor Michael Feck — in favor Brendan Roche — in favor Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES 6. Motion to Deny requested waiver for Section 3.3.2.20 Stake Limit of Right of Way should be required because it is needed and it sets a bad precedent (Penney-Cerretani) Roll Call Vote Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Ralph Penney — in favor Michael Feck — in favor Brendan Roche — in favor Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES 7. Motion to Deny requested waiver for Section 3.3.3 Environmental Impact Study should be conducted because it is urgently needed and it sets a bad precedent (Penney-Cerretani) Roll Call Vote Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Ralph Penney — in favor Michael Feck — in favor Brendan Roche — in favor Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/13/22 Page 13 of 16 8. Motion to Deny requested waiver for Section 4.1.5 Dead End Roads to extend the maximum dead-end roadway 228.55 feet because 650 feet is the maximum required and it sets a bad precedent (Penney-Cerretani) Roll Call Vote Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Ralph Penney — in favor Michael Feck — in favor Brendan Roche — in favor Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Motion to Deny requested waiver for Section 4.1.5.2 Dead End Streets are to provide turnaround having a minimum radius of 140 feet to allow a hammerhead design because this is required and it sets a very bad precedent (Penney-Cerretani) Roll Call Vote Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Ralph Penney — in favor Michael Feck — in favor Brendan Roche — in favor Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES 10. Motion to Deny requested waiver for Section 5.5.1 Vertical Granite Curbing because it is required and needed it sets a bad precedent if it is waived (Penney-Cerretani) Roll Call Vote Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Ralph Penney — in favor Michael Feck — in favor Brendan Roche — in favor Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES 11. Motion to Deny requested waiver for Section 5.7 which required Street Trees to be planted along the roadway because trees are very important and it sets a bad precedent (Penney -Roche) Roll Call Vote Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Adrian LeCesne — opposed Ralph Penney — in favor Michael Feck — in favor Brendan Roche — in favor Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/13/22 Page 14 of 16 12. Motion to Deny requested waiver for Section 5.10 which requires Street Lights because street lights are incredibly important and it would set a bad precedent if allowed to not be installed (Penney -Roche) Roll Call Vote Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Ralph Penney — in favor Michael Feck — in favor Brendan Roche — in favor Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Following the precluding discussion and vote on the requested waivers, the Planning Board put the application for the 19 Knight Way Definitive Subdivision plan (application and plan included in this decision by reference) to a vote. Motion on July 13, 2022, the Mansfield Planning Board voted to Deny the application for 19 Knight Way Definitive Subdivision Plan because it sets a bad precedent (Penney -Roche) Roll Call Vote Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Adrian LeCesne — opposed Ralph Penney — in favor Michael Feck — in favor Brendan Roche — in favor Six (6) in favor, One (1) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES As a result of the above referenced votes, the Board has voted to Deny the above -referenced twelve (12) Subdivision Regulation waiver requests, and by a vote of Six (6) in favor, One (1) opposed and Zero (0) abstentions, the 19 Knight Way Definitive Subdivision Plan is hereby denied. Motion to close the public hearing (Cerretani-Penney) Roll Call Vote Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Ralph Penney — in favor Michael Feck — in favor Brendan Roche — in favor Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/13/22 Page 15 of 16 Motion: To adjourn at 10:03 p.m. (Feek-Penney) Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Ralph Penney — in favor Michael Feck — in favor Brendan Roche — in favor Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Date of Next Planning Board Meeting: July 27, 2022 at 7: 00 p. m. Signature of Clerk Date of Approval Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/13/22 Page 16 of 16