Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 07/27/2022Board Meeting Minutes � RECEIVED b 1. l i En" OFFICE July 27, 2022 2017 Il.!16 I I A II: 59 MEETING HELD IN PERSON IN MEETING ROOM 3 AB AND VIRTUALLY USING GOTOWEBINAR PLAT "ORW-1 Present: Beth Ashman -Collins, Chair; Joseph Cerretani, Clerk; Sharon Friedman; Michael McClanahan; Adrian LeCesne; Ralph Penney; Brendan Roche, Alternate; and Mark Corsillo; Alternate Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Michael Feck Ms. Friedman attended virtually. There were no Form A plans submitted. Minutes — July 13, 2022 Mr. Penney referenced waiver 96 of the 19 Knight Way hearing and noted specifically asking the applicant's engineer if they had tried to seek relief through the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Burke noted that the engineer's response was that the Zoning Board of Appeals was not amenable to granting a variance for lots without frontage and they did not apply for a variance. Mr. Penney referenced waiver #11 of the 19 Knight Way hearing and requested that "and" it sets a bad precedent..." be added to the motion. Motion to approve minutes as presented and amended. (Penney -McClanahan) Roll Call Vote Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Ralph Penney — in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Mark Corsillo, Alternate — in favor Beth Ashman -Collins - abstained Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, One (1) abstained PASSES Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/27/22 Page 1 of 12 Special Permit/Site Plan Approval for the construction, operation and maintenance of a wireless communication facility and to construct a monopole -style tower to a height of 120 feet above ground level; Bay Communications III LLC, Applicant Arty. Michael Dolan of Brown Rudnick was present on behalf of the applicant. Atty. Dolan referenced the previous public meeting where he presented the project and the both the engineer and client spoke about the project and that the Planning Board had requested a new balloon float test be conducted. The new test was conducted on June 25, 2022 and the photo simulation results were submitted to the Board. Atty. Dolan said that the results show that there is low visual impact of the proposed facility to the surrounding area and that there were only three photos where the balloon could only be partially seen. Atty. Dolan expressed his opinion that the site an excellent location with limited visibility. The tower would be back over 550 feet from the road and asked for the consideration of the Board to approve the special permit. He noted that a monopole facility is only allowed in three zoning districts (Reservoir, I-1, and Planned Business districts) which are all at least one mile from the proposed site, which in terms of RF coverage is lightyears away. There would be significant gaps in coverage if limited to the allowed zoning districts. Thus, a mechanism was put into place that a special permit can be granted, by the Planning Board, to allow a cell tower in any zoning district to the extent that the applicant can prove that there is a significant gap in coverage that cannot be provided without being in one of the other zoning districts. Atty. Dolan expressed that they have proven that there is a lack of coverage in the proposed area and requested that the Board grant the special permit application. Mr. Burke clarified that the Board is also required to make a separate finding within the special permit that the applicant has proven a significant gap in coverage. Ms. Ashman -Collins asked the Board if they feel that the applicant has proven a significant gap in coverage. Mr. Burke referenced submitted comments from the Police and Fire Departments relating to the gap in coverage for emergency services in east Mansfield. Atty. Dolan also referenced submitted application information and maps from cell carriers demonstrating lack in coverage. Ms. Ashman -Collins said that the gap in coverage has been presented and it is very convincing and then allows the Board to move onto other details of the discussion for the special permit. Mr. Penney inquired if the tower could be designed to look like a tree and if there is a benefit to that. Atty. Dolan responded that some look good and some do not. Atty. Dolan added that sometimes the faux branches can interfere, not from an RF perspective, but from a signal blockage perspective. This may cause the antennas to be spread out further along the tower because of physical limitations due to the branches. Mr. Penney referenced other "tree" looking towers which in his opinion is less obtrusive and did not see a benefit to having it look like a tree. Ms. Ashman -Collins expressed that the monopole should work as well as it can. Mr. Burke said it would be better to have one monopole than have another be erected because the first could not accommodate the number of carriers or there is signal interference. Mr. LeCesne referenced comment from Town Counsel. That as a Board, health effects of radio frequency radiation may not be considered in the decision for special permit. He said that the board does have jurisdiction for construction, setbacks, materials and procedures. Atty. Dolan said that in correspondence with Town Counsel, Atty. Kawamoto, that the FCC has exclusive authority for RF emissions and safety. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/27/22 Page 2 of 12 Ms. Friedman asked if the Board could consider the abutter's opinion if the monopole should be dressed as a tree. Ms. Ashman -Collins asked the residents in the audience for a straw poll and there was mixed response for and against adding faux branches. Mr. Cerretani referenced previous discussion of moving the pole back further on the property and asked if doing so would disturb other wetlands. Atty. Dolan stated that there is another section of wetland further behind the proposed compound and that could complicate things to a level that the project could not be approved by DEP or the Conservation Commission. Mr. Corsillo asked if a new equipment would require a near future equipment upgrade for 5G. Atty. Dolan stated that 5G and LTE are commonplace and does not foresee a drop in usage for LTE in the near future. Ryan Monte de Ramos, RF Engineer representing T-Mobile explained that the tower would be built to accommodate current and 5G technology and does see a need to upgrade in the near future. Public Comment Julie Galante of 278 Branch Street asked if there had been any other non-residential locations considered. Atty. Dolan responded that submitted within the application was an alternative sites analysis and explained that the proposed site was deemed to be the most appropriate site for coverage. Mr. Penney noted a prior Branch Street monopole application by another applicant, which was withdrawn. Donna Mattice of 288 Branch Street commented that she is an immediate abutter and that the proposed pole would be visible from her residence and she was able to see the balloon in the test. She asked if the pole could be moved further back on the site. She also asked if it could look like a tree and requested that it be maintained as such. 7:36 p.m. Mr. Roche arrived at the meeting. Ms. Ashman -Collins noted memo comment from Mr. Burke that the final grading plans need to be worked out after the applicant meets with Conservation. The Planning Board should address the special permit to the use, a finding for the gap in coverage and have the applicant submit the complete site plan upon completion of the environmental permitting process. Kelly Bussiere of 295 Branch Street expressed that she understood that the Board cannot take into the consideration the RF radiation total health effects and asked if the Board could consider the impact to resident's property values. Ms. Bussiere also suggested if the Board could consider moving the pole further back. Ms. Ashman -Collins said the Board can consider that request of property value consideration, but that they have to allow the applicant to fill the gap in coverage. She also noted that the due to wetland constraints, the applicant stated that the pole cannot be moved further back. Mr. LeCesne noted that the Board could vote on whether there is a gap in coverage. Prior to submission of the final site plans, the Board could ask whether the setback distance can be increased without approaching too close to the wetland and wait for a final opinion of the distance back. Ms. Ashman -Collins stated that greater setbacks would increase the environmental impact. Atty. Dolan referenced the real estate appraisal report application submission which concluded that there would be no adverse impact on property values with the proposed tower. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/27/22 Page 3 of 12 Ms. Bussiere said the that house across the street from her property was for sale and that the prospective buyers declined to purchase, which is a property value impact. Robert Camp of 14 Lincoln Road concurred with moving the pole back on the property. He also requested if the pole could look like a tree. Atty. Dolan responded that the Town Bylaw requiring a minimal 500-foot setback from residential structure, which the proposal complies with. Atty. Dolan also noted that they will have to present to the DEP as well as Conservation for approval. Mr. Corsillo noted that if the pole is moved further back, the coverage area would meld into existing coverage areas and still leave a gap in the southern portion of the proposed coverage area. Motion to Approve the finding that there is a gap in coverage based on the information provided. (McClanahan-LeCesne) roll call vote Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Ralph Penney — in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Mark Corsillo, Alternate — in favor Beth Ashman -Collins — in favor Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Ms. Ashman -Collins noted that the Board vote for special permit for the use would require the Board to consider all the special permit criteria when deciding the use. Mr. McClanahan expressed his opinion that there is a coverage gap throughout the existing neighborhood. Mr. Burke recommended to go directly to the proposed use. The special permit tests that are contained in the Zoning Bylaw and apply those tests to the request for the use. He noted that the Board may consider whether the monopole looks like a tree and the color of the monopole base. Mr. Burke also added that the hearing should not be continued until the completion of environmental permitting. The applicant will come back the Board at a future meeting to present the site plan after they have determined the project site impacts with the Conservation Commission and/or Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). A request of the Board for the applicant to return with the final site plan should be a condition of the special permit. The final site plan return to the Board would only require a simple majority to accept the site plan and would not be another public hearing. Motion to Grant a special permit for the use with standard conditions and the condition that the applicant return with the complete site plan after going through the environmental permitting process. (McClanahan-LeCesne) Ms. Ashman -Collins noted that the Board would vote individually and based on gap coverage as to whether the benefits outweigh the detriment based on the criteria for consideration listed in Zoning Bylaw Section 230.5.51(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6), which she read for clarification. She also noted that not allowing the gap coverage to be filled is not within the purview of the Board. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/27/22 Page 4 of 12 Mr. Cerretani said that the benefits outweigh the detriments for the project and that the impact on health, safety, convenience, general welfare and amenities for the inhabitants of the Town are a benefit as it will increase coverage in the gap to allow coverage in the Town. He expressed some displeasure and detriment with the effects to the adjoining premises, neighborhood character, and social structure but having the structure on a site that is probably the best location the could be chosen. He did not feel there was any impact relating to vehicular and pedestrian traffic convenience, safety, and adequacy including an assessment of movement within the site. He did not feel that there was a negative or positive impact to the adequacy of municipal facilities and services. He said that the effects on the natural environment would be to have the tower look like a tree structure and requested that the applicant show that on the final site plan. Mr. Cerretani expressed that the project would be a benefit to the Town relating to fiscal impacts and would increase the Town's tax base. Mr. Cerretani voted in favor. Mr. Penney expressed discomfort voting to approve the project in light of objections of the abutters. He further expressed that it does fill a gap in signal coverage need for the general public. He would also like the structure to look like a tree. He said that the overall detriments are not outweighed by the benefits. Mr. Penney voted in favor. Mr. LeCesne referenced a term for locally undesirable land uses. He also referenced in environmental land uses that are uses sometimes not wanted in abutting backyards. A facility of this character lends itself to the convenience of the general public and if it does not go somewhere the Town could be found to have denied at any reasonable location. There were other locations considered and this location does have some detrimental effects, but also has tax, employment, and municipal convenience. He stated that the Board does not have jurisdiction over areas of Federal jurisdiction. In terms of safety for traffic impacts and construction standards and based on the application it appears that it was designed to meet a level of safety and adequacy. There will always be environmental impacts, but that the impact appears to be minimized. Mr. LeCesne said, with some reservation, that the overall benefits outweigh the detriments and is important for the Town moving forward to be able to facilitate communication. Mr. LeCesne voted in favor. Mr. McClanahan expressed that the benefits outweigh the detriments because of the coverage needed in the area. He also expressed concern that some neighbors are upset, but said that he feels this is a better location as it is more hidden and within Mansfield Cable Access property. He said that the signal coverage needs to be adequate and prefers the tree type effect. Mr. McClanahan voted in favor. Ms. Friedman expressed that she has some reluctance, but that the benefits outweigh the detriments. It will have a positive impact on the general welfare and amenities of the Town. She said there is some detriment to the neighbors but stated in her opinion that there is no adverse effect on social structure. She did not feel that there was any impact to vehicular and pedestrian traffic and safety. It does provide a benefit to the municipal community and services with their communication pathways. She said that it does have a negative impact on the natural environment but would like to see if the monopole could be moved back on the property. She was unsure if there would be any fiscal impact to the Town. Ms. Friedman reluctantly voted in favor. She said she would like to have the monopole painted a brown color so that it would blend with the trees and also have it look as tree like as possible. Ms. Friedman voted in favor. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/27/22 Page 5 of 12 Mr. Roche said that it does seem to fill a gap in existing coverage. He felt that it is the best site to fill the coverage. He noted the neighbor's concerns as a detriment. He agreed with having the pole blend with the environment and have it look like a tree. He referenced the FCC guidelines and that as submitted, the project is within the RF radiation that is allowed. He expressed that based on the submission and discussion that the benefits outweigh the detriments to the Town. Mr. Roche voted in favor. Mr. Corsillo agreed that it is regrettable for the impact it may have on the neighbors and potential property values. He expressed that the view of the pole will be as obscured as possible in the proposed location given the setback. The location of the pole would fill the gap in coverage with improvements to all customers and neighboring residents. Additionally, it would improve police and fire communications. Mr. Corsillo said that the benefits outweigh the detriments. Mr. Corsillo voted in favor. Ms. Ashman -Collins voted in favor finding that the benefits outweigh the detriments. Health and safety at the ground level from RF emissions is not an issue for the Planning Board to determine. The general welfare is served by filling the gap in coverage. She expressed concern with the effect of neighborhood character and visual impact and noted that those concerns are on the negative side. Traffic impacts are minimal. There are some benefits to the municipality in terms of the communications facility. She expressed that the impacts on the natural environment have been minimized in the proposal given the wetland constraints required. She noted that there are positive fiscal benefits to the Town, but noted the neighbors' concerns regarding property values are a negative impact. Ms. Ashman -Collins found that the overall benefits of the project to allow the use outweighed the detriments. Ms. Ashman -Collins voted in favor. Mr. Burke suggested that the hearing would remain open until the next Planning Board meeting when the final special permit decision is submitted. The Board asked Mr. Burke to write a positive decision for the next meeting. Arty. Dolan expressed that the hearing could be closed and that at the next meeting the Board could then approve the decision. Mr. Burke said that legally that could be done but prefers to leave the hearing open until the decision is signed in case any changes or clarifications to the proposed permit need to be made. Motion to continue the public hearing until August 10, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. (Penney -Roche) roll call vote Joseph Cerretani — in favor Sharon Friedman — in favor Ralph Penney — in favor Adrian LeCesne — in favor Michael McClanahan — in favor Mark Corsillo, Alternate — in favor Beth Ashman -Collins — in favor Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/27/22 Page 6 of 12 Marco Crugnale of Crugnale Properties and Doug Annino of Annino, Inc. were present for the hearing. Mr. Crugnale presented photos of the existing building site explaining that it is a 2 %2 story wood frame old structure in the B-1. The B-1 zone has no building setbacks. He then presented drawings and plans for the proposed 3 %2 story building consisting of eight (8) residential townhomes, one small retail/office on ground level, and 14 onsite parking spots located under the units. He also noted that the site is challenging with multi easement. Mr. Crugnale explained that the building was designed to fit in with the new structures on Rumford Avenue and One Mansfield. He explained that trash receptacles, electrical and sprinkler system equipment would be in the rear of building near the parking area, as shown on the plan. He pointed out the two resident building entrances, one in the front and one in rear of the building. He expressed his opinion that the benefits of the project far outweigh the detriments and noted that there is written support by the neighbors submitted in the application. Mr. McClanahan inquired about the Millhaus condominium easement and if it abuts this property. Mr. Crugnale confirmed there is an existing Town of Mansfield sewer easement on the property which is shown and described on the site plans. Ms. Ashman -Collins said that the replacement of the existing structure with eight new townhomes is consistent with smart growth at this downtown location. Mr. LeCesne inquired about snow removal and storm water. Mr. Crugnale answered that in a light snow storm the snow could be plowed to the rear of the site. During heavy snow it would be removed from the site. There will be trash cans for the residents that will be stored in the designated area and brought out by a private contractor on trash pickup day, then returned to the designated area. Mr. Annino said that there will be a self-contained on -site sub -surface infiltration system under the driveway for storm water runoff. Mr. Crugnale said that the existing fence between 214 Rumford Avenue and 194 Rumford Avenue will be removed to provide a more open area. Ms. Ashman -Collins asked about the correspondence relating to the Millhaus property line. Mr. Burke summarized that there is an old property plan and deed that shows the rear property line being the high-water mark of the then existing pond. He referenced a 1971 property deed when Millhaus was turned into condominiums and the property line was then shown as a straight line rather than following the outline of what had been the pond that had been filled in many years prior to 1971. He clarified that the Planning Board does not guarantee land title. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/27/22 Page 7 of 12 Mr. Burke expressed his opinion that when the owner of Millhaus commissioned the 1971 site plan depicting condominium location, that site plan appears to set the line for the Millhaus property. Mr. Burke referenced correspondence from a member of the Millhaus Board of Directors stating that the old plan, prior to 1971, should be used. He said that if a property line dispute arises from the two parties, it would be resolved by Land Court, not by the Planning Board. Mr. Burke said that there is zero lot line in the downtown area and noted that Mr. Crugnale mentioned in the presentation that there is eight to ten feet off the back of the building and did not feel there would be an issue. Mr. Crugnale said he is willing to work with Millhaus for resolution. Ms. Ashman -Collins mentioned that Millhaus requested a fence. Mr. Crugnale said that he could put one up by it would be over the easement and would require removal if there is any work done on the easement. Mr. Burke noted that the fence would provide privacy and prevent trespassing. Mr. Crugnale said that some old trees will be removed and new trees planted. Mr. Roche asked how the stormwater runoff would be prevented from going into the garage. Mr. Annino clarified that stormwater would run away from the building. Mr. Roche asked if the sidewalk would be level with the property at the entry area. Mr. Annino said there is existing curbing and that the property would be level with the top of the curbing. Mr. Corsillo noted that the designated trash area is small and how would it accommodate the small retail space and the eight units' trash. Mr. Crugnale said that the trash company has been provided with the size of the trash receptacles for the units, including recycling. The bins would be picked up one to two times per week by a private company. Mr. Annino clarified that the space is about eight feet by sixteen feet and would be covered. Mr. Crugnale said that 13 parking spaces are required for the condo units and the 14`h space would be designated for the retail unit. There is also on street parking. He confirmed that vehicles would enter and exit from a driveway onto Rumford Avenue. Ms. Friedman asked how the trash would be monitored. She also suggested a clarified stormwater Operation and Maintenance (O&M) manual. She also asked if the building is sold, would the O&M manual follow with the sale. Mr. Burke said that conditions written in the special permit remain with the special permit and the conditions transfer to any new owner. Those conditions are enforceable through the Building Inspector as the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Mr. Burke clarified that trash receptacles could not be replaced with a dumpster without modification to the special permit. Mr. Annino said that the trash/recycling receptacles would not be accessible or visible from outside. Ms. Ashman -Collins asked if the back entry and stairwell would be locked. Mr. Crugnale explained that all entries are privately locked with overhead lighting. Mr. Cosillo asked if the shrubs would be enough to block the lights from the neighboring building. Mr. Crugnale explained that the garage ceiling would be acoustical tiles with led light panels directed straight down and the light would not spill out. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/27/22 Page 8 of 12 Mr. Annino said that since Mansfield is a green community, the lights would be motion activated and not on all the time. There will also be building mounted lights shining onto the driveway and LED light bars at the front of the building and at each unit entrance. Mr. LeCesne asked how parking will be designated with 14 parking spots and only eight tenants. Mr. Crugnale said that each tenant could rent one space and a tenant could also pay for an extra spot if they are available. He said that parking is private for the tenants only, not for rail commuters. The retail tenant would have one designated space and their customers could utilize the lot next door or street parking. Ms. Ashman -Collins said that with eight units, one unit would have to be affordable. Mr. Crugnale confirmed and said that at this time he is considering a one-time payment to the Town depending on what the payment would be to buyout the construction of an affordable unit. Ms. Friedman asked why buyout versus keeping an affordable unit since there is a great need for affordable housing. Mr. Crugnale said he is considering that option due to economics of rising prices and interest rates. Mr. Penney said that the unit buyout payment would be applied to the Town's affordable housing fund. Mr. Penney said that he like the design with height transitions with the pitched gable roofing and that the design fits the character of the neighborhood. He asked if all the windows shown on the plan would be actual windows and the square footage of each unit. Mr. Annino confirmed that windows will be actual windows and each unit will be about 1,200 square feet and 3 '/2 stories. Mr. Penney asked if the new building unit density would be common for the neighborhood. Mr. Burke said that it does fit the character and density for the neighborhood. Mr. Roche noted a discrepancy in the plans and elevations. Mr. Annino said that the elevations are correct. Ms. Friedman asked for clarification of the building height. Mr. Annino clarified that the maximum height in the B-1 district is 45 feet to the midline of the rake and the proposed building is 37 feet by Mansfield Zoning Bylaw definition and 42 feet to the ridgeline. Mr. Cerretani asked where the condensing units will be placed. Mr. Annino said they will be in the garage by the stairs and that will be enough ventilation for the condenser units to properly function. Ms. Ashman -Collins asked if there will be garage space for tenants to store bikes. Mr. Annino said there will be space for a hanging bike rack. Mr. Corsillo asked if there will be amenities for electric vehicle charging. Mr. Crugnali confirmed there will be and that the entire building will be electric. Mr. Annino said the exterior finishes will be Hardiplank smooth face white panel siding and black architectural shingle roof. The panel joints will be metal reveal strips to create a shadow line. There will be wood accents at the entry and black awnings at each door entry. Ms. Ashman -Collins acknowledged department head and other comments received and posted. She also noted a Millhaus letter received questioning if there should be a delay until the rear boundary issue is dealt with. Mr. Cerretani read the letter into record. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/27/22 Page 9 of 12 Mr. Burke noted that the proposed building is outside the easement. He further noted that the overhead electric lines will be about 20 to 30 feet from the face of the building. Mr. Crugnale said he has spoken with Mansfield Electric and the service to the building will more likely be serviced by the existing pole and run underground to the new building. Mr. Burke referenced a subsequent document submitted by the applicant's surveyor in response to the Millhaus letter that references the 1971 plan stating that the property line is accurate. He again noted that if there is a dispute, it would be resolved in Land Court not by the Planning Board. Discussion ensued as to whether the proposed building is within the disputed land area. Mr. LeCesne noted that there the challenging party (Millhause) has not submitted a land survey of their own. Public Comment Glen Fortier of 150 Rumford Avenue was present representing Millhaus Condominium Association as a Trustee. He said that he likes the proposed build design and that it fits the neighborhood. He said that the boundary is what is in question and that his understanding is that if there is a deed, that would be the legal document for the boundary. He stated as a trustee, he is representing all the Millhaus Condominium owners. Mr. Penney asked Mr. Crugnale how he proposed to address the concerns of the abutter. Mr. Crugnale said that he is confident that his submitted survey plan correctly depicts the property line. He suggested to Mr. Fortier that Millhaus could hire a registered surveyor who can work together with his surveyor to resolve the issue. If it is determined that the submitted application survey is incorrect, Mr. Crugnale said he would work with the abutter to resolve the issue. Mr. Fortier said there is a significant difference of five feet at the southerly end and eight feet at the northerly end. Mr. Fortier also said they are searching to see if there is a recent survey for the Millhaus property, but as yet they have not hired a surveyor for this discrepancy. Mr. Crugnale read River Hawk's surveyor letter received July 26, 2022 into record regarding property line. The Board determined that a decision could be rendered based on the information submitted and discussed. Mr. Roche suggested that a contingency be added to the decision for if it is determined that the land survey is not correct. Mr. Burke said that it is interesting that there are two different property line plans and that the one in 1971 was done by Millhaus Association depicting a straight line rather than a contouring line where the pond was. Mr. LeCesne expressed his opinion that the contingency not be added to the decision. Motion to approve the special permit application as submitted with construction and maintenance standard conditions. (LeCesne-Penney) Ms. Friedman referenced River Hawk letter for site plan review, item #9 relating to removal and planting of new arborvitae shrubs. She asked if real trees could be used in lieu of shrubs to lessen the impact of building and parking area environmental hot spots. Mr. Crugnale said that the existing trees are on the abutting property and that the abutter requested that the trees be removed and a row of Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/27/22 Page 10 of 12 hedges be planted in their place. He said at the front of the building there will be a bench and similar street trees that the Town has in the area. Ms. Ashman -Collins said that this type of building in the densely developed train station area would actually lower the environment impact through smart growth. Mr. Penney said that he reviewed the project and feels it fits with the character of the neighborhood and appreciated the efforts of the applicant and architect to clearly demonstrate that the benefits outweigh the detriments. Mr. Penney voted in favor of the special permit with standard conditions. Mr. LeCesne said that given the location in the downtown and current use, he felt that the new proposed use, aesthetically, logistically, and tax and economic purposes, is an improvement and did not see any major drawbacks. He said that most of the issues that could arise have been discussed with satisfactory answers. Mr. LeCesne voted in favor. Mr. McClanahan said that the benefits outweigh the detriments due to the fact that the current building is about 100 years old and it is time for it to be removed and modernize the area. He expressed appreciation that the proposed building is smart growth and good for the community and the neighborhood. Mr. McClanahan voted in favor. Ms. Friedman expressed that the benefits outweigh the detriments and agrees that the proposed building fits in the character of the neighborhood. The development will provide vehicle and pedestrian traffic convenience as it is close to the train station. A detriment would be the effects to the natural environment and she would like to see as much greenery as possible. There would be positive fiscal impact to the tax base. Ms. Friedman voted in favor. Mr. Roche expressed that the architectural design and layout is well done and fits into the environment and neighborhood character for the downtown area. He expressed that he is comfortable moving forward given the information presented relating to the disputed property line. He said that the benefits outweigh the detriments for the project. Mr. Roche voted in favor. Mr. Corsillo expressed that he liked the visual transition, for both function and aesthetics, between the two abutting properties and would be a definite improvement. He did not see any detriments and expressed appreciation for proposed green features such as electric vehicle charging. Mr. Corsillo voted in favor. Mr. Cerretani expressed that the project is very well designed and liked the roof transitions. He said that the benefits outweigh the detriments. He expressed that he would like to see the property line issue with the rear abutter resolved. Mr. Cerretani voted in favor. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/27/22 Page 11 of 12 Ms. Ashman -Collins expressed that the benefits outweigh the detriments with positive effects to the neighborhood in character, traffic convenience, safety and general welfare and there are additional housing benefits. There are environmental benefits by providing additional housing in proximity to the train station, and having electric vehicle charging. Ms. Ashman -Collins voted in favor. Mr. Burke said that the Special Permit decision will be drafted for Planning Board review. The Planning Board could sign the decision at the next meeting of August 10, 2022. There were no comments or discussion items. Motion: To adjourn at 9:23 p.m. (McClanahan -Penney) all in favor PASSES Date of Next Planning Board Meeting: August 10, 2022 at 700 p.m. Signature of Clerk Date of Approval - - $/relw2-z Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/27/22 Page 12 of 12