Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 05/24/2023A $A'f,OAS AO`54p.. Meeting Minutes Ma 24 2023 Town of Mansfield R 10EM Board Tolp4 CLERKS OFFICE 1013 JUL - l A O� 19 y MANSFIELD MEETING HELD IN PERSON IN MEETING R&AVUSETTS AND VIRTUALLY USING GOTOWEBINAR PLATFORM Present: Joseph Cerretani, Chair; Sharon Friedman, Clerk; Ralph Penney; Adrian LeCesne and Mark Corsillo, Associate Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Michael McClanahan and Michael Feck Mr. Cerretani noted that per Mansfield Charter, Associate Members can be appointed to fill in for absent Board Members. Mr. Cerretani then appointed Mr. Corsillo as voting member for this meeting. Robert Forbes of Zenith Consulting Engineers was present on behalf of the owner and applicant. Mr. Forbes explained that the building is existing on the corner of Chauncy St. and Forbes Blvd. and is currently used as a medical office. He displayed a site plan depicting the paved parking area and the building placed on the lot at about 45 degrees to the road. He described the current conditions for entrances/exits and said that there is no existing travel route around the building, which is an issue. Mr. Forbes said that there is a new tenant, pediatric group, moving into the building in July. They are proposing to add a new entrance at the front of the building for that tenant. There are no other proposed changes to the exterior of the building. Some of the existing parking spaces will be converted into handicap accessible and mom with stroller spaces for the new tenant. The new entrance will also be handicap accessible. He described that the pavement at the oncology office entrance is restricted and that they are proposing a 24-foot-wide driveway with added pavement to navigate around the building. With all proposed changes there would be a total of 200 parking spaces, which includes 10 handicap spaces and meets Town requirements. Mr. Forbes referenced a discussion he had with the Town Engineer. The Town engineer expressed concern of increased run-off due to increase of pavement area. Mr. Forbes said that a new catch basin is proposed with an infiltration system to collect run-off. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 5/24/23 Page 1 of 8 Mr. Cerretani agreed that the site and building are awkward. Mr. Forbes noted that the main entrance will also be redesigned for handicap accessibility. Mr. Corsillo asked if existing plantings would be removed. Mr. Forbes responded that there would some removed but would replace with new as required by the Board. Mr. Forbes referenced areas that could be used for added landscaping. Mr. Corsillo said that there does not appear to be negative traffic impact by the proposed changes. There are no required changes to the parking based on the new tenant requirements. Ms. Raposa said that the Town department comments submitted have been satisfactorily addressed. She noted that the Town Engineer had provided a number of comments after the intial review meeting, which the applicant addressed. There were also a few small additional typographical edits submitted by the applicant. Ms. Raposa recommended that the Board approve the application. She felt that a landscaping sketch would not be necessary based on original building not being subject to Site Plan approval when it was built. Since the nature of the application request is modest, Ms. Raposa suggested that a landscaping proposal with a tree replacement of 2:1 ratio would be reasonable. Mr. Penney said that the Board encourages trees close to the building be removed and recommend that the new plantings be added closer to the street. Public Comment Philip Hourigan of 475 Chauncy Street apprised the Board of the history of the building and that it has not always been a medical facility. He asked if the changes to pavement and parking were requested by the new tenant. Mr. Forbes said that the existing oncology tenant and owner had made the request because there is no current flow around the building. He also said that per his discussion with the Fire Dept. they needed to show that the largest fire apparatus could move around the building. Mr. Forbes also explained that they would be adding a retaining wall to accommodate the wider paved area. Mr. Hourigan asked if the signs would be replaced. Mr. Forbes responded that they intend to change the signs, which would meet current Bylaw sign regulations. Mr. Hourigan expressed concern that if new signs were lighted, the light would be an issue at his home. Mr. Cerretani suggested adding a lighting condition. W. Hourigan asked if the existing flag pole would be removed. Mr. Forbes replied that it will be removed, but was uncertain if it would be replaced in a different location. Mr. Hourigan asked if the sidewalk would be removed. Mr. Forbes said that the sidewalks will remain. Board Comment Ms. Friedman said that she likes the proposed plan and would like to have conditions included for tree planting. Motion to approve the Site Plan modifications as presented with suggested conditions as discussed. (Friedman-Corsillo). Four (4) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Planning Board Meeting Minutes 5/24/23 Page 2 of 8 ...-,;a� �. �' -�' -yam r .,,.,�,`""y.'"�.", - �,.�, �i .,� u„„, 'W-„:. ✓a3'.,=' � '"-z, �,,r S, r.%-:�'-: Craig Cygawnoski of RIM Engineering was present on behalf of the owner/applicant. Mr. Cygawnoski explained that the owner is seeking to divide the existing site into two lots. Lot 1 (6.29 acres) would include the existing house and outbuildings. There is roughly 500 feet of frontage in the R-2 Residential Zone and conforms to the minimum set -back requirements. Lot 2 (23.21 acres) is not buildable and is to be deeded to the Natural Resource Trust (NRT) for conservation land. Mr. LeCesne arrived at 7: 37pm There is an existing sewer easement that runs along the property line and that would be the access for the NRT to reach the rear property. The rear parcel backs up to the Town owned land where animal control is located. Ms. Raposa said that the proposed Form A plan is an approvable plan compliant with the provision of MGL Ch. 41 Section 8 1 L and recommended endorsement. There were no Board comments. Motion to approve the Form A plan as presented. (Penney — Friedman) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Craig Cygawnoski of RIM Engineering was present on behalf of the owners/applicants. Mr. Cygawnoski explained that the property is in a cluster development. The applicant is proposing to change the common property line between lots 4 and 5 of the Closter Subdivision to meet the Town requirements and allow for fixture construction of a porch at 19 Stanley Circle. The frontage will not change and the lot area meets requirements. Ms. Raposa said that the proposed Form A plan is an approvable plan compliant with the provision of MGL Ch. 41 Section 81L and recommended endorsement. There were no Board comments. Motion to approve the Form A plan as presented. (Penney — Friedman) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Ms. Raposa prefaced the hearing noting that the hearing was a continuation of the Public Hearing that was opened on May 10, 2023 and that it was to be the final session. The expectation was to review the last meeting discussion comments and review and comments received after the previous session. The Board would then vote the final language and recommendation for Annual Town Meeting. Arek Galle of BETA Inc., Laura Smead of JM Goldson and Sarah Raposa, Planner were presenters for the public hearing Zoning Bylaw. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 5/24/23 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Galle began the presentation with a brief update of the previous meeting and referenced the warrant article and what the Board has been working on. He referenced that the overlay map boundary has not changed but that it indicates the sub districts A & B. Ms. Raposa referenced the revised version of the Bylaw as submitted for the hearing. Discussion for this hearing would be for the recent changes per the submission. The proposed Article #13 is meant to delete and replace the existing Bylaw. Mr. Cerretani noted the previous public sessions and Board discussions, taking public continents into consideration, which has lead up to this final session. Ms. Smead reviewed the changes from the last meeting. She referenced changes to the zoning map, definitions cross-referenced and corrected, and the change to restaurant/food truck, wireless, services, and a few other items for by -right use. The Use Table had also been cross-refenced with other sections of the bylaw. Changes were made per continents received and were submitted in the redline version of the draft bylaw. There were changes to the incentives, per comments, to allow for a reduction in the overall percentage of commercial requirements but not lower than 15%. Language was added for a development agreement. Changes were made to the reference of storm water based on Board comments. A conservation restriction was added to the language for land donation. hicentive 3 was changed to articulate a tie into market value of the new proposed dwelling units. A revolving fiord would need to be created for incentive monetary donations to be used by the Town. Revisions were made to the electric vehicle charging requirements. Additional formatting and typographical changes were made. The table and use chart will have a footnote for TOD referencing the new bylaw. Nh•. LeCesne asked about the process for land donation or swap. Ms. Raposa replied that it is not definitive at this point and could be more defined after Town Meeting. There would need to be a land development agreement in place. She also noted that a land swap would require Select Board and subsequent Town Meeting approval and prior to Special Permit. Mr. Corsillo noted that if Article 13 is passed, it does not automatically approve the new road and that it would require approval at future Town Meetings. Mr. Cerretani reiterated that this is a very complex situation with a lot of moving parts, with this proposed bylaw as the first component. Mr. Galle noted that in order for the parkway to exist, the land assembly is important to the MassDOT portion, as well additional overlay districts. Ms. Raposa referenced a map depicting the conservation restricted area. Discussion ensued for use of land and excluded portions based on the depicted map. Mr. Corsillo noted that the incentive proponent still requires Planning Board approval through the Special Permit process. He also noted that the by -right zoning proposed, is only increasing from 15% to 30%. Mr. Cerretani said that the goal is to create a vibrant community that connects to the downtown area. Mr. Corsillo said that this will also allow development in the area that now exists as 15 acres of parking lots. Mr. Penney asked if there is still a goal to have an elevated pedestrian access across the tracks. Mr. Galle said that would still be the goal for revitalization of the district which would happen over time. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 5/24/23 Page 4 of 8 Ms. Raposa referenced Incentive 3 with discussion of what the incentive was meant to do to capture intent based on language including establislunent of a revolving account for incentive purposes. This incentive would also allow the 55 units to increase to 60 units. This is only allowed after the prequalification component and other incentives all based on Special Permit approval by the Planning Board. Discussion ensued relating to market value and inflation index and language for monetary donation percentage. Ms. Raposa next moved to Incentive 2 for discussion. Mr. Galle said that the bulleted prescriptive list was removed and referred back to low impact development standards. The language was also cleaned up to reflect commitment to a collaborative approach. Public Comments Kevin McNatt of 150 Rumford Avenue referenced the TOD map relating to the 45-foot and 60-foot height allowed areas, which abut residential areas around the TOD. He expressed concern that the Millhaus is not getting the same lower height consideration that other residential areas have. He referenced Town land and the fature parking garage that could be 60 feet in height, which could be built up to the MBTA property. Mr. Corsillo noted that if a garage is proposed, it has to be submitted for a Town Meeting for Town approval. Mr. McNatt further expressed his concern for noise from the 60-foot height buildings which could deflect noise to the Millhaus residences. Ms. Friedman referenced the MBTA zoning, dictated by the State and that most of the construction has to be by right. The proposed bylaw incentives have been developed to initiate the special permit process. Mr. McNatt questioned that if the garage were to be built on Town owned land would it follows the special permit process or would it be by right. Discussion ensued regarding the approval process. Ms. Smead reference a footnote on the Table of Dimensional Standards that references an additional setback to development abutting a residential zone in Subdistrict B. She suggested that it be changed to include that in general a setback abutting a residential zone may be further increased if finding that it is not compatible with the character of any nearby residential buildings. Mr. Penney noted that height did not appear to be the issue, but that noise is the issue. Mr. Galle noted that the right of way at the tracks is 75 feet wide, creating a corridor buffer behind the Millhaus, which cannot be built upon. The MBTA has a 30-foot zone of influence that runs parallel to their right of way. A footnote could be added to reference the zone of influence and acoustic design objectives could also be added within the 30-foot zone. Mr. Galle also noted that several geometric and physical land constraints make it difficult for lower/wider buildings and that the height may be best used to viably redevelop those areas. Ms. Raposa suggested that language could be added to the Building Design Standards so that if this were to come up in a by right project, language exists and could be a topic of discussion for Site Plan Approval. Discussion continued for language consideration. Kathy Deely of 48 Draper Avenue referenced the map delineation of area Districts A and B. She noted area B is where the current wooded area exists, where the new roadway is proposed. The other portion of B is past the wetlands. She noted that the area abutting zone A is at the Draper Avenue neighborhood and would have the potential for higher building height. She asked if zone B could also be at the Draper Avenue neighborhood so that lower height would be near the neighborhoods. Mr. Cerretani noted that they do not know how the roadway will be designed and that it is currently in the design phase. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 5/24/23 Page 5 of 8 Ms. Deely noted a previous discussion meeting and that the proposed off ramp from the proposed parkway was directed into the neighborhood and asked how that could be changed. Ms. Raposa said that the Town Manager and DPW Director are leading the efforts associated with the new roadway. Ms. Deely asked about the current zone at 15 units per acre with an increase to 30 units per acre. Mr. Galle said that the current MBTA by right requirements is 15 units and that the incentives would allow for higher density. Ms. Smead also noted that the Town has an MBTA 1,392-unit capacity requirement. Ms. Raposa also said that the current TOD overlay location is intended to have the larger density nearer to the train station and that there will be additional future TOD overlay proposed to reach the total capacity requirements. Ms. Deely expressed that although there has been much thought and consideration for this overlay, she felt that some of the other neighborhoods have not been taken into consideration relating to traffic and number of units allowed. Mr. Cerretani noted that developers will go for the highest and best use. Ms. Deely referenced existing development which have vacant commercial spaces. Mr. Corsillo said that was specifically addressed during the process for the bylaw amendment to encourage flexible retail spaces, live -work space, and allowing for flexibility to the 25% retail requirements specifically to accommodate larger spaces such as a restaurant or grocery store. Ms. Raposa referenced that the Housing Production Plan ties into these strategies. Ms. Deely asked about the land donation/swap to which Mr. LeCesne replied that it could be for purposes of the proposed roadway or land assembly as previously discussed. Ms. Deely asked what the repercussion would be if the proposed amendment does not pass at Town Meeting. Ms. Raposa replied that the original bylaws remains in place and a new solution would need to be developed in order for the Town to be compliant with MBTA requirements to demonstrate that the Town can meet the 1,392-unit requirement. Mi•. Cerretani explained that this proposed amendment is phase one and phase two would address outer lying areas of land for compliance. Ms. Raposa noted that grant money could be lost if the Town is not compliant and that a recent memorandum from the Attorney General's office suggests harsher penalties for non-compliance. Brendan Roche of 533 Elm Street thanked the Board for all the work they have done. He expressed his hope to continue to build on the success of the proposal and hoped that is passes as Town Meeting. Ms. Raposa read stakeholder comments relating to the percentage of first floor area for parking and relating to a potential 15% loss of space. Mr. Cerretani noted that including parking, space could be used for mail boxes, package delivery, storage, entrances, and elevator rooms. Language was previously added for discretion of the board at the special permit process. Discussion ensued for clarification of discretion and percentage language. 9:10 pm Michael Feck entered the meeting remotely. Mr. Feck spoke of an issue with the 50% flex commercial space consolidated into one building as it creates very narrow commercial space which limits the developers. He expressed that there needs to be a balance so that commercial spaces are not narrow as that creates development issues. Mr. Feck noted that design should be plan specific if a developer chose to move percentage from one building to another in a development process to meet the requirements. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 5/24/23 Page 6 of 8 Mr. LeCesne suggested language to include `Board discretion" which would imply that changes could be made to the percentage allowed during the developer application process. Mr. Galle suggested that allowance would be site specific and a design conversation to the quality of space to allow for flexibility. 9: 30 pni Mr. Feck left the meeting. Ms. Raposa read recommendations by another stakeholder relating to prequalification requirements to allow a part of Incentive 2 to be moved to Incentive 1 specific to property using a conservation approach. Mr. Corsillo suggested that the language not change and allow it to be presented as a waiver. Ms. Raposa continued with another public landowner suggested changes as presented to the Board in writing prior to the meeting. There were three uses referenced; personal services shop, auto service station, and car wash, not currently in the Use Table and suggested they be added. Ms. Raposa suggested that personal service shop is in keeping with the mixed use but the other two would not be desired uses. The Board was agreeable to personal services. Ms. Raposa also noted the inclusion of Quick Service food for smoothie shops and the like. Discussion ensued for Food Trucks and the Board agreed to keep the language and definition as it is written. Discussion continued for Food Drive Thru. The Board agreed to strike the Drive Thru component. They fiuther discussed options for fast food versus fast casual. The Board majority was in favor of keeping the option of fast food. The next discussion topic was for kennels and dog daycare versus services for pets. Mr. Galle suggested that there may some parcels suited for kennel purposes. Possibly more in the outlying areas than in the downtown area. The Board agreed to keep the language as currently written, but suggested pets not just dogs. Ms. Raposa read the land owner suggestion that industrial uses were eliminated. She clarified that it was not eliminated but it can be allowed in the underlying zone. She next referenced their comments for Development Agreement and said that a definition has been added. The landowner inquired about the majority vote to pass at Town Meeting. Ms. Raposa confirmed that Town Counsel has confirmed that it would be a simple majority vote at Town Meeting. Ms. Raposa recommended to approve the language as discussed and for recommendation for Town Meeting Motion to approve in accordance with the provisions of Mass General Laws Chapter 40A Section 5, I make a motion to approve the language as discussed and recommend its approval at Annual Town Meeting (Penney -Friedman) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES 10:12 pm Mr. Penney left the meeting Ms. Raposa referenced the items for discussion at the next meeting. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 5/24/23 Page 7 of 8 Meeting Minutes March 29, 2023 Motion to approve the minutes as presented (Corsillo-LeCesne) Four (4) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Motion to approve the minutes as presented (LeCesne-Friedman) Four (4) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Meeting Minutes May 10, 2023 — tabled to next meeting Ms. Friedman inquired as to the status of 22 Pleasant Street special permit approval as no work has been done. Ms. Raposa said that she will check into it. Motion to adjourn at 10:21 p.m. (Corsillo-Friedman) Four (4) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Date of Next Planning Board Meeting June 14, 2023 at 7: 00 p. in. Sharon Friedman, Jerk Date of Approval Planning Board Meeting Minutes 5/24/23 Page 8 of 8