Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 04/12/2023° Xown of Mansfield" k e A n Q 4 Planning Bor�; OASA _ Meeting Minutes` = April 12, 2023 Yi �_" j> o ._i(z) MEETING HELD IN PERSON IN MEETING ROOM 3 A/g w AND VIRTUALLY USING GOTOWEBINAR PLATFORM o rn Present: Joseph Cenretani, Chair; Sharon Friedman, Clerk; Michael McClanahan, Acting Chair; Ralph Penney; Adrian LeCesne; Michael Feck; Brendan Roche, Alternate and Mark Corsillo, Alternate 7: 04 Mr. Penney arrived at the meeting. Meeting Minutes — March 22, 2023 Mr. Penney requested a change to pages three and four relating to the building height and building stories. Motion to approve the minutes as submitted and amended (Penney — McClanahan) Four (4) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Two (2) abstained PASSES Attorney Valanzola was present on behalf of applicant. Attorney Valanzola summarized the Board's previous requests pursuant to the initial Site Plan meeting. The Board had previously agreed that two of the lights and maple tree plantings could be eliminated. The Board had also agreed that the fence could be eliminated but that the 32 arborvitaes are required to be planted. Attorney Valanzola referenced the revised application and amended plan, as submitted, and asked that the Board vote favorably. 7: 09 Mr. LeCesne arrived at the meeting. Mr. Cerretani referenced the Board's previous request that the applicant work with Mansfield DPW to obtain a trench permit. Attorney Valanzola confirmed that the applicant will be working with the Planning Board Meeting Minutes 4/12/23 Page 1 of 9 DPW Director to obtain the trench permit and that it is noted on the revised application. Ms. Raposa said that the DPW Director had reviewed the revised plan and had no additional comments. Mr. Penney referenced the advertisement lawn signs that are on the front of the property. The Board requested that Attorney Valanzola speak to his client to request the removal of the lawn signs. Motion to accept and approve the revised application and plan, dated March 24, 2023 with the understanding that the applicant will work with the Town for the right-of-way trench permit. (McClanahan -Friedman) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Mr. Cerretani suggested to Attorney Valanzola that his client plant the arborvitaes in a timely mariner. Rex Lalire of Lalire March Architects was present on behalf of Warby Parker. Mr. Lalire said that the proposed fapade color changes, per the submitted color rendering, are in keeping with Warby Parker standard branding colors. Ms. Raposa said that there is a revision in the Site Plan bylaw specifically referencing that changes to colors are required to have Planning Board approval. Mr. Cerretani expressed concern with the color difference from other tenants. He was not opposed to the color as long as it is in keeping with the overall mall area and does not lead to other tenants requesting color changes. Mr. Feck noted that the original special permit requires Board approval for color changes. Ms. Friedman asked about the illuminated sign referenced on the plan and if it is in keeping with the sign bylaw. Ms. Raposa said it could be added as a condition to conform with the current bylaw. Motion to accept the color modification as submitted with the condition that the illuminated sign shown on the plan is in keeping with the current Bylaw. (McClanahan — Feck) Mr. Lalire explained that the left window under the neighboring tenant will receive opaque glazing so the window will not detract from the adjacent tenant fagade since the Warby Parker's store will extend to that space. The Board did not have any objections with the opaque window. Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Emily Miller, applicant and Attorney Lanza were present. Ms. Miller referenced the previous meeting during which the Board requested proof of non-profit and consideration of a new traffic study. She said that she reached out to the original traffic engineer and submitted a letter from the engineer regarding the initial traffic study. She also submitted proof of the 3/27/23 non-profit registration. Attorney Lanza said that the non-profit registration is a statutory requirement prior to a building permit being issued and does not fall under Board purview. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 4/12/23 Page 2 of 9 Attorney Lanza explained that the land owner has entered into two separate leases. One lease is through a non-profit educational corporation for an education only program in the existing maker space building. The second lease, for a for -profit entity, is for the proposed main building for the daycare operation, which also includes some education. The applicant submitted copies of redacted leases for the record. Attorney Lanza did not object to having the lease agreements as a condition of approval. Attorney Kawamoto, Town Counsel, was present remotely. She confirmed that she had received copies of the two leases, one for a non-profit and the other for a for -profit. She expressed her understanding that there would be a for -profit entity operating a child care facility and a non-profit entity operating as an educational corporation in the educational school. Attorney Kawamoto said that the non-profit entity, registered in Delaware, is acceptable as it is not a requirement to be a Massachusetts entity and it appears to satisfy all the requirements. Ms. Miller clarified that currently, there is orrly a non-profit educational use on the property in the existing maker space building. Mr. Cerretani moved onto the traffic component and noted that Ms. Miller had submitted a document from her traffic expert stating that the 2017 traffic study was similar to the current traffic situation. Mr. LeCesne referenced page six of the study and asked for clarification relating to the morning rate of traffic. Ms. Miller responded that she would reach out to the traffic consultant for clarification. Mr. LeCesne asked for clarification of the study calculations for bus versus non -bus drop-off and pick-up, student drop- off times and ratios, and what the staggering procedure for student pick-up would be. Ms. Miller responded that the school would not have busses, but that it could change in the firture. Ms. Miller referenced a response document that she had submitted which addressed some of the traffic issues. The calculations show that there would not be a delay during drop-off or pick-up. Ms. Miller also noted that there would be assigned times for drop-off and pick-up to avoid back-up. She said that the queuing was addressed by Judge Long, during a previous court case, and that she had submitted documentation for reference. Ms. Miller said that the traffic data was compiled from on -site observations during the winter. 7:41 pm Mr. Corsillo arrived at the meeting. Ms. Miller expressed her opinion that there would most likely not be car queuing back-up problems. She said that she assigns the times of the enrollee drop-off and pick-up and creates the schedule. There are assigned staff members to assist with the drop-off and pick-up. Per the traffic study, it was estimated that for every four cars it would take 30 seconds to drop-off or pick-up. The Board expressed that they will consider the traffic consultant's comment that the 2017 traffic study data would still be current today for the proposed building. Mr. Cerretani expressed concern with neighborhood traffic congestion. He noted that the study calculated that the street could handle 2,000 trips and that this application would not exceed 800 trips. He also referenced the submitted document for queuing and information relating to drop-off and pick-up. He said that those are items for consideration for the decision. Ms. Raposa referenced previous Town Engineer comments that a MassDOT traffic study is only valid for two years, but since this is not a MassDOT project, the two-year time -frame would not apply. Ms. Raposa read Chief Ellsworth's submitted traffic comments into the record relating to traffic mitigation through the use of appropriate signage and parking. Ms. Miller referenced conversations that she had with police and fire as to whether the cul-de-sac island could be removed for emergency access. Both police and fire responded that would not be within their purview to decide. Mr. McClanahan said that Planning Board Meeting Minutes 4/12/23 Page 3 of 9 should be a request through the Select Board. Ms. Miller suggested making the cul-de-sac a "No Parking" zone during school hours. Mr. Corsillo expressed traffic concern relating to the Balcom Street bridge reconstruction project and potential traffic impact to adjacent streets. Mr. McClanahan noted other street options for school access. Mr. Penney asked about the use of the current versus the previous Site Plan bylaw. Attorney Lanza explained the subdivision appeal submission, which places a freeze on the Site Plan bylaw and allows the use of the previous version for this application. He also said that the Dover Amendment takes precedence over the Site Plan bylaw. Attorney Lanza expressed that there are no specific on -street or on -site parking regulations for daycare or educational facilities and as such, the on -street or on -site parking concerns would be a non -issue for this application. Attorney Kawamoto agreed that the Dover Amendment statute does lay out specific items that can be regulated, but that the courts have expanded upon it. She quoted the language "Even uses that are subject to Dover Amendment protection are none the less subject to zoning bylaws that serve legitimate municipal uses. " and said that one of those purposes is lessening congestion on neighboring streets. Specifically, to this project, it would apply to the queuing that could occur and that is something that the Board can review for their decision. Attorney Lanza respectfidly disagreed. Judy Barrett of Barrett Planning Group attended remotely. She expressed that she disagreed with Attorney Lanza and deferred to Attorney Kawamoto relating to traffic and what the Board could consider. Attorney Kawamoto noted that both the old and new Site Plan bylaw are substantially similar. The new Site Plan bylaw is intended to clarify what the Board would be reviewing. Ms. Miller said that in the past she has had as many as 99 students at her Creeden Street location with no queuing issues. Mr. Penney clarified that the Board can only evaluate traffic as it relates to parking and congestion not as a public safety issue. Mr. Cerretani asked if the Board had questions relating to the site regarding landscaping, lighting, and storm water management. Ms. Friedman asked for clarification of the new building use as for -profit versus non-profit. Attorney Lanza answered that the new building will be used primarily as a day care facility operated by the for - profit entity. He also said that in Massachusetts there can be 49% education in a day care primary use facility, but that education cannot be the dominant use for the facility. Ms. Miller said that the current operating hours are 8:00 am to 3:30 pm. The new building student ratio will remain 51%+ of children under the age of seven and by State requirements has to be licensed by the Department of Early Education. There will be a licensed child care center, which is Hands on Montessori School Inc. There will also be a smaller population in the same building for elementary school use. Ms. Friedman noted that the Department of Education regulates the program licensing and expressed that there should be clarification as to the for -profit versus non-profit entities for education. Ms. Miller said that the Department of Education recognizes the use but does not license. The State provides the license for the child care facility. Attorney Kawamoto said that the applicant is proposing to run a child care facility which has to have 51 % or more children under the age of seven. The remaining student population is potentially over that age but all of that is licensed by Early Education. Attorney Lanza agreed. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 4/12/23 Page 4 of 9 Attorney Kawamoto said that as a child care facility it qualifies for protection under the Dover Amendment. Ms. Barrett suggested that the Board review the Site Plan bylaw criteria for their findings, specifically for public safety and handicap accessibility. Mr. Corsillo asked for clarification of the new building room uses. Ms. Miller explained the age groups and the room uses as labeled on the architectural plan. Mr. Cerretani referenced the Fite Department comments which confirmed adequate site access for emergency vehicles. Ms. Miller confirmed that she received the Fire Department turning radius requirements and that the site plan will reflect those requirements. Public Comments Mark LaRochelle of 19 Justin Drive asked, once the building is constructed and owned by a for -profit entity, what would prevent the owner from leasing to a different business entity. Mr. Cerretani said it is zoned residential and that would not be allowed, but that the Dover Amendment allows for education and religion. Mr. LaRochelle asked why the application is not subject to the new Site Plan bylaw. Mr. LeCesne explained the process as previously discussed. Mi•. LaRochelle asked if an IRS Form 990 Part 7 for executive compensation was submitted. Attorney Kawamoto said that would be for a charitable corporation, which does not apply, as this corporation is non-profit not charitable. Ms. Raposa said that there would be further Board assessment of the bylaw when reviewing the findings for decision. Attorney Talerman, representative for the neighbors, agreed with the use of the old Site Plan bylaw as grandfathered because of the pending court appeal. He also suggested that the applicant may want to consider the use of the new bylaw, where if they lose their appeal case, they would have to return to the Board for consideration tinder the new bylaw. In referenced to non-profit versus for -profit relating to the percentage, Attorney Talerman suggested that it should be based on the purpose of the building not percentages. Attorney Talerman referenced his submitted memo relating to the traffic study and did not agree with the traffic counts. He expressed his opinion that there was no study and that there was a footnote by Ms. Connolly in the study that the numbers were determined by data fiom Ms. Miller. He said that there are also new facts there were not previously presented. Attorney Talerman recommended that the Board have a peer review of the traffic study as it is from 2017 and new data has been presented. Nicole Mullen of 3 Knight Way expressed concern with vehicle queuing. She referenced that cars park on the streets near the school waiting to pick-up students. She also did not agree with the applicant's statement that it only takes 15 minutes to process pick-up and drop-off and expressed that she has witnessed the process taking as long as 30 minutes. Ms. Mullen was concerned that it would not be a licensed EEC child care facility. Jill Keyes of 11 North White Pine Lane expressed that the school committee is responsible for private schools and that they should be recommending building permits. She expressed concern that the school committee has been silent on this school. Ms. Keyes referenced enrollment for the school at 32 students for year 2018. She also wanted to clarify that in 2021 when there was an approval for a child care facility, that student enrollment had more students in grade 1-5 than child care enrollment. Ms. Keyes expressed concern whether this project is truly Dover Amendment protected and that the applicant should prove Planning Board Meeting Minutes 4/12/23 Page 5 of 9 non-profit status. Ms. Keyes also referenced the Master Plan relating to harmonious design and appropriate scale. She noted that there are no buildings in that neighborhood that are over 5,000 sf. Ms. Keyes referenced fire code relating to access lanes, or similar, and expressed that emergency access should be required. She also expressed that a 50-foot landscaping frontage buffer would not be sufficient. Gerald Brolin of 7 Claire Avenue referenced the pending court appeal and expressed that the Town should not take action until that court appeal is resolved. He asked whether a length of time could be imposed on the lease and what would happen if the non-profit ceases. He expressed that the traffic study is a legitimate concern. He suggested that a more detailed plan be submitted showing landscaping, the playground area, impervious areas, and stormwater management. He expressed concern with potential neighborhood water pressure loss. Bob Cavanaugh of 15 Justin Drive said that he has a video recording depicting cars that did not stop at the stop sign. He said that the video also depicts that there was a 3 minutes and 15 seconds wait in line for drop-off. Board Comments Mr. Corsillo noted a comment submitted by Attorney Lanza referencing the Board may not lawfully place a limit on enrollees that can attend a daycare facility and school in order to address the traffic and access concerns. But at a previous meeting the applicant, as directed by counsel, agreed to a limit of 200 enrollees. He felt that information was relevant to the bulk and size of the building. Mr. Cerretani suggested that they could condition a cap of 200 students. Attorney Lanza clarified that limits on enrollment cannot be imparted by the Planning Board, but that pursuant to a previous agreement with Judge Long, they had voluntarily established the limit of 200 enrollees. Mr. Corsillo spoke of the redacted lease agreements, most notably the redacted sub -lease portion. He expressed concern that the non-profit could then sub -lease to a for -profit entity. Attorney Lanza read the redacted portion, which is the same for both lease agreements. Assignment subleasing paragraph 13 "The lessee shall not assign a sublet in whole or part any part of the lease premises without the lessor's prior consent at which consent shall not be unreasonably held, notwithstanding such consent the lessee shall remain liable to the lessor for the payment of all rentfor the full performance of the covenants and conditions of this lease. " Attorney Lanza said that paragraph is a standard lease provision. Mr. Corsillo suggested a condition for sublease be added to the decision. Mr. Corsillo asked if there will be a fence added to the vacant house pool area. Ms. Miller said that currently there is a fence around the pool, which is chained and padlocked to prevent access. She said that the house is also secured and will be renovated in the firture. Mr. LeCesne asked if Attorney Lanza or Ms. Miller had a response to Attorney Talerman's comment that the traffic analysis was based on information submitted by Ms. Miller and not by an onsite traffic analysis. Ms. Miller responded that Judge Long required a direct observation. The traffic consultant, WSP, did conduct an onsite observation for the analysis of the 2017 traffic study. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 4/12/23 Page 6 of 9 Ms. Barrett said that the bylaw provides the Board a roadmap, under Section F, for making the findings required to determine whether to grant Site Plan review and she encouraged the Board to follow that process. Attorney Kawamoto reiterated that based on previous conunents, she will look into non-profit versus a charitable corporation and confirm her findings to the Board. Ms. Miller offered Sharon Lincoln's, a non-profit specialist, contact information to Attorney Kawamoto. Ms. Raposa asked if the Board felt that they had sufficient public comments. If so, they could close the public comment portion of the hearing in order to focus on deliberation. Motion to close public comments portion of the hearing. (McClanahan-Corsillo) Jill Keyes of 11 North White Pine Lane reference Town Counsel's request for a land lease. Ms. Keyes questioned if it is a land lease or a rental lease. Attorney Kawamoto replied that having just received the lease agreements, she would need to review them more thoroughly. Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, One (1) abstained PASSES Ms. Raposa expressed that this is a very complicated hearing. She noted the primary elements that stood out to her were the non-profit status, layers of the non-profit status, the zoning freeze discussion, minor differences between the old and new Site Plan bylaw, and the review of the potential findings under the new bylaw relating to traffic and congestion. She said that there should be substantial deliberations on how to ultimately render a decision. She suggested that the deliberation take place at a subsequent meeting in order to gather additional information and consider conditions relating to the discussions at this meeting. Mr. Cerretani asked who oversees the licensing of the daycare. Ms. Miller responded that the State oversees and conducts random site visits for compliance. Mr. Cerretani suggested a condition of approval to include confirmation of State license compliance. Ms. Friedman said that the Board should review the Early Childhood Education licensing and student enrollment numbers to clarify for -profit versus non-profit portions. She suggested that the Board also review, with Town Counsel, the Dover Amendment qualifications. Mr. Feck asked for submission of a school schedule for student drop-off and pick-up for queuing evaluation. Ms. Miller said that at this point she could only supply an estimate since the school is not yet built. She suggested that the Board review the onsite analysis which depicts an actual situation. Mr. Feck noted that the Board could condition the decision to regulate queuing so that vehicles could not spill onto the public way and become an issue. Ms. Friedman suggested that landscaping and student safety should also be considered in the deliberations. Mr. Corsillo noted that although some Board recommendations may not be within their scope for this decision, they would be within the best interest of the Town and neighborhood. It would be a show of good faith to accept the Board's guidance and implement some of the suggestions. Mr. Penney expressed his opinion that the Board's review should be under the old Site Plan bylaw. Ms. Raposa said that the new bylaw is essentially the old bylaw with clarifications. Discussion ensued relating to conditions and pending information for deliberation. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 4/12/23 Page 7 of 9 Ms. Friedman addressed the audience explaining that often a public hearing is continued. She reminded the audience that the public comment portion of the hearing had been closed. The Board will now consider public concerns, review the requested additional information, seek counsel guidance, formulate the conditions, and render a decision based on very narrow parameters of this Site Plan application. Motion to continue the public hearing to April 26, 2023 at 7:30 pm. (McClanahan — Feck) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Recess 9:30 pm Resumed 9:36 pm. Arek Galle of BETA Group was present with Laura Smead of JM Goldson. Ms. Goldson provided an overview of the amendment revisions based on the Board's feedback from the previous meeting. New definitions and parking standards, based on industry standards, with specifies to loading standards were added. A brief discussion ensued to include a specific parking table for off street parking in the TOD district. Ms. Goldson continued srmimarizing items that were added or revised. She also suggested that further discussion take place at the next meeting for the affordable housing component. She then proposed a reorganization of the bylaw since it will be revised and replaced in its entirety. The reorganization of the bylaw would be based on the MBTA Communities model bylaw structure. Ms. Goldson said she would prepare and submit a clean copy of the reorganized bylaw for Board review prior to the next meeting. A review of defining building stories ensued. Mr. Galle recommended adding bylaw definitions specific to stories and building height. Mr. Penney asked if the story height is required to satisfy MBTA requirements. Ms. Goldson said there are no specific requirements for story height. The Board agreed that the overall height of a building would be preferred over specifying story height. Ms. Raposa mentioned that she had an opportunity to meet with the owners of the larger parcels of land within the TOD district. She was able to share a working draft of the bylaw with Mr. Clemmey and Attorney Bobrowski, who then submitted comments as summarized into the meeting presentation for Board review. Attorney Bobrowski was present remotely on behalf of his client, Mr. Clemmey. He summarized their comments relating to mixed use and the 25% requirement, which he felt was high. He expressed concern with the mandatory 25% mixed use incentive prerequisite requirements before an applicant could continue to other incentives. Mr. Galle presented comparative example footprints for ground floor mixed use to achieve 25% and allow for development flexibility for projects that propose more than one building. Board discussion ensued and they concluded that 25% for the mixed -use component is not unreasonable. Mr. Galle suggested adding the 25% mixed use graphics into the bylaw. Bill Clenmiey of 55 Fowler Street reiterated Attorney Bobrowski's concern that the 25% mixed use requirement is high and asked the Board to consider flexibility. Ms. Raposa noted that the Board will review the revised bylaw at the next week's work session. The bylaw would then be finalized for the legal advertisement and public hearing. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 4/12/23 Page 8 of 9 Mr. Cerretani said the Board should make their yearly appointments for representation on the Capital Improvement Committee (CIP) and the Open Space and Recreation Conunittee. Motion to reappoint Ms. Friedman and Mr. Cerretani as CIP representatives. (Penney — McClanahan) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Motion to adjourn at 10:21 p.m. (Penney -McClanahan) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Date of Next Planning Board Meeting Apri126, 2023 at 7: 00 p. m. �- Sharon Friedman, Clerk q. 13. 202S Date of Approval Planning Board Meeting Minutes 4/12/23 Page 9 of 9