Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 08/15/2023Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes RECEIVED TO'NIN CURKS OFFICE August 15, 2023 1823 OCl 1$ A 9: 0 I Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B and Virtually Using Go ToWebinarPlatform ,, ���:�SFiE �:��)r,(4{11SE i'TS Present: Darlene Pruitt, Chair; Matthew Cummings, Clerk; Matthew List, Ryan Maxwell, Edward Valanzola, Associate, and Michael Reed, Associate Nadine DePillo, Administrative Secretary, Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary, and Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning and Development Absent: Eric Correira Ms. Pruitt, Chair read public notice into the record. Application of Brian and Kelly Harrington for a Variance from Zoning Bylaw Schedule 4.2A, for a proposed side yard setback of 15 feet where 25 feet is required at 2 Ingrid Drive; (Assessor's Map/Parcel 001/185) in the Residential 1 (RI) zone. Motion: To accept the Request to Withdraw (Cummmings/List) Four (4) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES. Application of Daniel & Lynn Cavicchi for a Variance/Finding from Zoning Bylaw Section 230- 4.2A, for a proposed extended front yard porch setback of 13.9 feet where 30 feet is required at 605 South Main Street. (Assessor's Map/Parcel 014/023) in the Residential (R2) zone. Ms. Pruitt, Chair read public notice into the record. Ms. Pruitt, Chair, appointed Michael Reed as a voting member for the public hearing. Mr. David Sharpe, from Sharpe Construction, represents Daniel and Lynn Cavicchi of 605 South Main Street. Mr. Sharpe stated they are seeking relief for a proposed extended front yard porch with a setback of 13.9 feet. Mr. Sharpe also stated that currently the property has water damage and are proposing to put a flat porch over the stairs in order to prevent further water damage. Mr. Sharpe provided documentation of the proposed plans to the Zoning Board Members. Mr. List asked if the steps were being removed and are they building a roof over the existing steps. ZBA Meeting Minutes —August 15, 2023 Mr. Sharpe stated that currently in the front of the property there is granite stone, with no gutter and the roof is bowed causing water to pour down which incurred damage to the door and sills of the property. Mr. Sharpe stated that they are replacing the front door due to the water damage. Mr. Sharpe stated that the property is over 100 years old and needs repair. Mr. Sharpe added that if the proposed plan for the front porch is granted, the front porch will be extended out and the new front roof and gutters will prevent any further damage from occurring in front of the property. Mr. List asked if the steps will extend out any further to the sheet than what is currently there. Mr. Sharpe stated the steps will be extended out approximately 1 foot. Mr. Sharpe also stated to Mr. List that the granite slabs were set in place a few years ago and they need to have enough egress to open the storm door. Ms. Raposa confirmed that the proposed extended front yard porch setback is 13.9 feet and currently the existing front yard porch is 19.5 feet, which would be an extension of a pre-existing nonconformity, which in this case would be considered a finding. Ms. Raposa stated to Mr. Sharpe that in the review of the application, the proposed setback for the front porch indicated that the application is considered to be a finding and the legal ad was sent to the Sun Chronicle as a Variance/Finding. Motion: To approve the application for a Finding from Zoning Bylaw Schedule Section 230 4.2A for the proposed extended front yard porch setback of 13.9 feet where 30 feet is required at 605 South Main Street it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 19.5 feet and that such alteration as presented does not create a new noncompliance with any other requirement of the Town of Mansfield. (Cummings/List) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Application of Tiffany Pham for a Variance from Zoning Bylaw Section 230-1.5, Definition of Lot Width and Schedule 4.2A for Lot Area to construct a single-family residence at 0 Plain Street. (Assessor's Map/Parcel 004/086 & 087) in the Residential (RI) zone. Ms. Pruitt, Chair appointed Edward Valanzola as a voting member for the public hearing. The hearing was opened on June 20, 2023 and continued to July 18, 2023 because the abutters in North Attleborough were not given proper notice. Mr. Craig Cygawnoski, of RIM Engineering was present along with applicants Tiffany Pham, Michael Acciardo and his wife of 0 Plain Street. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that the applicants are looking to build a single- family house. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that in February 1, 2022, the applicants were granted a Variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. ZBA Meeting Minutes —August 15, 2023 Mr. Cygawnoski stated that due to the misunderstanding and language barrier, the approval of the Decision notice that was sent in the mail was never recorded. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that during this extended period, he was able to perform soil testing with the Board of Health for approval of a septic system and then went for a building permit and discovered the Variance was not recorded and considered not valid. Mr. Cygawnoski is seeking a Variance that was previously approved by the Zoning Board Appeals with the new proposed home plans. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that in February 2022 the applicant did not know what style house would be built on the plot of land. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that the present plans display the new house design, and conform to the Zoning Bylaws. Mr. Cygawnoski stated the land has not changed since the 1960's with approximately 18 acres of land which includes Mansfield and North Attleboro with one owner. Mr. Cygawnoski also stated that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts decided to create Route 95 in the 1960's and they did a taking of a majority of the land owned by one individual leaving this piece of land in Mansfield and smaller parcels in North Attleboro on the easterly side of Route 95. Mr. Cygawnoski also stated that at the time of the taking in the 1960's the lot conformed to the Zoning bylaws during that period. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that the current lot size is 31,795 square feet. Mr. Cygawnoski stated during the 1960's the Zoning Board Bylaws required 120 feet for frontage and currently the lot size is over 250 feet on Plain Street and Mansfield did not have a building box or a lot width requirement at that time. Mr. Cygawnoski also explained that the lot remained vacant and no taxes were being paid on the plot of land intern was acquired by the Town of Mansfield. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that several years ago the taxes on the land were not being paid and the land was then placed on auction and the applicant Tiffany Ph'am purchased the property at the Mansfield auction. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that the hardship of the proposed lot is the odd, triangular -shaped which is surrounded by two roads. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that according to the proposed plot plan, there is no side yard setback only front and rear yard setbacks of the property which meets all the current setbacks 40 feet from the street and 40 feet from the rear of the property line. Mr. Cygawnoski also stated that the surrounding lots on Plain Street, Oakridge Avenue, and Brown Avenue are roughly 30,000 square feet and the lots in North Attleboro along the lake are smaller. Ms. Pruitt asked if the only change to the new proposed plan was the style of the home. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that only the style of the home has been changed which meets all the current setbacks. Mr. Cununings asked if the footprint of the prior proposed plans are different from the current proposed plans. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that the prior proposed plan did not have a house design and the current proposed plans indicate the standard 38 x 28-foot-wide home with a two - car garage. Mr. List asked whether the setback was further back on the present plans. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that the prior plans did not show the septic system but the current proposed plans indicate where the septic system will be located. Mr. Valanzola expressed that the request for a Variance should be granted and currently meets all the setbacks according to the Zoning Bylaws and stated the rationale for approving the variance based on the lot shape due to the taking and that a previous Board approved the application but for the lack of recording, they wouldn't need to be here. ZBA Meeting Minutes —August 15, 2023 Motion: To approve the application for a Variance from Zoning Bylaw Schedule Section 230 1- 5, Definition of lot width and Schedule 4.2A for lot area to construct a single-family residence at 0 Plain Street. (Valanzola/List) Five (5) In favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Application of Attorney Jay Talerman for an appeal of a Planning Board Decision from Zoning Bylaw Section 230-5.3 for an Appeal and reversal of Site Plan Approval to permit the construction of a 16,800 square foot elementary school with daycare and 32 parking spaces at 19 Knight Way, (Assessor's Plot 3, Parcel 51) in the Residential 1 (RI) zone. Chair Pruitt appointed Associate Member Michael Reed as a voting member for this hearing. Associate Member, Edward Valanzola, announced his recusal from the hearing, stated that he had represented the original applicants at one point in time. He exited the meeting. Jason Talerman, Esq. from Mead, Talerman & Costa was present for the meeting representing the petitioners/abutters of Knight Way. Mr. Talerman stated that the proposed project of Knight Way has been in discussions and disputes from the prior application with the Planning Board for the larger of two buildings to create a daycare facility or school that will serve two hundred (200) students at the end of Knight Way which is a small cul-de-sac in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Talerman stated that this case has been in Land Court on a different matter regarding declarations of character of easements which is in relation to Zoning. Mr. Talerman stated there were many discussions with the planning board regarding Site Plan review which consisted of a debate in reference to the application in various elements of the Dover Amendment, M.G.L. c. 40A Section 3. Mr. Talerman stated that the Planning Board granted the Site Plan approval and an Appeal under the former Site Plan Approval bylaw which was adopted [sic:amended] in 2022 and remains applicable in relation to the current project by certain actions by the applicant. Mr. Talerman stated that he submitted a memorandum via email earlier in the day to the Board (which was placed in the dropbox folder). Jason Talerman, Esq. submitted and read into evidence the memorandum sent to tine Zoning Board of Appeals via email on August 15, 2023 concerning the proponent's counsel referencing the New Site Plan review bylaw and the timing of appeals. He reviewed the procedural components of the subdivision application and zoning freeze and that under the old bylaw, the appeals venue is the ZBA, which is why they are here now. He further reviewed the type of review the ZBA is able to perform on a Dover Amendment case. While there are broad exemptions, this project, assuming it qualifies for vast Dover protections, does have reasonable regulations for bulk, parking, and setbacks; this project is not adequately setback to handle the parking and loading/unloading of children. He reiterated his concern about inadequate parking and the size of the building is too large and will produce too much activity. He believes that the Dover Amendment does provide an avenue for the ZBA to reasonably regulate and restrictions the project. He noted the Land Court case regarding the easement which is non -binding to this ZBA Meeting Minutes —August 15, 2023 ZBA process. His clients remain concerned about the impact that the project will have on their daily lives; not about the school but its size and that it adds up to 800 vehicle trips per day down the 20' wide street which currently handles exponentially less traffic per day. The 2017 study relied on during the site plan review which is stale and unreliable because it is 6-7 years old; moreover, there are too many deep flaws in the traffic report. The Planning Board should have obtained a peer review. He cited inconsistencies in the codes, timing, and vehicle information and urged the ZBA to require a new traffic study to be submitted. The peer -reviewed traffic report world help the Board with modifications to the project based on significant queuing and traffic conflicts. Attorney Talerman stated that the project has been unclear about how the Dover Amendment is applied. For -Profit Day Care uses can fall under the Dover Amendment and Educational uses are required to be non-profit. The Applicant has applied under both; for the nonprofit venture, they are simply leasing to themselves; for -profit venture leasing to non-profit venture presents a concern about tax evasion. For the for -profit day-care use which is not well defined — they said that they will comply. Attorney Talerman thinks the Board should inquire further. They say they can have some day care and some education and there needs to be some proportion of that. There is no case law on that. You have to be a licensed child care facility, you can be for -profit. They have yet to define exactly how they are going to use this building. Current use and marketing sets them forward as a school. Concerned about use of day care use as a moniker is a ruse. ZBA has the right and authority to enquire further about that and if they are legitimate, the ZBA should condition appropriately. Mr. List expressed concerns about the planning board's decision regarding queuing conditions with the traffic study. Mr. List also asked with a new traffic study what would the conditions consist of. Mr. Talerman stated that the condition would require a management plan for the queuing. Mr. Talerman believes that further analyzing of the traffic study should occur more by limiting the scope of the project and or the time. Mr. Talerman stated that they are confident that when the peer review traffic engineer reviewed the project, they will be able to reach a conclusion that there could be significant queuing well beyond what the proponents traffic engineer suggested regarding Knight Way which he believes with further analyzing and by limiting the scope or time of the project. Mr. Talerman also stated their own peer review traffic engineer reviewed the project and should reach a conclusion that there could be significant queuing well beyond what the proponents traffic engineer suggested regarding Knight Way requiring further conditions that more sharply address the issue. Mr. Talerman stated that in the traffic study the proponents did not present or state any condition that could manage the Zoning enforcement where queuing exceeded the driveway area during a.m. and p.m. homy. Mr. List had concerns of what would be more stringent conditions with the traffic engineer changing the design of the driveway to be longer. Mr. Maxwell stated to Mr. List that in the meeting with the planning board decision that the management plan condition of the traffic issues that they would have to extend the driveway and change the plans. Mr. List stated 5 ZBA Meeting Minutes —August 15, 2023 according to the police report findings regarding the safety issues in queuing the Planning Board would request the proponents to prepare a new revised plan. Mr. Talerman also stated if he were the proponents there would be a condition in the decision that states unilaterally to impose a condition later. Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning and Development, informed Mr. Talerman that the memorandum from today has been added into dropbox for the Zoning Board of Appeals review. Ms. Pruitt, asked Mr. Talerman is there any other relevant information other than the 2017 Traffic engineer report. Mr. Talerman stated that the traffic engineering report is 6 years old and does not comply. According to Mr. Talerman the Planning Board new that the traffic engineering report was not an updated report and chose not to examine it further. Mr. Talerman also stated that they can provide an critique on the 2017 report and also would like a current peer review report. Mr. Talerman also stated that the Town of Mansfield has not done a peer review report of this traffic study. Mr. List asked Mr. Talerman if the peer review report of the traffic study has been completed and was it presented to the planning board? Mr. Talerman reviewed and critiqued extensively the peer review report. Mr. Talerian stated that he would be able to provide the critiqued review of the peer review along with the traffic study report. Mr. Talerman stated his applicants did not have a peer review report through litigation which was not presented to the planning board. Mr. Talerman explained that the Planning Board offered the applicants the opportunity to update the peer review study of the traffic plan and the applicant declined the offer for a new peer review study. Ms. Raposa stated that the difference between the old and the new site plan bylaws are the traffic report. The reasons for using the old bylaws had to do with the traffic study not having enough teeth and not being able to require a new peer review process. Ms. Raposa also stated her statement reflected on her attendance from the prior Knight Way Planning Board hearing and the Planning Board decision speaks for itself. Mr. Talerman stated that the peer review is more general and it includes more significant impacts to area roads without the provisions of the new site plan bylaw. Mr. Talerman farther stated that the Planning Board had concerns about the outdated 2017 traffic study and decided that there was no need for an updated traffic study. Mr. Talerman expressed further that the traffic study is warranted and a legal part of their claim. Mr. List expressed concern regarding the Dover Amendment and queuing conditions with the traffic study. Mr. Talerman stated that he will not discuss anything further in reference to the Dover Amendment. Mr. Talerman farther stated the impact of 800 vehicle trips per day will create a major impact of traffic in the area of Knight Way for the residence. Mark Lanza, the attorney for the applicant FOD, LLC and Owner Emily L. Miller, were present. Attorney Lanza stated that he has been involved in this matter since 2007 though all the litigation and three cases in land court and two cases in the appeals court. ZBA Meeting Minutes —August 15, 2023 Mr. Lanza submitted and read into evidence the Letter sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals via email on August 14, 2023 concerning four issues pertaining to case law and the facts of the matter. Prematurity of the Appeal, Avenue of Appeal, Entitlement of Dover Amendment's Protections and Compliance with Section 230-5.3 of the Bylaws. Mr. Lanza discussed the issues in the Letter that was sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the timing of the Appeal. There will likely be another appeal when a building permit is issued. There had been a suggestion that the hearing be continued but Attorney Lanza believes the appeal should be withdrawn or dismissed. Mr. Lanza reviewed the provisions of the Dover Amendment on non-profit education and daycare. He said that they have been clear that the educational use by an organized non-profit corporation occurs in the existing Makerspace building. That corporation also has the right to use every part of the site except the residential buildings. He noted that Town Counsel has advised the Planning Board that it is a legitimate Dover Amendment -protected use. The proposed main facility, to be built, will primarily be a child care facility but will also have some education going on as is typical in child care facilities. The primary use of the new building will be child care which is a Dover -protected use and it will be operated by a different entity than the non-profit that is operating the educational use in the makerspace building. He reiterated that all of this information including the redacted leases have been reviewed by Town Counsel and the Planning Board. The meeting was paused to correct a wvebcarn technical issue. Mr. Lanza mentioned the eight subject areas relative to the Dover Amendment use. Traffic is not one of the issues; parking is. There is a lot of discussion about what traffic means. He reviewed some of the issues brought up by Attorney Talerman. He stated that the setback requirements are no separate requirements for a daycare or education facility and they have complied and exceeded the requirements as far as bulk is concerned his client exceeded the limitations with so many square feet per land and meets the required setbacks under the Zoning bylaws. Mr. Lanza stated the size of the building is way below the height limit and parking on a 13-acre lot of land. Mr. Lanza stated the entire square footage of the building is 16,800 square feet and there is another building that is 2,000 square feet. There is adequate parking provided and if they need more parking they will build. The Zoning bylaws do not have a specific parking requirement so their engineer did some studies in surrounding towns regarding proposed parking that was greater than the other surrounding towns and the Planning Board reviewed and approved it. Mr. Lanza further stated the other issue that keeps coming up is the impact of the traffic and the potential for queuing during pickup and drop off times. Mr. Lanza also stated that cars are not backing up into the public way this issue has been examined over and over in one of the cases and the Town of Mansfield was not a party in the easement case there were two easement cases and the second was an essential issue that went to a trial before the land court judge and the land court judge heard detailed testimony from the proponents traffic expert and 100% credibility to the proponents traffic expert and virtually no credibility to the testimony from the opponents traffic expert. Mr. Lanza stated that the case went to the Massachusetts Appeals Court and the Appeals Court reviewed the case and affinned the Land Court judge's decision. ZBA Meeting Minutes —August 15, 2023 Mr. Lanza stated that the issue arose when the Planning Board proceedings raised an objection that traffic is not one of things that can be regulated under the Dover Amendment uses. Fmily Miller, Owner of the FOD, LLC provided information requested by a Planning Board member regarding three specific questions regarding the Traffic Study which she had sent off to Jennifer Conley (formerly of WSP). The questions were: (1) on page 6 what is the 0.45 AM rate and how was this number calculated? (2) if the rate was taken from elementary schools that have bussing is this still appropriate for a site that doesn't have bussing? (3) why does Table 1 indicate 129 student trips during peak hour? Ms. Miller then read a memo from Jennifer Conley regarding traffic volume data which is in the Board's public record. She also read the answers to the three questions which provided rationale on why the 2017 traffic study remains current. Mr. Lanza's stated to the Zoning Board of Appeals that they should review the information that supports the Planning Board's decision and close the hearing and deny the appeal. Mr. List asked if they applied for a Building permit. Mr. Lanza stated that they are working on the Building Permit as it consist of multiple professionals in the field, a different set of site plans, time and money. Mr. Maxwell had concerns about whether the Traffic Study was sent in as a Certification to the Zoning Board of Appeals mentioned earlier by Ms. Miller. The back-up information is officially on the record and not just read from an email. Ms. Raposa responded that the current correspondence relating to the traffic study has not been added to the Knight Way file. Ms. Raposa stated that there has been multiple and recent correspondence that will be added to the electronic filing and Priscilla McGill, Administrative Assistant for the Planning Board will add all the necessary documents into evidence for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Raposa also stated that we currently have a vast amount of public comments and attorney Talesman and attorney Lanza both have correspondence that were introduced into evidence and discussed in the hearing which will be added to 19 Knight Way's files and reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Maxwell expressed concern regarding the Planning Board's decision, whether or not they will be making changes to the landscape for future use. Ms. Miller stated that they will have someone come in with a nature-scaping classroom with 13 acres to help them manage the landscape that benefits the students. Public Comments: Ms. Keyes of 11 North White Pine Lane entered into evidence correspondence sent to the Planning Board on August 15, 2023 referencing Subdivision Regulations, Traffic Study Reports, Site Plan Review and the Dover Protection Uses. ZBA Meeting Minutes —August 15, 2023 Ms. Keyes of 11 North White Pine Lane stated that she provided the Planning Board with two emails relating to the Non -Profit entity. Ms. Keyes asked why were the proponents given a land lease instead of a gross lease from Town Counsel. Ms. Keyes further stated that according to the Dover Amendment land owned and leased are two different types of ownerships in real property where you have freehold estates and leasehold estate. Ms. Keyes expressed concerns why the applicant did not apply for the IRS non-profit status and asked further if the applicants will be paying corporate taxes and will the applicants be recognized by the IRS or the State of Massachusetts. Ms. Keyes asked the Zoning Board of Appeals if they had any documentation to know if the IRS non-profit is primary use will be for education other than the Certification of hicorporation from Delaware. Ms. Keyes further stated in her study these types of private schools have financial information that is given to the public. Ms. Keyes further stated that there could be an unrelated business income that could bring more revenue. Ms. Raposa informed Ms. Keyes that currently there is no documentation that purports these claims stated by Ms. Keyes. Ms. Raposa futher stated she isn't sure it's entirely relevant and will provide the Zoning Board of Appeals with the necessary information in relation to Ms. Keyes comments. Ms. Keyes further states that the Dover Amendment is referencing the legal term of nonprofit educational corporations that is in Section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code. Ms. Keyes further stated that based on the early education care program who will be monitoring when the license will be exempt from the licensing board because the EEC does not license private elementary school programs and will be based on a percentage of the children attending. Ms. Keyes further states the proposed child care facility will have a private elementary school program in the big building, and who will be monitoring the facility when the proponents decide to become a private elementary school program than early education care programs, will the Town of Mansfield monitor the state of usage. Ms. Raposa stated that the Zoning Board does not need to respond directly to Ms. Keyes questions because the Zoning Board of Appeals does not have all the documents to review due to the recent correspondence that were admitted during the day of the hearing which would need more time to review and respond. Ms. Raposa stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals secretary will enter Ms. Keyes questions into the record and the Zoning Board of Appeals will be advised accordingly. Ms. Keyes further discussed the Zoning Bylaws and Subdivision Regulations laws. Ms. Keyes asked the Zoning Board of Appeals with the design standards in section 4.1.1.6 which stated "The developments which would increase the number of vehicle trips per day within an existing development more than three hundred shall require two means of access". ZBA Meeting Minutes —August 15, 2023 Ms. Keys further stated that The Planning Board decided on April 26, 2023 that the bases for the traffic study 800 vehicle trips per day down Knight Way was reasonable this is three times more than what the town of Mansfield believe what is reasonable in our subdivision regulation laws what do you think of that? Ms. Keyes further stated that the Town of Mansfield's engineer recommended a new traffic study based on the fact that two years is required in Massachusetts, so our town engineer and the planning board engineer actually recommended a new traffic study. Ms. Raposa stated that the Planning Board did not apply any of the standards found in the subdivision rules and regulations because the application is not for a subdivision and the Town of Mansfield engineer rescinded his recommendation for a new traffic study. Ms. Raposa stated that the Musings are a part of her notes and evolved in her thinking for 19 Knight Way and there was an earlier draft that included the recommendation of the Town Engineer. However, that was based on Massachusetts DOT project standards that the traffic study was out of date but because this project is not a Massachusetts DOT project the Mansfield engineer was unable to come up with a local regulation or standard to require a more current traffic report. Ms. Keyes asked does the engineer required a new traffic study report. Ms. Keyes asked what about the 800 vehicle trips per day is reasonable do you think that is going to set a bad precedent in the town of Mansfield since our subdivision regulation laws believe that 300 vehicles trips per day is reasonable. Ms. Keyes further stated that she understands this is not a subdivision but that is what we think is reasonable. Ms. Pruitt responded to Ms. Keyes that there is no proof that the project is a subdivision. Ms. Pruitt also stated that the Zoning Board will address Ms. Keyes comments after reviewing all the documents and correspondence in the hearing. Ms..Keyes expressed that she does not believe that 800 vehicles down a dead-end street is reasonable Ms. Keyes further expressed concerns regarding the site plan reviews which referenced traffic study report is a municipal concern if the Zoning Board deeins it necessary. Ms. Keyes further discussed that the Mansfield Master Plan which is written in subdivision regulation laws and our Zoning bylaws and if the Musings are no longer valid. Ms. Raposa clarified to Ms. Keyes that the musings are her notes to the Board and not the Planning Board's. Ms. Keyes Ru•ther stated that the musings report does not comply with the Mansfield Master Plan. Ms. Raposa explained that her musing report was an evolving document and was updated. Ms. Raposa stated that the Master Plan cannot subvert state law and the state law exempts these types of uses and the intent of the Master Plan is not to go against state law. Ms. Keyes stated that she submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals a spreadsheet of all child care facilities in the area of the Town of Mansfield and the current project will exceed over 25% and is the largest one in the Town of Mansfield. Ms. Raposa stated that at this hearing the Zoning Board of Appeals does not have to respond to personal responses between Ms. Raposa and comments relating to documents that Ms. Keyes has questions about. Ms. Raposa further stated at this time the Zoning Board members should 10 ZBA Meeting Minutes —August 15, 2023 review all the documents that are available regarding personal continents. Ms. Raposa also stated that there is a lot of documents to review and this is the first hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the proposed project of 19 Knight Way. Ms. Keyes expressed concerns regarding whether or not the police had proposed a reconstruction of the roadway. Ms. Keyes asked if the road will be defined as a secondary roadway with high intensity. Ms. Keys further expressed concern regarding the subdivision regulation law concerning what is perceived to be reasonable regulation laws which are safety laws, stating that the secondary roadway with high intensity should be 28 feet and the roadway is currently 24 feet. Ms. Pruitt stated no comment at this time. Ms. Keyes stated that the old Site Plan approval should be referenced. Ms. Raposa responded that the old Site Plan is referenced in our electronic filing for the Zoning Board members to review. Ms. Keyes comment on past court cases and the Dover Amendment referencing court cases which depicted regulations and any municipal concerns that may impact the neighborhood. Ms. Keyes referenced the Elsworth vs. The Town of Mansfield case stating that the setback for frontage would be a reasonable regulation and that 50 feet of frontage was unreasonable. Ms. Keyes state in the case of Elsworth vs. Town of Mansfield land court judge stated that the traffic can be regulated, and the neighborhood character and the landscaping there is not enough buffer between the neighborhood and the proposed school. Ms. Keyes further explained that there should be a reasonable buffer. Ms. Keyes further stated that there should be the same buffer between a residential zone and industrial zone with a setback of 75 feet with a 15-foot buffer zone. Ms. Keyes explained in the prior emails that were sent to the Planning Board that other towns in the area have traffic studies for projects and no traffic study was done for 19 Knight Way. Ms. Keyes stated that peer review will impose conditions for an expert opinion relating to the traffic study. Ms. Keyes further stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals should exercise the right to a peer reviewer for what is considered an expert opinion on what is best for the town. Nicole Mullen of 3 Knight Way entered into evidence correspondence sent to the Planning Board Department dated August 14, 2023 in relation to EEC licensing of the applicant and traffic concerns regarding 19 Knight Way. Mr. Talerman asked Ms. Raposa when the Town Engineer rescinded his view regarding the traffic study because his last correspondence he received was dated April 5, 2023. This was the last memorandum in the Planning Board's records. Mr. Talerman also stated that The Town Engineer had a two-year limit on the traffic study and provided the DOT standards. Ms. Raposa responded to Mr. Talerman stating that there is a subsequent memorandum as part of the record which is not in the current filing for the Zoning Board of Appeals and will be added to the rest of 19 Knight Ways electronic filing for the Zoning Board of Appeals review. 11 ZBA Meeting Minutes —August 15, 2023 Motion: To continue the Appeal and reversal of Site Plan Approval dated May 2, 2023 keeping comments by counsel open for the next hearing and keeping oral continents from the public closed with the allowance of written comments to be submitted one week prior to the hearing to Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 7:30 p.m. (Cummings/List) Five (5) In favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Motion: To approve the minutes of June 20, 2023 (Cummings/List) Five (5) In favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Motion: To postpone the minutes from the July 18, 2023 meeting to September 19, 2023 (Cummings/List) Five (5) In favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Next Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting: September 19, 2023, at 7:30 p.m. Motion: To adjourn at 9:15 p.m. (Cummings/List) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Signature of Clerk r 12 ZBA Meeting Minutes —August 15, 2023 Date of Approval