Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 09/27/2023:Q"Wa Town of Mansfield $ RECEIVED Planning Board „A TOWN CLERKS OFFICE 1D13 OCI 26 �t1j19 Minutes eptem er 27, 2023 h9!?SFI LO MEETII,G.`1.I(> &`_. ' ON IN MEETING ROOM 3 A/B AND VIRTUALLY USING GOTOWEBINAR PLATFORM Present: Joseph Cerretani, Chair; Sharon Friedman, Clerk; Ralph Penney; Michael McClanahan; Michael Feck; Beth Ashman -Collins; Mark Corsillo, Associate and Sreelatlra Allam, Associate Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: None The Board Chair read the meeting introductory remark. He also stated that there is an open seat for the Planning Board and if anyone is interested to complete the online application. Minutes September 13, 2023 - Motion to approve the minutes as presented (Friedman — Aslunan-Collins) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES No correspondence presented. Ms. Raposa updated the Board on a few items. • There were no new Administrative Site Plan approvals. She attended a departmental Economic Development meeting and noted that she has added summary documents into Dropbox for the Board's review. • The Open Space and Recreation Plan Open House, which will update attendees and solicit ideas, has been set for October 23`d from 5:30prn to 7:30pm in the Public Safety building. The survey is still active and extended through October. • The monthly VHB meeting for TOD progress took place and discussion entailed the development agreement and how to move forward with the land owners, MBTA and the Town for creating the roadway and land swap. • A grant application has been submitted for SRPEDD ADA Self -Evaluation & Transition Plan. • Ms. Raposa was able to speak with both the Mansfield Housing Authority and Mansfield Housing Corporation about two separate potential affordable housing developments. • Once there is a frill Board, the signature page will be completed and sent to Bristol County Registry and Land Court for their files. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/27/23 Page 1 of 7 Definitive Subdivision — 1167 East Street; Jackson Farrar on the application of Darwin & Kathy Moore for a two (2) lot Definitive Subdivision Plan. The project site is owned by Wendell & Suzanne Jackson and is shown on Assessor's Plat 43, Lots 75 & 175 in Residential 1 (R-1) zone. Craig Cygawnoski of RIM Engineering was present with the applicants, Darwin and Kathy Moore. Mr. Moore read a statement into the record summarizing the project and his opinion of the land relating to the exiting electric poles and service to the proposed house. He said that they thought that they would be able to use the existing easement and poles to run power to the new house. Mansfield Electric submitted their continents that the exiting poles are difficult to maintain and would need to be removed with new underground service added for the new house. Mr. Moore expressed that what Mansfield Electric proposed would be a financial burden. Mr. McClanahan noted that the Planning Board does not have jurisdiction over the Mansfield Light Department and recommended that the applicant go before the Light Commissioners to plead their case. Ms. Raposa clarified that the Planning Board could grant the waiver to not require underground utilities, but that would not mean that the Light Department would also grant the waiver. The Subdivision Rules and Regulations do not supersede the Light Department Rules and Regulations. Mr. Cerretani referenced a letter of approval submitted by the Conservation Agent. Ms. Raposa reiterated that the Board can grant waivers pursuant to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, and that another authority (i.e. Mansfield Electric or Board of Health) could grant or deny per their own rules and regulations. She noted that Subdivision Rules and Regulations Section 4.9 requires underground utilities. Hamid Jaffari, Mansfield Electrical Engineer, summarized his submitted memorandum dated 9/26/23 in reference to Mansfield Electric Rules and Regulations Section 406 stating "no single-phase residential dwelling in zoning district R-1, R-2, and R-3 shall be served by a three-phase electric service without approval of the permitting authority and without the express authorization of the Mansfield Municipal Electric Light Department Commission." There is an existing electrical easement for access to the existing poles that service the existing accessory building. The applicant expressed that they are seeking to use the existing pole and run new lines parallel to the exiting three-phase lines and then underground to the new structure. The applicant said they would like to keep the existing three-phase to the accessory building. Discussion ensued relating to easements and pole placement. Mr. Moore did present a portion of a tree branch which was charred due to the existing service lines touching the limb. He said that the lines have not been maintained for years and it has become an issue. Public Comments Mr. Cerretani read the public comment introduction. There were no public comments. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/27/23 Page 2 of 7 Ms. Raposa read the decision conditions and added any new items per the Board discussion. She also referenced a discrepancy in the map/lot number included in the application. The subdivision would be for two parcels; 1167 East Street parcel #043-075 and 1141 East Street parcel #043-175. Ms. Raposa recommended that the Board close the public hearing and approve the two -lot subdivision with the waivers as discussed. Discussion ensued for whether the waivers should be encompassed into one vote or all as separate votes. Mr. Cenetani appointed Mr. Corsillo as voting member for this hearing. Motion: To close the public hearing. (McClanahan — Penney) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Motion: To grant the waivers as listed on the plan by RIM Engineering Co., Inc. finding that the waivers are in the public interest and not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the subdivision control law. (McClanahan —Friedman) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Motion: To impose the conditions as discussed. (McClanahan — Friedman) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Motion: To approve the Definitive Subdivision, Jackson Farm, with corrected addresses as discussed finding that the waivers are in the public interest and not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the subdivision control law because this two -lot subdivision is a unique site that would have been eligible for a residential compound special permit but for the pre-existing former welding shop accessory building. McClanahan — Penney) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Site Plan Modification 280 School Street (Mansfield Crossing); Route 140 School Street LLC, applicant for the modification of the Fresh Market fagade and site modification review per Mansfield Crossing Special Permit and is shown on Assessor's Plat 012, Lots 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 31, and 41 in Industrial 1 (I-1) zone. Ms. Raposa noted that there had been a previously approved Fresh Market special permit/site plan and in the site plan bylaw any modifications for substantial changes to the architecture, including changes to materials, design, and colors will be presented to the Planning Board. Charlie O'Brien and Brooks Steward were present on behalf of WS Development. lvh•. O'Brien sunnnarized The Fresh Market model and what they have to offer including new jobs to the Town. He then reviewed the site plan modifications as presented in the application and plans. The proposed changes include: • Bollard details (dimensions and locations); • Path for the new electrical trench from the transformer and associated concrete pad for the new disconnect switch; • pre -fabricated cart corral system as opposed to one with a concrete curb • new grease trap in front; • shifted the location of the mechanical mezzanine within their space and will now be installing the new mechanical platform equipment load access above the existing truck door in the loading area. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/27/23 Page 3 of 7 Mr. O'Brien presented existing elevation drawings and explained the location of the building on the site. He then presented the proposed elevation drawings explaining the fagade changes and that they also plan to close off two of the existing windows. They have decided to keep the existing building design as it works and is in keeping with the Town's previous requirements. Fresh Market will also be licensed for beer and wine. Mr. Penney asked if the change of use changes the parking requirements. Mr. O'Brien answered that the current parking is sufficient per the bylaw requirements. There was a brief discussion on the previously approved redesign of the entry access from School Street. Brooks Stewart explained that The Fresh Market started in Florida and that there is another local store in Hingham. There were no public continents. Ms. Raposa noted that the date of the previous Planning Board decision for the grocery store was June 1, 2022. She further recommended that the Board approve the modifications. Motion: To approve in accordance with the provisions of Zoning Bylaw § 230-5.3J, I move to approve the site and fagade changes as discussed. (Asturian -Collins - McClanahan) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Ms. Friedman spoke of a potential firearm business use bylaw. She said that after further research, a proposed firearms business use bylaw could address issues of public safety concerns; the potential disruption of peace and quiet and enjoyment of the community. It could maximize protection of public health, safety and welfare. A firearms bylaw could also take care of a number of loopholes with state laws and regulations. It could establish that the firearms business use would not be allowed by right and would be separate from retail sales and services and be established by special permit. The bylaw would establish specific location requirements with distance restrictions to residential properties, schools or daycares. Ms. Friedman also referenced other towns with restrictions to the number of firearm businesses. Discussion ensued for firearm use versus business and licensing through state and local police. Ms. Raposa said she could arrange for conversations with police and for a publicly posted planning board meeting for further discussion. Ms. Raposa said that since coming on board as Town Planner, she has noticed that a number of items from the Master Plan have been implemented or are currently underway. She said that at this time she would like to review the Master Plan strategies and action items with the Board for their feedback. She noted that she will be also doing this process with other departments. For this meeting Ms. Raposa suggested a review of the first ten items only. Feedback is noted as follows: 1. Amend residential zoning to allow more flexible conversion of existing buildings to create smaller and more financially -attainable housing options without increasing building density or Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/27/23 Page 4 of 7 significantly altering the appearance of existing buildings and neighborhoods, including by -right options for accessory dwelling miits. a. Mr. Cerretani said that the age restriction requirement had previously been removed. b. Ms. Ashman -Collins said that older home neighborhoods should allow for multi -units. c. Mr. Feck noted that duplex units are allowed in Residential 2 (R2) zone but should also be included in other areas. Expand areas that zoning allows for new construction of more diverse housing types —especially those for smaller households such as young professionals and older adults, including townhouses, two-family houses, multifamily, and tiny -house developments. a. Ms. Raposa noted that this item is similar to number one. Starter homes with an affordable component should be considered. b. Mr. Cerretani asked if there are neighboring towns that Mansfield could model. c. Ms. Raposa referenced a pocket neighborhood in Easton with smaller cluster homes. Pursue new means of funding for community resources, such as the Community Preservation Act (CPA). a. Ms. Friedman said she would like to explore CPA with an educational component. b. Mr. Feck agreed that it makes sense to fund though the CPA. Strengthen the existing Inclusionary Housing Requirements per Article VI of the Mansfield Zoning Bylaw to require a greater percentage of units be affordable and to reconsider the payment in lieu formula to ensure adequate funding to create affordable units. a. Ms. Raposa suggested the consideration of a consultant for this. b. Ms. Ashman -Collins suggested looking into where the money has been used from prior payments. Discussion ensued for affordable unit build versus payment in lieu of unit. c. Mr. Feck expressed that the Town is just above the required 10% of units and should not fall below that mark. He also suggested for single family build neighborhood, to grant the builder the extra inclusionary lot. Now a unit is guaranteed to be build from the subdivision. The Board agreed with this idea. d. Mr. Corsillo suggested meeting with the Mansfield Housing Corporation for discussion of how the fiords are used and what their thoughts would be for using funds. 5. Amend the zoning bylaw to include affordable housing as a community benefit for purposes of residential density bonuses in the Mansfield Station Overlay District per section 230-5.12I(1) and elsewhere as appropriate. a. Discussed in item number four. 6. Consider amendments to the Cluster Residential Special Permit and Residential Compounds zoning provisions including increasing allowed density to permit and promote cottage style housing development or other alternative development concepts such as cohousing. a. This falls under number one and two. 7. Consider creating a local first-time homebuyer assistance program to convert existing homes to affordable, deed -restricted homes. a. Ms. Raposa will be joining the Greater Attleboro/Taunton Home Consortium (GATIIC) to aid in fimding sources. She hopes that they will have additional funding sources that assist with creating first time home owner programs. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/27/23 Page 5 of 7 Ms. Raposa ended at number seven and said they would continue with item number 8 at the next meeting. Ms. Raposa briefly summarized the purpose and content of the rules and regulations. She also said that it is a good reminder to Board members as to what their roles and responsibilities are. The Planning Board adopts these Site Plan Approval and Special Permit Rules and Regulations as authorized by Sections 230- 5_3 and 5_5 of the Mansfield Zoning Bylaw. The membership of the Board shall consist of seven (7) members and two (2) associate members, with staggered terms, appointed by the Select Board. Ms. Raposa continued to review each section as written in the draft rules and regulations as follows: • Standards of Conduct for Board Members; • Attendance - There was further discussion on Board member attendance procedures and requirements with remote participation; • Conflict of Interest; • Officers; • Duties of Officers; • Planning Board Appointments — Ms. Raposa reviewed current appointments; • Regular Meetings; • Special Meetings. a n ' , t e • . Ms. Raposa referenced technical differences between the previous town planner and herself in working with the town engineer. Since the town engineer has a lot on his plate doing work for the Town, Ms. Raposa would like to have the Planning Board be agreeable to the use of a peer review company as a conduit between the Town and applicant; the cost of which would be paid for by the applicant. Currently the Town engineer is overburdened with minute details of the plan review. She said that part of the process would be that she would review and work with an applicant to determine if a peer review is needed. She referenced that in her prior experience the peer reviewer was on call. She then described the process of hiring, bidding, review, and their comments of review. She said that any major project would be submitted to a peer reviewer and minor projects submitted to the town engineer. Ms. Raposa would make the determination if a peer review would be needed for each application. She would provide a Request for Quote (RFQ) to the Planning Board for review and approval. Ms. Raposa said that she would have farther discussion with the Town Manager for process and feedback. Ms. Raposa proposed hiring an on -call peer reviewer that would be the go -to that can work with the town engineer and the Planning Board on reviews. There would be a shortlist of three firms followed by interviews and then final selection of a firm. Ms. Raposa then summarized the consultant review fee process. The general process is as follows: a. Upon receipt of a complete application package, the Planning Director will forward the project description and application to at least three qualified consultants for scope and estimate pursuant to MGL Chapter 30B; b. The Planning Director shall review the scopes and estimates and select the most qualified respondent for project review; c. The applicant shall pay such fees to the Town of Mansfield and such fees shall be deposited in a special interest -bearing account with the Town; Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/27/23 Page 6 of 7 d. If additional funds are needed in the fee account, the Planning Board will obtain an estimate from the consultant as to the amount necessary for the completion of the remaining review(s). Said amount is to be paid by the Applicant prior to any further work being done by the consultant; e. The Plamring Director shall supply the Applicant with all documents related to the procurement; including but not limited to the project description, scopes, and estimates, and established billing rates for consulting services. Ms. Raposa also briefly explained expenditure of fees, excess fees, failure to pay fee, administrative appeals, and reports, all of which will be written into the final documents for peer review. Mr. Corsillo, in a follow-up to a discussion with Ms. McGill, suggested the use of OneDrive which is installed on all member Wads. The program would make it easier to share meeting materials and could slowly be rolled out for Board use. The Board was agreeable to this option. Mr. Penney referenced the Bylaw section special permits 230-5.5g, and noted that the language is outdated and should be either removed or updated. Ms. Raposa said that she will add it to future zoning bylaw amendments. Mr. Cerretani referenced the Town Newsletter and said that if any member has an item to add, the item should be passed along to either him or Ms. Raposa. Motion to adjourn at 9:32 p.m. (McClanahan - Feck) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Date of Next Planning Board Alleeting October 11, 2023 at 7; 00 p. nr. � I r Sharon Friedman, Clerk Date of Approval Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/27/23 Page 7 of 7