The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOA 11/29/2023QpE°W°''>� Town of Mansfield A Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 29, 2023 Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B and Virtually Using GoToWebinar Platform CD Present: Joseph Cerretani, Chair; Sharon Friedman, Clerk; Michael McClanahan, c Ralph Penney; Beth Ashman -Collins; Mark Corsillo -` -, C, Sreelatha Allam, Associate, and James Turnbull, Associate -J 71 rn �o Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development �1 i Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary -A U, Absent: Michael Feck lvh•. Cerretani read the meeting's introductory remark. He then welcomed new Board member, James Turnbull, and congratulated Mr. Corsillo and Ms. Allam on their reappointments. Mr. Cerretani then appointed Ms. Allam as a voting member for the meeting. Ms. Raposa noted that the next meeting will be on December 131h. The Board will be conducting interviews for the Planning Peer Engineer and the Planning Consultant at that meeting. She will submit the proposal for Board review before the meeting. Regarding the application of Amy and Michael Feck (applicant/owners) seeking approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for a repetitive petition for a variance at 668 Elm Street based on specific and material changes made from the conditions upon which the previous unfavorable action was made. The statute requires that the Planning Board consent to the re -application before the ZBA's public hearing (scheduled for the 21s1 of November) CONTINUED to the 19t1i ofDeeeniber. The project site is shown on Assessor's Map 15, Lot 3 within the Residential R-I zone. Mr. Cerretani said that the Board would not be voting to approve the project. The Board's role is to determine if there are substantial changes to warrant a return to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) to resubmit their application as a Repetitive Petition. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11/29/23 Page 1 of 4 Ms. Raposa also reiterated that the statute requires that the Planning Board consent to the re- application before the ZBA's public hearing (scheduled for December 19°i). The statute does not provide a set of standards for the Board, but based on the advice of Town Counsel, the Board can take into consideration those specific and material changes as part of the deliberation. Ultimately the Board consents to the re -application and the ZBA makes the specific and material changes findings as part of their process for their deliberation of the new application. Attorney Daniel De Abreu of Taunton, MA was present on behalf of the petitioners. He explained that the petitioners had applied for a variance from the ZBA which was denied. To go back to the ZBA the petitioner needs to have consent from the Planning Board. The ZBA would then also have to find that there were specific and material changes from the original petition that was denied. Otherwise, there would be a two-year waiting period to return to the ZBA. Attorney De Abreu suggested that there is case law that says that changes to the petition do not need to be radical as to make it a completely different petition. If it was completely different, it would be submitted to the ZBA as a new petition and this process would not be required. Attorney De Abreu explained that the changes to this petition are to address the ZBA concerns when it was previously denied. The proposed new lot frontage has been altered. On the previous submission, the frontage was less than 19 feet. The new petition would have a proposed lot frontage of 40 feet, which reduces the frontage of the existing house lot. Increasing the proposed lot frontage then creates a ZBA variance request for a side lot setback from the existing house. The revised plan also shows the wetland and the riparian buffer zones which would relate to the shape of the lot and the topography. Attorney De Abreu said that the petitioner hopes that the changes will address some of the concerns that the ZBA previously had. Ms. Ashman -Collins asked which specific variances were previously requested of the ZBA to compare with what the petitioner is now asking for. Ms. Raposa said that the original variance request was for relief from the lot frontage requirement and lot width; they do have more lot area than required. The lot with an existing house does not meet the requirements for a residential compound. The existing home is considered historic. Attorney De Abreu reiterated that the petitioner is seeking Planning Board consent for the opportunity to go back to the ZBA to present their changes and for the ZBA to then determine whether they consider the revised petition substantive to warrant further review. Ms. Aslunan-Collins noted that the petitioner still does not have the required frontage for both lots, which they did not previously. But there is enough frontage for a road. Ms. Raposa said that one of the other changes that would be presented to the ZBA is that the petitioner did not previously speak about the resource areas in his presentation. She noted that one of the nuances in Section 16 is that it is not just the specific and material changes to the application but also how the ZBA came to make their decision. Attorney De Abreu said that if the new petition addresses the reasons it was previously denied then that could certainly be taken into consideration by the Planning Board in granting consent. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11/29/23 Page 2 of 4 Ms. Friedman expressed her understanding of substantial frontage changes, but then the petitioner would be asking for side setback relief Attorney De Abreu agreed that the change in frontage does create the new relief request. The Board then reviewed the changes shown on the new plan submission. Mr. Penney inquired if there would be adequate vehicle access to the proposed lot. Attorney De Abreu replied that the proposed plan shows 40 feet of frontage, which is adequate for both residential and emergency vehicle access. Mr. Corsillo asked if there is a requirement for how far back the 40-foot width needs to be. Ms. Raposa clarified, per the Zoning Bylaw, The width of any lot shall be no less than the mininnun lot f oontage dimension as provided in § 230-4.2, for a distance equal to the required frontage measured at the ninety -degree angle, +/--20° fi-oni the front of the lot as described herein. Therefore, the lot width requirement would be 200 feet by 200 feet. Mr. Cerretani reiterated that the role of the Board is to determine if there are substantive material changes to the original application that warrant the Board's consent for the petitioner to submit a Repetitive Petition to the ZBA. Mr. Penney also noted that the Board's consent does not mean that the Board is in favor of the petition. Public Comment There were no public continents. Mr. Cerretani asked Ms. Raposa her opinion, on whether the changes warrant approval for the applicant to resubmit an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Raposa expressed that she did not have any concerns with the Planning Board's consent. Mr. Cerretani stated that six of the seven members present would need to vote in the affirmative for the motion to pass. Motion: To grant consent to the re -application of Amy and Michael Feck, 668 Elm Street, to the Zoning Board of Appeals. (McClanahan — Penney) Four (4) in favor, Three (3) opposed, Zero (0) abstained MOTION FAILS Minutes November 8, 2023 — the minutes were not submitted for approval. Ms. Asltinan-Collins inquired when a consultant is hired for application review if the fees paid with the application would reduce the consultant fee. Ms. Raposa said that she would review this and get back to the Board. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11/29/23 Page 3 of 4 Motion to adjourn at 7:36 p.m. (Penney - McClanahan) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is December 13, 2023 at 7: 00 p. m. Sharon Friedman, Clerk Documents Presented at the Meetine Date of Approval 1. Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning and Development meeting memo dated 11/21/23 2. 668 Elm Street application and plan set by RIM Engineering, received October 17, 2023 3. 668 Elm Street Request for Continuance, dated 11/9/23 Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11/29/23 Page 4 of 4