Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 01/10/2024(21_ CE i v'ED CLERKS OFFICE medffiNjj&Q 12: 46 Town of Mansfield Planning Board January 1gt0�OR`p Meeting Held in Perso in�Meeli ngKJoo n 3A/B and Virtually Using Go ToWebinarPlatform Present: Joseph Cerretani, Chair; Sharon Friedman, Clerk; Ralph Penney; Michael Feck; Michael McClanahan; Beth Ashman -Collins; Mark Corsillo and James Turnbull, Associate Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Josh Reinke, DPW Director Absent: Sreelatha Allam, Associate, and Rick Alves, Town Engineer/Assistant Director Mr. Cerretani read the meeting's introductory remarks. Green International, Tetra Tech, and Weston & Sampson were the three candidates for discussion and final selection. Mr. Cerretani opened the discussion by referencing the Candidate Selections following the December 13th interviews. Ms. Raposa said that she had submitted a poll asking the Board, Mr. Alves, and Mr. Reinke for anonymous continents regarding the candidates post interviews. Ms. Raposa said the goal of the discussion was to vote on the final selection. She noted that all Board members, associate members, Mr. Reinke, and she would vote. Mr. Alves was unable to attend the meeting. Seven people responded to the mini -poll. The results are as follows: 2 3 Weston & Sampson 4 3 0 Tetra Tech 3 2 2 Green 0 2 5 Planning Board Meeting Minutes 1/10/24 Page 1 of 8 Mr. Reinke, Mr. Turnbull, and Mr. Cerretani all said they thought any of these firms could do the job, but preferred Tetra Tech, followed by Weston & Sampson. Ms. Friedman expressed concern with Tetra Tech's lack of confidentiality by using one of their clients as an example in their interview presentation. Ms. Raposa said that the shared information was public. Ms. Friedman asked, as Weston & Sampson has done previous work for the Town if there had been any prior issues. Ms. Raposa said there have been no issues reported. Mr. Turnbull from his experience, felt that all three firms are qualified. He felt that Tetra Tech and Weston & Sampson ranked a bit higher. Ntr. Cerretani agreed that all three are qualified, but felt that Tetra Tech had the best presentation, but that did not mean that they are the best engineering firm. Mr. Penney expressed that he does not feel it necessary to hire a consultant to assist the Planning Board. He felt that the Board's expertise, coupled with the Town's Engineer, traffic officer, and subdivision inspector is sufficient and would not require additional Rinds. He noted a lack of upcoming projects since most of the Town's land has been developed. Mr. McClanahan agreed that property costs are increasing, and luring a consultant would only add to the rising costs. Mr. Corsillo said that the cost of review would be scaled to the size of the project. There would be no overuse of hired engineers, and the firm would only be used for some of the firm's offerings outlined in the presentations. Mr. Feck thought the presentations represented more than the town needs, and was concerned about cost. Ms. Raposa referenced two previous project applications and the amount of time that Town staff was spending on the project review and the applicant's responses to staff comments had not been adequate. She noted that the peer review process was presented to staff as a service to alleviate Town engineering work in having to review and ask for the applicant's engineer work to be corrected. Ms. Friedman expressed that having a Peer Review Consultant on an as -needed basis would be helpful as support to the Town engineer and the Town. Ms. Aslmian-Collins said it would be nice to have a chosen consultant available in an effort to not slow developers down. Ms. Raposa said that she had proposed, in the Rules and Regulations, that she would review the application and make the decision to bring in the consultant. Mr. Alves would be involved as well as the board. Mr. Penney suggested that department heads review the application and then they would make the recommendation, for peer review, to the Planning Board. The Planning Board would then vote on it. Ms. Raposa suggested that this could be discussed separately, and is open to feedback on any element of this discussion to update the Rules and Regulations. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 1/10/24 Page 2 of 8 Mr. Turnbull reminded the board that the contract would be an on -call contract. It would only be used as needed. There was a brief discussion on perceived peer review costs. Ms. Raposa noted that in her experience the highest consultant costs had been $15,000 for a 56-unit comprehensive permit project. If the Town does not have an on -call consultant, when one is needed, it would require a procurement process which would delay the project. Motion to recommend entering into a contract with Weston & Sampson as Peer Review Consultant. (Corsillo-Friedman) Five (5) in favor, Two (2) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Mr. Reinke and Ms. Raposa also voted in favor. JM Goldson and hmes Associates Ltd. were the two candidates for discussion and final selection. Result of the mini poll: Goldson Ines Motion Ms. Ashman -Collins moved to recommend procuring a contract with JM Goldson. (Ashman -Collins — Friedman) Ms. Raposa explained that the Town received a $90,000 grant to continue with this project. Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, One (1) abstained PASSES Map 39 Parcel 386 (off Homefield Drive) & Map 39 Parcel 024 (Bird Road Rear) — MacDonald Estates Residential Compound (2 Lots); Dennis MacDonald, Applicant/Owner; Zola Family Realty Trust II, Owner Mr. Cygawnoski from RIM Engineering was present, and his client Mr. Dennis McDonald was present remotely. Zola Family Realty Trust is the other landowner. Mr. Zola was not present. Zola Family Realty owns Homefield Drive, open space B, which is where access to Mr. McDonald's property is. The rest of the land is 8 '/2 acres, Mr. McDonald had previously gone before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) but they did not grant the variance. The ZBA also felt that the owners created their issue when the land was subdivided previously to build the existing subdivision. To create the frontage they need to create a road. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 1/10/24 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Cygawnoski said that Homefield Drive is a dead end; the applicants are seeking to build the road from the dead end. The new road would be 470 feet long. Ms. Raposa read the Subdivision Rules and Regulations Section 4.1.5.1 definition for a dead-end street as "any sheet having only one point of access to a through way shall be considered to be a dead end street. For the proposes of this section, any proposed street which intersects solely with a dead end sheet shall be deemed to be an extension of the dead end sheet. Dead end streets and their extensions, if any, shall not be longer than six hundred fifty (650) feet in combined total length. " She noted that Homefield Drive would be considered a dead-end street. The Planning Board does have the ability to waive this to allow the new street. Ms. Ashman Collins said that this property is located in an aquifer protection zone so they do not see a reason to waive or bend the rules to allow development that would be negative to the aquifer protection zone. This is not a part of Town where increased density is required to meet the MBTA zoning. Mr. Feck said that Mansfield has the most restrictive zoning than of any of abutting towns and expressed his opinion that the roles and regulations are outdated. The property is landlocked and goes through to Bird Road. Mr. Cygawnoski said the benefit would be two new lots for tax purposes. There is also an open space and the discussion turned to what would the open space be used for. Options included agricultural or solar. Ms. Friedman noted that the land is not contiguous to any other conservation land and does not serve to benefit the Town. Ms. Ashman -Collins noted that the Board had not approved an extension on a previous project and expressed concern about setting a precedent by waiving the extension for this project. There was some agreement that waiving would create a dangerous precedent. If the proposal moved forward, the land would have to be under one name and one ownership. Ms. Raposa expressed that in her opinion this application is not as relative to the 650 feet and where the road should be. She reminded the Board that the application is a preliminary subdivision plan and does not necessarily apply to a standard subdivision plan. The options of the Board are to either approve with specific modifications or disapprove. She suggested a straw poll for who would consider granting or not granting the waiver. Mr. McClanahan was not opposed to granting the waiver. Mr. Feck was concerned with the precedent that granting the waiver would set. He felt it was more of a zoning bylaw issue. Mr. Corsillo agreed with Mr. Feck and did not want to set a precedent. Mr. Penney agreed and expressed that he did not want to set a precedent for the extension of a dead end street. Mr. Turnbull expressed that he would not want to extend the waiver. Ms. Ashman -Collins said that she was not in favor of allowing the street to be extended. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 1/10/24 Page 4 of 8 Ms. Friedman was not in favor of extending the street. Mr. Cerretani was not in favor of issuing a waiver. Motion to Deny the preliminary subdivision plan. (Penney — Corsillo) Six (6) in favor, One (1) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES To amend the Policies & Procedures of the Planning Board with Site Plan Approval and Special Permit Rules and Regulations. Proposed amendments include, but are not limited to, policies, procedures, application submittal requirements and regulations, technical specifications for certain application types, and regulatory references. There was no public presence for the hearing. Ms. Raposa stated that the Board discussed: • Sections 1 - 10 on September 27, 2023 • Sections 11 - 20 on October 11, 2023 • Sections 21 - 30 on October 25, 2023 • Sections 31 - 49 on November 8, 2023 Ms. Raposa said the overarching items she was seeking feedback on were: • Section 23 — Special Permits, Impact Statement for land disturbances of 20,000 sf or more • Section 24 — Site Plan Form and Content (for Site Plan Approval and Special Permits) • Section 31 — Standard Conditions • Section 42 — Fees • Section 45 — Peer Review for Rules and Regulations Ms. Raposa reviewed the draft procedures for determining if Peer review should be needed on submitted projects. Mr. Penney expressed that the board should make that determination as they are appointed. When it was explained that no cost would be incurred by getting an estimate, it was agreed that Ms Raposa and Mr. Alves would request the estimate for peer review. When the estimate and scope of work is submitted by the consultant, it would then be submitted to the Board for review and approval. Further discussion ensued for the timelines of application submission, internal review, peer review estimate, and approval of peer review estimate. Ms. Raposa will revise the draft rules and regs, based on the discussion, for the Board to review. Mr. Penney suggested that building renderings should be required for all application submissions. Ms. Raposa recommended continuing the hearing to January 24"' at 7:30 pm and noted that she will not be present for that meeting. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 1/10/24 Page 5 of 8 Motion to continue the public hearing for Policies, Procedures, and Rules and Regulations to January 24, 2024, at 7:30 pm. (Penney — McClanahan) (7) in favor, (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Ms. Raposa reviewed the draft bylaw amendment list. 1. Firearm dealer locations —Ms. Raposa met with Chief Sellon, who was open to a conversation with the Planning Board at the February 14'h meeting. 2. Amend Recreational Facilities Definition - Ms. Raposa proposes to edit the existing definition of "recreation." New language — A recreational facility onamed or operated by a nongovernmental agency, including, but not linaitedto, some or all of the following uses: a golf course, riding stable, playground and play fields, a snvinuning pool, exercise Qynt, rack -climbing gym, tennis or basketball court(s). In addition, temporary outdoor recreational events such as festivals or fairground -type events may be permitted. 3. MSROD Phase II —Ms. Raposa noted that this will have a separate work plan associated with it and will be discussed at a meeting with the consultant; 4. SP/SPA Approval -Language that persevered in the bylaw "Approval of a special permit by the designated granting authority oil/ be interpreted as a positive recommendation to the Building Inspector insofar as site plan review is concerned." Should this be deleted as it is superfluous? EV Charging/Parking — Ms. Raposa asked the Board if they want to have a zoning requirement that chargers (wiring) are installed at new construction commercial sites in compliance with the 2023 Stretch Code. The Board noted that a dedicated EV parking space may cause issues with a project's total number of required parking as only an EV car can park in the space. The Board recommended postponing this amendment. 6. ZBA Appointments — there is a discrepancy with bylaw language which will be reviewed by the Town Counsel. 7. Delete Section 5.5.11 - Moratoriums on the constriction and citing for resource recovery systems. Ms. Raposa noted that this language is outdated. Open Space Percentage (NEW) — proposal to add new language as Section 4.10. Dimensional Special Permit to be issued by the Planning Board, the same process is followed (noticed public hearing with ability to approve, approve with conditions, deny). Planning Board Meeting Minutes 1/10/24 Page 6 of 8 Under a special permit, after a hearing, the Plauming Board may permit, in lieu of the requirements for open space minimum specified in this By-law (and Attachment 4-2B), a reduction of up to 25% of the minimum percentage of open space based on the following criteria: a. Demonstrate a functioning stormwater management plan b. Demonstrate inability to implement roof garden or green roof c. Landscaped buffer areas along road frontage(s) d. Payment to Downtown Development Revolving Fund or trails/open space account 9. Add B4 to the sign bylaw and acknowledge B4 district. (NEW) 10. Add Special Permit to the sign bylaw (NEW) Add new section H: In particular instances, the Zoning Board of Appeals may issue special permits for relief from the requirements of this section 230-4.7, Signs, if it is determined that the architecture of the building, the location of the building with reference to the street or the nature of the establishment is such that the sign(s) should be permitted in the public interest. In granting such permission, the SPGA shall specify the size and location of the sign or signs and impose such other terms and restrictions as may be deemed to be in the public interest. Any applicant tinder this provision shall provide the following: (1) A drawing to scale showing the proposed sign, and all existing signs; (2) Perspectives, renderings, photographs, or other representations sufficient to show the nature of the proposed sign, its effect on the immediate surroundings, and the reasons for allowing it. Ms. Raposa mentioned for long-term plamring, if the Board is interested in a comprehensive rewrite of the zoning bylaw, preparation should begin over the next few years. They should also request funding for a consultant to assist. Minutes December 13, 2023 Motion to approve the minutes as presented (Feck - Corsillo) Four (4) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Three (1) abstained PASSES Mr. Corsillo inquired about the old firehouse restaurant's status. Mr. McClanahan noted that it is progressing. Ms. Raposa noted that Amazon received administrative approval for a change of landscaping at the parking area and interior storage of robotic arms and batteries for robots. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 1/10/24 Page 7 of 8 Ms. Raposa said the TOD conversations are moving forward and they are working on completing the development agreements. She said that the Board will have responsibility for the review of the parkway layout. Also, as the Town Clearinghouse the Board will have more involvement. Mr. Turnbull referenced that the term "parkway" is very specific and it is very difficult to modify roads that are "parkways." Ms. Raposa replied that the term "parkway" has been used, but that the road is being designed by VHB and they will determine the correct terminology. Mr. Penney noted that the original intent of Parkway was to relieve traffic on Highland, and has evolved into something more. Ms. Friedman suggested that protected bike lanes be dedicated on the Parkway. Mr. Turnbull suggested that a protected bike path might be too much space, so perhaps a shared -use path would be a better use of the space. Ms. Raposa brought up the Chi Grand Community Health Index Initiative. $18,000 has been received through the Health Dept. This will be tied in through recreational space around town. A Community Health Coalition will be created for the project. Ms. Raposa asked for Board member volunteers. Mr. Turnbull volunteered. Motion to adjourn at 9:17 p.m. (Penney - McClanahan) Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is January 24, 2024 at 7:00P. na. *Ms. Ashman -Collins noted that she is unable to attend the 1124124 meeting. Sharon Friedman, Clerk Documents Presented at the Meeting a, i 9-- 'zoz'+ Date of Approval 1. Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning and Development meeting memo dated 1/09/23 2. Draft Meeting Minutes dated December 13, 2023 3. Draft Policies & Procedures of the Planning Board with Site Plan Approval and Special Permit Rules and Regulations 4. Draft Zoning Bylaw Amendments Planning Board Meeting Minutes 1/10/24 Page 8 of 8