The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning 01/31/2024Town of Mansfield RECEIVED 6Park Icon,, Mansfield, MA 02048 TOWN CLERKS OFFICE Planning Board 16A S 2024 FEB IS P 12: 4b Meetin9IAN9f°IID JanKnn1.3h9AVtETTS Meeting Held in Person at 500 East Street Public Safety Building Community Room Present: Joseph Cerretani, Chair; Michael Feck; Mark Corsillo; Beth Ashman -Collins; Sreelatha Allam, Associate; and James Turnbull, Associate Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Sharon Friedman, Clerk; Ralph Permey and Michael McClanahan Laura Smead of JM Goldson was present as the Planning Consultant for this project. Ms. Sinead apprised the Board of the JM Goldson team that will be assisting on this project. • Jenn Goldson, AICP Founding & Managing Director, Principal in Charge • Laura Smead, AICP, Senior Community Planner, Project Manager, Zoning Specialist • Elana Zabar, CNU-A, Community Planner II & Engagement Specialist, Community Engagement Specialist • Flavio Villa, Arch, MCP, Community Planner for Land Use & Urban Design, Visual Design Guidelines, graphics, GIS • Noah Harper, MCRP, Community Planner 11 for Housing and Equity, Financial Feasibility Analysis, GIS The Planning Board introduced themselves to Ms. Smead. Ms. Smead then presented the project's scope as community engagement, zoning alternatives, bylaw revisions, design guidelines, and market feasibility for working up to the Amoral Town Meeting in June. Ms. Raposa noted that there will be placeholders submitted for the bylaw amendments for which the Board may want to move forward. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 1/31/24 Page 1 of 5 The project schedule was presented depicting tasking, community input, bylaw and design writing, revisions, regulatory review, task & project management, and economic feasibility analysis. Ms. Smead spoke about the following goals: 2020 Master Plan Goals and Objectives • Amend residential zoning to allow more flexible conversion of existing buildings, and more financially attainable housing options, including by -right options for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) • Expand areas where zoning allows for new construction, enable more diverse housing types • Strengthen the existing inclusionaiy housing requirements per Article VI of the Mansfield Zoning Bylaw • Amend the Zoning Bylaw to include affordable housing as a community benefit for proposes of residential density bonuses in the Mansfield Station Revitalization Overlay District (MSROD) • Consider amendments to the cluster residential special permit and residential compounds zoning provisions • Consider zoning amendments so that new construction better reflects the character of the existing residential neighborhoods • Strengthen the design review standards and regulations • Adopt stronger zoning regulations • Continue to strategically locate new residential development downtown to enhance and grow support for local retail and restaurant establishments • Finalize the MSROD to allow developments to be built near the train station • Integrate all TOD development, such as the Chocolate Factory site 2023 Housing Production Plan (HPP) Goals and Relevant Strategies • Produce starter homes and options for those with low, moderate, middle, and fixed - income • Produce new housing options and retrofit existing homes to support safe and accessible living • Pursue fimding streams to support local housing production efforts • Continue to produce SHI-eligible units to maintain the Commonwealth's required amount and to support communities in need • Amend local zoning to incentivize the provision of starter homes, rental routs, accessory dwelling units, family -style units, and multi -family homes • Create design guidelines for duplexes and large developments that fit within the local community Ms. Sinead then reviewed the MBTA Communities requirements for density and what has been accomplished so far. She presented a map for testing compliance with the modeled results for minimum multi -family unit capacity at 936, which is still under the 1,392-unit capacity required by the State. However, the Town does comply with the minimum land area, developable station area, percent unit capacity, and percent land area within the MSROD. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 1/31/24 Page 2 of 5 Ms. Smead then presented test scenarios with alternative housing locations for district areas that could bring the unit capacity into compliance. The Board members expressed concern with higher density and building height near residential neighborhoods. The next step would be for community engagement. Ms. Smead asked the Board which zoning district options to keep and which design guidelines to include. She spoke about each zoning area and that each area would call for a slightly different approach to zoning and design guidelines. Mr. Corsillo suggested incorporating design guidelines to encourage three -bedroom units for families near the train station. Discussion ensued about incorporating changes to the Bylaw or creating a separate guideline document to augment the Bylaw. The Board determined that there was an advantage to creating design guidelines as they could be fluid and change when required. Ms. Smead referenced the Economic Feasibility Study and how it could also be a test for inclusionary zoning. Ms. Smead recommended that other Town departments, groups, boards, neighbors, and colleagues be invited to the community engagement session for a diverse discussion group. There was an outreach and resource discussion on how to inform the Town about the next community engagement session. Ms. Smead said that she and her team will also be utilizing a digital outreach strategy. Ms. Raposa mentioned that there was a Save the Date notice in the February newsletter and there will be additional social platform outreach. Ms. Smead reviewed demographics from last year's public outreach for the initial zoning change. Ms. Smead referenced a survey activity for the Board for network outreach. She then spoke of market feasibility relating to existing zoning in areas of interest for dimensional feasibility, current construction, and development cost data with by right results. Discussion ensued for where to hold the community engagement session with the recommendation that the venue should have access for families and activities for children. Ms. Smead then held a focus group discussion with the Board members. The Board discussed that the next meeting should begin with the MSROD portion and then move on to the Zoning Bylaw Amendments for zoning. The consultants want to make it clear what is required for State compliance and what items are for the Town's zoning amendments. Ms. Smead asked about non -confirming uses and whether that would require an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Feck explained when Zoning Board Approval would typically be required for a variance or finding. Ms. Smead suggested utilizing GIS for a check on what the current dimensional standards are for factors such as lot size and frontage. This could provide an idea of what exists and what is compliant for future zoning. She asked the Board what the greatest opportunities and challenges are related to the zoning overlay areas in the community. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 1/31/24 Page 3 of 5 The key takeaways of the discussion were: Opportunities or strengths to leverage as: • Embracing TOD • Formalize ADUs more, detached and attached, by right, not restricted to family, ADU amnesty program • Construct 40Rs and 40ys in southern portion • Already ahead of other towns • Use density as a way to save conservation — concentrate density near transit so other areas can have trees • Vacant land and underutilized land • Recognition of the need for affordable housing • Long-term Sewer expansion • R-1 changes could be an opportunity and a challenge • Design guidelines • Integrating open space • 55+ changing restrictions to allow more ability to develop it • Duplexes only allowed in R-3 currently • Review zoning for R-2 and R-3 Challenges or issues to recognize/overcome • NIMBYs and fear of change • R-1 would be a big change • Tax revenue — allowing for mixed uses in currently residential areas? • Knowing when the buildings were built • Density/fear of change • Traffic impacts • Framing density examples -local density • Zoning versus production • Is Zoning in residential areas restrictive? Feasibility not working • Impacts on schools and town services Ms. Smead noted that the next steps are for the Board to provide feedback based on the information in the homework packet. The discussion will continue with Ms. Smead on February 141n Meeting Minutes were not presented. There were no comments. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 1/31/24 Page 4 of 5 Motion to adjourn at 8:45 p.m. (Feck-Corsillo) Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is February 14, 2024 at 7: 00 p. in. Sharon Friedman, Clerk Documents Presented at the Meeting 2. 14 , DtZ 4_ Date of Approval 1. JM Goldson MSROD Expansion Kick-off PowerPoint dated 1/31/24 Planning Board Meeting Minutes 1/31/24 Page 5 of 5