Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 01/24/2024RECEIVED a rl� tl cl_cF�s amcTown of Mansfield 2i11R P1Ar� 2H A g; 2q Planning Board 9 h 4 Meeting Minui�sV January 24 1024j` f ( f Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B and Virtually Using Go ToWebinarPlatform Present: Joseph Cerretani, Chair; Sharon Friedman, Clerk; Ralph Penney; Michael Feck; Michael McClanahan; Mark Corsillo and Sreelatha Allam, Associate Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Beth Aslmiau-Collins and James Turnbull, Associate Mr. Cerretani read the meeting's introductory remarks. Mr. Cerretani said that he had a few Board members ask about the two non -board members, Town Planner and DPW Director, who had voted on the engineering peer review and planning consultant at the previous meeting on January 101i. A couple of Board members had expressed an issue with non-members voting. Nh•. Cerretani said that although the vote taken was not the typical process, it did not affect the outcome. He understood the point being questioned by the Board members. The past practice was that staff would offer their opinion to the Board and the Board would then vote. During the vetting process for the consultants, it was known that the two non -board members would take part in the vote and there had been no objection at that time. In the future, the Planning Board will follow the established practice of considering opinions and only the Board will vote. He asked if the Board would like to consider the removal of the two non-member votes. Mr. McClanahan and NIr. Penney both expressed their opinion that only the Board should vote on items before them as the Board members are appointed by the Select Board. Discussion ensued to determine if the previous vote should be rescinded. The Board agreed that they did not want to change the vote outcome. Nh•. Corsillo referenced Robert's Rules of Order noting that the votes would be counted as ineligible votes and ignored. The Board agreed that would be appropriate. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 1/24/24 Page 1 of 6 Discussion paused for public hearings. 8:20 pm discussion continued. A few members noted that the Plattner is not a Board Member and should be ineligible to vote. Mr. Cerretani suggested that the non-member's votes should be stricken and only Board member votes counted as it would not affect the outcome and asked if the Board would want to make a motion to that effect. Regarding the application of Woodard & Curran for a Site Plan according to Bylaw Section 230- 5.3 at 500 East Street for the installation of a new permanent HAS treatment system with ancillary equipment and piping, a new building on a concrete slab to house the PFAS treatment system, and upgrades to the electrical generator and other equipment, and the SCADA system. This project also includes replacement wells at Prescott Wells 8 & 9 and the installation of an emergency generator to service Dustin Well No.7 and Prescott Wells 8 & 9. The project site is owned by the Town of Mansfield and is shown on Assessor's Map 031, Lot 037 within the R-1 Residential Zone and Surface and Groundwater Resource Protection Overlay District (Zone II). Mr. Cerretani noted that this type of application would typically fall tinder an administrative site plan approval, but since the Planning Board is the Municipal Clearinghouse for municipal buildings, it is now before the Board. The Woodard & Curran team members present were Srivalli Sukuru, Project Manager; Leyna Tobey, Project Engineer; and Brian McCusker, Project Architect. Mike Ahern, Mansfield Project Manager was also present. Ms. Sukuru presented an aerial photo of the proposed building location and spoke about the project's background. She explained that the existing Dustin Prescott water treatment plant treats raw water from Dustin #7, Prescott #8, and Prescott #9 wells. There is no backup power at the wells. She further explained filtration and storage noting that there was PFAS discovered in water above 4 ppt (pants per trillion) MCL level, which is still below the 20 ppt per MA MCL. The PFAS treatment system and replacement wells are necessary to meet the Town's water quality and quantity demands. She explained that PFAS is a contaminant level set by Massachusetts at 20 parts per trillion. PFAS primarily affects immunocompromised people, pregnant women, and new babies. The Town has been proactive in removing these contaminants from the Town's water. The Cate Spring Well has been operational for two years and the Walsh Well for one year. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 1/24/24 Page 2 of 6 Ms. Tobey reviewed the environmental considerations. The project is under half an acre of new disturbance and would likely not need to file with MEPA. The project site is within a wellhead protection zone and Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). They are proposing work within the 100-foot wetland buffer zone, but no work extends into any wetlands or vernal pools. The site improvements are designed to have no adverse hydrologic impact. Ms. Tobey described the new building as 74' x 48' to house the GAC (granulated active carbon) filtration system. There will be site piping installed between the existing WTP and the PFAS treatment building with an 18' wide access drive. There will be stormwater management systems with swales and an infiltration basin including new wells at Prescott #8 and #9 and a new well pump at Dustin Well #7. There will be electrical upgrades at all three wells and a new generator. The Town has completed considerable infrastructure upgrades to bring primary power and fiber optics to the site. Mr. McClanahan asked who would be paying for the project. Mr. Ahern explained that it is a combination of Federal finds and Town -approved Rinds. Mi. Pemry asked if the new facility will use ion exchange. Ms. Sukuru explained that the facility will be using more current technology. t Mr. Pemry asked if the operating cost had been calculated. Mr. Ahern answered that they do have actual operating costs, but have looked at different operating methods and have conducted studies with the water department. The carbon at Cate Springs has been in place for two years and is not ready to be replaced yet. Ms. Allam asked about the project schedule. Ms. Sukuru said they are currently in the permitting process with Planning, Conservation, and Mass DEP for their approval on the process side for the drinking water. Construction should begin in June or July. Ms. Allam asked about the impact on the Town water supply during construction. Ms. Sukuru replied that since there are two other Town wells there would not be any impact. Ms. Sukuru presented a revised rendering of the proposed building that will align in design and colors with the existing fire station that is visible to the site. Mr. McCusker explained that in the new design the roof pitches to the back of the building so that the downspouts will only be at the rear of the building. Ms. Allam asked if they are working with Mansfield Electric on this project. Ms. Sukuru explained that they are working with them on this project and the existing treatment plant. Ms. Friedman read into the record a submitted memo from the Town Engineer dated January 24, 2024. Motion to Approve: In accordance with Town of Mansfield Zoning Bylaw Section 230-5.3 and the provisions of Town Charter Section 5.3, I make a motion to approve the site plan for the 3,552 sf Dustin Prescott PFAS Treatment Facility and Replacement Wells with ancillary Planning Board Meeting Minutes 1/24/24 Page 3 of 6 improvements with the condition that the department comments be addressed and that revised plans be submitted as discussed. (Peimey-McClanahan) Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) 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. Board discussion ensued with Board comments as noted below. • The Board agreed that the document is long and inquired if it could be shortened. o Mr. Penney expressed a preference for a different layout. o Ms. Friedman liked the current format, including charts and details. o Mr. Cerretani said it is a good source of reference for new members. o Mr. Feck: agreed it is long, but the different headings make it easy to jump from section to section if the final version is in digital format. o Mr. Penney recommended additional review before finalizing the final version. • Page 1, item 2 — change 5 members to 7 members. • Page 3, Item 8 — Board appointments — As the member appointments change, the Board recommended only listing the number of members for each committee and then adding a link to the Planning Board webpage for the current committee member designee to each of the committees on which the Planting Board member serves: CIP, Open Space and Recreation, Downtown Committee, and SRPEDD. Mr. Corsillo inquired if Mr. Roche could be the Planning Board SRPEDD representative if he is also a Select Board member. Discussion ensued and based on Charter requirements he could be the Planning Board representative. • Page 21/22, Item 49 Staff Contacts — remove section since names change and the document would always be fluid. Ms. Friedman suggested adding a link, for this list, which could be on the Planning Board web page. Mr. Cerretani suggested adding a list of the departments that are regularly involved in the decision -making process for site plan approval and special permits. • The Board agreed that it is a living document subject to periodic changes as needed. • Mr. Cerretani suggested that the last page listing the Planning Board members should be removed as they are listed on the planning web page. • Mr. Cerretani also noted that the Site Plan review committee names could be removed and only list the departments that are on the review committee. • Page 9.B.ix — spelling "site" should be corrected to "sight" in two places • The Board agreed that more time is required to fine-tune the document. It would also need to be periodically reviewed and, if needed, amended. • Mr. Penney suggested further defining the role of each Board Member. He spoke of the Open Meeting Law and he referenced speaking to applicants or abutters outside of the Planning Board Meeting Minutes 1/24/24 Page 4 of meeting and suggested further clarification in the document. Further discussion ensued. A suggestion was made to add a link to Open Meeting Law in the document. The Board, after discussion, agreed that the Clerk would read the public notices and relevant correspondence in the record. The Clerk would also be responsible for and present the meeting minutes to the Board for approval. Any Board member could present a motion. • Ms. Allam asked if neighboring town rules and regulations had been reviewed for reference. Ms. Friedman noted that Ms. Raposa had reviewed others during this process. • There was discussion relating to the role of the associate members and what they could vote on. The State referenced that they vote on special permits but the Town Charter states differently. The Board agreed to have Town Counsel clarify. • Page 17, item #43 - The Board also wanted clarification on whether or not the associate members could count toward a quorum. Mr. Corsillo suggested moving the quorum section to the front with the membership information. • Mr. Cerretani clarified that an associate member can always participate in a discussion; the vote of an associate member will be clarified by Town Counsel. • Page 4, item #14 meeting minutes — fine-tune the language to keep it simple and not have language that would be subject to change. Further discussion ensued to determine if a roll call vote should always take place for clarification in the event of an appeal. The Board wanted clarification if an associate member could vote on meeting minutes and if the minutes would need to reflect which member voted for, against, or abstained. Mr. Penney noted that the applicant or any Board member could request a roll -call vote at a hearing. Motion: I make a motion to continue the public hearing for Policies, Procedures, and Rules and Regulations to February 14, 2024. (Penney -McClanahan) Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, One (1) abstained PASSES Mr. Cerretani reviewed the Town Planner's suggested items for consideration at the Annual Town Meeting (ATM) and which items could be postponed to a later town meeting. The warrant for ATM closes on March 1". Discussion ensued and it was determined to focus on the housekeeping items and the MSROD Phase II for the June 2024 ATM. The other items can be completed at a later town meeting. The Board agreed to review the items further and have the final discussion at the February 14°i meeting. Minutes January 10, 1024 - The minutes were not presented for approval. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 1/24/24 Page 5 of 6 Mr. Penney referenced a picture of the water level on Pleasant Street near the new construction and noted that there was no fencing. There has since been fencing placed around the area. Motion to adjourn at 8:30 p.m. (McClanahan - Feck) Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, One (1) abstained PASSES The date of the Next Planning Boned Meeting is danumy 31, 2024 at 700 p. nr. I qI 2DL� Sharon Friedman, Clerk Date of Approval Documents Presented at the Meeting 1. Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning and Development meeting memo dated 1/24/24 2. 500B East Street HAS Treatment Facility a. Application and Cover letter by Woodard & Curran dated January 5, 2024 b. Engineering checklist c. Civil Plan Set (15 sheets) by Woodard & Curran dated January 5, 2024 d. Stormwater Report by Woodard & Curran dated January 2024 e. Email from Ann MacCarthy, Chief Assessor, dated January 9, 2024 f. Memorandum from Richard Alves, Town Engineer, dated January 24, 2024 3. Draft Policies & Procedures of the Planning Board with Site Plan Approval and Special Permit Rules and Regulations Planning Board Meeting Minutes 1/24/24 Page 6 of 6