Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 04/10/2024�F_CEI`dED Tyr;;; CI FOFFICE 0 o 70M i!iiY -9 A 8: 13 FOASAPS 1VIeeti'ng Minutes April 10, 2024 Town of Mansfield 6 Park Iiaw, Mansfield, YIM 02048 Planning Board Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B and Virtually Using Go ToWehinar Platform Present: Joseph Cerretani, Chair; Ralph Penney; Michael Feck; Beth Ashman -Collins; Michael McClanahan and James Turnbull, Associate Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Sharon Friedman, Clerk; Mark Corsillo and Sreelatha Allam, Associate Mr. Cerretani read the meeting's introductory remarks. Motion to nominate Mr. Feck as Acting Clerk for the meeting (Penney/McClanahan) Four (4) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, One (1) abstained PASSES 2024-2025 SRPEDD Commission Appointment Motion to appoint Brendan Roche to serve as the Planning Board SRPEDD Conunission representative (Penney/McClanahan) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Mr. Feck read the Public Hearing Notice into the records. Mr. Cerretani noted that there are six proposed articles for review and that four are housekeeping items. Ms. Raposa briefly reviewed the public hearing ground rules. The discussion began with Item 2. Item 2 (Warrant Article 14): MSROD Phase 11(§230-5.12 and Zoning Map) - to amend the Mansfield Station Revitalization Overlay District (MSROD) district to extend along the west side of Oakland Street to the Chocolate Factory (east side of railroad tracks). Planning Board Meeting Minutes 4/10/24 Page 1 of 6 Ms. Raposa presented the proposed MSROD Phase II area map, which also depicted the previously adopted Phase I area. She explained that the proposed new Phase II area would include the Chocolate Factory and new Subdistrict 5 "C" leading toward the train station. Subdistrict 5 "C" would include reduced height to three stories, reduced FAR to 2.0, and cap density at 15 units/acre. Ms. Raposa then reviewed the "redlined" zoning bylaw amendment language presented in the hearing packet. *Ms. Ashman -Collins arrived at the meeting at 7:17pm. Laura Snread and Elana Zabar (remote) of 7M Goldson were present. Chris McDermott, Mansfield Economic Director was also present for the discussion. Ms. Smead reviewed the project timeline through the Town Meeting on May 22"d. Ms. Zabar then reviewed the results of the February and March virtual engagement platform. There were 48 workshop attendees, 53 visual preference survey responses, and seven crowdmap submissions, which resulted in 108% of the engagement goal. Virtual engagement Platform Respondents expressed interest in: • Main Street Commercial and Open Space • Moderate housing density and a 25% level of housing affordability • Streetseapes that prioritize pedestrians, cyclists, as well as outdoor dining • Zoning strategies Overall workshop participants were generally more supportive of zoning strategies and virtual participants were more split. The most support was for zoning revisions in areas with non- conforming lots. *Mr. McClanahan left the meeting at 7: 30 pm. Ms. Smead reviewed the fiscal impact analysis for a comparison of changes in governmental costs for a given projector policy change against changes in govermnental revenues. For this scenario, the team reviewed the Mansfield Station Revitalization Overlay Zoning District in three (3) scenarios. 1. By -right residential 2. By -right mixed -use 3. Special permit incentive For each scenario, the team reviewed existing net revenue, revenue due to new development, and costs due to new development, resulting in a net fiscal impact. Ms. Smead then reviewed the data used and details of each scenario for Municipal costs, educational costs, and net fiscal impacts. She then reviewed the key takeaways relating to increases over the current assessed value in the area, a decrease in school enrollment since 2010, if the zoned area were filly developed and occupied, Mansfield would only gain about 15-27 percent of the net loss in Planning Board Meeting Minutes 4/10/24 Page 2 of 6 students. The results were calculated using the most conservative demographic multiplier available and conservatively assessed values. The impact of all three scenarios is positive. Next Steps April - Revise the analyses as needed and create the design guidelines draft. May - Town meeting for the MSROD extension, finalize design guidelines and draft zoning templates for future development areas and housing strategies. Ms. Raposa mentioned that the State has a preview period for review of the compliance model. Mansfield's model was sent for review, which should be reviewed with a response within a 90- day period, which would bring it right before the Town Meeting. The Attorney General's office also offered a review of the bylaw and there were no procedural defects for presentation to the Town Meeting. Mr. Penney asked if there would be population increases with each scenario. Ms. Smead said that for scenarios one and two there could be an increase of 1,920 people and for scenario three 3,421 people. The results indicate that the new residents would pay enough taxes to cover service demands that they would incur in the Town. The bulk of the suggested income to the Town derives from stable and predictable sources such as property tax, excise tax, and dog licenses, but there could be additional sources that were not included in the scenarios. Public Comment Steve Mazur of River Edge Road cormnented that there is an estimated 10% population increase in one condensed area. He asked what has been thought about in terms of traffic congestion. Mr. Cerretani replied that the Town has been working on this zone for over a decade and would not increase the density in the area with the current roadways that overload the neighborhood from the train station traffic. Mr. Cerretani referenced the public session for the new parkway design. Every project does have a complete review for traffic safety and traffic mitigation. This project is just zoning at this time. Mr. Cerretani referenced the MassDot project for work to be done on Route 140 to Copeland Drive and then from Copeland Drive to North Main Street. Ms. Raposa noted that at the previous meeting, the Team presented the build -out analysis and the test fits, which concluded that the new zoning could be built. However, the feasibility analysis concluded that costs and interest rates make it unlikely that it would happen now. Mr. Mazur asked if there is a delay for building does the Town lose out on State funding. Mr. Cerretani replied that as long as the zoning is in place, the Town is eligible for State funding. Mr. Mazur asked who was fimding the new parkway road. Ms. Raposa replied that there is funding from GATRA and other grant funding sources. The Phase II overlay extension will allow for an additional 400 units which would comply with the State MBTA compliance. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 4/10/24 Page 3 of 6 Maureen Daugherty of Darby Drive asked when the Town could see new growth revenues. Ms. Raposa replied that two property owners have expressed interest in development. The economic feasibility is more positive for the developer because they already own the land. Both landowners are eager for the roadway to be completed and it is estimated for the year 2027 or later. Nothing can be built until the roadway is completed. Item 5 (Warrant Article 17): Special Permit for Open Space Percentage Relief (4230-4.10) - to add a dimensional special permit to be issued by the Planning Board to provide flexibility for reuse/expansion of PBD and Industrially zoned land. Ms. Raposa explained that this related to redevelopment and making the buildings more usable for modern uses. It makes better sense to issue a special permit for open space requirements rather than a zoning variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals. A variance requires compliance with three criteria, which is difficult to achieve. When trying to revitalize industrial redevelopment it would be better to incentivize to make it a bit easier for these properties to be able to do the facelifts and upgrades through a special permit permitting path. Ms. Raposa then reviewed the bylaw amendment language's four criteria incentive options. There were no public continents. Item _I_(Warrant Article 13): Amend Recreational Facilities Definition (4,230-3.2.D) - to update the definition to provide clarity on allowable recreational uses. Ms. Raposa this is an update for clarity for allowable recreational uses. There were no public colmnents. Item 3 (Warrant Article 15): Special Permit/Site Plan Approval Recommendation (§230- 5.5G) - to delete this section entirely as it is an outdated practice. Ms. Raposa said this is not needed if there is a special permit approval and the site plan is included in the process. There were no public continent. Item 4 (Warrant Article 16): Zoning Board of Appeals Appointments (4230-7.2) - to make the terms for associate members of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) consistent with the ZBA's charter under the Town Code Section 5.4. Ms. Raposa said this is to update member terms as a housekeeping item. There were no public comments. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 4/10/24 Page 4 of 6 Item 6 (Warrant Article 18): Add B4 Zoning District to Sign Bylaw (4230-4.7) - to correct an oversight during the adoption of the B4 zoning district at ATM 2014 Ms. Raposa said this is also an oversight housekeeping item. There were no public comments. Motion to continue the public hearing to April 24, 2024 at 7:30 pm. (Penney/Ashman -Collins) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Mr. Cerretani asked the Board if they had comments on the proposed fee structure. Ms. Raposa noted that the fees do not have to change, but this is an opportunity to review the fees. Mr. Cerretani expressed that fees for major site plan reviews are too low in comparison to other local communities, but other fees are comparable. After a brief discussion, the Board agreed to review the fees for discussion at the next meeting. Ms. Raposa noted that changes were made to the Rules and Regulations document for Section 7 defining roles for each member and Section 28 regarding the meeting material submission timeline. Language for associate members' public hearing participation and when they could vote was added. Mr. Cerretani urged the Board members to review the document for final discussion and vote at the next meeting. Motion to continue the hearing to April 24, 2024 at 7:45 pm. (Ashman-Collins/Feck) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES This was included in the Bylaw and MSROD discussions. Planning Board Meeting Minutes for March 27, 2024 were not submitted for approval. Mr. Feck referenced an article he had read that referenced that the IECC has vehicle charging in the code, but is now considering moving it to the appendix. This would then allow towns flexibility if they want to adopt their code. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 4/10/24 Page 5 of 6 v � r Motion to adjourn at 9:00: pm (Feck/Pemney) Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is April 24, 2024 at 7: 00 p.m. Michael Feck, Acting Clerk Documents Presented at the Meeting 09709�-� Date of Approval 1. Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning and Development meeting memo dated 4/10/24 2. 2024-2025 SRPEDD Commission Appointment notice 3. Mansfield MSROD Expansion Update Presentation by JM Goldson dated 4/10/24 4. Notice of Planning Board Hearing Relative to Proposed Zoning Bylaws Amendments distributed 3/19/24 for public hearing date 4/10/24 5. Revised draft Policies & Procedures of the Planning board with Site Plan Approval and Special Permit Rules and Regulations dated 4/10/24 Planning Board Meeting Minutes 4/10/24 Page 6 of 6