Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 05/08/2024RECEIVED �/ f D �I tin of Morn rfield ;,. r; ��r 6 Park Ron,, Allan field,, Al1A 02048 11' IN 13 A 8: 33 Planning Board Meeting Minutes' May 8, 2024 Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B and Virtually Using GoToWebinar Pla4form Present: Joseph Cerretani, Chair; Sharon Friedman, Clerk; Ralph Penney; Michael Feck; Beth Ashman -Collins; Michael McClanahan; Mark Corsillo; Sreelatha Allan, Associate and James Turnbull, Associate Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: None Mr. Cerretani read the meeting's introductory remarks. Suite D-115 new Sweetgreen restaurant fagade changes consisting of the following: • paint on storefront to be Benjamin Moore in color Hushed Hue #1520. • New sign to be 18" non -illuminated channel letters with green satin face. • Three (3) existing gooseneck lights to be replaced with similar gooseneck light fixtures. • Two (2) existing sconce lights to remain. • Existing awning structure to remain, but fabric to be replaced with Sunbrella canvas mint. Ms. Maddie Coppola, Manager of Sweetgreen store design for the Northeast Region was present for the discussion. Ms. Raposa gave a background synopsis of the application. The Planning Board, in the issuance of the Special Permit in 2005, included.a condition that the board would review and approve any fagade changes. It is not apublic hearing and requires a simple majority vote of the Planning Board. The changes to the storefront include a new paint color (mint green) and an awning with gooseneck lights. It will be where B Good is currently housed, and the changes will be similar to Warby Parker. A rendering of the changes was shown to the Planning Board. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 5/8/24 Page 1 of 10 Ms. Raposa said that the plan had already been approved by WS Development. Ms. Coppola explained that Sweetgreen is an upscale salad restaurant and it is scheduled to open in October. Motion to approve the proposed alteration to the fapade by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Ms. Ashman -Collins Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Ms. Friedman read the Public Hearing Notice into the record. For the previously denied application of FOD, LLC for a three (3) lot Definitive Subdivision Plan pursuant to Mansfield Subdivision Regulations Section 3.3 Definitive Plan at 19 Knight Way. The project site is owned by FOD, LLC, and is shown on Assessor's Map 3, Lot 51 in the Residential 1 (R-1) zone. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Land Court remanded to the Planning Board to hold a new public hearing by Order of Remand dated April 9, 2024 in FOD, LLC v. Town of Mansfield Planning Board, Civil Action No. 22 MISC 000414 (KTS). Mr. Cerretani introduced Town Counsel, Attorney Kawamoto, who was present online, to explain why the meeting was taking place and the directive. Attorney Kawamoto, reviewed the legal aspects so that the people would understand why there was another bearing for• the Knight Way Definitive Subdivision. She then highlighted some of the Judge's points based on his opinion so that they could be addressed. The Planning Board denied the approval of the previous subdivision application based on the denial of the 12 waivers put forth by the applicant. The applicant appealed the Board's decision to the Land Court. Recently, the court issued an order remanding the application back to the Planning Board for reconsideration. Attorney Kawamoto read the Judge's order, "The Board shall decide based on evidence in the record whether to (1) grunt the waivers or_(2) deny the waivers because they are not in the public interest or inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Subdivision Contirol Lain, regrdations. The Board must base its decision on facts and record and it way not deny FOD's waiver requests on the grounds that such decision will set a bad precedent. " Attorney Kawamoto clarified that the decision would be based on the documents submitted by the applicant, comments from departments, and information gathered at this meeting. She also pointed out that the judge noted, in his opinion, that the proposed subdivision would simply replace an existing common driveway, and that it would not serve any new structures. Attorney Kawamoto suggested that the Judge's opinion may be a point of discussion during the Board's decision process. Emily Miller, FOD (applicant), and Attorney Lanza addressed the Board. Attorney Lanza said they would not focus on or repeat prior information since it is all in the records. The focus would be on what has happened since the original public hearing. During the land court proceeding, Rim Engineering, who was the engineer for the applicant, issued an affidavit explaining the basis for the waivers with reasons why the Board should grant the waivers. Attorney Lanza said that the affidavit was accepted and reviewed by the judge and it Planning Board Meeting Minutes 5/8/24 Page 2 of 10 was one of the primary basis's for the judge to reverse the board's decision. This is in the legal remand record. The Planning Board's attorney had also submitted an engineering affidavit to the court, refuting RIM Engineering's affidavit, but the judge rejected it. Attorney Lanza continued, saying that since the subdivision denial in 2022, the Planning Board approved a site plan application for the Montessori School Phase II. Attorney Lanza submitted a copy of the site plan approval decision for the record. The approved site plan decision is under appeal by the abutters. Attorney Lanza recently served the abutter's attorney with a motion to dismiss. The site plan appeal has no impact on the applicant proceeding with the approved school project, but there is some risk if they proceed. A concern Attorney Lanza had in the department head's comments was the shape of the roadway. The fire chief addressed the hammerhead turnaround which is difficult for the fire apparatus turning requirements. However, there is an improved site plan with a 20-foot wide paved driveway with a turnaround, RIM Engineering had submitted, for the site plan, a letter stating that the roadway update meets the turnaround requirements. Attorney Lanza submitted a copy of the letter for the records. He expressed that the issue raised by the fire chief had been addressed. Attorney Lanza expressed that the primary purpose of the subdivision plan has nothing to do with a building permit. The purpose is to create legal frontage to comply with the Town's bylaws.This is not a typical subdivision. The subdivision plan creates two lots, one for the existing house and one for the school facility, which already has a site plan approval. Access, circulation, and maneuverability issues have all been addressed in the approved site plan. Mr. Cerretaru asked if there would be Town benefits from the roadway extension. Attorney Lanza said the benefit is conforming lots. Zoning is to eliminate nonconformities. This will eliminate two nonconformities of two buildings that do not have sufficient frontage. Attorney Lanza stated that access is not an issue, it is safe, convenient, and sufficient. The benefit to the Town would be the elimination of two non -conformities. There is only one lot with zero street frontage — and it now will have two buildings, Ms. Miller said the lot is delineated as preexisting and nonconforming. Ms. Raposa asked if the applicant is still plarming to construct the hammerhead, as referenced in the subdivision plan. Attorney Lanza said they may never construct the hammerhead. Ms. Raposa said they would need to construct it to get a building permit for the house. Attorney Lanza said the house is preexisting and grandfathered, so they would not need to construct the hammerhead. Ms. Ashman -Collins asked what would the benefit be to convert from non- conforming to conforming. Attorney Lanza replied that in multiple court zoning decisions one of the purposes is to eliminate lion -conformities. Attorney Lanza said that what they are doing is not conventional, and they are trying to create a subdivision road where two lots are sighted. Attorney Kawamoto asked Attorney Lanza if the basis for the subdivision was to have two separate lots that the applicant could sell. Attorney Lanza agreed that this was the goal. At some point in the future, the business and the single-family home would be sold. It would be easier to sell if the lots were conforming. Attorney Kawamoto asked if it were possible for the property to be a condominium form of ownership. Attorney Lanza replied that it is not preferred, but it is possible. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 5/8/24 Page 3 of 10 Ms. Miller said she had previously submitted a letter listing her opinion of the benefits to the town and the neighborhood. Ms. Miller replied that one item was the donation of the parcel of land to the Town. Ms. Raposa stated that in the 2022 application, the listed benefits included a private way to create the frontage, a lot for the Field of Dreams School, and a lot for the single-family home. The letter also noted that a proposed road is not required to provide access to the existing school or the existing single-family house. It is only needed to meet the frontage requirement. The 24- foot wide driveway and the approved drainage system were also listed. The roadway would remain private. Mr. Permey referenced an original subdivision of land, to the previous land owner, where there is a 50-foot easement. This was recorded in the registry of deeds. Attorney Lanza confirmed that access to the existing school, house, and second school passes through the easement. Ms. Friedman said the property currently has one owner, however, if part of the plan is to sell the property (i.e. house), then there will be two owners. Ms. Friedman asked if the idea was to carve out the property so that it could be easily sold in the future. Attorney Lanza agreed that this was the case. Attorney Lanza said there is no plan to build on the third lot, and it will be donated to the town as it is rmbuildable. Attorney Lanza said that even if there is no land division, they could create a condominium situation where one unit is owned by one owner and the other i u it with separate owner and common land area. There is no plan to build on the third lot. The plan is to donate the land to the Town and language for the non -buildable lot donation could be included in the approval documents. Mr. Cerretani asked Attorney Lanza to review the waivers and the benefit to the Town. Attorney Lanza responded that it had been reviewed at the original hearing. Mr, Penney asked what had been approved and built, Ms. Miller responded that the small school was approved and built. The large school has been approved but not built yet. Both were site plan approvals and were separate from the subdivision application. Mr. Corsillo asked if the small school parking lot and building, as approved in the site plan, were within the boundaries of the second school lot. Ms. Miller confirmed they are within the boundaries at the southern end of the lot. Ms. Raposa cited that one of the waiver requests is to allow the construction of a hammerhead design. Attorney Lanza said that they may never construct a hammerhead turn. Attorney Lanza said they are dealing with access as well as fiontage. The house access would be by the driveway, and access to the building would be by the long access roadway. Both have to be taken into consideration for approval. Ms. Ashman -Collins expressed concern with approval for extending a dead-end road beyond the maximum length of 650'per the Subdivision Control Law. Attorney Lanza expressed that public safety is the main reason for the road extension. Ms. Ashman -Collins said the onus is on the applicant to show why the road should be extended. Attorney Lanza said that zoning compliance Planning Board Meeting Minutes 5/8/24 Page 4 of 10 is the major issue as the two buildings and one property are not in compliance. Attorney Lanza said the roadway would not create a new lot. Ms. Ashman Collins disagreed and said there would be a new lot created. Attorney Lanza said it would exist, but would not be built on. Mr. Corsillo asked why the Board should approve 12 waivers of the subdivision regulations. Attorney Lanza said it is not inconsistent with the subdivision control law, and it is not against the public interest to do so. Attorney Lanza said that their subdivision plan is consistent with all of the regulations of the subdivision control law. He read the court affidavit Craig Cygav gioski of RIM Engineering submitted, expressing his opinion that the subdivision complies. The Board pointed out that Mr. Cygawnoski is not an engineer, but a land surveyor, so he may not be an expert. Attorney Lanza said his affidavit was accepted as an expert by the court. Ms. Raposa expressed willingness to meet again with the Department Heads with updated information. Attorney Kawamoto was asked if it was appropriate to dive into the details of the separate site plans. She stated that the court was unaware of the site plan. Attorney Kawamoto asked Attorney Lanza if the turnaround conforms to the fire specifications. 'Attorney Lanza said the Fire Chief initially was not opposed to the design. He expressed that the Board does not have to accept the opinion of either the applicant's engineer or the town's engineer, only the facts on record. Attorney Kawamoto said that the waiver is still for the hammerhead turnaround. Ms. Friedman read Fire Chief Desrosiers's statement, dated May 6, 2024, into the record. The statement reflected his opposition to the hanmmerhead-style turnaround due to safety concerns. He suggested that alternative solutions be pursued. Mr. Corsillo said that the Fire Chief is the expert and that the Board should defer to his opinion. Mr. Corsillo asked how the truck would turn around. Attorney Lanza said the fire truck could come down the driveway to turn around. Ms. Miller said there is an open field at the end of the proposed hammerhead where the fire truck could turn around. Ms. Friedman pointed out that the applicant is trying to make nonconforming lots conforming so that they can sell them. Attorney Lanza and Ms. Miller agreed. Ms. Friedman asked what the public benefit would be. She also asked if a more comprehensive plan could be submitted and expressed that there is not enough information to render a decision. Ms. Miller mentioned Planning Board minutes from the 1980s or 1990s that reference the 50- foot travel easement requested by the previous owner, Mr. Knight, who has since passed. Mr. Knight gave up the right of way to Jewell Street Extension for the subdivision to be put in. The travel easement was put in place in the event Mr. Knight wanted to subdivide his property. Ms. Miller argued that the Planning Board previously used language that would allow the 50-foot travel easement. Mr. Corsillo said the subdivision itself is not prohibited, it is the waivers that are under review. Mr. Penney said there are two plans; one with a cul-de-sac, and one with a hammerhead turnaround. If better access was allowable, the detriment might not be there and asked the applicant to provide a revised plan showing both the cul-de-sac and the hammerhead. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 5/8/24 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Feck stated that in cases where previous subdivision waivers were granted, there was a way that a conventional subdivision could be built. That is not the case with this application, which makes it very difficult to see the benefit of it. It is inconsistent with the current regulations. Attorney Lanza said that in this case, they could build the two buildings without dividing the land. One building is pre-existing and the other building, through site plan approval, has already been approved by the Planning Board. Ms. Ashman -Collins said that the land division is precisely what they are ruling on. Ms. Miller asked if it matters what the access is called (i.e. private way, right of way, driveway). The Board agreed that it does matter. Mr. Cerretani said that unless the new plans to be presented are drastically different, he does not understand why the board would waive 12 regulations for this purpose. Mr. Corsillo stated that the onus is on the applicant to explain how each of the 12 waivers is not inconsistent with the subdivision control law and how there would be a benefit to the town. Mr. Turnbull asked if an updated analysis had been submitted for traffic and safety vehicle turning. Mr. Corsillo suggested that the Fire Chiefs most recent comments supersede any previous analysis. Mr. Turnbull said more information for site circulation and traffic flow should be submitted, Mr. Cerretani asked if the board could approve a roadway on private property. Ms. Raposa said that the Board could approve a roadway through the hearing process and it would remain a private road on private property. Public Continents Jay Brolin of 7 Claire Avenue said the court remanded the case based on what is in front of the board now. If the applicant wants to put in new plans, they should, but the hearing is about what is in front of the board, not plans. Scott Harrington of 2 Knight Way said that Brenda bright came before the board about 20 years ago requesting the road extension and it was found that it was not in the best interest of the town. Nicole Mullen of 3 Knight Way said that she was confused about how this is beneficial to the town and was concerned about public safety. She asked if the town would be putting in sidewalks throughout the neighborhood. The Board responded that sidewalks are not part of the discussion and there are no plans for sidewalks. Rick Rosemark of 9 Northwood Pine Lane expressed that the subdivision would be a liability and that first responders should not use the field where there is standing water to turn around. He said they are futureproofing the property for generational wealth. He said the neighbors are concerned that the property will be a non-profit and will not generate tax income for the Town. He expressed concern about what would happen if the daycare was no longer there. Sean Nabi of 11 Knight Way said that he hoped the Board would not grant the waiver for the road extension. He expressed his opinion that the applicant has shown that there will be zero benefit to the town. He was also concerned about the precedent for the donation of the land to the Conservation Commission. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 5/8/24 Page 6 of 10 James White of 10 Knight Way said that a fire truck attempting to turn around had previously been stuck in the field. He asked that the board make their decision based on what is available now, not future plans. Jill Keyes of 11 North White Pine Lane agreed with the town engineer. She expressed her opinion that the burden of proof is on the applicant to provide that the subdivision is in the best interest of the Town. She said that much of Mansfield is non -conforming. She was also worried about what future owners would do with the land. She expressed concern about the donation of the land to the Town and there is an easement that crosses through the donated land. She asked about access to the Planning Board minutes from the 80s stating that she would like to research public trails and easement regulations. She was directed to the Town Clerk's office to request the minutes. The Board clarified that the existing easement is a utility easement for power lines and not a public access way. There were no additional public comments. Mr. Corsillo agreed that the applicant has had ample time to present to the Board with more information. Any decision should be made based on the existing information. Mr. Feck said if an applicant wants to provide more information, they should allow it. Attorney Kawamoto reminded the Board that they are only deciding on the subdivision application. All the waivers are still being requested, and some clarity will be gained from having plans that show the subdivision plan alongside the site plan. Mr. Corsillo asked if the applicant submits a new plan removing the hammerhead, thus eliminating the waiver, would that be considered the same application or a new application. Ms. Raposa said they would defer to town counsel. Mr. Cerretani reiterated that the only current consideration is the subdivision application consisting of 12 waivers. Ms. Friedman said that if the Board votes to deny the application and waivers, they would need to provide very specific reasons why. Ms. Raposa noted that the same consideration should be given to vote to approve any of the waivers. The Board requested that the applicant review the 12 waivers and submit any changes before the next meeting. Motion to continue the public hearing to June 12, 2024, at 7:15 pm by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. Feck Six (6) in favor, One,(1) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Draft Zoning Strategies and bylaws for the future housing visioning area; preparation of Annual Town Meeting presentation; and final design guidelines. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 5/8/24 Page 7 of 10 Laura Smead of JM Goldson began with a brief review of the agenda; schedule, design guidelines revisions, fiscal impact analysis revisions, zoning ideas, and the next steps, including the Annual Town Meeting (ATM). She noted that unless the Boatel had additional changes for ATM amendments, she would begin working on the new bylaw changes for future years. Ms. Smead summarized the changes to the Design Guidelines based on Board cormnents from the previous meeting. More emphasis was added to the plan standards for complete streets and pedestrian zones. Toward the end of the document, photos were changed to depict buildings local to the region (Canton, Sharon, Medway, etc.) Ms. Aslunan-Collins questioned materials referenced for buildings and suggested that clapboard and shingles should be added to the material list. Ms. Smead suggested adding a photo that depicts standard siding. Ms. Ashman -Collins noted that the pictures of the condos included do not represent the look of Mansfield housing, specifically, the garages, in front of the front door. She questioned if the Town would want to encourage garages that protrude beyond the front door. MSROD Area Fiscal Impact Analysis has been updated. The main change was to reduce parking to one space per unit. The other changes added notes to the text of the document. Commercial uses may have costs to the Town as well as just residential uses. Full buildouts are unlikely. Additional changes reflected property and motor vehicle excise tax total revenues and net fiscal impacts, which were all still positive. Ms. Raposa noted that the broader fiscal impact analysis was based on comments the Board received at the February 28'1' meeting based on worst -case scenarios. Ms. Smead said they looked at one area specifically analyzing three Unit Type scenarios. The resulting Case Study Parcel Revenue is based on unit size, residents per unit, and munber of school -age children using the 2015 demographic multiplier for Massachusetts published in 2017 and is a standard source. Ms. Smead reviewed the results of each scenario for total municipal and educational costs along with fiscal impacts. The key takeaway for fiscal impacts is positive in two of three scenarios. Ms. Smead moved on to review future zoning ideas. She showed the results of the workshop findings. There is a desire for low to mid -density housing with open space and a, high percentage of affordable housing. Ninety-five percent of respondents agree that matching zoning dimensional standards in portions of R-2, near the Town Center to match the existing conditions. Lastly, more than 50% agree to have more flexibility for adding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Future zoning ideas included; starter home zoning district (40I) Cottage cluster zoning, matching zoning dimensional standards in portions of R-2 near the Town Center to match existing conditions, and ADUs by right, and detached ADUs allowed by special permit. Starter home districts typically consist of homes less than 1,850 SF, district minimum size of three acres, a minimum density of four units per acre (10,000 SF lots), 50% must be 3- bedrooms+, 20% affordable to 100% AMI, and not age restricted. Based on this information, Planning Board Meeting Minutes 5/8/24 Page 8 of 10 Ms. Sinead showed a Town zoning map depicting non -conforming residential areas and noted that further analysis could be conducted for the R-2 area closest to the train station. Ms. Smead spoke about Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); a secondary dwelling trait within the same lot as a larger primary dwelling unit (by right); examples might carve out inside an existing living area (by right); might add to an existing structure (by right if meeting existing dimensional standards); or, a new free-standing structure (or retrofitted free-standing structure) (special permit) The next step will be the Amoral Town Meeting (ATM) on May 22"d. Mr. Cenretani asked for Ms. Smead to attend. He explained the zoning amendments presentation for ATM. There was a brief discussion for fine-tuning the presentation. Planning Board Meeting Minutes for April 10, 2024 Motion to approve minutes as submitted by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Penney Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, One (1) abstained PASSES Planning Board Meeting Minutes for April 24, 2024, were not presented for approval. Summer Schedule Mr. Cerretani suggested one meeting per month in July and August. Meeting dates going forward will be June 12 and 26, July 24, and August 28. If there is a need to convene again, the board will be alerted. Planning Board Open Space and Recreation Committee Representative Sharon Friedman agreed to accept the reappointment. Motion by Ms. Ashman Collins and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to reappointment Ms. Friedman for a one-year term. Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, One (1) abstained PASSES Ms. Raposa suggested a process for updating reappointments with consideration for a future discussion. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 5/8/24 Page 9 of 10 Ms. Friedman noted on Monday, May 13°i from 5:30 pin to 7:00 pm, at the library, there will be a review of the proposed goals and objectives for the 2024 update of the Open Space and Recreation Plan. Ms. Raposa, Mr. Cerretani, and Ms. Friedman will be at the COA Friday, May 10"' at 10:30 am for a presentation of the ATM Zoning amendments. Motion to adjourn at 9:52 pm by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Feck. Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is June 12, 2024 at 7:00 y.rn. Sharon Friedman, Cleric Documents Presented for the Meeting L Q-120?A Date of Approval 1. Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning and Development meeting memo dated 5/8/24 2. 280 School St. (Sweetgreen) Site Plan Administrative Approval Application and Plans, received 4/29/24 3. 19 Knight Way - Court Order of Remand dated April 9, 2024 in FOD, LLC v. Town of Mansfield Planning Board, Civil Action No. 22 MISC 000414 (KTS). 4. 19 Knight Way — Definitive Subdivision Planning Board decision dated 7/21/22 and supporting documents 5. 19 Knight Way — Preliminary Subdivision Planning Board decision dated 2/3/22 and supporting documents 6. JM Goldson PowerPoint presentation, dated 5/8/24 7. Draft Meeting Minutes dated 4/10/24 8. Proposed summer schedule, not dated Planning Board Meeting Minutes 5/8/24 Page 10 of 10