Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 07/24/2024E i l . f 'Meeting Minutes July 24, 2024 Town of Mansfield 6 Park Row, Alansfreld, DIL402048 Planning Board Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B and Virtually Using Go ToWebinar Platform Present: Joseph Cerretani, Chair; Sharon Friedman, Clerk; Beth Ashman -Collins; Michael McClanahan; Ralph Penney; Michael Feck; Mark Corsillo; James Turnbull, Associate and Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Sreelatha Allam, Associate Mr. Cerretani read the meeting's introductory remarks. Perry DiMascio, the developer of the subdivision, was present. He stated that the project has been completed for several years and this is a clerical issue. Ms. Raposa noted that Rick Alves and Mike Ahern support the release of fiords. She said the balance of fiords is approximately $10,107, not including any additional accrued interest since the request for release was submitted. There were no comments from the Board or the public. Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Ms. Friedman to approve the request for surety release for Forest Heights subdivision as all work has been completed and the street was accepted at the November 13, 2018, Special Town Meeting. Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES As a condition of the 2005 special permit, the Planning Board required that future Building/Fagade changes be reviewed by staff and then be submitted to the Planning Board for its approval. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/24/24 Page 1 of 10 There were no representatives present for Sephora. Ms. Raposa said that the fagade change is for the color, which is a minor change. Ms. Raposa noted that the site developer, WS Development, also supports the color change. Motion by Ms. Friedman and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to approve the proposed facade alteration consisting of color changes as noted on the submitted plan for Space # F 160. Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES 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). Attorney Mark J. Lanza, Attorney for the Applicant; Ms. Emily Miller, Applicant; and Mr. Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering were present. Ms. Raposa clarified that the three Board members absent from the previous hearing have watched the video and completed the Mullen form. There were seven voting members present for this hearing. Mr. Cygawnoski recapped what was presented at the last hearing. At that meeting, Mr. Cygawnoski presented two designs, one depicting the original design and one for an alternative entry design with a rotary versus the hanunerhead. The Board had asked for an overlay plan depicting the existing driveways and the proposed roadway. The previous plan presented had different colors depicting the existing roadway, the approved site plan roadway, and the proposed new roadway design, which was difficult to understand. The new cul-de-sac proposal would provide extended roadway access from the existing cul-de-sac to the existing Maker Space building, the existing house at 19 Knight Way, and the newly approved school site plan. The newest plan depicted a cul-de-sac as a roadway extension of the existing cul-de-sac, the existing utilities, drainage, and the existing and proposed buildings. The lot line had been moved to accormnodate a landscape buffer. The house lot would then conform to the new lot line. A new hydrant and transformer would be added, but approval of the fire and electric department would be required. Mr. Cygawnoski explained the four waivers requested with the newest plan design, which were noted on the plan along with the drainage systems. Lot 3 was not shown on the recently submitted plan. The Board suggested that instead of adding Lot 3 to the plan, a description of Lot 3 with meets and bounds could be added to the plan to be used as the conveyance to the Town. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/24/24 Page 2 of 10 Ms. Miller expressed that the proposed plan serves to remedy a non -conformity that was specifically created by a previous Planning Board when Balcom Ridge Estates was originally approved. She reiterated that she had provided a copy of a Planning Board memo from the original subdivision approval where that Board had raised concern and acknowledged that the Knight's ability to subdivide their property should be considered. Miss Miller also expressed that she had an issue with language that a denial could be considered with reference, in part, to the fact that there may be financial personal gain if approved. She expressed that such a concern seems to be unique given the fact that every decision that has been approved by the Board, most approvals in some way, shape, or form, benefits the applicant whether financial or otherwise. Attorney Lanza also wanted to clarify that in previous discussions a question was raised whether the subdivision would be built. Attorney Lanza said that it may or may not be built. He said that as a matter of law, approving a plan is not a mandate or an order to build. He expressed that there are more likely cases in which the Board approved an application that was not built. He noted that if an applicant does "put a shovel in the ground" then the development must be completed per the approval. He expressed that he thought that caused confusion and wanted to clarify that it never has to be built, but once building begins it must be done as approved by the Board. Attorney Lanza said that this matter had been sent back to the Board by the court for a new proceeding to take action on the hammerhead configuration, that was previously denied. The harmnerhead configuration had been developed by the applicant of what they perceived to be concern about a turnaround. Since the Board had expressed concern with the hammerhead, RIM Engineering then created the newest submitted cul-de-sac design for review. Attorney Lanza expressed that he wanted to be clear that what was before the Board for review was the hammerhead proposal and the newest proposal by RIM Engineering and that the Board could act on either option. Ms. Friedman inquired where the driveway to the house would be as it was not shown on the newest plan. Mr. Cygawnoski explained that the owner could place the driveway where they want out of the frontage and that the curb cut is shown on the plan. Ms. Aslunan-Collins expressed her opinion that the current cul-de-sac option is nicer than the hammerhead option. Mr. McClanahan also noted that the queuing would be better. Mr. Cygawnoski confirmed that the plan creates three lots, one for the school, one for the house where frontage has been created, and the third would be non -conforming and not have frontage. The third lot is proposed to be donated to the Town. Mr. Penney noted that there is a waiver to extend the existing 650' dead-end street by 242' creating a total of 892'. The road would be a private way. Mr. Penney said that the road should be labeled on the plan as a private way to be maintained by the owners, not the town. Ms. Friedman asked if there were circumstances where a private road could be made public. Discussion ensued concluding that a private road is not typically made to Town standards and is not likely ever to be public. But a person could submit a public petition at a town meeting. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/24/24 Page 3 of 10 The Board discussed the waiver for the extension of the dead-end street and the unique circumstances that allowed a few past approvals for this waiver. Attorney Lanza said that one benefit to the Town for approval of the plan is the donation of Lot 3 which abuts town -owned conservation land. Another benefit is zoning compliance, a goal and objective of the zoning law of Massachusetts, which is to eliminate as many non -conformities as possible. Lots 1 and 2 would become conforming. There was a brief discussion relating to neighborhood traffic regarding the road extension. Mr. Cerretani noted that traffic had already been discussed as part of the previously approved Site Plan for the school and not a topic for this remand decision. Mr. Corsillo referenced the enviromnental impact study and how the wetlands would be impacted. Ms. Raposa noted that if the road is approved and constructed an application for land disturbance would need to be submitted to the Conservation Commission for review. However, per the plan, the work would be outside the 100' wetlands buffer zone. Mr. Cygawnoski clarified that the road profile is not a waiver, but a modification to the existing approved roadway. Ms. Raposa said that the Town Engineer has not reviewed that portion yet. Utility connections would have their requirements by that department. Mr. Cygawnoski said that there are utilities on the property now for the Marker Space building. Discussion ensued relating to the road being constructed and whether a bond would be required. Mr. Cygawnoski said that the bond waiver would be withdrawn. Attorney Lanza confirmed the withdrawal of the waiver and if the project is approved, they would comply with the conditions for a bond study to determine the appropriate amount for the bond. Attorney Lanza replied to the Board's confusion of whether or not the subdivision would or could be built. He referenced that the applicant plans to build everything from the Site Plan approval for the second school. Some portions of the newly proposed cul-de-sac lie outside of the previously approved projects. If the cul-de-sac is not built, it would not render the house lot or the subdivision non -conforming. The Board asked Town Counsel, Attorney Kawamoto, whether the applicant could tear down the house and build a new house without the road being built to create the actual frontage needed to build a house to make it a conforming lot. Attorney Kawamoto replied that in a scenario in which the house is torn down and a new house is built would the house be on its separate lot? Mr. Cerretani said that if the subdivision is approved with the private way, but the private way does not get built, they can subdivide the three lots. One lot is donated to the Town, one for the school, and one for the private home. Mr. Cerretani asked Town Counsel if the applicant wanted to tear the house down and rebuild it, would the road need to be built to create the actual frontage to allow the building department to provide a building permit for it. Attorney Kawamoto was unclear and said she would need to do more research. Mr. Cygawnoski referenced that other roads in town have been approved that were not built, but by approval, a paper street was created that gives legal access and frontage. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/24/24 Page 4 of 10 Attorney Lanza said that some other municipalities have bylaws for street definition, with one category being an approved subdivision street and the road has to be constructed on the ground to qualify as street frontage. He said that as far as he knows, Mansfield does not have a bylaw definition as such. Attorney Lanza clarified that there are two different approvals before the Board; Site Plan and Subdivision Plan. The subdivision approval shows a particular roadway and the Site Plan shows something different. When the applicant goes to the Building Inspector for a permit for the already approved Site Plan, that is what will be built, not the subdivision plan. Mr. Cerretani asked Attorney Kawamoto to clarify that if the applicant plans to build a new house and frontage is required, would the road need to be built to create the frontage. Ms. Raposa noted that if the Board is inclined to approve the new cul-de-sac plan, more engineering specifications would need to be presented for the Town Engineer to review before approval. She asked the Board for an informal poll to determine a consensus on the cul-de-sac option. Mr. McClanahan and Ivh•. Feck agreed that the cul-de-sac is an improvement. Mr. Corsillo agreed the cul-de-sac is an improvement. He said that the cross-section waiver is fine, the bond study waiver has been withdrawn, and the environmental impact study waiver is fine, he was not convinced that the dead-end road waiver had been sufficiently justified. Mr. Penney agreed with the cul-de-sac, that lot 3 needs to be shown or referenced on the plan as being donated to the Town, and he was fine with the waivers as discussed. He also said that the applicant would need to address the concerns of the Town relating to the drainage. Mi. Turnbull said that he was ok with the first waiver, drainage is being managed per discussion, and he was not in favor of the dead-end road waiver. He expressed his opinion that the situation is unique, but that it was created by the applicant and lie did not feel that the project would provide benefit to the Town. Ms. Ashnan-Collins had no objection for the land to be subdivided. She expressed that she would prefer to not have the dead-end street waiver to accomplish that. She said that neither plan provided a material difference to the distance one would travel on the road to get to the end destination. She said that she does see the benefit to the Town in allowing the subdivision. Ms. Friedman expressed that, in general, she still had some reservations about the project relating to the subdivision and changing the non -conforming lot to a conforming lot. She felt that it benefits the applicant more than the Town. Mr. Cerretani expressed that lie was initially against the project because of the hammerhead the all the waivers, and felt that the revised subdivision plan was better. The Site Plan has been approved for the school with a traffic flow pattern in place. He said that this is a unique situation and is not against the subdivision. He expressed hesitation for approval of the waiver for the Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/24/24 Page 5 of 10 dead-end road extension and felt that it was a situation that the applicant had created. He said that he wanted further continent from the Town Counsel and the Town Engineer. Mr. Penney requested that a note be added to the plan stating that the private road would remain a private way in perpetuity. Ms. Raposa noted that the Conservation Agent had previously indicated support for the subdivision plan. Mr. Cygawnoski noted that the land disturbance application had already been submitted for the school's Site Plan. There were no public continents. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Ms. Friedman to continue the public hearing until Wednesday, September 11, 2024, at 7:05 pm Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES 8: 28 pn Brief Recess 8: 33 pity Meeting Restaned 291 North Main Street (Butter Dreams) regarding the application of Good Food LLC for a proposed bakery and restaurant with outdoor and rooftop seating and rear parking at the vacant decommissioned fire station. The project site is owned by Good Food LLC and is shown on Assessor's Plat 44, Lots 272 and 273 within the Business I (B-1) zone and the North Main Street Business Overlay District. Ms. Friedman read the public notice into the records. She then recused herself from the hearing as she lives within 500' of the proposed project. Mr. Penney also noted that he was the Licensed Site Professional (LSP) of record on the adjacent property and has no financial or other interest in that property or the application property and offered to recuse himself. The applicant was fine with him remaining on the Board for the hearing and did not feel that there would be a conflict of interest. Present for the applicant were Tom Palanza, Palanza Group; Peter Kuplast, Good Food LLC; Brian Jones, Engineer; and Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering. Mr. Cygawnoski explained that the application is for the existing building on the site which is the old decommissioned fire station built in 1930. Mr. Kuplast plans to run a bakery and restaurant at the site. The site consists of the existing brick/block construction building with a concrete driveway in the front a paved driveway in the rear and a two -car wood garage. There is contaminated soil fiom the back of the building to the rear property line and therefore the drainage cannot be placed into the ground. They are allowed to repave and add structures, but not infiltrate the ground. Any work done in the back will have an LSP on site to oversee the Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/24/24 Page 6 of 10 work being done in the contaminated area. Mr. Cygawnoski then explained the site as it exists including the utilities. Mr. Cygawnoski explained that they will be requesting a waiver for the restaurant Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Ms. Raposa noted that the applicant would have to submit a variance to the ZBA for the FAR request, as the Planning Board cannot grant that. Discussion ensued relating to the FAR and what areas would be considered for the calculation. Mr. Cygawnoski then explained what was proposed for the project, the refrigeration areas, paving, and parking spaces. He explained the required electrical and noted that an additional transformer may be required and that they would coordinate with Mansfield Electric. There will be an added retaining wall along the front to maintain the front at proper grade. He explained the process for the water source and drainage to N. Main St., which had been discussed with the Town Engineer. Because of the bakery, a grease trap is required and it will be added to the back of the building and will be noted on the plan with the sewer drainage to N. Main St. to the existing sewer line. Mr. Anselone of Anselone Flooring, under the name of Heritage Realty Trust, has granted a driveway easement to Mr. Kuplast to expand the driveway from 13' to 16' at the narrowest point as a one-way access. There will be signage to direct traffic around the site for entry and exit. The water main and gas main will be replaced and updated. The front of the building is proposed for a new patio area with proper drainage and a retaining wall, which will have a 30" center planter for plants to screen from the sidewalk. There will be proper handicap accessibility into the building. Mr. Cygawnoski explained the water runoff and the infiltration basin and chambers for the site as depicted on the plans. Mr. Cygawnoski said that they submitted a lighting plan by RAB Lighting and explained the proposed lighting. Ms. Raposa inquired about the accuracy of the overall building lighting plan as it depicts the building over the property lines. The applicant will confirm the plan's accuracy. Mr. Cygawnoski said there will be plantings added to hide the generator and transformer. There is a proposed dumpster in the southeast corner that will be fenced in. There are no trees on the property. Snow is contracted to be removed from the property. Ms. Raposa clarified parking and noted that there would more likely be waivers for alternative parking plans. Mr. Palanza said that they have an agreement between Good Food LLC and Foundry LLC to allow parking of 20+ vehicles at the parking lot located at 0 Foundry Street which will be used for employee parking. Ms. Raposa said she is comfortable with the proposal and patrons being able to use downtown parking. Mr. Cerretani agreed that there is ample downtown parking based on the Town's parking study. The floor area ratio (FAR) was corrected and clarified so no further calculations or waiver would be required. Mr. Kuplast explained the type of food that would be served at the bakery and the restaurant. The hours of operation would begin at about 6:00-7:00 am for the bakery and closing after dinner at about 10:00 pm, for seven days per week. Ms. Ashman -Collins suggested signage for where the handicapped parking would be. Mr. Penney suggested offering valet parking. Ms. Raposa said that most of the Site Plan criteria have been addressed. There are just some technical items that need to be finalized. She also noted that there is a Zoning Board of Appeals provision where they can grant a special permit to deviate from the landscaping requirement. Discussion and Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/24/24 Page 7 of 10 review of the bylaws ensued for the landscaping requirement and it was determined that they do meet the requirements for the district and would not need a special permit by the ZBA. The building design will retain as much of the historic elements as possible including replicating the original overhead garage doors as red sliding doors and maintaining the window style. The brick has been repointed and cleaned. There were no public comments. The hearing will be continued to review and comment on the Town Engineer's comments. Motion by Mr. Feck and seconded by Ms. Aslnian-Collins to continue the public hearing until Wednesday, August 28, 2024 at 7:05 pm Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Planning Board Reorganization Mr. McClanahan nominated Mr. Feck for Chair. Mr. Feck accepted the nomination. The nomination was seconded by Mr. Corsillo. Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Ms. Ashman -Collins nominated Ms. Friedman for Clerk. Ms. Friedman accepted the nomination. The nomination was seconded by Mr. Corsillo Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Appointment for Downtown Committee Planning Board appointment (1) for Downtown Conunittee to expire December 31, 2025 *Current appointee is Joseph Cerretani (exp. 8/9/24) Mr. Pemrey volunteered for the Planting Board representative on the Downtown Committee. Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Tutrrre Zonin Bylaw Amendments Ms. Raposa suggested small working group sub -committees for each section and then regroup at a meeting for discussion of the following: • Firearms retail zoning • Housing Zoning Starter Homes ADUs • Dimensional Standards Compliance Analysis After discussion, the Board confirmed who will be in each group and will discuss meeting times individually. The meetings will need to be posted and minutes taken. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/24/24 Page 8 of 10 Meeting Minutes June 12, 2024 Motion by Mr. Feck and seconded by Ms. Ashnnan-Collins to approve as presented. Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Two (2) abstained PASSES June 26, 2024 Mr. Penney noted changes and it was agreed to postpone the approval until the changes have been made. Ms. Raposa clarified the MBTA pre -compliance and formal compliance review and that she had submitted a supplemental narrative addressing the issues. Mr. Corsillo asked if the recent vacancy of the Economic Development Director position would be filled. Ms. Raposa replied that there would be further discussion with the Town Manager and the Select Board for filling the position. Mr. Penney asked if an ongoing item could be added to the agenda for things that come up during a meeting that may need to be discussed. Ms. Raposa agreed. Mr. Penney mentioned that Rep. Barrows is working on acquiring funding for Mansfield to build a hail or a roadway from the train station to a potential firture parking lot. Ms. Raposa updated the Board on the status of the Parkway. The Parkway team had recent meetings with VHB and with the Turner family. They plan to meet with the Cleminey family at the upcoming project meeting. They are also working with VHB for the second Parkway public forum with drafted responses from the previous meeting continents. Mr. Cerretani asked whether the Board could say the Pledge of Allegiance, like the Select Board, at the beginning of the meetings. The board consensus was not to do so. Motion by Mr. Feck and seconded by Mr. Turnbull to adjourn at 9:55 pm Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is August 28, 2024 at 7: 00 p. in. t — I-� Sharon Friedman, Clerk 6, 2 8, 2.0 Date of Approval Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/24/24 Page 9 of 10 Documents Presented for the Meetine 1. Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning and Development meeting memo dated 7/24/24 2. Forest Heights Subdivision release of surety request by Perry & Feck LLC dated 7/8/24 3. 19 Knight Way Definitive Field of Dreams New Road Layout by RIM Engineering dated 7/17/24 4. 19 Knight Way Attorney Mark J. Lanza email dated July 24, 2024 5. 19 Knight Way Comments by Fire Dept. dated 7/23/24 6. 19 Knight Way Missed Meeting Forms by five (5) Board members 7. 291 N. Main St. Application, Site Plans, and Lighting Plans received 7/26/24 8. Draft Meeting Minutes dated 6/12/24 and 6/26/24 Planning Board Meeting Minutes 7/24/24 Page 10 of 10