Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 09/11/2024RaE��xar ,. R CFIvFo Town of Mansfield a r F a r��';I,, ;�y n�f" G X k Rom,,Mansfield, MA 02048 o^ ASA ��"� w ,A q: o Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 11, 2024 Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B and Virtually Using GoToWebinar Platform Present: Michael Feck, Chair; Sharon Friedman, Clerk; Michael McClanahan; Ralph Penney; Beth Aslunan-Collins; Mark Corsillo; James Turnbull, Associate and Sreelatha Allam, Associate Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Regarding the application of Groves Building Co., Inc. to construct an additional 14,368 SF apartment building containing 12 units with the associated utilities. The project site is owned by Spring St. Mill LLC and is shown on Assessor's Plat 028, Lots 071 and 149 within the Residential 2 (R-2) and the Residential 3 (R-3) zones. Cameron Gray of Bay Colony Group and Jim Lazzara, owner/applicant were present. Mr. Gray noted that since the last meeting, there were comments from the Town Engineer that needed to be addressed in addition to a response from the Fire Department regarding the truck turning radius. They have since addressed the conmients from the Town Engineer and submitted revised plans and memorandum. They also received the Fire Department's response. Mr. Lazzara commented that he spoke with the Conservation Agent regarding land that would be impacted in areas of the flood zone. He submitted a copy of the Minor Exempt Activity to Mansfield Wetlands Protection that he received from the Conservation Agent who noted that the activity to impacted land would be minor and exempt from the Zoning Bylaw. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/11/24 Page 1 of 16 Ms. Raposa clarified the affordable units for this project. She read Section 230.6.3 of the Zoning Bylaw. This hylary applies to all developments involving the creation of six or snore dwelling units or six or more lots for residential use. Developments may not be segmented to avoid compliance with this bylaw. Therefore, the existing building with 22 units and the new building with 12 units total of 36 units would require 5 total affordable units. Mr. Lazzara said that the Regulatory Agreement will be updated to reflect the additional units. Public Comments — there were no continents. Ms. Friedman asked for a review of the landscaping. Mr. Lazzara said they would be disturbing a small area and removing existing bamboo during construction. He said there are limitations to what could be added, but shrubs and small trees could be added. Ms. Raposa reviewed the draft findings for the Board's consideration: FINDINGS Site Plan Annroval Criteria. The Planning Board shall avvrove a site plan upon its determination that: (1) For the given location and type and extent of land use, the design of building form, building location, egress points, grading, and other elements of the development could not reasonably be altered to: (a) Improve pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicular safety, and safety of circulation design for people with disabilities, both within the site and egressing from it; (b) Reduce the visual intrusion of parking areas viewed from public ways or abutting premises; (c) Reduce the volume of cut or fill; (d) Protect and enhance existing site features; (e) Protect adjoining premises against detrimental uses by the provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, and preservation of views, light, and air (f) Reduce the number of mature trees to be removed from the site; (g) Reduce soil erosion; (h) Reduce hazard or inconvenience to pedestrians from stormwater flow and ponding. The Planning Board can approve this finding because: (a). The layout of the existing site will not change due to the construction of the proposed building. There are currently no existing issues and future issues with pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular safely are not anticipated. The Mansfield Fire Department approved the new hydrant location and Turn Analysis for the tower ladder truck. (b). The existing parking area is not visible from the public way or abutting properties. The proposed parking will be an expansion of the existing parking area (c). The site has been designed to meet the existing topography and reduce the arrrount of cut and fills. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/11/24 Page 2 of 16 (d). The project will utilize existing open space on the site. (e). The proposed project has been designed in accordance with all state and local regulations. 69. The proposed project utilizes existing open space. (g). The design will meet the existing topography and is not expected to increase erosion. (h). The project will utilize the existing stormwater system which has been designed to meet all local and state regulations. (2) Adequate water supply and waste disposal systems are available to the site. The project site will be serviced by municipal water and sewer. (3) The plan provides for all of the following: (a) Adequate access to each structure for fire and service equipment; (b) Adequate utility service and drainage; (c) Compliance with the landscaping and screening requirements under § 230-4.3 of this bylaw; (d) Conformance of the arrangement of parking and loading spaces in relation to the proposed uses of the premises in accordance with § 230-4.4 of this bylaw; (e) Appropriate design features, building elevations, and design of the buildings and amenities in relation to site features, unique characteristics and neighborhood character, as may be applicable; (f) Proper methods of disposal of refuse and other wastes resulting from the uses permitted on the site. The Planning Board can approve this finding because: (a). The layout of the site will not change and adequate access has been provided to the proposed building. (b ). The proposed building will be serviced by municipal water, sewer, and electric. The proposed project will utilize the existing drainage which was designed to all state and local regulations. (c). The project complies with all local regulations. (d). The project utilizes the existing and proposed parking and has been designed to - - comply with all local regulations. (e). The new building will be in character with the existing building on -site. j). Dumrpsters will continue to be on -site in order to properly dispose of all refuse and waste. (4) Adequate capacity is available on affected streets to accommodate the proposed project, based on a traffic study if one is required by the Planning Board. If a development is projected to cause a decrease in level of service (LOS) over the no -build condition on affected streets, the Planning Board may require mitigation measures to restore the LOS to the no -build condition. The Planning Board can approve this finding because the proposed building consisting of 12 one -bedroom units is not anticipated to have a substantial impact on traffic. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/11/24 Page 3 of 16 (5) The proposed development is consistent with the goals and policies of the Mansfield Master Plan and Open Space and Recreation Plan, where applicable. The Planning Board can approve this finding because it supports the Master Plan goal of "Bringing People Together" specifically by providing affordable and senior housing. Ms. Raposa reviewed the standard conditions and said she would add a condition for additional vegetation based on the Board discussion. Mr. Turnbull inquired about a requirement for the sidewalk. Ms. Raposa said there is no schedule yet for the Town work on sidewalks at this location and it would be premature to require anything at this time. Mr. Lazzara had indicated that he is open to conversations with the Town about the sidewalks when the Town is ready to plan the project. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to approve the site plan application for 68 Spring Street with conditions based on the findings as discussed. Roll Call Vote: Michael McClanahan Aye Mark Corsillo Aye Ralph Penney Aye Michael Feck, Chair Aye Sharon Friedman, Clerk Aye Beth Ashman Collins Aye Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by lvh•. McClanahan to close the public hearing. Roll Call Vote: Michael McClanahan Aye Mark Corsillo Aye Ralph Penney Aye j Michael Feck, Chair Aye Sharon Friedman, Clerk Aye Beth Ashman Collins Aye Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Regarding the application of May Institute to renovate the existing building, add a 5,700+/- SF addition to the south side of the building with parking lot modifications and upgrades to the existing drainage to convert the space to educational use. The project site is owned by New England Controls, Inc. and is shown on Assessor's Plat 044, Lot 211 within the PBD (Planned Business District) zone. Joe Piccirilli, Highpoint Engineering, said that they reviewed and submitted revised plans based on the Board comments from the last meeting. He said that they received responses from both Fire and Police. The Town Engineer had a few continents after review of the latest plans. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/11/24 Page 4 of 16 There were inconsistencies with the test pits, so they went with a more conservative approach and are proposing a lower profile system. Mr. Piccirilli responded to the Town Engineer's latest comment regarding the existing sewer main. He asked that a condition of approval be included that they work with the Town Engineer to agree on a method for the 6" water service. Mr. Piccirilli said the plans have been revised for traffic flow based on the Traffic Officer's previous comments. There will be a one-way circulation around the parking lot. This will also prevent any potential conflicts with the fire truck maneuvering on the site to not face any oncoming traffic. Mr. McClanahan asked if there would be easements to the abutting property. Mr. Piccirilli confirmed that everything is within the property. Public Comments — there were no comments. Ms. Raposa reviewed the draft findings for the Board's consideration: FINDINGS: Site Plan Approval criteria. The Planninv Board shall approve a site Ian upon its determination that: (1) For the given location and type and extent of land use, the design of building form, building location, egress points, grading, and other elements of the development could not reasonably be altered to: (a) Improve pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicular safety, and safety of circulation design for people with disabilities, both within the site and egressing from it; (b) Reduce the visual intrusion of parking areas viewed from public ways or abutting premises; (c) Reduce the volume of cut or fill; (d) Protect and enhance existing site features; (e) Protect adjoining premises against detrimental uses by the provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, and preservation of views, light, and air; (f) Reduce the number of mature trees to be removed from the site; (g) Reduce soil erosion; (h) Reduce hazard or inconvenience to pedestrians from stormwater flow and ponding. The Planning Board can approve this finding because: (a) The parking lot will remain as is with minor modifications made to allow for improved circulation and a drop-off area. The Mansfield Fire Department approved the FDC and hydrant location. (b) There is good screening of the parking lot from the public ways and abutting premises. (c) There is minimal cut/fill necessary to construct the proposed project. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/11/24 Page 5 of 16 (d) Existing site features will remain except for improvements to existing drainage infrastructure and minor parking lot modifications. Additional iaalkways will also be provided. (e) The adjoining premises will be protected by improved drainage infrastructure. f The number of mature trees to be removedfrom om the site was limited to the least amount practicable to allow for utility installation and drainage infrastructure, f A soil erosion plan will be in place. (h) Stormwater calculations have been provided showing a reduction in offsite peak q J lows. (2) Adequate water supply and waste disposal systems are available to the site. Town water and sewer are available. (3) The plan provides for all of the following: (a) Adequate access to each structure for fire and service equipment; (b) Adequate utility service and drainage; (c) Compliance with the landscaping and screening requirements under § 230-4.3 of this bylaw; (d) Conformance with § 230-4.4 of this bylaw of the arrangement of parking and loading spaces in relation to the proposed uses of the premises; to § 230-4.4 of this bylaw; (e) Appropriate design features, building elevations, and design of the buildings and amenities in relation to site features, unique characteristics and neighborhood character, as may be applicable; (f) Proper methods of disposal of refuse and other wastes resulting from the uses permitted on the site. The civil, landscape, and architectural plans provides for all of the above listed items a-f. (4) Adequate capacity is available on affected streets to accommodate the proposed project, based on a traffic study if one is required by the Planning Board. If a development is projected to cause decrease in level of service (LOS) over the no -build -- condition on affected streets, the Planning Board, may require mitigation measures to restore the LOS to the no -build condition. Traffic plan approved by the Mansfield Police Department (5) The proposed development is consistent with the goals and policies of the Mansfield Master Plan and Open Space and Recreation Plan, where applicable. The proposal is consistent with the 2020 Master Plan and meets the open space requirement under the zoning bylaw. Ms. Raposa stated that the standard conditions will be a part of the decision. She also recommended that the Board attach a condition that The Town Engineer's comments need to be satisfied. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/11/24 Page 6 of 16 Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Ms. Friedman to close the public hearing and approve the site plan application for 9 Oxford Road with conditions based on the findings as discussed. Roll Call Vote: Michael McClanahan Aye Mark Corsillo Aye Ralph Penney Aye Michael Feck, Chair Aye Sharon Friedman, Clerk Aye Beth Ashman Collins Aye Six (6) 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 representing the Applicant; Ms. Emily Miller, Applicant; and Mr. Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering were present. Attorney Noemi Kawamoto, Town Counsel, was present remotely. Mr. Feck noted that a new plan and one new waiver had been submitted. Mr. Cygawnoski said that they have submitted a full subdivision plan. He had not received comments on the plan. He noted that the newest waiver for sidewalks was submitted because it does not make sense to add sidewalks since the school will have its own drop-off point. The one house would have access but the way the road is set up it does not seem to be needed. It would also be a private road. Lot 3 had been added to the plan as the Board previously requested. Attorney Lanza said that he previously cormmuricated with Town Counsel regarding which surety would be used. He reviewed the four surety options and noted that they have opted for the tripartite agreement option. This option would be an agreement between the Town, Applicant, and a lender. An estimate of the work would be determined and presented to the Board for approval. The surety would be posted before any work begins. Ms. Raposa said that she recently discovered that the tripartite form of surety had previously been removed from the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. She said that she reached out to Town Counsel for guidance in getting the tripartite surety back in place. Attorney Lanza explained that due to bank failures during the 1980's many towns removed that form of surety as an option. He said that the tripartite agreement would be in place of the bond. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/11/24 Page 7 of 16 Mr. Penney inquired if the tripartite would meet the Board's concern that the road would be built. Attorney Lanza replied that the surety would be in place to ensure funding for the road to be built. They do want to build the road. Ms. Raposa addressed the engineering portion stating that the Town Engineer has not had the time to review the new submissions and she is expecting a memo from him. She suggested that they move forward with the current discussion and then continue the meeting to October to include the Engineer's cormnents before final action. Mr. Feck suggested discussion on the three waivers requested; the environmental impact study, the dead-end road length, cross-section waivers, and discussion and comments for the new sidewalk waiver. Mr. Corsillo said that Ire did not see adequate justification for not needing sidewalks, nor justification for allowing the extension of the dead-end road. Mr. Turnbull agreed with Mr. Corsillo and noted that most of the state guidelines are in place for pedestrian safety, mainly on safe roads to schools. He referenced the MassDOT safe roads policy relating to public schools. Ivlr. Cygawnoski said that they would withdraw the sidewalk waiver and add the sidewalks to the plan. Mr. Feck said that this is a unique situation where there are two different uses on the same site. Mr. Corsillo noted the waiver portion of the Subdivision Control Law and felt that there was not sufficient justification to grant the waivers. Mr. Feck said that Ire also reviewed the original subdivision of Knight Way, which was submitted during the original findings. He said that the Planning Board, at that time, contemplated the effect of Knight Way to be built relating to the frontage. Both Mr. Corsillo and Mr. Turnbull disagreed. Mr. Turnbull expressed his opinion that the extension of the roadway is not justified due to its proximity to environmental resource areas, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission, but the Board oversees - - - - Mr. Cygawnoski said that he did not have the land disturbance calculations, but would submit them. Mr. Feck said that if the drainage works properly, it should not have an adverse effect on the buffer zone. Ms. Aslmian-Collins asked Mr. Feck to clarify his comment on this relating to the original decision. Mr. Feck replied that the original decision created the easement to allow for future development of the Knight's land. At that time the dead-end road length extension was allowed. Since then the Rules and Regulations have changed and the road extension now requires a waiver. Discussion ensued and Both Mr. Corsillo and Mr. Turnbull disagreed with Mr. Feck regarding the road extension. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/11/24 Page 8 of 16 Mr. Permey expressed that the road extension would create a private driveway, which makes this situation different than other road extensions that come under Board review. The road will be private and would be maintained by the property owner, not the Town. He expressed that access to the schools and house would be improved. It makes the lots conforming for frontage, as they currently are non -conforming lots. Mr. Penney expressed that the revisions that the applicant has presented are a good solution. Mr. Feck agreed and said that the donation of Lot 3 would add to the adjacent Town -owned conservation land and would benefit the Town. Mr. Penney expressed that he would agree to allow the environmental impact study waiver. Mr. Cygawnoski said that they submitted a stormwater report in the application, which included a drainage study. Mr. Penney asked for clarification of the profile waiver. Mr. Cygawnoski explained that the profile waiver is for a modification to allow the existing entrance to remain 20 feet wide and not centered. There was faither discussion regarding the court order and the Board members' opinions on how the review could be interpreted for the decision. Mr. Corsillo read a segment of the Subdivision Control Law and expressed his opinion that, at the time of filing the Definitive Subdivision Plan, the application was not complete based on what was required to be submitted with the application. Attorney Lanza replied that he submitted a narrative letter on June 21, 2024, explaining the justification of the waivers and that it meets the law. Other board members disagreed with Mr. Corsillo and noted that an applicant is allowed to submit additional documents after the initial application filing. Ms. Friedman inquired if Town Counsel could continent regarding the road extension and subdivision requirements. Attorney Kawamoto replied that the applicant can request a waiver of the road extension requirement, but that there needs to be a reason for the waiver. She expressed that this situation is different than a normal situation. There is a parcel of land where a school is going to be built and the applicant is conforming to that. She said that one of the things that the judge mentioned in the court order was that this is a unique situation where you have a school that is already going to be built. In that specific situation, he wanted to know why can't the lots be subdivided. She said that the Board does have the power to waive that. Ms. Friedman asked if this would set a precedent for future subdivision or definitive plans. Attorney Kawamoto replied that it would not set a precedent. This is a very specific situation where the school is a Dover Amendment protected use and the reason it is going in there is that it is Dover protected. This kind of situation would not happen often. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/11/24 Page 9 of 16 There were no public continents. Ms. Raposa said that she was seeking direction from the Board to prepare for the October 9t" meeting. She noted that the engineering report should be submitted before then and any issues could be resolved by the engineers. She asked if the Board wanted to close the public hearing portion, provide direction for presenting the findings and conditions, and continue to the next scheduled meeting. Ms. Raposa also noted that there was public correspondence received and that they were distributed to the Board and applicant. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to close the public hearing Roll Call Vote: Michael McClanahan Aye Mark Corsillo Aye Ralph Penney Aye Michael Feck, Chair Aye Sharon Friedman, Clerk Aye Beth Ashman Collins Aye Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES The Board inquired what parties are in the Tripartite agreement. Attorney Lanza explained that the agreement would be between the bank, the Town, and the applicant in the amount agreed to by the Board. Town Counsel would write the agreement, which is a standard form. Ms. Raposa asked if the Board is leaning toward the waivers and what conditions they would want to add to the draft decision. She reviewed examples of waiver language and conditions of approval. Ms. Friedman asked what happens if the school is sold in the future, which could create a change of use. Ms Raposa replied that if the school ceases to exist then a new application would need to be - submitted. Any new application would have to conform to zoning for allowed uses. Mr. Feck expressed that the original subdivision approval for the previous owner did contemplate firture expansion and he felt that the road extension waiver should be approved. Mr. Turnbull said that the lot is within a Mass BioMap core habitat for rare species from Natural Heritage data. This is within the Planning Board's jurisdiction to coordinate with the Conservation Agent. He felt that there should be an environmental study and that the roadway extension should not be approved. Ms. Raposa said that she would address this issue with the Conservation Agent as this issue has not been raised in any previous conversations with her. The Board reviewed the BipMap Core Habitats map that Mr. Turnbull had submitted. The Board agreed that Ms. Raposa should review this with the Conservation Agent. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/11/24 Page 10 of 16 Ms. Miller said that before she purchased the property, there was a river and vernal pool on the site. She then reached out to the Conversation Agent and her engineer asking them if the Natural Heritage applied to this property. She said that she was told that it did not apply to this property. Ms. Miller said that the driveway was approved with the site plan for the school. The discussion was for a small added curved turning area to the previously approved driveway. The effect of the impervious surface is minimal. Attorney Lanza commented that species in the National Heritage Foundation does not apply to subdivision control. That would be a separate environmental approval. Mr. Feck noted that, during this discussion, he checked the National Heritage website and there is BioMap 2 data. He then read from the website regarding the map "... it is intended for conservation planning and should not be used for regulatory proposes. " Ms. Raposa clarified that the public portion of the hearing has been closed and the next meeting would be for the Board's deliberation. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Ms. Friedman to continue the public hearing to October 9°1 at 7:00 pm. Roll Call Vote: Michael McClanahan Aye Mark Corsillo Aye Ralph Penney Aye Michael Feck, Chair Aye Sharon Friedman, Clerk Aye Beth Ashman Collins Aye Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES i Sub -Committee Zoning Bolan, Amendments Dimensional Standards Mr. Feck noted that the sub -committee has not met since the last update. Housing Zoning Starter Homes and ADUs Ms. Raposa said that she and Mr. Feck spoke at the 9/4/24 Select Board meeting. They spoke about the road to fall town meeting, which would be taking place the first week in January 2025. This would allow time to develop the bylaw amendments. Ms. Raposa reviewed the timeline and said that the first public hearing would be on November 13°i and the second public hearing would be on December 11'h. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/11/24 Page 11 of 16 Mr. Corsillo asked if specific requirements are allowed for ADU's on lots that have septic. Ms. Raposa responded that review of septic is through the Board of Health (BOH) and they would make sure that they meet the requirements. The ADU would need to have a method of disposal through the BOH, but zoning does not dictate the method of disposal. She said that the Building Inspector will be at the next sub -committee meeting. Firearms Retail Zoning Ms. Friedman said that she and Ms. Raposa met on 9/10/24 and discussed the following: • Review of the map identifying 500-foot buffer zones around schools, daycares, pre-schools, municipal buildings, houses of worship, and public parks and playgrounds with the assumption that no firearm businesses would be located in residential areas • They identified two possible zones in Mansfield for firearms business; the Planned Business District and Industrial 1 zones • Review draft bylaw elements Next steps o meet with Chief Sellon for licensing and security plans o send draft to Town Counsel for review 0 outreach to community stakeholders o public discussion o review the perception of the bylaw as being an undue burden 10% of residents in Mansfield have a license to own a firearm The bylaw makes the location of businesses intentional The next sub -committee meeting will take place in early October Parkway/Transit Oriented Development (TOD) The Parkway public forum #2 will be on September 25th at the Public Safety Building. There will be a meeting with property owners on September 16"' to discuss the status of the preliminary design, which will be presented at the public forum. Ms. Raposa said that there are weekly meetings with VHB for discussion of the parkway alignment, traffic count, level of service at the intersection, and the parking garage. She asked the Board to submit their cormnents and questions to her before the public forum. Ms. Raposa said that discussions for the garage funding have just begun since there is only a conceptual plan for the layout. Mr. Penney noted, regarding the parking garage, that the MBTA's goal is to increase ridership. With the development of the properties, current parking will be lost. Ms. Raposa said that this is only at the conceptual stages. For example, if there is a 300-unit development, there would be 300 parking spaces at the development to meet the zoning requirements. A brief discussion ensued regarding the new developments and parking for existing residents and commuters. The engineers will be considering trip generation for the parkway design. Mr. Corsillo noted that EV charging would also need to be taken into consideration. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/11/24 Page 12 of 16 Ms. Raposa said the garage concept is for four stories and would not go over the railroad tracks. Funding has been applied through MassWorks and other funding sources are being explored. Planning Board Appointments (2) for Capital Improvement Program Committee to expire December 31 2025 [current appointees are Beth Ashman Collins (exp 9113124) and Sharon Friedman (exp 10111124)1 Ms. Friedman and Ms. Ashman -Collins agreed to continue as representatives on the Committee. Their terms would expire on December 31, 2025. Motion by Nh•. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to appoint Ms. Friedman and Ms. Ashman -Collins to the Capital hnprovement Program Committee to expire December 31, 2025. Roll Call Vote: Michael McClanahan Aye Mark Corsillo Aye Ralph Permey Aye Michael Feck, Chair Aye Sharon Friedman, Clerk Aye Beth Ashman Collins Aye James Turnbull Aye Sree Allam Aye Eight (8) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Meeting Minutes Minutes June 26, 2024 — moved to the October 9, 2024 meeting Minutes August 28, 2024 - Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Turnbull to approve as presented. Roll Call Vote: Michael McClanahan Aye Mark Corsillo Aye Ralph Penney Abstain Michael Feck, Chair Aye Sharon Friedman, Clerk Aye Beth Ashman Collins Aye James Turnbull Aye Sree Allam Aye Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, One (1) abstained PASSES Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/11/24 Page 13 of 16 291 N. Main Sheet final plans for Planning Board signatures Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to endorse the final plans for 291 N. Main Street. Roll Call Vote: Michael McClanahan Aye Mark Corsillo Aye Ralph Penney Aye Michael Feck, Chair Aye Sharon Friedman, Clerk Aye Beth Ashman Collins Aye Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES No items. Ms. Friedman let the board know that the Mansfield ADA Self -Evaluation and Transition plan is completed. The plan reviewed public buildings and included cost estimates including items that can be completed in-house, which are labeled maintenance, and others that require a larger investment. The plan is on the Mansfield website. Ms. Friedman asked for the status of 177 Old Elm Street regarding the Town's right -of -first - refusal for the purchase of Chapter 61 land. Ms. Raposa said she would inquire with the Town Manager's office and get back to the Board. Ms. Friedman asked what happened to the proposed battery source facility on Gilbert St. Mr. Feck responded that it may still be in the works. Ms. Raposa said that an application for battery storage would go to the state unless the town has a bylaw for battery storage. She asked the Board if they wanted to consider drafting future zoning language for battery storage. Mr. Penney referenced the Mansfield 250°i anniversary celebration. The Town is seeking participants for the parade on May 17, 2025, and suggested that Board members participate. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/11/24 Page 14 of 16 Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Penney to adjourn at 9:12 pm Roll Call Vote: Michael McClanahan Aye Mark Corsillo Aye Ralph Penney Aye Michael Feck, Chair Aye Sharon Friedman, Clerk Aye Beth Ashman Collins Aye Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is September 25, 2024 at 7: 00 p. m. * *This Planning Board meeting will be the VHB Public Formn #2 for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parkway Location - Public Safety Building Community Room - 500A East St. =, Sharon Friedman, Clerk Documents Presented for the Meeting I C),C1 2-02+ Date of Approval 1. Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning and Development meeting memo dated 9/11/24 2. Spring St, 68 Continued — new documents received for this meeting a. Revised plan set dated 9/4/24 b. Hearing Continue Request to 9/11/24, dated 8/30/24 c. Rick Alves, Town Engineer Continents dated 9/4/24 d. Mansfield Fire Dept. Comments dated 9/10/24 e. Bay Colony Response letter dated 9/4/24 3. Oxford Rd, 9 Continued — new documents received for this meeting a. Fire Dept. Comment regarding Turn Analysis & Traffic Plan dated 9/10/24 b. Revised plan set dated 9/9/24 c. Drainage Report dated 9/9/24 d. Hearing Continue Request to 9/11/14 dated 8/30/24 e. Rick Alves, Town Engineer Comments dated 9/11/24 Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/11/24 Page 15 of 16 4. Knight Way, 19 Continued - new documents received for this meeting a. Sree Allam Missed Meeting Statement dated 8/28/24 b. Revised plan set dated 8/30/24 c. Hearing Continue Request to 9/11/24, dated 7/29/24 d. FOD, LLC Land Disturbance Permit Application, not dated e. FOD, LLC response to Planning Board dated 7/27/24 f. Public Comment Jill Keyes dated 9/10/24 g. Public Comment Bill Cavanaugh dated 9/9/24 h. FOD, LLC Response to public comments dated 9/9/24 5. Draft Meeting Minutes dated 6/26/24 and 8/2824 Planning Board Meeting Minutes 9/11/24 Page 16 of 16