Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 10/23/2024RECEIVED T01AIN CLERKS OFW&n of Mansfield o iiar k v, ''field, [l1A 02048 P = 102q HIT! 114 A 8W � g4'' Planning Board f�ASPO\S ,x HANSFIELD rJASSACHMETTS Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024 Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B and Virtually Using Go ToWebinar Platform Present: Michael Feck, Chair; Sharon Friedman, Clerk; Joseph Cerretani; Michael McClanahan; Ralph Penney; Beth Ashman -Collins; and Sreelatha Allam, Associate Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Mark Corsillo and James Turnbull, Associate Mr. Feck called the meeting to order and read the meeting's introductory remarks regarding video recording. Regarding the application of the NES Group, Inc. for a modification of an existing Special Permit dated May 25, 2017, pursuant to Bylaw Sections 230-5.5 to construct a driveway connection between the subject site and the southern abutting property. The project site is owned by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 104, Building Corp., and is shown on Assessor's Plat 016, Lot 013 within the Reservoir District (R) zone. The applicant submitted a written request to continue the hearing to November 13, 2024. Motion by Ms. Ashman -Collins and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to continue the public hearing to November 13, 2024 at 7:00 pm. Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Planning Board Meeting Minutes 10/23/24 Page 1 of 7 Follow-up to the TOD Parkway Public Session ##2 Discussion of the public forum and what to address in the Planning Board response letter to VHB outlining comments and concerns that the Board may have. Mr. Feck said that he and Ms. Raposa recently walked the proposed parkway area. Mr. Feck provided a summary of suggestions on how to work with the existing house lots on Howe Street for a better layout of the parkway. He suggested that some of the existing driveways on Howe Street could extend to the parkway and the projected parkway path could be moved closer to the existing northern road. This would eliminate having two roadways parallel to each other. He noted that the last corner house on Howe Street is in the TOD area. He mentioned that there has been debate regarding the access and use of the paper street (Foundry Street) and how to land swap for use. Mr. Penney said that the paper street was abandoned and the land was conveyed to the abutters. The Board discussed the potential use of the unused portion of River Street for the parkway and moving the parkway back. Mr. Penney asked if the parkway design committee had provided a letter in response to tine Board's continent letter that had been submitted after the first public session. Ms. Raposa replied that they had sent a response memorandum, which she had submitted to the Board. Mr. Feck said a review of the neighborhood to the north and the search for finding to improve that neighborhood should continue. Mr. Cerretani said a discussion should take place with the rail owner, CSX, to make sure that the rail cars do not block the right of way over the tracks. Ms. Allam suggested that CSX should be aware of the upcoming parkway project and the project timeline because the processes for coordination with them is very long. Ms. Allam noted that if MassDOT is involved as an owner, they are much more responsive. Ms. Friedman expressed that she wants to be sure that the pedestrian/bike path is taken care of and that it is placed in the best location for safety. Mr. Feck referenced the forum discussion relating to the options for the location of the pedestrian/bike path to the roadway. Mr. Penney noted that some of the information from the 9/25/24 public forum was not in the minutes and expressed his opinion that he only saw what the presenter said. He said that the Board members and the public were not accurately represented in the minutes and that nothing that the board said was in the minutes. Ms. Friedman said that many of the continents were listed in bullet form in the minutes. Ms. Friedman read some of the bullets (Questions for the shared use parkway, should walking and biking paths be separate, should a speed limit be implemented for e-bikes, mitigation for vehicles blocking RR crossing, CSX owns the railway — not the MBTA) Mr. Penney said the chair of the select board was there talking about money and paying for the project, and none of that was in the minutes. Also, nothing about Foxboro building a trail was mentioned, and it should be a consideration. Mr. Penney said that some of the neighbors who lived in the area were there talking about the train noise, and that was not in the minutes. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 10/23/24 Page 2 of 7 Ms. Friedman asked Mr. Penney if he wanted to redesign the minutes. He said "no" but would like the minutes tes to accurately represent what was said. Ms. Raposa said that the minutes are not meant to be a transcript, they are meant to be a summary. She asked the board if they would like the minutes to be more precise, and that would be a Board decision. She has no critique of the minutes as they have been done, and stated that the Board secretary doesn't make individual notes on specific things people say. She said that Board members are welcome to take their notes during a meeting if they like. Mr. Penney said that he would like the minutes to be more of the transcript. Ms. Raposa acknowledged Mr. Penney's desire but said that it was a Board decision. Mr. Feck said the minutes were accurate, and the comnnent about the bike path was very minor. Ms. Ashman Collins and Mr. Feck pointed out that the recording of the meeting is also a record of the meeting. Mr. Cerretani said that he did notice that the format changed for the most recent minutes. He was ok with it, but the Board should vote on which style they want for the minutes. Ms. Aslunan Collins stated that she prefers the summary format. She stated that it is the right of the Board members to say they want a particular comment reflected in the minutes. tes. She stated that sometimes minutes can be too extensive. Ms. Raposa said that, in her experience, sometimes Board members go in looking for what they said to make sure it is accurate. Mr. Penney said that the role of the minutes is to accurately document what was said in the meeting. Mr. Feck said that it does not have to be quoted, just what the conversation was about. Ms. Aslmian-Collins agreed that it should reflect what issues were raised and what topics were discussed. Mr. Penney mentioned that there was a conversation about "street trees" that was not reflected in the minutes. Mr. Penney said that he mentioned that street trees are part of the bylaws. Ms. Allam said that perhaps some small points were missed, but she agreed that the minutes should be in summary form. Mr. Penney said that having all the information makes it easier to write a letter after the meeting, rather than relying on memory. Ms. Friedman stated that she remembered the street tree discussion, but believes that minutes should be in sunmiary form. If someone thinks information should be added, they can ask for it to be added. Mr. Penney asked Ms. Raposa what the requirement for minutes was. It was pointed out that many boards just have the agenda with bullet points added. Ms. Raposa read the State statute requirement for minutes. The requirements confirmed that the minutes need not be a transcript but in summary form. Mr. Feck agreed that the summary form is sufficient, and that any Board member can go in and add things when the minutes are reviewed. He stated that every quote does not need to be included. Ms. Friedman suggested that the vote on the minutes be tabled and that Mr. Penney could make a list of key bullet points he thought were omitted. Mr. Penney said that he couldn't do that as he didn't remember all the points. Mr. Penney pointed out that the DPW director spoke about ftmding and timing for the improvements to County St. Ms. Friedman requested again that Mr. Penney make a list of items lie would like added to the minutes, and Mr. Penney said he was not going to do it. Mr. Penney added that there was a discussion of the freight line to Patriot Place on the bike path. He acknowledged that this was in the minutes. He also mentioned the layout of the road. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 10/23/24 Page 3 of 7 Mr. Cerretani mentioned the Winthrop Avenue lot connecting to the intersection for phase two of the parkway project as another issue that was discussed. Mr. Peck said there had been discussion on the alignment of Winthrop Avenue with Chauncy Street, but that VHB is still working on that issue. Ms. Raposa noted that the State will soon begin the bid process for MassDOT Phase I for the Route 140 and Chauncy Street intersection. Ms. Raposa said the next meeting with the landowners will take place on Monday, October 281h. There are many details to work out for the land swaps and agreements with the Town. Currently, there are memorandums of agreement between the Town and landowners which were done two years ago. Mr. Feck asked if they are at a stage where it will be a more formal agreement. Ms. Raposa responded that there are still many details to work out. Ms. Allam asked if the proposed parking garage would be part of the project. Ms. Raposa said at the public forum they took the opportunity to officially introduce the garage as an element of the project, but it is still conceptual because this is the hardest part of the project to find. The Town is lining up steps to be eligible for the Massachusetts Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). There are November and December meetings that they are trying to get to so the Town can be on the TIP list, which would potentially provide finding for a projected five years out. If the parkway program is funded through TIP, the next step would be to determine how to program state and federal dollars toward the garage. Mr. Penney referenced the parking garage conversation that took place at the public forum and noted that what he heard is that people in town do not want to lose public parking. He said what he garnered from the forum conversation is that we should figure out how many private and public parking spaces would be lost and offset that with the number of parking spaces in the new garage. Mr. Feck expressed that he felt the residents were saying that they should pay a resident rate versus a non-resident parking rate. Ms. Raposa said the garage would be a private entity because the private property owners are going from parking lot managers to mixed -use multi- family residential developers with no commuter parking. At this time, it is undecided who would own and manage the garage. Mr. Penney mentioned that State Rep. Jay Barrows is working on funding to build a roadway to the Hatheway-Patterson site. Ms. Raposa said they are hoping to roll that into the TIP project. Zoning Bylaw Amendments Ms. Raposa said that the amendments have officially been transmitted to the Select Board and they have officially transmitted them back to the Planning Board for the Public Hearing. On October 21" the public hearing was posted, sent to the newspaper for publishing, and sent out to required abutting towns and state agencies. They also have postings on social media and the Town website. The first public hearing will be on November 131i. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 10/23/24 Page 4 of 7 Ms. Raposa then presented an overview of the amendments. The Planning Board is proposing four zoning bylaw amendments. 1. Accessory Dwelling Units 2. Zoning Map R2 District Change 3. RI and R2 District Frontage Requirements and Lot Width Definition and Requirements 4. Sewer waiver for Assisted Care Retirement Facilities and Residential Facilities for Residents 55 Years of Age or Older Ms. Raposa said that they will be incorporating the State's ADU definition into the zoning bylaw amendment language. She then reviewed the draft for the lot setback requirements of both attached and detached ADUs. Board members were concerned with the 15' roof height of a new detached structure and suggested making it higher or allowing a second level. Ms. Raposa said they are trying to keep it simple to conform with the State law when it passes in February. Adjustments can be made once the State guidelines are set. Mr. Feck said it is important to have a bylaw in place when the State law passes. Mr. Cerretani asked why the setbacks had been reduced so much and expressed that a 10' setback was too close. Ms. Raposa said currently an unoccupied accessory structure can be five feet from the lot line and this bylaw would increase the setback for occupied structures. However, it is less than the setbacks for the primary structure. Mr. Feck noted that the side setbacks for a cluster subdivision is 15' and this could match that. Ms. Raposa noted that she is waiting for Town Counsel's review of the bylaw language. Discussion ensued relating to the setback distance and building height. Ms. Friedman asked what would differentiate someone from building an ADU versus apartments. Ms. Raposa replied that an ADU is subservient to the principal dwelling based on State law. This created another issue that the working group had to overcome when reviewing the existing bylaw and she suggested that the solution may be to incorporate new ADU language into the existing bylaw. The Board agreed that the intent is to create more affordable housing and there is a need for that. The existing front setback will not change and the ADU cannot be forward of the existing dwelling. Ms. Raposa reviewed other provisions that require consideration for the bylaw. • State Building Code, State Sanitary Code, Environmental Regulations, Engineering requirements • Parking • Existing accessory apartments or in-law units • Pre-existing nonconforming lots and structures • Proposed ADU that involves the extension of a pre-existing nonconformity • Special Permit for more than one ADU in any district that allows single-family dwelling units • Short-term rentals (placeholder now for this bylaw; would need to work on something for the Annual Town Meeting) Ms. Raposa then reviewed the Zoning Map R2 District Change. Mr. Feck explained the lot size and frontage differences in compliance between the existing zoning and the proposed zoning changes. The proposed zoning changes would create more conforming lots. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 10/23/24 Page 5 of 7 Mr. Feck then reviewed the proposed zoning changes for the RI and R2 district frontage requirements and lot width definition and requirements: • Clarify lot area requirements for two-family dwellings in the R3 zoning district; • Reduce the required frontage and lot width requirements for certain zoning districts; • Clarify the methodology for calculating lot widths for all residential zoning districts; • Update the definition of Lot Width. Mr. Feck said that lie recently spoke with the Conservation Agent regarding her thoughts on the proposed Rl and R2 zoning changes, which she supported. He said they also spoke about future goals for creating more housing while at the same time being consistent and thoughtful with conservation goals in relation to housing. There are valuable parcels of land in Town and the development of these parcels could benefit with the coordination of conservation. The current lot shape requirements are restrictive. Ms. Raposa noted the proposed lot width reduced for RI from 200' to 150', R2 from 150' to 125', and no change to R3 and RD districts. Ms. Raposa reviewed the fourth proposed amendment for the sewer waiver for onsite wastewater treatment. Mr. Penney noted that for Title 5, the term wastewater treatment cannot be used as that denotes a treatment plant. A brief discussion ensued regarding septic versus tie-in to Town sewer, with the Board in support of the amendment for the sewer waiver. The results from the previous Goldson poll showed that 80% of people who responded were also in support. Planning Board Policies andProcedures Ms. Raposa said that she would like further review of the Planning Board fees. She would like additional discussion for revised Planning Board Rules and Regulations, and add language to reflect the Town Engineer's deadline for plan revision review of three weeks before the Planning Board meeting. This will let people know that the Town Engineer requires three weeks for review. The Open Space and Recreation Plan letter of support will be removed from the agenda until January 2025. Ms. Ashman -Collins asked if the Open Space Plan incorporated the ADA transition plan. Ms. Raposa responded that it was included as they had the benefit of working with the Health Agent to secure the grant to do the Open Space inventory. Ms. Raposa notified the Board that the building permit for the 19 Knight Way Site Plan for the Montessori School has been appealed by the abutters. The ZBA will hold the public hearing on November 19"'. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 10/23/24 Page 6 of 7 Meeting Minutes Minutes June 26, 2024 - Motion by Mr. Cerretani and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to approve as presented. Four (4) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Three (3) abstained PASSES Minutes September 25, 2024 - Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Cerretani to postpone approval until November 23, 2024. Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Two (2) abstained PASSES Minutes October 9, 2024 — not presented and will be submitted for the November 13°i meeting. No items. Ms. Friedman asked if anyone personally knew a contact for the Fish and Game Club. Mr. McClanahan suggested that the contact information would be on the website. Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Cerretani to adjourn at 8:54 pin Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is November 13, 2024 at 7:00 p. m. 7 I�.2a2� Sharon Friedman, Clerk Date of Approval Documents Presented for the Meeting 1. Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning and Development meeting memo dated 10/23/24 2. So. Main St, 900 Continuance Request 3. Draft Meeting Minutes for June 26, 2024 and September 25, 2024 Planning Board Meeting Minutes 10/23/24 Page 7 of 7