Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 11/13/2024o �pyJfQaSAC",4` Rr CEI V-E D TO'f'N Cl_ER!iS OFFICE 2024 DEC 12 A 8* 08 . , `-FU-D IIASI ;ACHUSETTS Meeting Minutes November 13, 2024 Town of Mansfield 6 Park Rom, amfzeld, AL4 02048 Planning Board Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B and Virtually Using Go To Webinar Platform Present: Michael Feck, Chair; Sharon Friedman, Clerk; Joseph Cerretani; Michael McClanahan; Ralph Penney; Beth Aslnnan-Collins; Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Mark Corsillo; James Turnbull, Associate and Sreelatha Allam, Associate Mr. Feck called the meeting to order and read the meeting's introductory remarks regarding video recording. Ms. Friedman noted that she is on the subcommittee for a proposed firearms business bylaw.- In preparing for the proposed bylaw, she plans to meet with community members for feedback and discussions about what makes sense for Mansfield for health and safety. Garrett Holcomb, Vice President of Mansfield Fish and Game was present for an initial introduction and conversation with the Board. Mr. Holcomb noted that he is hoping to have a meeting with Ms. Friedman and the President of the club to review some of the concerns that they have with the current draft language. He said that the club has over 1,000 members and they have been part of the community for nearly 100 years, as Mansfield Fish and Game was incorporated in 1930. They strive to be good citizens and good neighbors to maintain solid relationships with the community. They would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this further. Mr. Feck said that this is not an agenda item for the meeting but the Board is open to meeting in the future to discuss their concerns. Mr. Holcomb said that a large percentage of the club members are citizens of Mansfield who may also have concerns. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11/13/24 Page 1 of 9 Mr. Penney asked if any retail sales take place at Mansfield Fish and Game. Mr. Holcomb replied absolutely not. They do not provide firearms or ammunition. They are a non-profit association and only provide facilities for the members. They have classrooms for community events, instruction, or safety training. The percentage of female members has been growing and they opened an indoor pistol range in 2021. Regarding the adaptive reuse of Historic Structures (bylaw Section 230-3.7.B) special permit to operate a kennel/dog daycare business. Attorney Tanya Trevisan was present representing Rich Homer and Nikki Ribeiro, who are interested in purchasing the property. Attorney Trevisan said that they reside in Norton and Ms. Ribeiro operates a resort style kennel and dog care facility out of a home in Norton, which is a female owned/operated business. They are outgrowing the Norton facility and looking to enlarge their business. They are interested in purchasing the 600 S. Main St. property to live there and operate a resort style kennel. Attorney Trevisan said that they are before the Board to determine whether the Board would consider a special permit under the adaptive reuse of historic structures portion of the bylaw. She reviewed a property overview map and explained how the existing buildings would be used. There is conservation land to the north east of the property and single-family residences on the other sides. The property was previously used as a veterinary clinic. The barn, built around 1825, was used to board horses that were under treatment or in recovery. Her clients are considering the barn for the kennel. They would like to add a connecting building between the existing home and rear barn structure as the reception area. Another building on the property was built in the 1980's and was used for a blacksmith business until this past spring. This building would be used as an accessory building for staff. Attorney Trevisan said that her clients submit that the barn meets the criteria under the adaptive reuse of an historic structure. She reviewed the criteria and said that the benefits proposed outweigh any detrimental effects that it could have. They do not anticipate any negative impacts to adjoining properties, the neighborhood character, the environments, or traffic. There is a circular driveway that would enable drop-off and pickup of the dogs being boarded. Ms. Ribeiro explained that their Norton location is a boutique style daycare and boarding facility in a colonial home. They have outgrown that space and are looking for a larger property with the same home feel that would allow them to add more services such as grooming and training. Ms. Raposa inquired about the noise level. Ms. Ribeiro replied that the Norton location is in a residential neighborhood and they have not had any complaints. Mr. Homer said that they would also want to expand agricultural and farming use of the property. Mr. Cerretani expressed his concern about noise and that it would have to be addressed if an application is submitted. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11/13/24 Page 2 of 9 Mr. Penney asked what benefit would they gain utilizing the historic building reuse. Attorney Trevisan replied that the property was originally used for animal horse care. Dog care would be relatively similar. Mr. Penney expressed that a vet handling horses is a much different use that a dog daycare and that it would be a change of use. A brief discussion ensued relating to the interpretation of the adaptive reuse bylaw. Mr. Feck noted that if this comes before the Board by application, then there would more in-depth questions and conversation at that time. Ms. Friedman suggested, for the application submission, that it may be helpful to have an explanation of what is unique what they do for the dog daycare and what they would be doing for agricultural portion. 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 Mr. Cerretani and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to continue the Site Plan application for 900 So. Main Street to December 11, 2024 at 7:00 pm. Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, One (1) abstained PASSES Regarding the application of the City of Attleboro, Water Department for a Special Permit and Site Plan Approval pursuant to Bylaw Sections 230-5. 1 (E)(3)(d), 5.2(B), 5.5, and 230-5.3 for the property at 250 Balcom Street for the construction of a new Water Treatment Plant including all associated site work and utilities. The project site is owned by the City of Attleboro and is shown on Assessor's Plat 003, Lot 094 within the Residential 1 (R-1) zone. The applicant had requested to continue to the December meeting. Motion by Mr. Cerretani and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to continue the Site Plan application 250 Bolcom Street to December 11, 2024 at 7:01 pm. Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Pursuant to the provisions of MGL Ch. 40A §5, the Mansfield Planning Board will hold a public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 13, 2024, to accept public comments on the following proposed amendments to the Town of Mansfield Zoning Bylaws: Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11/13/24 Page 3 of 9 • Item 1: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) (§230-1.5, 3.3, 3.9) -to comply with the new ADU state law becoming effective February 2, 2025. Mr. Feck explained that the purpose of the proposed bylaw is to have something in place when the ADU State law take effect in February. Ms. Raposa began the presentation to explain the proposed bylaw for ADUs which are defined as "a self-contained housing unit, inclusive of sleeping, cooking and sanitary facilities on the same lot as a principal dwelling, subject to otherwise applicable dimensional and parking criteria." The provisions of the State law are that the ADU can be an attached or detached. Ms. Raposa then reviewed the State's specific definition for an ADU. The ADU: • maintains a separate entrance, either directly from the outside or through an entry hall or corridor shared with the principal dwelling sufficient to meet the requirements of the state building code for safe egress; • is not larger in gross floor area than 1/2 the gross floor area of the principal dwelling or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller; • is subject to such additional restrictions as may be imposed by a municipality, including, but not limited to, additional size restrictions and restrictions or prohibitions on short-term rental, as defined in section 1 of chapter 64G; provided, however, that no municipality shall unreasonably restrict the creation or rental of an accessory dwelling unit that is not a short- term rental. The State's definition has been incorporated in the proposed bylaw to be in conformance with the State. The State says that a town can adopt additional zoning guidelines for ADUs. The Town has an existing Accessory Apartment bylaw allowed by special permit thru the Planning Board, which would remain in place. Ms. Raposa proposed to create a new bylaw section for ADUs. The use tables would also be amended. The new proposed bylaw for ADUs that are attached would be by right through a building permit. A detached ADU would be through site plan approval. There is a provision for administrative site plan approval, which means a staff department head meeting would review the application. The only time that an ADU would go before the Planning Board is if a person is proposing more than one, which is part of the State legislation. The ADU proposed setbacks were then discussed. An attached structure would have the same as current setbacks for the zone, but the proposed bylaw has reduced setbacks for a detached structure. Other requirements that should be considered, but are not a part of the bylaw, are state building code, state sanitary code, enviromnental regulations, and engineering requirements. The State law does not require that an ADU be owner occupied. Existing relief mechanisms for pre-existing non -conforming still apply. The Board expressed concern with lessening the rear and side setbacks from the current setbacks for ADUs. Board members were also concerned with the 15-foot height restriction. Ms. Raposa Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11/13/24 Page 4 of 9 suggested adding special permit requirements for setback relief in lieu of going before the ZBA for a variance. This would be a site -specific review with abutter notification for a public hearing. Public Continents Paul Jodice of 39 Bella Vista Ave. referenced the 15-foot height restriction, which could potentially allow a 30' x 30' structure and he noted potential issues with roof pitch. There should be additional consideration to the maximum height restriction. Mr. Jodice also noted that if an ADU were to be added to the second floor of an existing garage, it would then have a height greater than the proposed 15' maximuun height. Mr. Jodice was also concerned that the current bylaw for accessory apartment as a house addition with a common area with the same amenities as an ADU would no longer be allowed. Mr. Feck replied that an ADU would not have the commmon area and would be separate so that it could be rented out. Accessory apartments attached with common area would still be allowed per the current bylaw. Ms. Raposa noted that there are a vast number of pre-existing non -conforming properties that exist in Mansfield. It is not possible to add every possibility into the bylaw so the proposed bylaw is intended to have something in place when the State law takes effect in February. Mr. Feck read correspondence from Attorney Edward V alanzola into the public record. Mr. Feck noted that Mr. Valanzola's comment relating to septic would be a Board of Health issue. Sandra Levine of 20 Walnut Street asked for clarification of items 4, 5, and 6 on page six of the proposed bylaw amendments. Ms. Raposa replied that proposed amendments have since been reviewed by Town Counsel who conmiented that 4 and 5 were acceptable as written. Town Counsel recommended that Item 6 be stricken as it is not legal. Ms. Levine asked if any bylaw changes provide changes in use. Mr. Feck replied that the use in the zones remain the same. Ms. Raposa said that on page seven item 5 was left over from the accessory apartment special permit and Town Counsel said to delete it since it is not in conformance with the ADU by right statute. She also noted that they will be regulating the ADUs short-term rentals such that an ADU cannot be rented for less than 30 days. Mr. Penney asked that if the bylaw is adopted, would it put an end to single-family home neighborhoods. Ms. Raposa replied that it would not, as it does not automatically create duplex or two-family neighborhoods. The current single-family zoning will remain and that the principal use of the property is still a single-family dwelling. Mr. Jodice referenced an example of a general contractor purchasing a home and taking the house down. If the lot meets all zoning requirements for the Rl zone to build a new house by right, would they also be allowed to build a 900 square foot ADU. The Board replied yes, that a single-family principal structure or lot that meets the requirements can add an ADU. One owner must own both dwelling. There are still questions regarding the interpretation of the State law. The State still has not yet supplied guidelines. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11/13/24 Page 5 of 9 Greg Penesis of 12 Shannon Lane asked what would happen if the bylaw amendments are not accepted. Ms. Raposa said that the guidelines in the amendments such as parking, landscape screening, and setbacks would go away. Mr. Penesis asked what "reasonable restrictions" means. Mr. Feck said that they are what is added in the bylaw amendment. Mr. Penesis said that he was also in agreement with Mr. Valanzola's letter. Ms. Raposa said there are no changes to the current accessory apartment bylaw. Kathleen Todesco of 16 Jefferson Road asked if a multi -family is the primary residence with a detached garage could the garage be converted to the ADU. Ms. Raposa responded that it could not convert to an ADU since under the current state law the principal dwelling has to be single- family, not duplex or multi -family, but there may be future amendments. Ms. Tedesco asked if the existing structure is non -conforming can you build an ADU. Ms. Raposa said that with the bylaw amendment, the Building Inspector could make certain findings under his authority, but others may require the ZBA's approval, depending on each unique situation. There also needs to be an existing principal dwelling on the lot. Ms. Raposa recapped the comments for changes that she will make to the bylaw amendment for the December public hearing. • Item 2: R2 District Change (§230-Attachment 3, Zoning Map) - to restore compliance with frontage and/or lot area requirements for a majority of the house lots in this area. Mr. Feck introduced the amendment relating to zoning conformance in town. A study was conducted to determine how many town residential lots are compliant with zoning frontage and lot area. The study resulted in approximately 18%-20% conforming lots. The non -conforming lots decrease flexibility for someone to add to their property. In the 1950s thru 1980s when homes were built on small 5,000-8,000 SF lots in the R2 zone, they were conforming, As zoning changed and dimensional requirements increased, the lots became non -conforming. By remapping portions of R2 to R3, it lessens the non -conformities. Peter Farrell of 23 Morrow Street asked if the homes that became non -conforming when zoning changed would be grandfathered. Mr. Feck responded that a homeowner would have to seek relief from the ZBA, but with the proposed zoning changes, it could reduce homeowners needing to go to the ZBA for relief. Mr. Farrell noted that R3 allows two-family dwellings where R2 does not and expressed that the zoning change could affect the character of the neighborhood by potentially adding more multi- family structures. Mr. Jodice referenced sections of Town that had been previously zoned agricultural. He also noted that an older AA zone which became Rl. Today one area meets zoning and potentially across the street is does not and would require a variance. By making changes to those areas it could help to lessen the need for homeowners to seek relief through the ZBA. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11/13/24 Page 6 of 9 Ryan Maxwell of 149 Park Street expressed his opinion that the zoning map change is a housekeeping issue that should have been done earlier. It would help solve variance issues and issues with housing. Ann Farrell of 23 Morrow Street noted that she lives in the R2 zone and expressed that it would change the character of the neighborhood to change it to R3. She asked the Board to consider the impact of changing R2 to R3 in some of the older neighborhoods. Greg Penesis of 12 Shannon Lane asked if all of R2 changes to R3. Mr. Feck replied that the higher density areas closer to the Town center would change. Kara Griffin of 31 Clinton Street said she is in favor of ADUs and is favorable to the zoning change. The issue is about housing and people being able to afford housing. Doug Maxwell of 99 Dean Street said that he appreciates the conununity that his family has lived in for generations and that it is important for housing to be more affordable. • Item 3: RI & R2 District Frontage Requirements and Lot Width Definition and Requirements (§230-1.5, 4.2A, Attachment 2) - to reduce confusion within the bylaw by clarifying lot area requirements for two-family dwellings in the R3 zoning district, clarifying the methodology for calculating lot widths for all residential zoning districts, and reducing the required frontage and lot width requirements for certain zoning districts. Mr. Feck referenced 1990s zoning changes which added restrictions to existing lots. The change does not propose density in terms of lot area. The change would allow more flexibility by reducing the frontage in Rl and R2 to get the area more in line with how the neighborhoods were originally built. Ms. Raposa said that the amendment would also clarify lot area for two-family sti actures, specifying that the lot area requirement is 7,500 SF per unit. They will also amend the dimensional table and the lot width definition. Peter Farrell of 23 Morrow Street suggested additional zoning changes for conformity to allow more single-family homes that would address the housing shortage. • Item 4: Sewer waiver for Assisted care retirement facilities and Residential facilities for residents 55 years of age or older (§230-3.3I(5), 3.3J(8)) - to allow for the Planning Board to permit onsite wastewater treatment to support over-55 Residential and Assisted Living uses. Mr. Feck said that this amendment is a change to the 55+ bylaw, an important aspect of affordable housing. The current bylaw requires a sewer connection for a 55+ development which rules out building in a large portion of Town. This waiver would allow the Planning Board to grant relief. Such waiver would also have to meet the Board of Health Standards. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11/13/24 Page 7 of 9 Ms. Raposa noted that the Health Agent and Town Attorney reviewed the bylaw and made minor changes. She said that this bylaw would also amend two separate similar bylaws that would merge into one article. Adam Norige of 197 Gilbert Street asked who has the liability of keeping the treatment facilities compliant. Mr. Penney said it would be regulated by the Board of Health. Mr. Feck said that the special permit would also be conditioned for maintenance. Ms. Raposa noted that the proposed bylaw language will change from Wastewater Treatment to a Title V compliant system which is less expensive and includes environmental protections. Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Penney to continue the public hearing for the. proposed zoning bylaw amendments to December 1 nth at 7:30 pm. Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Discussions were moved to the next meeting. Meeting Minutes Minutes September 25, 2024 - Motion by Nh-. Cerretani and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to approve as presented. Four (4) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Two (2) abstained PASSES Minutes October 9, 2024 — Motion by Mr. Cerretani and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to approve as presented. Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, One (1) abstained PASSES Minutes October 23, 2024 — Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Nh•. Cerretani to approve as presented. Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES There were no items. Ms. Friedman expressed that she was pleased that the representatives from Mansfield Fish and Game came to the meeting. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11/13/24 Page 8 of 9 Ms. Raposa said she will be giving a presentation to the Select Board on the Master Plan implementation update. Ms. Raposa updated the Board regarding the HLC approval letter for MBTA compliance that it is in the final stages of review. Mr. Penney asked about the progress of the old fire station building. It is in progress by the new owner for a new restaurant. A brief discussion ensued relating to limited onsite parking and off - site parking. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. Cerretani to adjourn at 9:41 pm Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is December 11, 2024 at 7: 00 p. m. Sharon Friedman, Clerk Documents Presented for the Meeting )Z, `l. zC)Z, Date of Approval 1. Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning and Development meeting memo dated 11/13/24 2. 600 South Main St. aerial site plan and narrative 3. 900 So. Main St. Continuance Request 4. 250 Balcom Street Continuance Request 5. Zoning Bylaw Amendments Notice of Public Hearing 6. Draft Meeting Minutes for September 25, 2024, October 9, 2024, and October 23, 2024 Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11/13/24 Page 9 of 9