Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 12/11/2024T D Town of Mansfield O F F I C E 6 Park Ro:v, Mansfield, 1lA 02048 N 9 9 o99I \p 20Td I... fos.os ; \ 9: 33 Planning Board f;1VIeeting es December 11 024 Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B and Virtually Using Go ToWebinarPlatform Present: Michael Feck, Chair; Sharon Friedman, Clerk; Joseph Cerretani; Michael McClanahan; Ralph Penney; Beth Ashman -Collins; Mark Corsillo and James Turnbull, Associate Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Sreelatha Allam, Associate Mr. Feck called the meeting to order and read the meeting's introductory remarks regarding video recording. SRPEDD, Regional Arts and Culture Plan: Culture Recreation Engagement Art Tourism Entertainment Strategy for Culture, Recreation, Engagement, Art, Tourism, Entertainment, Strategy (CREATES). Attending remotely was Lizeth Gonzalez, SRPEDD Director of Economic Development for the kickoff of Mansfield CREATES arts and culture plan. She said that this project is fiunded through the Mass Gaming Commission Community Mitigation Fund. Mansfield is part of the Plaimidge Park Casino Region 2 geography. Ms. Gonzalez said that the goal of the plan is to support existing arts and culture assets in the community. The plan identifies gaps in public demand for public art and community events, actional strategies and implementation projects, and finding strategies to creatively and efficiently implement projects. Ms. Gonzalez said they have been looking at demographic data and noted that Mansfield's growth is slowing and the median age is higher. Housing data shows that most homes are single family and most residents have lived in Mansfield between 7-14 years. Economic data shows the median income at $125,506, which exceeds the region. Lastly, they looked at Mansfield's past planning and the Master Plan for fixture goals. The next step is to create a working group recruiting members of the conumnmity to assist in the development of a vision and strategy for each community and develop the regional strategy for CREATES to leverage the economic Planning Board Meeting Minutes 12/11/24 Page 1 of 13 impacts of the Plainridge Park Casino. SRPEDD will also be distributing a public survey in early 2025. In spring 2025 they will have pop-up events to share information and gather additional responses from the public. Ms. Gonzalez shared a timeline of events leading to the expiration of the grant in June 2026. There is a CREATES website for project updates. Ms. Friedman said this would be an opportunity to bring together the reconsideration of a cultural district in Mansfield. Ms. Gonzalez responded that a cultural district is a perfect initiative to included in this plan and to create steps moving forward to make that happen. Mr. Feck noted that the Town will be hosting a 2501i celebration and that would be a great place to get information out to people and get feedback. Sporting events are also a good resource. Ms. Friedman noted the Mansfield Cultural Council is also very active and suggested attending a meeting or speaking with the Chair. Ms. Raposa asked Ms. Gonzalez to create a social media flyer, to which she agreed. 3 �,QO CC3��II�C7����ecxaL��iru�xk�9��iieatr�n�t;91I4-nnfh�I�"ur��c'�, ��' �, , x 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. Mr. Penney recused himself from the hearing, noting that his company did the property assessment prior to the current owner's purchase. Matthew Bombaci of Bohler Engineering was present remotely. I-Ie summarized the project and site location including the new driveway and training facility. He said that since the last hearing they have received approval from the Town of Norton. They met with the Mansfield Conservation Commission and the Mansfield Conservation Commnission plans to issue the Order of Conditions at their next hearing. Norton's third -party peer review and Norton's Conservation Commission, relating to storrnwater, both issued positive reports for the project. Mr. Bombaci noted that at the last meeting, the Planning Board approved the waiver for application fee reduction for land disturbance only and the waiver for the driveway landscaping plan. Ms. Raposa noted that the hearing had been continued so that the Planning Board could receive and review comments from Norton; that has been fulfilled, and there has been continued communication throughout the process. There were no public comments. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 12/11/24 Page 2 of 13 Ms. Raposa reviewed the special permit criteria and waivers as follows: SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA (1) Impact on the health, safety, convenience, general welfare, and amenities of the inhabitants of the Town The proposed project will provide a driveway connection between the existing parking lot located on the subject site and the southern abutting property (in Norton), where a planned training facility is proposed to be constructed. The connection between these two sites will promote safety and convenience by providing interconnectivity between the two parcels without exiting onto South Main Street. (2) Effects on adjoining premises, neighborhood character, and social structure The proposed improvements on 900 S. Main Street consist of a connection between the existing site to the southern abutting property. Interconnectivity between the two parcels will allow for a more harmonious development and is not anticipated to represent a negative impact to abutting properties. (3) Vehicular and pedestrian traffic convenience, safety, and adequacy, including an assessment of movement within the site and in relation to adjacent streets, properties, or improvements The driveway connection between these two sites will promote safety and traffic convenience by reducing the amount of traffic exiting on to and off of South Main Street. Accordingly, the proposed driveway interconnection is anticipated to represent an improvement relative to traffic convenience and safety. (4) Adequacy of municipal facilities and services, including, but not limited to, fire and police protection, water provision, and wastewater disposal No new utility connections are proposed on 900 S. Main Sheet, and no additional impact is anticipated to Mansfield public services. Fire access around the site is not changing. The introduction of the driveway connection between the subject site and the southern abutting property will allow for access between the two sites if needed in an emergency. (5) Effects on the natural environment The proposed driveway connection is designed to drain to the southern abutting property, where it will be collected and treated. Additionally, perimeter controls are proposed downstream of all proposed disturbances on 900 S. Main Street for the construction time period. Therefore, the proposed improvements to the site are not anticipated to represent any adverse impact to the environnent. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 12/11/24 Page 3 of 13 (6) Fiscal impacts, including effect on the tax and employment base, municipal finances, and property values The existing facility at 900 S. Main Street is anticipated to operate similarly to existing conditions, with no increased requirements for Town services. STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. Any and all outstanding department head comments must be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit(s). 2. Any and all new signage shall comply with the provisions of Zoning Bylaw Section 230- 4.7, particularly in regard to illumination and lighting. Horns of operation for demolition, construction deliveries, site work, and construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. Contractors and other employees may be present on site beyond these hours but shall not engage in demolition, construction deliveries, site work, and construction outside of the hours prescribed. No work shall be done on Sundays or Massachusetts holidays. These restricted hours of operation shall not apply to interior work. All loaded vehicles shall be suitably covered to prevent dust and contents from leaving the vehicle and to protect abutters and other residents, and the public way from material spilled fiom the load. All public rights -of -way shall be maintained free of all mud, stones, or any either conditions that may result in a public safety hazard for vehicles or pedestrians. Sweeping or clearing must be completed daily or more frequently as deemed necessary during the operation, as directed by the Mansfield Police Chief, Director of Public Works, or Town Engineer. The applicant may be required to have a police officer present during any hauling on or off -site. The applicant shall consult with the Mansfield Police Chief as to whether or not this may be necessary and to discuss the best hauling routes. Erosion control measures should be installed around catch basins within the public right-of-way. 4. The applicant shall submit to the Inspector of Buildings a final as -built of the site plan in bard copy and the digital format specified by the Inspector of Buildings. The engineer or registered land surveyor shall certify that the construction conformed to the approved site plan or approved modifications thereto. Both the above as -built plan and the certification must be received and approved prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 5. The Applicant shall record this Decision with exhibit(s) at the Bristol County Registry of Deeds or Land Court prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Applicant shall submit proof of the decision being recorded to the Planning Board. 6. The Planning Board shall sign the approved site plan. One signed copy, along with the written decision of the Planning Board, shall be transmitted to the Inspector of Buildings prior to the issuance of a building or occupancy permit. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 12/11/24 Page 4 of 13 The applicant shall comply with all conditions imposed by the Planning Board on the approval prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy unless otherwise provided for in the approval. 9. The Building Inspector, Director of Planning and Development, Town Engineer, or other authorized official may conduct site visits, monitor construction work, and verify compliance with the site plan and any terms and conditions imposed by the Planning Board at the time of the approval. Failure to comply may result in denial of the Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Raposa noted that since the project is a modification to the special permit, the standard deliberations are not required. Motion Ms. Friedman and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to close the public hearing and approve the special permit modification for 900 S. Main Sheet with conditions based on the findings and waiver of landscaping plan and land disturbance fee reduction as discussed. Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) 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. Matthew Barry of Tata & Howard, the consulting engineer for the City of Attleboro Water Department was present for the hearing. He noted that since the last meeting of October 9"' they have continued to work on the project. On October 11'll they submitted the 95% design to MassDEP and SRF program. The MassDEP, which is for the water quality aspect of the project, has issued an Approval to Construct letter. This letter details how the treatment plan will operate and provide clean water to the City of Attleboro and to a portion of the Town of Mansfield. The SRF program relates to funding, and the City of Attleboro is waiting on final approval to bid the project. The total project cost has increased slightly to an estimate of $39M. SRF has requested a few additional items which Attleboro will be submitting once they receive the Order of Conditions from Mansfield Conservation. The Conservation hearing was closed on November 25°' and the Order of Conditions was pending any additional stormwater conmients from Mansfield's engineer. The public bid of the project is tentatively scheduled for January 8'1. Mr. Barry said that there is a potential vernal pool at the site. They met with a wetlands scientist and the Conservation Agent at the site. They created a revised buffer zone enhancement plan with enhanced plantings to protect the resource area. The overall site plait has not changed since the first meeting with the Plarming Board. The septic has become slightly smaller based on conversations with the Health Agent and final design has been submitted to the Board of Health. They cleaned up some of the utilities to minimize crossings as well as added details related to sample line that the state required be added to the plans. There were also minor edits to the Planning Board Meeting Minutes 12/11/24 Page 5 of 13 details and grading. The last outstanding item is the pending comments from the Town Engineer relating to the stormwater. They have addressed all continents from the Fire Department. Mr. Barry noted the Assessor's comment that there would be an increase to the tax base; and he noted that if there are outstanding items from department heads, they will be addressed accordingly before issuing permits. Ms. Raposa noted that the decision criteria, as introduced into the record, was addressed in the initial application submission and recommended that there would not be a need to review each item individually. Mr. Penney said they provided a very thorough and technical application. He expressed his concern with the noise from the recharging process. Mr. Barry replied that the process would take place approximately every 12-18 months and only during normal business hours, which takes about a day or two to complete. He said that they would keep the noise to a mininmm. Mr. Barry noted that they could add hours of operation to the Orders of Operations Maintenance Plan. There were no public continents. Motion by Ms. Friedman and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to close the public hearing and approve the site plan and special permit application for the 250 Balcom Street Water Treatment Plant on a scenic road with conditions based on the findings as discussed. Deliberations of the special permit criteria. Mr. McClanahan, in favor of the motion, said that the benefits outweigh the detriments in the fact that the City of Attleboro needs a new well. He expressed that it is a great engineering plan for approval and the benefits do outweigh the detriments to public safety. Mr. Corsillo, in favor of the motion, said that he agreed with what Mr. McClanahan stated. Mr. Cerretani, in favor of the motion, said that the benefits outweigh the detriments and impact of health and safety. It is a benefit to the City of Attleboro and to the Town of Mansfield. They have made acconmtodations to the effects to adjoining premises. There are not adverse effects to vehicular and pedestrian traffic and safety. He noted that overall it is a good plan. Mr. Penney, in favor of the motion, said that the treatment is needed to remove PFAS compounds to provide drinking water to the City of Attleboro and Town of Mansfield. Ms. Ashman -Collins, in favor of the motion, found that the benefits outweigh the detriments. The plan has considered the effects on the adjoining premises, enviromnent, and traffic. She expressed that the applicant's put forth an entirely beneficial plan for the Town and the region. Ms. Friedman, in favor of the motion, expressed that the benefits outweigh the deficits in relation to health and safety of the City of Attleboro and Mansfield. The effects on the adjoining premises and neighborhood character have been taken into consideration to ensure that the neighborhood would be maintained with minimal disruption. She expressed that the vehicular and pedestrian traffic is not an issue for the project. The development of the project and facilities Planning Board Meeting Minutes 12/11/24 Page 6 of 13 for the City of Attleboro and Town of Mansfield are very important. The applicant has made substantial efforts to ensure that the vernal pool is not disrupted and that the scenic road would not be affected. Mr. Feck, in favor of the motion, expressed that the benefits outweigh the detriments for the same reasons that the other Board members stated. The facility is important for removing PFAS from the water supply. Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Joshua Reinke, DPW Director - Planning Board recommendation of the layout alteration of School Street which is on the Warrant for the January 9, 2025 Special Town Meeting. Mr. Reinke said that the project pertains to a reconstruction project that the Town and State are working on for School Street within the limits of Spring Street to just short of West Street. The project consists of road reconstruction, update a portion of the water main, sidewalks on both sides, and bike lanes. He said that there are two articles up for town meeting that would give the Select Board the right to exercise eminent domain on the project and this is for several temporary easements and one permanent easement. The alteration for permanent easement pertains to one specific area which he explained to the Board as roughly 8-inches wide by 65-feet long. Mr. Reinke said he was before the Board seeking a favorable recommilendation to the Select Board for accepting the easement. Mr. Turnbull noted that this type of land taking is a legal matter needed to have a state-owned sidewalk. Mr. Reinke also noted that this is a new easement to conform with MassDOT standard easement width. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Ms. Ashrnan-Collins for the Planning Board to make a favorable recommendation to the Select Board for acceptance of the tine easement. Seven (7) 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: • 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. Ms. Raposa began by noting that this is a continuation of the first hearing which took place on November 11 "'. This continued discussion is a review of each of the item's changes since then. She said that the State had issued its draft guidelines for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Planning Board Meeting Minutes 12/11/24 Page 7 of 13 didn't provide the clarity that they had hoped for. The State's definitions will be adopted into the local bylaw. Ms. Raposa focused on changes based on the November 11"' discussion. The setbacks will remain consistent with the current setbacks for a single-family dwelling. The maximum building height would be no higher than the principal structure or 35-feet. There was no change to the open space percentage as proposed at the last meeting, remaining at 40%. Subsection G was added as a placeholder, for consideration, creating a case by case special permit process for deviations from the setback requirements of no more than 25%. She noted that there was no State clarification on two-family or multi -family ADUs. Mr. Feck summarized an email subinission by Ryan Maxwell, a Zoning Board member, that stated in some districts where the setbacks are already tight, whether consideration could be made for setback flexibility. He suggested an increase of up to 33% for side and rear setbacks. This could help to reduce the number of variance applications, where the setback consideration would be through a special permit process. Mr. Corsillo asked whether a corner lot has frontage on two sides. Mr. Feck responded that front setback applies to both street sides. Mr. Cerretani said he would not be opposed to an increase to 33%. Mr. Penney clarified that the 33% special permit would provide more flexibility, but does not mean that each case would provide a reduction of 33%, but up to 33%. Ms. Friedman referenced short-term rentals and said that the new State Law 64G does address this. She asked if the Town could define this better. Ms. Raposa suggested that short-term rentals could be addressed in future bylaw changes, but it was not feasible to address at this time. However, the current language does state that an ADU cannot be rented for less than 30 days. This language was reviewed and approved by Town Counsel. Public Continent Edward Valanzola of 42 Old Stable Drive said that he is a member of the ZBA, but was speaking personally not on behalf of the Board. He expressed concern with allowing ADU setback relief easier through a special permit with the Planning Board, which would be easier than variance relief for the primary structure. He expressed that the ADU process should be stricter, but reasonable restrictions could be imposed. He expressed concern that single-family neighborhoods would increase to multi -family neighborhoods. He suggested waiting to see what impact ADUs have and then create future change on the restrictions once the impact is determined. Mr. Valanzola asked how septic and sewer would be impacted. Mr. Feck replied that septic is regulated by Title V and is not under the Planning Board purview. Ms. Raposa clarified that the bylaw, Section H does reference that other codes and bylaws are not addressed specifically, but codes and standards must be complied with. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 12/11/24 Page 8 of 13 Mr. Valanzola asked if sidewalks, parking, or snow maintenance were addressed. Mr. Feck replied that adequate access needs to be provided. One parking spot is required outside of the half mile radius to the train station. Within the half mile, no parking is required. A detached ADU structure is required to have adequate police and fire access for emergency situations. Trash pick-up would fall under the DPW. The Board deliberated on the special permit setback portion of the bylaw. The Board agreed that caution could be used now until there is a measurable benchmark of the ADU impact. Discussion ensued relating to the issuance of variances and whether bylaw Section G for the setback relief should remain in the bylaw. Paul Jodice of 39 Bella Vista Avenue said that he is leaning more toward the public safety aspect relating to the setbacks and space between strictures. He said that currently an addition could be added to a primary structure as long as there is a common area with approval of the Building Inspector. Ms. Raposa said that ability will not change. Mr. Jodice said that Mansfield is a Stretch Code town and the ADUs would be more expensive to build. He did not feel that there would be an inmiediate influx of units due to the expense. He asked, relating to a corner lot, what is considered rear and side. Mr. Feck replied that the street side with the most frontage is considered the front. Bill Clemmey of 55 Fowler Sheet, said that his lot is on a corner and is 55' x 100' with a 30' setback and previously received a variance by the ZBA for 15' side yard setback. The rear still maintains a 30' setback. He said this is a typical definition for a corner lot. He expressed that he agreed that caution should be considered for allowing reduced setbacks. The Town should allow what the State requires while protecting the Town. Mr. Valanzola expressed that builders and developers will see opportunities to purchase property to knock down or repair a structure while adding an ADU to the lot. He said that he feels the Board should be more conservative. Ms. Friedman said that the State is very specific of what can or cannot be restrictive. She felt that the Town is being very thoughtful and intentional for the bylaw. Mr. Feck noted other protections that were added; the ADU caumot be forward of the principal structure; the ADU carmot be higher than the principal structure. Ms. Raposa noted that the criteria of Section G is in Section 5.5. There was additional discussion between the Board and Mr. Valanzola relating to setback relief The Board then discussed Section G relating to the special permit process to grant setback relief. Mr. Turnbull expressed that the ADU should not be held to the same standard as the primary dwelling unit. He felt that the spirit of the ADU bylaw is to allow more housing on the same lot and it would not make sense to hold a 900 SF building to the same standards. The Board deliberated and conducted an informal poll to either keep or remove Section G. The Board poll resulted in majority vote to remove Section G at this time and revisit it for future bylaw changes. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 12/11/24 Page 9 of 13 Motion by Mr. Cerretani and seconded by Mr. Penney that in accordance with the provisions of Mass General Laws Chapter 40A Section 5, the Board recommends approval of the language as discussed for inclusion on the Special Town Meeting warrant and recommend its approval on January 9, 2025. Eight (8) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES • 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 said that this is essentially the same bylaw amendment as what was presented at the last meeting. He explained that by making the map zoning change it increases lot frontage conformance from 7.5% to 55%. Most of the zoning change is centered close to the downtown area. Public Conunent Bill Clemrney of 55 Fowler Street, referenced his submission to the Board specifically requesting that one outlying lot at the end of a street and across from the proposed rezoned area be included to conform with the zoning change. The Board agreed to amend the zoning district to include the one parcel as requested. Mr. Jodice referenced an older agricultural zone change where a certain number of lots still comply with the old zone. He suggested that this could be addressed for future zoning changes. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. Cerretani that in accordance with the provisions of Mass General Laws Chapter 40A Section 5, the Board recommends approval of the language as discussed and amended for inclusion on the Special Town Meeting warrant and recommend its approval on January 9, 2025. Eight (8) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES • 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 said that they have not trade any changes since the previous meeting and briefly described the intent of the proposed bylaw. Public Comment There were no public comments. Motion by Mr. Cerretani and seconded by Mr. Penney that in accordance with the provisions of Mass General Laws Chapter 40A Section 5, the Board recommends approval of the language as discussed for inclusion on the Special Town Meeting warrant and recommend its approval on January 9, 2025. Eight (8) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES • 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 Planning Board Meeting Minutes 12/11/24 Page 10 of 13 Board to permit onsite wastewater treatment to support over-55 Residential and Assisted Living uses. Mr. Feck said that this would allow sewer to be regulated by Title V to promote a need for 55+ and assisted living housing. Mr. Penney questioned the language "wastewater treatment" as that does not denote a septic system. He suggested the language change to onsite "septic system." The Board agreed to this change. Public Comment There were no public comments. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. Cerretani that in accordance with the provisions of Mass General Laws Chapter 40A Section 5, the Board recommends approval of the language as discussed, and amended, for inclusion on the Special Town Meeting warrant and reconunend its approval on January 9, 2025. Eight (8) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Ms. Raposa said that the tripartite agreement document and plans have not been submitted. Since the Board's decision has been appealed, the process for the cost analysis of the tripartite agreement and final plans is not urgent. Once the documents are received this itern will be added to the agenda for review and approval. Mr. Feck noted that Ms. Raposa had submitted a memo updated the TOD Parkway progress. Ms. Friedman expressed concern with the number of vehicles making turns at the intersection and questioned the accuracy of what has been calculated. Ms. Raposa replied that the report numbers only take the peak hours into consideration. Mr. Turnbull noted that MassDOT is footing the bill for the signal redesign for this project. Parkway/Transit Oriented Development discussion was tabled to the next meeting. Planning Board Policies & Procedures — Fees, was tabled to the next meeting. Discussion — Revise Planning Board Rules & Regulations to reflect a town engineer deadline for plan revision review of three (3) weeks before the Planning Board meeting. This was tabled to the next meeting. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 12/11/24 Page 11 of 13 Meethrg Minutes Minutes November 13, 2024 - Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to approve as presented. Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Two (2) abstained PASSES Planning Board appointment (1) or Open -space & Recreation committee - current appointee Sharon Friedman to expire December 31, 2024. Ms. Friedman volunteered to continue as appointee. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Ms. Aslunan-Collins to appoint Ms. Friedman for a one-year term to expire on December 31, 2025. Eight (8) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES 451 Gilbert Sheet (Map 004/1-ot 003) - Planning Board reconnnendation to the Select Board whether or not to exercise the Right of First Refusal. Ms. Raposa explained that the property is under Chapter 61. The property does abut some existing conservation land. Mr. Feck said that there is limited access. The owner does have a pending sale agreement with a value of $650,000. Ms. Raposa said that she is starting to look at land with a lens for potential developments like a friendly 40B development and this is one parcel she reviewed. She said that there is concern relating to septic systems. Mr. Feck said that this could be potential for obtaining a housing goal while preserving and activating the existing conservation land. Mr. Turnbull recommended speaking with the Conservation Agent for comment of the conservation land. The Board agreed to table this to the next meeting for further review. There were no items. Ms. Raposa noted that the next meeting is scheduled for January 8"' and that the Special Town meeting is on January 9"'. She proposed that the January 8"' meeting be canceled. The Board agreed. The next meeting will be January 22" d. Ms. Raposa also wanted to thank Ms. Aslunan-Collins for her service as she is resigning from the Board. Ms. Aslnnan-Collins said it had been a pleasure serving the Board for the past 18 years. Mr. Turnbull will be applying for the full member seat on the board and the associate vacancy will be advertised. Mr. Corsillo noted that lie will not be able to attend the January 22°d meeting. Ms. Friedman mentioned that she attended a Citizens Housing and Planning Association meeting. The discussion was about lessons learned around the TOD. One of the things that she appreciated from listening to the panelists was how well Mansfield did on guiding the TOD Planning Board Meeting Minutes 12/11/24 Page 12 of 13 project last year. Items of importance were small focus groups, telling the story, educating the public, and focusing on the issue. The Board agreed and felt that Ms. Raposa did a great job with the parkway discussions. It was important that the public voices were heard and the best was done to address the issues and concerns. Mr. Turnbull said that he also experienced recent continents from other towns that Mansfield has done a good job with the TOD. 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 Dleeting is January 22, 2025 at 7: 00 p.m. Sharon Friedman, Cleric Documents Presented for the Meeting ), 2.2, 20� Date of Approval 1. Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning and Development meeting memo dated 12/11/24 2. Lizeth Gonzalez CREATES presentation 3. 900 So. Main St. a. Continuance Request to 12/11/24 b. Bohler Engineering emails dated 11/22/24 and 12/11/24 4. 250 Balcom Street a. Continuance Request to 12/11/24 b. Tata & Howard letter dated 12/9/24 5. School Street Plan of Easements and reconstruction memorandum dated 12/2/24 6. Zoning Bylaw Amendments a. Notice of Public Hearing Revised for 12/11/24 b. EOHLC drafted ADU regulations email dated 12/9/24 c. William Clemmey email dated 12/3/24 d. Ryam Maxwell comment email dated 12/11/24 e. James Turnbull and Mark Corsillo Mullen, received 12/11/24 f Public Hearing presentation 12/11/24 7. Draft Meeting Minutes for November 13, 2024 Planning Board Meeting Minutes 12/11/24 Page 13 of 13