HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 05/28/2025v a T-qpp o Mans aeld
6 Park Row, klan�field, AEI 020,18
o, ID25 JUN 2b A 6: 42
Planning Boatel
Meeting Minutes �F''
May 28, 20N- aQa? 5
Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B
Present: Sharon Friedman, Chair; Mark Corsillo, Acting Clerk; Ralph Penney; and
Michael McClanahan
Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development
Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary
Absent: James Turnbull, Clerk; Joseph Cerretani and Sreelatha Allam, Associate
Ms. Friedman called the meeting to order and read the introductory remarks for video recording.
Present remotely for the session were:
Michelle Black, Jim Damicis, and John Walker of Camoin Associates
Alejandro Lopez of MassDevelopment
Ms. Raposa welcomed everyone to the Information Session #2 on the District Improvement
Financing study for the Mansfield TOD area. She noted that the initiative is supported by a
$40,000 Technical Assistance Grant from MassDevelopment. At the April 23"1 session, Camoin
introduced the DIF concept and how it could be used to support infrastructure improvements in
the downtown and the Mansfield Station areas. The presentation focused on funding projections
under the DIF model.
Mr. Lopez said that MassDevelopment works with communities within the Commonwealth. For
this DIF project, they are working with Camoin and the Town to identify the projects and create
collaborative goals.
Mr. Damicis noted that the discussion would cover the following:
• Introduction of the Consulting Team
• What is District Improvement Financing
• Project Update
Plonninl; (;Hard mooring Nil n(it or; OS dM P! Pa{;c 7 of yy
• Results Review
• Q&A
Mr. Damicis explained that DIF is a tool that enables a community to use tax revenue from new
private investment to pay for public investment that will catalyze further economic development.
It is not a new tax or special assessment on top of the existing property tax. DIF captures all, or
part, of the tax revenue derived from the incremental assessed valuation of new development
activity for a period of up to 30 years. The DIP is derived from private investment. A portion of
the tax assessment for the increased value of the property is then added to a general fund for
community development goals. As the property value of new projects increases, the DIF also
increases. Often, the DIF is used to fund economic development projects and can be paired with
grants, bonds, and targeted financial assistance for desired projects.
Ms. Black introduced the DIF analysis process which would establish the DIF district
boundaries, calculate the new assessed value within the DIF district, determine the DIF revenue
to be generated and model scenarios to consider. She also reviewed how the public expenses can
be partially funded through DIF, compared the DIF revenue to the development project
expenses, and described how this can assist in the decision to pursue and implement the DIF.
Mr. Walker then reviewed two option scenarios, one with less acreage than the other, to create
low and high -growth scenarios using conservative models. Based on the model parameters,
there can be relatively modest growth or stronger growth. Over the 30-year timeframe, the
estimated tax generated is $189M to $280M for Option I and $140M to $ 197 M for Option 2.
Boundaries and the percentage of dollars that would be added to the DIF would need to be
determined.
Ms. Black explained the next steps for Mansfield for finalizing the spending estimates and the
community engagement process to establish support for a DIF.
Ms. Raposa said that the work with Camoin and MassDevelopment lays the framework for
decisions by the Planning Board, Select Board, and Finance Committee.
Mr. McClanahan expressed concern about how the DIP would work with development. Ms.
Raposa replied that the improvements to properties would yield increased tax revenue, which
would then generate money for the DIF. Mr. Damicis noted that DIF is not a new tax; it does not
give anybody a tax break, nor is DIF striking a deal with anybody. DIF is an investment in
infrastructure.
Mr. Corsillo asked if specific projects would need to be determined for the use of the DIF finds.
Mr. Damicis replied that it would be ideal to show specific projects that the Town would use the
money for to estimate those costs. The DIP money captures only tax revenue from new
developments or improvements, not increased assessments on existing properties. It would be up
to the Town to determine which type of projects would be included in the DIF program.
Planning Board Meuting MinutoOM-28-25 Page 2 of 9
Mr. Corsillo asked why this project does not fall under Fin Com versus the Planning Board. Ms,
Raposa replied that, ideally, the public sessions would be held through the Select Board, but
given the current override and financial review, it would have been a distraction. Since the
Planning Board is familiar with TOD planning, it was decided to hold the information sessions
with the Planning Board.
Mr. Penney asked what type of commitment the town would need to get from the private
landowners. Mr. Damicis said that the agreement would need to be outside of the DIF program.
The program is a macro tool, not a micro tool, so it is not about negotiation with one developer.
It is about the overall economic growth in the district.
Mr. Penney asked what the cost to the Town would be to implement the DIF program. Mr.
Damicis said that there would be incremental expenses and attorney fees to review the DIF
language to be sure it is properly established. Ms. Friedman suggested a risk analysis to
determine the potential cost to the Town.
Ms. Raposa noted that the grant ends in May. She will circle back to the Board for next steps.
3.7r30 pm Rolling Fields Village Cluster Modification
Regarding the application of Thomas P. Walsh for a modification to Rolling Fields Village
Cluster Residential Special Permit per Mansfield Zoning Bylaw Section 230-5.6 to combine two
parcels of land as a single lot for use as a single-family residence. The project site is owned by
Thomas P. Walsh and is shown on Assessor's Map 007, Lots 126 and 23 within the R-I
(Residential 1) zone.
Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to assign Mr. Corsillo as Acting
Clerk. Four (4) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained, PASSES
Attorney Timothy McGahan and Thomas Walsh were present. Attorney McGahan explained the
property boundaries and that the applicant, as owner of both lots, would like to combine the two
lots to create one parcel to build a single-family home. The combined lots will have 42 acres of
land. The lots are bound by the Town of Mansfield and Open Space land with frontage on
McKenzi Lane. Attorney McGahan referenced a 12-acre part of the lot that was donated to the
Natural Resources Trust of Mansfield. Although it would be privately owned, the open space
would be in keeping with the Master Plan for the encouragement of open space. I-Ie expressed
that an approval by the Board would be a benefit to the Town, as it would remove the prospect of
potential multi -unit developments. There would be no negative impact or burden on Town
services. The development would remain at 16 lots, as originally approved. Attorney McGahan
referenced that the open space had been deeded to the Natural Resources Trust and that the
recorded copy of that conveyance, which took place in 2021, was included in the application
package.
Ms. Friedman inquired if the applicant is requesting that the special permit be abandoned. Ms.
Raposa replied that the request is to modify the existing approval of Lot 16, NKA 23 McKenzi
Lane, so that it can be merged with the 40 acres that were not part of the original special permit.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 05-28-25 Pa ;e 3 of 0
Attorney McGahan said that they have adequately addressed the Conservation Agent's concerns
by relocating the house within the lot. They are waiting for final comments by the Town
Engineer.
Ms. Friedman asked if Lot 16 would be restricted for the affordable unit. Attorney McGahan
responded that there was never a formal decision by the Planning Board, as it was a constructive
approval allowing the subdivision plan to be recorded. He said that there was no designation on
the plan as to which lots were going to be inclusionary. He referenced a letter dated 2012 from
the Planning Board indicating that substitute lots were to be designated as inclusionary lots. He
said that there is no documentation designating lot 16 as inclusionary. Attorney McGahan
referenced a letter from Mr. Burke, the previous Planning Director, indicating that upon
recording of the deed, Mr. Walsh's obligation to the Planning Board would be fulfilled.
Ms. Raposa said that the process and history are complicated. She asked the Board to take time
to understand the process by which the inclusionary zoning was to be applied. She concurred
with Attorney McGahan that the Planning Board did not designate an affordable lot because it
failed to act within the required time. The inclusionary zoning was discussed during the
preliminary review and noted in the minutes for the special permit cluster review. Ms. Raposa
said that her understanding is that the inclusionary requirement, under the standalone section of
the zoning bylaw, has not been fulfilled. There are other mechanisms to fulfill that obligation if
the Board determines that it remains to be filled. She noted that the open space requirement was
satisfied because the cluster subdivision section has the inclusion of open space as a condition of
approval. It is Section 6 of the zoning bylaw, the stand-alone section, that speaks to inclusionary
zoning. The Board generally reviews this. She suggested that to deviate from the bylaw, a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals may be required.
Attorney McGahan agreed that the bylaw does give discretion to the Planning Board as to how it
would be resolved. He said that with the constructive approval and the subsequent 2012
modification decision, which was not recorded with the Registry of Deeds, the inclusionary lot
was not addressed.
Attorney McGahan and the Board agreed to continue to the next meeting.
Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to continue the hearing to
June 11, 2025, at 7:30 pm Four (4) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained, PASSES
Mr. Penney suggested that Town Counsel submit their opinion. Ms. Raposa said that she has
reached out for comment.
4.7:45 pm 996 West Street — Scenic Road
Regarding the application of Timothy Cahill for a Scenic Road in accordance with the provisions
of Chapter 40, Section 15C of tine Massachusetts General Laws and Chapter 20, Scenic Roads, of
the Town of Mansfield General By -Laws for the property located at 996 West Street to remove
approximately 48 feet of rock wall along the property line to improve sight lines and safety.
Planning; Boan9 Meeting; Minutes 0', M ),!; Po„(, R of Sd
Ms. Friedman noted that the applicant had removed a portion of the stone wall without prior
Board approval. Mr. Cahill said that he was not aware that he needed to come to the Board prior
to removing the stones. He mentioned that this area of West Street is heavily traveled. The
elevation of the land, before removing the rocks, was about four feet higher than the current
elevation. The previous elevation with the rock wall made it difficult for sight lines when exiting
the driveway. The amount of traffic has increased in the 35 years that he has lived there.
Mr. Corsillo noted that a truck, consistently parked at the end of the driveway, is more intrusive
than the rock wall was.
Ms. Friedman said that the issue is the removal of the stone wall without prior approval, which is
enforceable by the Tree Warden per the bylaws. Mr. Cahill said that he did not remove any
trees. Ms. Friedman said the Board will need to determine how to mitigate this. Mr. Cahill said
the wall was loose stone and that the stones are still on the property.
Ms. Raposa recommended that the Board request that the applicant submit a plan, which would
have been a requirement had they come to the Board before removing the stones. A historical
review of the GIS imagery of the property would make it clear that the stone wall was within the
Town's right-of-way. She clarified that the edge of pavement does not equal property
boundaries, and that property owners should understand that they do not own to the edge of
pavement and there are Town assets within that right-of-way. One of the requirements under the
Town's scenic road bylaw is the requirement of a plan, and submission of a plan would be
necessary.
The Board recommended that Mr. Cahill speak with the Tree Warden, who is the DPW Director,
to create an equitable solution for the plan submission.
Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to continue the hearing to
June 11, 2025, at 7:30 pm Four (4) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained, PASSES
S. Form A Approval Not Required - Mary Avenue
Map 019, Lots 161 & 163 within the Residential 3 (R3) zone - Form A Approval Not Required
(ANR) that the plan shows lot(s) front on "a way in existence when the subdivision control law
became effective in the city or town in which the land lies, having, in the opinion of the planning
board, saIcient width, suitable grades and adequate construction to provide for the needs of
vehicular traffic in relation to the proposed use of the land abutting thereon or served thereby,
and for the installation of municipal services to serve such land and the buildings erected or to
be erected thereon. "
Attorney Edward Valanzola and Perry Dimascio, applicant/owner, were present.
Attorney Valanzola noted that Mr. Dimascio is the owner of the land on Mary Avenue, which is
off King Street and County Street. He said the lot is on a paper street, it satisfies the lot area, and
is approximately 15,600 SF, where 15,000 is required for a 2-family. There is 100 feet of
frontage, where 80 feet is required. Per the plan submitted, there are four small parcels, each
Plannint; Board Meeting Mil)(do" M 2A )5 Pa„e S oi'n
with about 20 feet of frontage, and when combined, the resulting single lot will have the required
frontage. Mary Avenue is shown on a plan that was recorded in 1927 with the Registry of
Deeds. The lots are also shown on that plan, which predates zoning. The current plan was
submitted to the Building Inspector for a building permit. The Inspector requested that the
Planning Board review the plan for a determination of certain criteria for sufficient fi•ontage
access, how the paper roadway would be constructed, and access to utilities. The application
proposed that the roadway be pervious material such as crushed stone. Attorney Valenzuela said
that the plan is not an Approval Not Required (ANR) nor is it a subdivision because it is only
one lot. This is something in between; we need to get creative to find a way to build on lots
where there is a shortage of housing. The original lots, having predated zoning, were buildable
lots. The application was filed under Chapter 41, Section 81L. He then reviewed the statutory
criteria under case law as to why the Planting Board has the authority for determination. Town
Counsel has reviewed the application and submitted a response. A revised application was then
submitted. He pointed out that Town Counsel wrote that it is discretionary that this could be a
review outside of the ANR review criteria. The Board could also, based on past precedence,
approve the application request despite some of the legal limitations noted.
Attorney Valanzola reviewed Town Counsel's items to consider. This is one lot, not a
subdivision, and it does not need to comply with subdivision control law. He then read the
statute criteria for frontage, which would be considered "a way in existence" that would have
been constituted as frontage when the subdivision control law became effective. The Building
Inspector was unsure how to determine frontage for this instance, and suggested that the Board
make the determination. Chapter 40A, Section 6, protects lots that have 5,000 SF of land and at
least 50 feet of frontage. In this case, there is 100 feet of frontage and 15,600 SF of land, which
satisfied the criteria. The submitted plan shows the roadway access with the improvements to it,
emergency vehicle radius turning, and utility connections for water and underground electric.
There will be at least a 12-foot-wide driveway. Attorney Valanzola respectfidly asked the Board
to review and approve the plan.
Ms. Friedman mentioned that there are several paper streets in Town, and this could be a
persistent issue. Attorney Valanzola emphasized that it is crucial to recognize that paper streets
must have been previously recorded with the Registry of Deeds on a plan that predates zoning.
While there are numerous paper streets in Mansfield, some may not meet the necessary
qualifications. I-Ie noted that Mr. Dimascio's plan is to build a duplex for his children.
Ms. Raposa stated that a set of standards for road construction for paper streets needs to be
established, which she is currently working on. The Planning Board has previously seen and
approved similar circumstances. The Board agreed that a set of standards should be established.
Mr. Dimascio said that he has worked with the Town Engineer, who did not have any concerns
with the submitted plan. He will continue to work with the Town Engineer to create an
acceptable plan for the next Board meeting. He said that this will be a private way with private
utilities.
Planning Board Mecaing MinuPes 0', M 2`5 Pa,e 0 tit!)
Attorney Valanzola mentioned that the approval does not need to be submitted to the Registry of
Deeds. The Building Inspector is requesting written confirmation from the Board that all
requirements have been satisfied to issue a building permit.
Ms. Raposa suggested a continuation to allow time to draft the letter of approval for review by
Town Counsel and the Town Engineer. The applicant and the Board agreed to continue to
June 11, 2025, at 7:45 pm.
G. rorm A Approval Not Required — 0 Noonan Street
Map 019, Lots 126 & 138 within the Residential 3 (R3) zone - Form A Approval Not Required
(ANR) that the plan shows lot(s) front on "a way in existence when the subdNision control law
became effective in the city or town in which the land lies, having, in the opinion of the planning
board, stfficiew ia,idth, suitable grades and adequate construction to provide for the needs of
vehicular tra flit in relation to the proposed use of the land abutting thereon or served thereby,
and, for the installation gfInunicipal services to serve such land and the buildings erected or to
be erected thereon. "
The applicant submitted a written request to move this item to the June 11, 2025, Planning Board
meeting.
7, Discussion with Scott Goddard regarding a 40Y development off Gilbert Street
Lynne Sweet of LDS Consulting Group attended in person. Scott Goddard attended remotely.
Ms. Sweet said that they have been working on the development of the Gilbert Street site for a
while. They are seeking the Board's input for a 40Y development. 40Y was revised as part of
the State's Affordable Homes Act. The State has not promulgated its regulations yet and is
seeking pilot projects. She said that they have spoken with the Slate to determine which
regulations may or may not be allowed. A bylaw would need to be adopted by a simple majority
at a town meeting, with a site plan approval process.
She reviewed the requirements for a 40Y development, maximum 1,850 SF living area (not
including the garage), no fewer than 4 units per developable land area, no less than 50% of
homes shall be three bedroom, no less than 10% income restricted to 110% of AMI, not required
to comply with many local ordinances, age restrictions not allowed, reasonable design standards
are allowed, and site plan review is allowed with expedited process of t20 days.
Ms. Sweet referenced that the fiscal benefits of a 40Y project are similar to the benefits of a 40R
project. Once the district is approved, the municipality receives a per -year unit payment, which
goes into a general fund. There is a second bonus payment when the developer pulls permits.
The developer's payments for building permit fees and annual real estate taxes are not waived,
They are viewing this project as an intergenerational development with detached homes. They
will need to provide septic and create an HOA for a shared septic system throughout the
development. The units are allowed to be connected, but not stacked. They could also be rental
Planning Board Moetinf, Minute~ Cl , 18-7'4 Panq 7 0l i
units. Zoning does not allow tenure to be dictated. Their concept is for a multi -generational
district with multiple phases, including open space to create a neighborhood with sidewalks, a
clubhouse, and pocket parks. The design concept presented to the Board consisted of three small
neighborhoods of two and three -bedroom single-family homes. There is a total of 80 house lots
in a three-phase buildout. The exterior finishes would vary.
Ms. Sweet said the next steps are to meet with the Select Board and the community, draft a
bylaw, draft site plans, and hold a town meeting vote.
Ms. Friedman asked if they are also considering a friendly 40B project. Ms. Raposa replied that
there have been earlier discussions about this. Since there is currently no zoning bylaw in place,
it was presented as an option, given the pros and cons of both choices.
Ms. Sweet noted that with the 40B, there would be a 25% affordable component, which could
lead to larger houses. The lots for the proposed design are approximately 7,000 SF. She noted
that the reason they are seeking to develop a 40Y versus 40B is that they are not tied to being on
a commercial corridor.
Mr. Corsillo expressed that the plan is great for the Town by adding needed starter homes. The
location is also ideal.
Michael Feck of 668 Flm Street referenced that when he had been the Planning Board Chair, he
was part of discussions for 40B versus 40Y projects. He expressed that he preferred the 40Y, not
just because of the incentive payment, but also because of the control for the aesthetics through
the bylaw. He said that there is always a risk of achieving a positive vote at a town meeting, but
he was confident that the Board would be successful with community engagement. A 40Y
project would have private roadways and private utilities taken care of by the HOA.
Ms. Raposa referenced the timeline to get the project ready for the fall town meeting. She noted
that there is an AARP Age -Friendly Community Survey, in which she added a question asking if
one would support the concept of multi -generational housing. She will also add 40Y and 40B
housing to the June 25t" bylaw discussion with the Board.
8.Ongoing Planning Board Discussions
Parlhiwy/Translt Oriented Development
Zoning Bylcni, Amendments
Planning Board Policies and Procedures - Placeholder for future discussion.
No discussion.
9. Correspondence and General Business
Meeting rtlinules
Minutes - April 23, 2025 — moved to the June 11, 2025 meeting
t'Wininl; Board Meeting Minutes 0', 28-25 Page 8 nt 43
Minutes — May 14, 2025 - moved to the June 11, 2025 meeting
11. Adjournment
Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Penney to adjourn at 9:57 pm
Five (5) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES
The dale of the Next Planning Board d9eeling is June 11, 2025, at 7: 00 p.m.
S' at ire Clerk/Chair
Documents Presented for the Meeting
- (0/yS/2oz9_
Date o Approval
1. Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning and Development, memo dated May 28, 2025
2. Meeting Notice Agenda Amendment 3 for May 28, 2025
3. Camoin Associates District Improvement Financing (DIF) Public Session Presentation
4. Rolling Fields Village Cluster application, plans, and supporting documents
5. 996 West Street Scenic Road application and supporting documents
6. Mary Avenue Form A application
7. Noonan Street Form A application
8. Draft Meeting Minutes for April 23, 2025, and May 14, 2025
Planning Board iV olin ivlmohr; 0" M )S Par;r 9 of 9