Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 07/23/2025I:EMVED wn of Mansfield OF A 6 ark Baru, Dlalrsjield, iAM 02048 A3 A € UG 28 P I: 50 Planning Board fC0� Meeting Min ir'tes5 F I E l_ D July 23 ibis^ !'T, -TTS Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B Present: Sharon Friedman, Chair; Mark Corsillo, Clerk; Joseph Cerretani; Michael McClanahan; Ralph Penney; Sreelatha Allam; Ryan Maxwell; and Bryan Haworth, Associate Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: None Ms. Friedman called the meeting to order and read the introductory remarks for video recording. She introduced Ryan Maxwell as the newest member. Mr. Maxwell said that he is a lifelong Mansfield resident, works for a civil engineering company, and is familiar with Planning Board reviews. Ms. Friedman congratulated Ms. Allam on her frill member appointment. Ms. Friedman asked for a motion to appoint a new clerk. Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Cerretani to nominate Mr. Corsillo as Clerk. Mr. Corsillo accepted the nomination. Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained, PASSES 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. Ms. Raposa noted for the record that the hearing was continued from the May 28r" meeting. Mr. Cerretani and Ms. Allam have both submitted a Mullen Form. The sitting members for the bearing are Ms. Friedman, Mr. Corsillo, Mr. Penney, Mr. Cerretani, and Ms. Allam. Mr. Haworth and Mr. Maxwell were not members of the Board when the public bearing opened. Attorney Timothy McGahan of Coogan Smith, LLP, and Thomas Walsh, owner, were present for the hearing. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07-23-25 Page 1 of 14 Attorney McGahan provided a summary of the project, saying that they are seeking to modify the Rolling Fields subdivision plan by combining two lots that Mr. Walsh owns. One lot was recorded as Lot 16 on the original Rolling Fields subdivision plan. The adjoining lot was not part of the original subdivision plan. Mr. Walsh seeks to combine the two lots into a single residential lot containing approximately 42 acres. The property abuts the open space land that Mr. Walsh had conveyed to the Mansfield Natural Resources Trust (NRT), which was a 12+ acre parcel. The intention is to combine these into a single residential lot of about 42 acres, which abuts a 12+ acre open space parcel previously conveyed by Mr. Walsh to the Mansfield Natural Resources Trust, Town of Mansfield well fields, MBTA railroad tracks, and additional land owned by Mr. Walsh and various private owners. This parcel is also divided by the Wading River. Plans have been submitted (by RIM Engineering), and there is no intent to construct anything other than a single-family residence. Originally, the subdivision had 16 lots. Lot 16 was never developed and will be combined with the 42-acre parcel. This leaves one residential lot in that section of the subdivision. Regarding the inclusionary zoning requirement, Attorney McGahan's opinion was that this requirement was not part of any formal decision, as the subdivision was approved by constructive approval in 2012, meaning there was no written decision from the Planning Board. As such, no conditions, covenants, or inclusionary lots were designated on the plan or filed at the registry. He referenced correspondence from former Planning Director Sean Burke affirming that Mr. Walsh satisfied his obligations by conveying the open space parcel and that the letter confirnns that no further action was required by the Planning Board or Planning Department. He noted that while it was previously raised that an inclusionary lot requirement may apply, lie respectfully disagreed and outlined their legal position in a letter sent on July 11, 2025, Additionally, Attorney McGahan said that the open space donation aligns with the town's master plan of promoting open space. The Planning Board previously released one of the alleged inclusionary lots (Lot 1) without noting any inclusionary requirement. Massachusetts case law supports the argument that conditions not formalized in a written, recorded decision do not apply. Attorney McGahan maintained that the Planning Board used its discretion at the time and accepted the 12-acre open space donation in satisfaction of any such requirement, as allowed under the inclusionary zoning bylaw. Ms. Friedman acknowledged that gaps exist in the record and that the Board is trying to determine how best to address the inclusionary zoning requirement. She recapped that open space was conveyed, as required under the cluster subdivision bylaw. However, inclusionary zoning, a separate and standalone requirement, was not addressed in a formal decision. Per town counsel, the inclusionary bylaw was in effect in 2012 and still applies, even without a formal waiver or payment in lieu. She concluded that the Board now needs to consider resolutions on how or if to waive the inclusionary zoning requirement. Whether to require a payment in lieu of inclusionary unit, possibly based on 2012 values, or consider if the open space donation fulfills this requirement (if discretion allows). Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07-23-25 Page 2 of 14 Ms. Friedman concluded that the Board needs to weigh these options carefully. Attorney McGaban responded that, as he laid out in his letter dated July 11, 2025, Mr. Walsh has satisfied all his obligations, per Mr. Burke's letter. Ms. Raposa noted that Lot 16 has not yet been formally released from surety by the board. Inclusionary zoning was not incorporated in the constructive approval because it was not referenced in the decision or recorded plan. She said that Town Counsel advises that the inclusionary requirement is enforceable and applies to the 16-lot development. Lastly, the open space donation, while significant, satisfied the cluster subdivision requirement, not the inclusionary zoning requirement. Ms. Raposa summarized that the Board would need to explore whether they want to accept a payment in lieu option, if the statute of limitations or prior Planning Board actions release the applicant of obligations, or whether the board wishes to formally release the applicant from inclusionary zoning compliance based on past procedural failures. Mr. Penny questioned whether the inclusionary zoning requirement is enforceable given the ten- year statute of limitations. Attorney Mr. McGahan argued that because no decision was ever recorded, no enforceable conditions exist. Board members expressed interest in consulting town counsel again regarding the legal weight of Mr. Burke's letter, the applicability of the statute of limitations, and the historical property valuations for calculating payment in lieu. The next steps are to request whether Town Counsel could reevaluate the inclusionary zoning applicability, assess case law and statute of limitations, and explore remedies for paynnent in lieu, waivers, and other items. Ms. Raposa will reach out to the assessor's office to acquire 2012 and current valuations for potential affordable units. Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Corsillo to continue the public hearing to August 27, 2025 at 7:05 pm. Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained, PASSES Regarding the application of Timothy Cahill for a Scenic Road in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 40, Section 15C of the 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. Mr. Cahill was present and summarized that he had met with the DPW Director and the Town Engineer to discuss the work he had completed and his proposed plans for resolving the issue. He submitted the following materials: • A written proposal outlining the work to be done • A rough sketch of the proposed improvements • Photographs showing the current condition of the property Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07-23-25 Page 3 of 14 Mr. Cahill noted that he is not obligated to plant anything inside the wall on his property, but he intends to plant something regardless. He also stated that since removing the berm and stones, sight lines have significantly improved when exiting his driveway. Mr. McClanahan expressed that the applicant has demonstrated a clear intent to comply with the Town's requirements. Mr. Corsillo, who had visited the property, agreed that the proposed work represents a reasonable compromise. Other Board members also voiced their agreement. Ms. Friedman read the draft conditions prepared by Ms. Raposa. Mr. Cahill requested clarification on whether the conditions require him to add plantings in the gravel area. Ms. Friedman clarified that they do not. Regarding the 18-foot gap referenced in the draft conditions, Mr. Cahill stated that during his meeting with the DPW Director and the Town Engineer, he was told he could continue using the gap to access the gravel area. Ms. Raposa noted that she would seek clarification on this issue. The Board agreed to continue the hearing to allow time for clarification regarding entry access through the gap area. Motion by Mr. Cerretani and seconded by Mr. Corsillo to continue the hearing to August 27, 2025, at 7:10 pm. Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained, PASSES Public Hearing on the application of Michael and Amy Feck for a Special Permit per Mansfield Zoning Bylaw Section 230-5.7 to create a Residential Compound consisting of two new conforming lots. The project site is owned by Michael and Amy Feck and is shown on Assessor's Map 015, Lot 003, within the R-1 (Residential 1) zone. Present at the hearing were Michael Feck (owner/applicant) and Craig Cygawnoski of RIM Engineering. Ms. Friedman appointed Mr. Haworth as a voting member for this hearing. Mr. Feck explained that the existing lot and house are both pre-existing and non -conforming, the house is too close to the road, and the lot only has 120 feet of frontage. The surrounding lots create two conforming lots under the minimum of 50 feet of frontage and 80,000 square feet per lot, along with open space requirements. Typically, residential compounds share a common roadway and are maintained by a homeowners' association (HOA). In this case, the applicants propose to retain the existing house via a Zoning Board of Appeals Finding, which would confirm that preserving the structure does not increase non -conformity. If the ZBA does not approve the Finding, Mr. Feck stated they have an alternative plan: "the existing house mould be razed, and a new, conforming house ivould be built on a conforming lot. " Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07-23-25 Page 4 of 14 The bylaw allows a residential compound to be served by either a private roadway or a driveway. Although regulations require roadway construction, the applicants are requesting a waiver for this requirement, as they are proposing only a driveway, not a fill roadway. Mr. Feck noted the enviromnental and neighborhood benefits of avoiding full road construction, emphasizing that it would reduce impervious surface area and disturbance to abutters. The proposed open space only abuts the rear of the property. According to the bylaw, the Planning Board has five options for how open space may be held. Since there will be no shared access, Mr. Feck proposed that the open space be deed -restricted for exclusive use by Lot 1, instead of placing it under an HOA. All buffer zones would remain protected within the open space, and avoiding road construction would remove the burden of maintenance from the Town. If the house is razed, they propose relocating the driveway to serve as shared access. Board Discussion Mr. McClanahan asked about the need for a road waiver. Mr. Feck clarified that the bylaw allows either a roadway or a driveway, and their plan meets the required 50 feet of frontage to access the lots. Mr. Penney read the relevant bylaw sections and confirmed the applicant's interpretation that a driveway is permissible. Mr. Feck noted they could construct a fall road for a conventional two -lot subdivision, but that approach would be less environmentally friendly and less considerate of neighboring properties. He emphasized that the proposed residential compound, accessed via a shared driveway, represents the best use of the land. Mr. Cerretani reminded the board to consider whether the application and requested waivers comply with the residential compound criteria. Mr. Penney agreed, noting that a conventional subdivision would require significant pavement, which is not environmentally beneficial. He expressed support for the applicant's compromise, stating it offers a lower environmental impact. He also commented that donating the rear laud to the NRT would not be feasible, as it does not abut Town -owned property and would impose maintenance responsibilities on the Town. Mr. Feck reiterated that the residential compound bylaw allows such land to be retained under a homeowners' association, and noted that the proposed plan avoids disturbance of wetlands and buffer zones at the rear of the site. Motion by Mr. Corsillo and then withdrawn for continued discussion. There were no public comments. Ms. Friedman inquired about the precedent this proposal might set for nonconforming lots. She noted that the plan is both unique and creative. Mr. Feck responded that while there are many nonconforming hots in town, this does not mean they cannot be subdivided in a conforming mariner. He stated that this proposal does not set a precedent, as it adheres to the existing zoning Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07-23-25 Page 5 of 14 bylaws and regulations. He reiterated the options available for creating two conforming lots and indicated he would be willing to accept a condition of approval requiring the existing house to be razed, if that were the Board's preference. Mr. Penney read from the residential compound rules and regulations, highlighting that such an alternative to a conventional subdivision promotes efficient land use, preserves natural resources, and maintains the existing neighborhood character. Mr. Penney expressed support for the proposal, stating it is a good way to promote more housing. Mr. Cerretani agreed and noted that the current motion should be considered. Ms. Allam stated she was comfortable with the plan as presented. Mr. Maxwell commended the creative use of the residential compound model and recommended that the applicant consult the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) to explore the possibility of retaining the existing house. He also noted that if the house is razed, a single driveway that splits to serve both lots would be the preferred configuration. Mr. Feck confirmed that the most recent plan includes this alternative with a shared driveway. Mr. Corsillo agreed that preserving the existing house would benefit the Town by retaining at least one starter home. Mr. Penney sought clarification regarding the driveway. He asked Mr. Feck whether, if the house remains, would it be possible to construct a single driveway with one curb cut that splits to serve each lot. Mr. Feck responded that such a configuration would run through the backyard of the existing house. Therefore, if the house remains, the best option would be to build two separate driveways, approximately 120 feet apart, serving each lot. If the house is razed, a shared driveway would be constructed on the left side of the property and then split to serve both lots. Ms. Raposa suggested polling the Board to determine which option is preferred. Mr. Haworth stated that razing the house should not be a condition tied to the driveway configuration. Ms. Allam emphasized that the focus should remain on the merits of the overall proposal rather than the specifics of the driveway. Ms. Friedman concluded that the next step was to vote on the motion, including the proposed conditions and waivers. One waiver pertained to the drainage study design, which appeared supportable. The other involved allowing individual driveways instead of a compound roadway for the residential compound. Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. Penney to grant the waiver of Section 3.3.2.15 to omit full drainage study & closed drainage design as being in the public interest for aligmnent with the Town's low -impact development and housing goals, as it does not compromise safety, access, or environmental protection. Six (6) in favor, One (1) opposed, Zero (0) abstained, PASSES Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. Penney to grant the waiver of Section 4.1.4.4 to eliminate common private roadway; allow one driveway per lot as being in the public interest for aligmnent with the Town's low -impact development and housing goals, as it does not compromise safety, access, or environmental protection. Six (6) in favor, One (1) opposed, Zero (0) abstained, PASSES Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07-23-25 Page 6 of 14 Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. Penney to approve the application of Michael Feck & Amy Maher for a Residential Compound Special Permit under § 230-5.7 of the Zoning Bylaw and the corresponding Definitive Plan entitled "668 Elm Street Estates — Residential Compound, Mansfield MA," prepared by RIM Engineering, dated June 21, 2025 and revised through July 16, 2025, with the following project conditions: Existing Dwelling — i. The 19-ft non -conforming setback for the house may remain only if the Zoning Board of Appeals issues a §6 finding that the subdivision does not increase the non -conformity. This decision from the ZBA must be filed with the Mansfield Town Clerk within twelve (12) months a. If the Applicant receives approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, then the existing driveway may remain in its current location. b.If such finding is not secured, the dwelling shall be razed prior to issuance of any building permit for the new lots. c.If the Applicant does not receive approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals and is obligated to raze the existing dwelling at 668 Elm Street, the Applicant shall provide one curb cut on the left side of the 668 Elm Street parcel to access both new driveways. . 2. Open -Space Restriction — Before plan endorsement, the applicant shall prepare a deed restriction (acceptable to Town Counsel) on the 95,600 sq ft. open -space parcel, to be held in conunon ownership with Lot 1; the restriction shall prohibit further subdivision, structures, and tree removal except for trail maintenance. 3. Monuments & Bounds — Set granite bounds at tract corners, open -space corners, and right-of-way geometry points. The certified placement nnrst be sent to the Planning Board. 4. As -Built & Certification — Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit on either lot, submit: i. A stamped as -built plan showing driveways, utilities, grading, and bounds; ii. Engineer's certification of compliance with this decision. 5. The plan to be recorded shall contain the following note: "This Residential Compound subdivision, in part or in whole, shall not be re -subdivided in a way which will create additional buildable lots beyond the two (2) lots approved in this special permit decision." 6. The owners of the driveways shall be responsible for the maintenance of the driveways in perpetuity. 7. The applicant and/or subsequent owner(s) shall be bound by all conditions and requirements set forth in this approval. 8. All conditions accompanying the approval of this Residential Compound plan shall be written on the plan to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. 9. Any change to the approved plans shall be presented to the Planning Board for review and may require a reopening of the public hearing and a modification to the subdivision approval. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07-23-25 Page 7 of 14 Deliberation Mr. McClanahan voted in favor and expressed a desire for a revised plan to be submitted. He said that the benefits outweigh the detriments. Mr. Penney voted in favor and expressed that the benefits outweigh the detriments. Mr. Cerretani voted in favor and voiced that the benefits outweigh the detriments. There is low impact on the enviromnent, and it is a better option than a conventional subdivision layout. There are no traffic safety issues or effects on safety. The additional lot will provide added revenue to the Town. Mr. Corsillo voted in favor and stated that the benefits outweigh the detriments. It is consistent with the Town's Master Plan and aligns with the low -impact development housing goals and housing diversification policies. Ms. Allam voted in favor for the same reasons as previously stated by others. Mr. Maxwell voted in favor. Ms. Friedman voted in favor as the benefits outweigh the detriments. She expressed that she hoped that the space would be used for a starter home and appreciated the open space lot being deeded in perpetuity. Vote on motion: Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained, PASSES Ms. Raposa asked the Board if they would be interested in transmitting a letter of support to the ZBA on behalf of the applicant. Motion Mr. Permey and seconded by Mr. Corsillo to write the letter of support. Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained, PASSES Craig Cygawnoski of RIM Engineering was present on behalf of Mark Blanchette, owner of 13 Webster St, and Christian & Feck Development Corp., owner of land behind 13 Webster St. Mr. Cygawnoski stated that the plan is a straightforward ANR (Approval Not Required) for registered land. The lots are approximately 25 feet by 80 feet, with multiple lots comprising each parcel. Lot 1, located at 13 Webster Street, exists as shown. Along Noonan and Snyder Streets, the parcels have a depth of 150 feet. The proposal includes removing 25 feet from Lot 1, which would then be added to the rear property (Lot 2). Both lots have legal frontage on Noonan Street and meet the building box requirements of 80 feet by 100 feet. With the land transfer, Lot 2 meets the requirements for a duplex, and Lot 1 remains conforming. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07-23-25 Page 8 of 14 Ms. Raposa said that the plan is endorsable as an ANR. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. Corsillo to endorse the ANR plan. Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained, PASSES Because of technical issues, Mr. Hardt will return to present at the August meeting. Marco Crugnale and Sophia Crugnale were present. 1 Ares! Church Sheet Mr. Crugnale explained that the concept plan involves the demolition of the existing building. The proposal is to construct seven new multi -level townhouses, incorporating mixed -use retail and office space at the center of the building. The property is located in the B I zone, which requires one parking space per 1,000 square feet. Mr. Crugnale described the proposed entry and exit locations and reiterated that he is seeking the Board's input on the project. Ms. Raposa noted that the North Main Street Overlay District (Zoning Bylaw 230-5.1 OK) would require a special permit for mixed -use development. For a project with seven units, one affordable housing unit is required. Mr. Cerretani inquired about the required portion of the first floor that must be designated for retail. Ms. Raposa was unsure. Mr. Corsillo commented that the project would be an improvement for the area compared to current conditions. Mr. Haworth expressed support for the design, particularly noting that the parking is located in the rear and is not visible from North Main Street. The proposed building height is 45 feet, with mechanicals permitted up to 50 feet. Tine Board requested a revised roofline and foundation plantings to align with the new design standards. 111-11 S N. Main Street Mr. Crugnale explained that the existing gift shop building would be torn down and replaced with a new structure to accommodate 15 townhouses in the Business 2 (B2) zone. The project would be mixed -use, incorporating both retail space and residential townhouses. Mr. McClanahan inquired whether public parking spaces would be utilized. On -street parking can be used for the retail component of the project. Ms. Raposa noted that there are four parking options available in this area. She added that EV charging stations will be included per the building codes. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07-23-25 Page 9 of 14 The Board suggested that Mr. Crugnale consult with the fire department to ensure the concept is acceptable for fire apparatus access. Ms. Raposa also noted that two affordable housing units are required as part of the development. Retail parking will require further discussion. Mr. Crugnale mentioned that the building will not include an elevator for the towtiliouses. The Board expressed a positive response to the project. Attorney Peter Clark was present, representing the owners. David and Jennifer Poorvu, owners, were also present. Attorney Clark introduced the property owners and stated that they are proposing a unique project for the currently unused portion of the property. With positive feedback from the Board, the next step would be to submit an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for the expansion of a pre-existing, non -conforming residential use. The Twin Oaks Apartments were built in 1971-1972 under a special permit issued by the Planning Board. The property, under previous ownership, was later foreclosed by the bank. One distinct parcel of the project —located directly behind the existing apartments —was never completed or developed. Attorney Clark described the land and its proximity to adjacent parcels. He explained that the proposed project will consist of 39 tiny homes, each with a footprint of 400 square feet or less, excluding loft space. The units will be pre -manufactured and placed on slabs. They will be one -bedroom rental apartments intended to be more affordable and to contribute to the Town's housing diversity. Each unit will have two parking spaces. Traffic will not flow through the existing apartment complex, as the point of access will be from Hope Street. He requested that the Board consider writing a letter of support to the ZBA. Mr. Haworth commented that the concept addresses a need for housing and offers opportunities for people who are just getting started or looking to downsize. Attorney Clark stated that the target demographic includes singles, couples, or single parents with one child. He clarified that since the original project was approved by special permit, the proposed development would be considered an expansion of that original permit. The land in question is registered with the Land Court as a completely separate parcel. Ms. Raposa noted that the current zoning bylaw would not allow for this level of density; therefore, amending the original special permit is the most viable option. The proposed project would have a density of 15 units per acre. Mr. Corsillo expressed support for the project, stating that it meets a housing need. He asked whether affordable housing would be included. Attorney Clark confirmed that, in accordance with the special permit bylaw, the project will include an inclusionary housing component. Each unit would have a 392-square-foot footprint with an additional 202-square-foot loft, designed to foster a small community atmosphere. Mr. Poorvu noted that while there are no plans for a clubhouse or pool, the development may include a pocket park. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07-23-25 Page 10 of 14 Attorney Clark concluded by stating that, because the housing units will be deed -restricted, all 39 units would count toward the Town's affordable housing percentage. Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to draft a letter of support to the ZBA for the tiny home village at Twin Oaks. Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained, PASSES Ms. Allam left the ineeling at 10: OS pm Ms. Raposa referenced past June discussions in which the Board wanted to move forward with most of the articles as listed below: §230-4.7 - Special Permit to the sign bylaw §230-4.4 - Off -Street Parking and Loading §230-5.5 - Special Permits Submission Requirements §230-5.5H - Moratorium on the construction and siting of resource recovery systems (housekeeping) &23042C - Scheduled rate of development (housekeeping) V30-3.3J(7) - Residential facilities for residents 55 years of age or older MSROD Map Reference (5.12G) & MSROD Site Plan Approval Reference (5.12H(1)) (housekeeping) Host Community Agreements — Impact Tees (delete/housekeeping) § 230-5.4 - Floodplain District (housekeeping) §230-3.4. - School Bus Parking Mr. Penney thought that in a past discussion, it had been determined that not much could be done at this time. Mr. Corsillo recalled that the thought was to use the underutilized existing parking in the industrial park. Ms. Raposa said that the intent is to rewrite the zoning bylaw to allow bus parking in underutilized locations. This could include industrial or Residential I (RI) locations that could be suitable. Currently, commercial parking is not allowed. Mr. Cerretani noted that the upside is that the buses would be garaged in Mansfield and the Town would get excise tax revenue for the buses. The Town is actively assisting the bus company with the search for parking in Mansfield. There was continued discussion relating to whether RI zones should be used and that the PBD and Industrial zones are prime locations. Ms. Raposa noted that it would be a special permit process, which is discretionary to the Planning Board. She asked the board to consider creating a process for bus parking that is more permissive than what exists now. A draft has been written for the bylaw public hearing. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07-23-25 Page 11 of 14 § 230-xx - New B5 District (School Street) § 230-5.13 - 40Y Multi -Generational Overlay District This is on hold based on the State guideline requirements, and the bylaw could not be submitted to the State and processed in time for fall town meeting submission. Ms. Raposa reviewed the approval and hearing process for the zoning articles leading up to the fall town meeting. The town meeting date is still undetermined. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. Corsillo to recommend the zoning bylaw articles to the Select Board. Six (6) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES Paul Jodice Technical Correction relating to ADUs This request was for the potentially restrictive bylaw language that was unintended. Mr. Jodice's request is to make the bylaw more consistent and ensure that longstanding pre-1989 residential lots can more easily comply with earlier dimensional standards without requiring variances. Mr. Jodice's concern is that the phrase "last revised in 1989" limits which version of the bylaw can be applied to pre-existing lots. In practice, that limiting language has caused him to seek unnecessary variances, despite the intent of the paragraph to provide dimensional relief for lots recorded before October 16, 1989. Mr. Jodice had noted that similar language does not appear in paragraph F, which applied to lots in the agricultural and residential A zones recorded before July 1, 1975. The inconsistency may have been an oversight. Mr. Penney asked what should be done to resolve the issue. Ms. Raposa suggested that a draft be proposed, which would clarify the language in the bylaw and ask Mr. Jodice to return -to the Board for further discussion. Ms. Raposa asked the Board for approval to begin the draft road construction permit and supplemental subdivision rules and regulations for the future fall public hearing. She is waiting for comments from the DPW Director and Town Engineer, but would like to package it all together to move forward. ParkwaylTransil Oriented Development Zoning Billmv Amendments Planning Board Policies & Procedures of the Planning Board with Site Plan Approval and Special Permit rules and Regulations and Planning Board Fees Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07-23-25 Page 12 of 14 In follow-up to a previous Board inquiry, Ms. Raposa noted the cannabis revenue for 2024 and 2025. The 2024 cannabis host agreement brought in $82,000, for the impact fee and the state cannabis sales tax brought in $203,000. In 2025, the cannabis host agreement did not generate revenue because it was stricken from the regulations, and the state cannabis sales tax brought in $170,000. Meeting Minutes — June 25, 2025 Mr. Penney requested a language change relating to the word "unconstitutional." Ms. Raposa acknowledged that the language should change. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. Cerretani to approve the minutes as discussed with the noted language change. Four (4) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, One (1) abstained, PASSES 14 A,ny �#engs uot,�nficapa#eel by the chair 48 hours before,#has ureet�ug ° ; No iterns 1Ss..rountl�#heta£2�e`�� ��' r Ms. Raposa provided an update on an issue that had been flagged with the META communities' compliance model. She then read the memo outlining details of areas that had been included, which are not in compliance with the META overlay District. The town submission included 1,662 units, which was above the required 1,392 units. During EOHLC's review, 453 of the units were removed because they were located on publicly owned land, which does not count towards our required total under the guidelines. One area of town -owned property was mistakenly listed as private, due to a GIS data error. As a result, the adjusted zoning capacity is now 1,137 units, leaving an unofficial gap of 255 units. Recent conversations with EOHLC have determined that the Town is eligible to receive a conditional compliance letter, but the Town is responsible for full compliance within 12 months of the State's issuance of the letter. The Town does have a path forward, and Ms. Raposa reviewed options for compliance. Ms. Raposa proposed a small working group to help develop a proposed zoning amendment for a fixture town meeting. This would put the Town in a general position to close the gap and meet the State's timeline. Ms. Raposa reminded the Board of a joint Finance Committee, Planning Board, and Select Board meeting on July 30111. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07-23-25 Page 13 of 14 Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Penney to adjourn at 10:30 pm Seven (7) in favor, Zero (0) opposed, Zero (0) abstained PASSES The date of the Neat Planning Board ddeeling is �lugirsl 27, 2025, at 7: 00 p. r». a Mark Corsillo, Clerk Date of Approval Documents Presented for the Meeting 1. Meeting Notice Agenda for July 23, 2025 2. Rolling Fields Village Cluster application, plans, and additional supporting documents 3. 996 West Street application, Submission by Mr. Cahill, and additional supporting documents. 4. 668 Elm Street application, plans, and supporting documents. 5. 13 Webster Street Form A application and plan 6. Mansfield Walkability Audit by Addison Hardt 7. 1 West Church Street concept plan 8. 111-115 N. Main Street concept plan 9. 149 Oakland Street, Twin Oaks, Tiny Home Development concept plan 10. Zoning Bylaw Amendments packet 11. Draft Road Construction permit 12. Draft Meeting Minutes for June 25, 2025 Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07-23-25 Page 14 of 14