Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 09/10/20252 aaE,,NC,RECEIVED c To .i.n,gH CLERKS Town of Mansfield = j[ 'o99jF6PakRon),bfanfeeld,,,AIA02048 OA5A SEP ryryJ A 3blL7/2/!g Board t1Ati�iF1ELD tryggSAGNUSETTS Meeting Minutes September 10, 2025 Meeting Held ht Person in Meeting Roont 3AIB Present: Sharon Friedman, Chair; Mark Corsillo, Clerk; Joseph Cerretani; Ralph Penney; Michael McClanahan; Sreelatha Allarn; Ryan Maxwell; and Bryan Haworth, Associate Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: None 1Manning Board I1'Ie�ktng ailed`�o O;�der ak 7#20 pm ;; Following video and voice technical issues, Ms. Friedman called the meeting to order at 7:20 S' pm. She notified the public that there were technical issues, which meant that the outside public could hear us, but we could not listen to them. However, they were welcome to attend the meeting in person or submit written comments to the Planning Department. She then read the introductory statement for audience members who wish to record the meeting. Regarding the application of Jones Lang Lasalle SSI PR II Owner LLC for a Site Plan Approval pursuant to Bylaw Section 230-5.3 for the property located at 31 Plymouth St., to expand the existing paved parking areas and install a new stormwater management system. The project site is owned by Jones Lang Lasalle SSI PR II Owner LLC. and is shown on Assessor's Plat 044, Lot 801 within the PBD (Planned Business District) zone. Due to the technical issues, Rich Riecio, representative for the owner/applicant of the property, requested that the hearing be continued to October 24°i. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. Cerretani that the hearing be continued to October 24, 2025, at 7:05 pm. Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Planning Board Meeting Minutes 09-10-25 Page 1 of 12 i �;, Cprresp4nde�ice-an�T Ge�jeral�BuS�ness .; :. illfeeting Minutes July 30, 2025 Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to approve the minutes as presented. Vote: 4-0-3 [Aye 4, Nay 0, Abstain 3] PASSED August 27, 2025 Motion by Mr. Penmey and seconded by Mr. Corsillo to approve the minutes as presented. Vote: 6-0-1 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 1] PASSED Doii,nimm Committee Nomination Mr. Haworth volunteered for the nomination to replace Mr. Penney for the conunittee. Ms. Friedman noted that the committee has been suspended pending hiring a new Town Manager. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to nominate Mr. Haworth to complete Mr. Penney's term to December 31, 2025. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED y 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, September 10, 2025, to accept public continents on the following proposed amendments to the Town of Mansfield Zoning Bylaws. Ms. Friedman reminded the audience of the technical issues. If any person was unable to attend, they were welcome to submit written comments to the Planning Department. Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to open the public hearing and dispense with the reading of the legal notice. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Ms. Raposa began with a brief introduction and timeline. She noted the session was the first of two public hearings, the second scheduled for October 8°i, followed by an informational session at the Council on Aging on October 29t". Fall Town Meeting has not yet been scheduled. She said that each item presented may not make it to the warrant. Some items are housekeeping and others are substantive. She then reviewed each item with Board and Public comments as noted below. Item 1 - Signs 0230-4.7): Authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant special permits for sign relief in unique cases where standard regulations are impractical, with detailed plans required. Prohibited signs remain prohibited, applicants would submit scaled drawings in visual materials, and the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) would weigh benefits against potential impacts that could impose size, location, and design considerations to protect the public interest. This item Planning Board Meeting Minutes 09-10-25 Page 2 of 12 was previously discussed with the Planning Board, with this being the result of new language i that explicitly restricts the use of the special permit for the business, industrial, planned business, and reservoir districts. It repeats the original submission requirements and then references conditions that may be imposed by the ZBA. Public Continents Sandra Levine of 20 Walnut Street asked for examples of signs that could be allowed. Ms. Raposa replied that the ZBA had granted two variances for signs. Granting a variance for signs tends to be for subjective rather than objective reasons, which puts the Town in a difficult position since a variance has strict State requirements relating to the soil, lot shape, or topography, or landowner hardship. By changing the requirements from a variance to a special permit, it protects the Town better, but a variance could still be applied on a case -by -case basis. Abutters would be notified for either option, and a public hearing. Ms. Levine asked if them would still be a maximum height and width or illuminated sign restrictions. Ms. Raposa replied that the amendment is general because there are so many varied requests, which require review on an individual basis, but are still discretionary. Paul Sullivan of 26 Hemlock Lane inquired about the additional text presented. Ms. Raposa noted that it was not in the original text of the bylaw, but wanted it presented to the Board for consideration. If the Board decides to move forward, then the language will be incorporated. Mr. Sullivan expressed his opinion that there is no reason to change the current variance process for signs and felt it was unnecessary. He presumed that the special permit change would not apply to residential zones and that he did not think the Town should make it easier to put up signs. Item 2 - Off -Street Parking (&230-4.4): Updates pavement and drainage standards to reflect best engineering practices and 100-year storm design. Ms. Raposa explained that the update will modernize the construction and drainage standards for parking areas. It clarifies pavement thickness and aligns with the storm design standard, with current best practices for sites to manage runoffs responsibly during major stone events. This would primarily apply to commercial projects, the park, and business properties, and has been approved by the Town Engineer. It would not apply to residential driveways. The Board agreed that the current standards are outdated, and this will align with the current standards. Mr. Corsillo asked if there could be language clarification in the bylaw that it does not apply to residential. A few other minor clarifications were made. Ms. Allarn asked if any state or federal regulations were triggering the change. Ms. Raposa responded that there are no imposed requirements. Item 3 - Special Permit Submissions (4230-5.5): Removes redundant application requirements to streamline permitting and align with Board regulations. Ms. Raposa said that this is a housekeeping item. It removes the long list of application requirements from the Zoning By-law, as they already exist in the Planning Board and the ZBA's Planning Board Meeting Minutes 09-10-25 Page 3 of 12 -, rules and regulations. This does not change the other requirements. This change for document % submission allows the Boards to make changes to their rules and regulations at an advertised and noticed public hearing, versus a zoning amendment at a town meeting. Item 4 - Resource Recovery Systems (5230-5.5H): Deletes long -expired moratorium language on trash incinerators to clean up the bylaw. This change removes a moratorium that expired in 1991, eliminating outdated language that no longer applies. Mr. Penney provided a brief history of this item. Item 5 - Scheduled Rate of Development (4230-4.2C): Removes the outdated growth management section that expired in 2007. The scheduled rate of development bylaw was adopted in 1997, which capped the number of building permits issued per year. This is being removed as it expired in 2007. Item 6 - Senior Housing Parking (§230-3.3J(7)): Reduces parking for 55+ residential facilities from 2 to 1.5 spaces per unit to reflect lower demand. This reflects the fact that seniors typically own fewer vehicles, and it also allows developers to use that extra space for open space amenities. The reduction is based on an analysis of the Spring Street project for their unit capacity and their parking requirements. The project did meet the 1.5 space requirement. This change would promote 55+ projects and the amenities they could provide to the residents. Mr. Haworth supported the change, pointing out that other states are reducing or eliminating parking minimums, and argued that developers are better positioned than towns to determine demand. Mr. Cerretani cautioned about impacts on downtown parking, while the Board noted examples of overpacking, such as the Home Depot lot, and agreed the reduction was a positive step. Public Continents Stan Poon of 125 Central Street noted that developers stay only a few years while buildings last for generations. He urged consideration of long-term impacts, suggesting that open space could be converted back to parking in the future if needed. He raised concerns about development density and its effect on parking and public transportation. Sandra Levine of 20 Walnut Street questioned the fairness of allocating 1.5 spaces per unit, since some tenants may have two cars. She suggested that this could create a non -equitable parking situation. Ms. Friedman commented that the Board's experience indicates that 1.5 spaces have been more than adequate and equitable. The 1.5 spaces requirement is a minimum. A developer could also present two spaces per unit if they feel that the market calls for it. k Paul Sullivan of 26 Hemlock Lane asked if the reduction impacts the Town's negotiating power with developers. Mr. Corsillo noted that the parking reduction does not change the bylaw density requirements. Mr. Cerretani said that 55+ communities are in high demand, and by loosening the requirements allows more developments in town. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 09-10-25 Page 4 of 12 Stan Peon of 125 Central Street noted the density of development and the impact on parking and public transportation. There needs to be an understanding of how one impacts the other. Ms. Friedman also suggested that people review the Town's Open Space and Recreation Plan, which captures and continues to keep open space alive. Item 7 - MSROD Man & Reference (§230-5.12): Updates zoning map references, corrects acreage, and adds a 2025 map revision expanding Subdistrict C to include additional parcels for compliance with the state's MBTA Communities requirements; also corrects site plan review citation. The Planning Board reviewed proposed technical updates to the overlay district bylaw. Inzitially, the changes were limited to updating map dates and correcting a regulatory citation. However, the state identified an error in the compliance model: certain town -owned parcels were mistakenly counted as private property in the GIS database, resulting in an inflated housing unit count. To address this, the Board formed a working group that met three times over the sununer. The proposed solution is to expand Sub -District C to include the Station Point development, allowing the Town to take credit for existing density there. Station Point consists of two parcels: one sunder a regulatory agreement until 2063 and the other in perpetuity. Key changes include: • Reducing the acreage figure from 105 to 95 acres. • Updating map dates and correcting repeated references. • Fixing the regulatory citation to reflect the current site plan approval bylaw. • Expanding Sub -District C to include Station Point as a compliance measure. The addition of these parcels will not affect future development but will bring the Town back into compliance with the MBTA Communities Act. The updated bylaw must be passed at Town Meeting and resubmitted to the state. Preliminary discussions with the state indicate support for this approach, with no anticipated issues in the compliance model. A preliminary review request has been submitted, and a formal response is expected by the October 8th meeting, Item 8 - Host Community Allreements (,§230-3.4N(9)): Removes outdated impact fee language to comply with updated Cannabis Control Commission regulations. This amendment removes the bylaw provision allowing general impact fees and host community agreements for marijuana facilities. Recent state law changes require that any impact fee be tied to documented, actual costs incurred by the Town. The amendment ensures compliance with Cannabis Control Commission (CCC) regulations and reduces the risk of legal challenges. Existing host community agreements, including the 3% fee, are no longer valid under the new rules. While the Town could impose an impact fee in the future if it docunnents specific impacts, no new marijuana facility applications are anticipated. Overall, the change cleans up the bylaw and aligns it with current state requirements. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 09-10-25 Page 5 of 12 Item 9 - rloodnlain District (&230-5.4): Updates maps, standards, and definitions to maintain National Flood Insurance Program compliance. The proposed updates to the floodplain bylaw are to comply with the latest FEMA and National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements. Updates include: • Revised map references. • Clarified development standards. • New definitions. • Refined permitting procedures. These changes are intended to improve public safety, reduce property damage, and ensure Mansfield remains eligible for federal flood insurance and disaster relief. The Board emphasized that adopting the updated language is necessary for continued compliance and insurance eligibility. Public Comment Sandra Levine of 20 Walnut Street asked how recent federal reductions in flood aid to communities might affect Mansfield's bylaw updates. The Board responded that while national funding policies may shift, the bylaw changes are focused on compliance with NFIP requirements, which remain necessary for both the Town and individual homeowners to qualify for flood insurance. Board members further explained that advancements in GIS mapping now allow more accurate floodplain designations. The proposed updates reflect state -reviewed language and align with Department of Conservation and Recreation standards. Item 10 - School Bus Parking (&230-3.5N). Adds school bus parking as a special permit use in multiple districts to allow relocation of facilities. This amendment allows the Planning Board to consider school bus parking facilities throughout the Town with proposed updates to address the need for a new school bus parking location while ensuring public review and neighborhood compatibility. The proposed standards require any application to include a detailed site plan prepared by a Massachusetts professional engineer, showing bus spaces, employee parking, minor maintenance areas, drainage controls, circulation and turning movements, and pedestrian safety features. The Board would evaluate each proposal for neighborhood compatibility, traffic circulation, public health, and conformance with town engineering standards. Location and design standards specify that parking should be positioned to the side or rear of properties where practical, with landscaped buffers adjacent to residences. Access should be from collector or arterial streets to avoid backing onto public ways. Stonnwater and utility systems must meet both town and state standards, while idling and operating hours would be limited by law. On -site fueling and major repairs would be prohibited. The Board could cap the number of buses and require a responsible contact, with special permits running up to five years and renewable if conditions are met. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 09-10-25 Page 6 of 12 Additional items were proposed for Board consideration. There is an issue that school bus companies are required to be located in Town, but they are unable to find a suitable location. There are also constraints in RI zoning districts and the need for a discretionary review process to permit potential bus parking locations without interfering with existing industrial or residential uses. The Town has discussed a few areas as a possible site. Overall, the framework is designed to create a controlled, deliberative process for locating school bus operations in town. A Board member inquired if the School Committee could vote to eliminate the requirement to be in Town. Ms. Raposa said she would inquire. She also noted that the Town's revenue is about $30,000 in excise tax. Public Comment Stan Peon of 125 Central Street requested consideration of the jobs that are created by having the buses in Town. He noted that in years past, bus drivers sometimes parked the bus at home. Ms. Friedman replied that today there are fleets of buses and that option would not be feasible, and there is also insurance liability to consider. There was additional Board discussion relating to options and considerations. Item 11 - New B5 Limited Business District: Establishes a new B5 zone to allow low -impact neighborhood conmiercial uses in West Mansfield. The intent is to allow lower -impact, neighborhood -scale commercial uses that align with the Master Plan, support economic development, and provide services to residents in the western part of town. She noted that uses in this district would be more limited than in other business zones, and any project would remain subject to Rill Planning Board review. This article was fast introduced at the May Annual Town Meeting as a citizen petition. It applies to an approximately four -acre parcel at 465-500 School Street, which had been proposed for a 7,440-square-foot gas station and convenience store with four pumps (eight fueling positions) and about 28 parking spaces, served by public water and sewer. Although the Town Meeting vote received 60% support, it did not meet the required two-thirds supermajority. Feedback revealed both strong support for economic reuse, local services, and tax base growth, as well as concerns regarding traffic, zoning, and broader planning impacts. The Planning Board determined that it was important to revisit the article, strengthen its rationale, and address the concerns raised. Under M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 5, reconsideration of zoning articles within two years is generally restricted if rejected by Town Meeting. However, because the Planning Board had originally supported the citizen petition, the Board may reintroduce the amendment within that timeframe. At Town Meeting, residents expressed concerns primarily about traffic. The School Street/Plymouth Street intersection is already considered one of the most difficult and unsafe in town, with long queues, delays, and bridge -related issues. There were concerns about building scale, with comparisons to "Cumberland Farnns-style" facilities with 45-foot building heights that seemed out of place, as well as general worries about piecemeal rezoning without a larger planning strategy. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 09-10-25 Page 7 of 12 The Town Manager reported that a SERPED traffic study conducted in 2021 confirmed the School Street/Plymouth Street intersection operates at Level of Service F during peak horns and already meets warrants for a full traffic signal. The study found that a signal alone would not sufficiently improve conditions; however, when paired with a new tun lane, the intersection would improve to a functional Level of Service B or C. The conclusion was that upgrades to this intersection are essential. Development at the site could help offset the cost of these improvements, whereas if the parcel remains vacant, the Town would eventually bear the full cost. Concerns were also raised about potential "spot zoning." Ms. Raposa clarified that this would not constitute spot zoning because the amendment aligns with the Town's Master Plan. The 2020 Master Plan calls for balanced growth, neighborhood -scale services, and expanded economic opportunities in village centers and underserved areas. Establishing the B-5 District would broaden Mansfield's economic base, support local employment, expand the tax base, and provide neighborhood -scale amenities in West Mansfield, where such services are currently limited. Based on comparable commercial properties, the Assessor estimated an assessed value increase of approximately $1.5 million, a conservative figure that does not include additional improvements such as underground tanks or interior fixtures. The property would be classified as commercial/industrial and taxed at the higher commercial rate. Ms. Raposa emphasized that the proposed B-5 District is intentionally narrow in scope. Its permitted uses and dimensional standards would be more restrictive than other business districts, focusing on compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Rezoning would only be the first step; any fixture project would undergo full Planning Board review, including peer -reviewed studies of traffic, parking, access, and safety, with all impacts required to be mitigated before construction. She concluded that the proposal is rooted in the Master Plan, aligned with economic and corridor planning goals, and designed to provide a clear public benefit under careful oversight. A few Board members, who live on that side of Town, expressed that a gas station convenience store would be a great addition to the area. There would be a bonus for traffic and safety if the intersection were improved. The site would also include electric vehicle charging stations. There was the Board's consensus that the project would not generate extra traffic, but they agreed that the dangerous intersection does need to be improved. Public Continents Sandra Levine of 20 Walnut Street noted that the street intersection is on a steep hill and she expressed concerns for traffic and safety. Stan Peon of 125 Central Street acknowledged Ms. Levine's concerns and suggested that there are many ways the intersection and safety concerns could be mediated. I-Ie agreed that other sites in the area are underutilized and perhaps the B5 zone could be considered for expanding to those other sites. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 09-10-25 Page 8 of 12 Paul Sullivan of 26 Hemlock Lane expressed an issue with transparency of the bylaw amendments since there was additional material presented at the meeting. Ms. Raposa responded that the additional material presented at the public hearing can be added to the summary. Sanuny Kanan of Kanan Fuels LLC/owner of 464 School St., addressed some of the questions and concerns. He clarified that the building will be 4,000 SF of a convenience store with a coffee shop and an office on the second floor. He also owns the business at 157 Pratt St. He felt that West Mansfield lacks this type of business, and the property has been vacant for a long time. He confirmed that there will be a monetary donation to the Town to mitigate the intersection, and they will add car charge stations. The project, if passed at town meeting, will have to go through an extensive special permit process where we will address traffic concerns, drainage, water, parking, and lighting. Item 12 - Pre-1989 Residential Lots (§230-4.1 G): Technical correction to remove restrictive language and ensure older hots can meet prior dimensional standards without variances. Paul Jodice of 39 Bella Vista/owner of Design Build Construction, said that this is a technical correction and explained the history of zoning in East and West Mansfield. It was noted that the agricultural zone had originally been designated in different parts of town, but most of that land has since been reclassified into the R-I residential zone. Prior to the 1989 zoning changes, the agricultural district required side yard setbacks of 15 feet and a 30-foot front setback. Before the creation of the R-1 district, the town used a "Residence A" district, which had the same setback requirements as the agricultural zone. The bylaw words `last revised in May of 1989" create the restrictive setbacks for residents that live in the original agricultural zone. Mr. Jodice said that several residents have been affected by the zoning change which has restricted change or additions to the dwelling. Ms. Raposa read the proposed changes for clarification. Paul Sullivan of 26 Hemlock Lane asked if this allows for lot subdivision or to tear down and rebuild. Ms. Raposa clarified that there needs to be a habitable structure existing on the lot, and if it is torn down, then the new structure is subject to the current setbacks for the zone. Subdivision would apply to the current bylaws. This correction only applies to a small number of parcels. Item 13 - 40Y Multi -Generational Housing Overlay (§230-5.13): Establishes a new overlay district under the state's Chapter 40Y legislation to create more flexible housing options for all stages of life. The proposed overlay district is aimed at expanding housing options for residents at all stages of life, from fast -time homebuyers and families to seniors wishing to age in place. The concept builds on findings from the town's recent Age -Friendly Cornnunity Needs Assessment survey, in which 44% of respondents (out of 236) were very supportive of "40Y multi -generational zoning," with additional support expressed by many others. Few respondents opposed the idea. The overlay district would allow modestly sized homes, such as duplexes and cottages up to 1,850 square feet, at a density of four homes per acre. Housing types would be permitted by right under Planning Board review, while the underlying R-1 zoning would remain in place. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 09-10-25 Page 9 of 12 Dimensional standards are smaller than existing zoning to improve attainability, but include open space and setback requirements to maintain neighborhood character. Design standards would promote traditional neighborhood layouts, attractive housing, and sustainable features such as pervious pavement, energy efficiency, and clustered development to protect open space. Infrastructure requirements include sidewalks and open space, with larger projects required to provide at least 10% affordable housing units restricted at 110% of area median income. The overlay is not age -restricted. It was emphasized that the concept is illustrative and does not represent project approval. The intent is to begin community dialogue on whether an overlay district could sleet housing needs, respect neighborhood context, and align with town goals. The developer is scheduling neighborhood meetings, including a virtual meeting on September 24 and an in -person meeting to follow, with outreach to abutters by mail. The consultant notes that state regulations are not yet adopted and that a starter home district can be adopted by a simple majority vote at a town meeting. Starter homes are capped at 1 ,850 square feet of heated living area. The concept includes minimum density, a majority of three - bedroom homes, and an income restriction of up to 110% of the area median income. There are limits on local restrictions under the statute, reasonable design standards are allowed, and the site plan approval has to be issued within a 120-day decision timeline. Similar to 40B, 40Y notes potential state incentive payments tied to district capacity and per unit production bonuses, along with local building permit fees and ongoing tax revenues. The amounts depicted are high-level order of magnitude benefits that would be refined during bylaw drafting and project review. There are Title V considerations; stacked units are not permitted in this program, tenure cannot be dictated by zoning, and it can include ownership and rental. A phased approach is possible with a conunitment to design elements such as common open space, sidewalks, a pocket park, and possibly a small clubhouse. A conceptual site plan was previously submitted to the Planning Board and Select Board as a visual aid. An actual plan would need to meet all the standards in the bylaw, town engineering requirements, and the planning board for formal review. Discussions are in progress with the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities since their approval is required to cast the bylaw. Legislation is in progress but not yet adopted for 40Y, and Mansfield is one of the few communities pursuing this type of zoning. There was concern with the site passing perk testing and may not be viable for this type of project. Mr. Jodice suggested adding language to allow for future homeowner expansion of the residence. Ms. Raposa replied on behalf of the land owner (attending virtually), who responded in writing, that there is no ledge on the property, and the perk test was good, which they can provide at the next meeting. Mr. Poon asked if a traffic study is required. The site plan approval bylaw requires traffic studies that can be peer -reviewed at the applicant's expense. Mr. Penney left the meeting at 10:00 pm Planning Board Meeting Minutes 09-10-25 Page 10 of 12 Attorney Silverstein, applicant's counsel, (virtual) confirmed that they will have to comply with % Title V. He responded to the concern of allowing additions to the homes and said that the 40Y zoning statute is very clear that the maximum floor area is 1,850 SF. Therefore, any addition would be a zoning violation if it resulted in exceeding the 1,850 SF allowed. He confirmed that they need to comply with the Zoning Protections Act. Jim Burke of 279 Gilbert Street asked how the age diversity of the 40Y community would be policed. Mr. Corsillo replied that it is not a 55+ community and that it would not be legal to have age restrictions. Mr. Peon was concerned with the emergency response to an influx of housing. Ms. Friedman responded that they would have to meet all Town requirements. Mr. Poon questioned the income restriction requirements. Ms. Friedman replied that the 40Y requires a percentage of the homes to be affordable housing, which is monitored through the state and runs with the deed to the property. Nicole Wright of 90 Gilbert Street felt that zoning changes should not be adopted until the state has released its guidance. She expressed concern for pressure on the schools, public safety, and traffic on that scenic road. Mr. Sullivan questioned the nn lti-generational zoning name for the project. Ms. Raposa said that 40-Y is classified as a starter home district, which would indicate this is a neighborhood for first- time homebuyers, younger people. Because it's not age -restricted, it doesn't speak to the breadth of potential folks who could live there. There is a need for affordable starter homes and for those who want to downsize. This project fits both needs. The Town is currently above the 10% threshold requirements for affordable housing, but there is concern that if production of affordable units does not increase, the Town could fall below the required threshold by 2030. The affordable component of the project dictates that there are no age restrictions. The feedback and discussions from this meeting will prepare for the next public hearing discussion that will be held on October 8"i. Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Corsillo to continue the public hearing to October 8, 2025 at 7:30 pm. Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED No items Planning Board Meeting Minutes 09-10-25 Page 11 of 12 The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is September 2d, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. Clerk Date of Approval It'��✓1` C�YS1/�G Documents Presented for the Meeting 1. Meeting Notice Agenda for September 10, 2025 2. Draft Meeting Minutes for July 30, 2025, and August 27, 2025 3. 31 Plymouth St Application and supporting documents 4. Draft Zoning Bylaw Amendments packet Planning Board Meeting Minutes 09-10-25 Page 12 of 12