Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 10/22/2025%Not REG(au�[ D � r 13 ,� �' 25 f�A5 A4� Meeting Minutes October 22, 2025 Town of Mansfield 6 Park Itau), Dian field,111A 02048 Meeting Hell in Person in Meeting Roonr 3A/B Planning Board Present: Sharon Friedman, Chair; Mark Corsillo, Clerk; Joseph Cerretani; Ralph Penney; Sreelatha Allam; Ryan Maxwell, and Bryan Haworth, Associate Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Michael McClanahan Ms. Friedman called the meeting to order and read the introductory statement for audience members who wish to record the meeting. Regarding the application of Crugnale Properties, LLC for a Site Plan Approval pursuant to Bylaw Section 230-5.3 for the property located at 1 West Church St. to demolish the existing building, parking areas, and associated driveways to construct a new mixed -use building to include seven two-story townhouse units, retail space, and parking. The project site is owned by Washington Realty, Inc. and is shown on Assessor's Plat 021, Lot 064, within the Business 1 (I31) zone. Sophia Crugnale and Bob Rego were present. Marco Crugnale was present virtually. Ms. Friedman briefly summarized what was discussed at the last meeting. She asked the applicant to respond to the Board questions from that meeting with consideration to the building renderings and elevations with relation to the downtown design guidelines. Mr. Cerretani arrived at 7: 04 pin. Mr. Rego presented elevations of the proposed building and explained the design elements. Ms. Friedman referenced the parking spaces that appeared difficult to enter and exit. Mr. Rego presented a plan showing the travel pattern to enter and exit those spaces. He described the site around the building, noting that the property line and sufficient sight lines for traffic exiting and entering the site. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 10-22-25 Page 1 of 9 tl1s. Aidarrr arrived at T 07 pm. Pursuant to previous Board comment, design optimization was looked at to reconfigure the office spaces to improve functionality. It was clarified that this issue is not related to any bylaw deficiency but rather to design optimization. The architect, Doug Amrino, had reviewed possible revisions to the plan before final approval. Marco Crugnale of Crugnale Properties joined the discussion, confirming that he and Doug reviewed the layout. Mr. Crugnale explained that removing the front doors from the street -facing units was not feasible due to means of egress requirements. While larger office spaces would be preferable, maintaining safe and code - compliant egress routes was a priority. He considered that the current configuration as the best possible design solution. Mr. Crugnale expressed willingness to purchase and donate multiple benches but raised concerns about the proposed location near "The Catman." He noted that placing benches there might encourage loitering and smoking in front of the nearby units, especially at night. He also evaluated West Church Street as a possible alternative but found that the narrow five-foot sidewalk could pose an ADA accessibility issue. Marco stated he is happy to donate benches for another location on Main Street where they would be better utilized and less likely to create issues. He reiterated that if installing benches at the originally proposed site is a requirement, he will comply, though he suggested placing them across the street or at a more suitable nearby location. Marco concluded by saying lie is willing to provide even two benches if needed. Ms. Friedman questioned the submission of a photometric plan. Mr. Rego confirmed that it had been submitted in the latest plan set. He noted the location of the dmupster with a 6-foot high fence enclosure. Snow storage is limited to the rear of the property and would be removed off - site if needed. Stormwater management will be included as a specific condition of the project. The existing and new sidewalks will be ADA-compliant. The building will be sprinklered per the building code. Ms. Raposa spoke of the unusual circumstances that one of the spaces in the existing building is non -compliant with the fire department. The Fire Chief has recommended a specific condition of approval for the building: "that the owner will have six months to either demolish the existing building or otherwise bring this up to code." This condition would provide a grace period since the building is anticipated to be demolished, and it wouldn't make sense to fix the violation to then demolish the building. Due to the later submission of revised plans, which the Town Engineer did not have the chance to review, Ms. Raposa reconnuended that the hearing be continued. Further discussion focused on maintaining commercial and retail use on the first floor of buildings within the Bl, B2, B4, and I3 districts. Concerns were raised about a proposal that would significantly reduce the amount of commercial space from 7,440 square feet of office and retail area to 1,600 square feet, while increasing the number of residential units to seven two - bedroom apartments. This change represents a loss of approximately 5,840 square feet of commercial space. It was noted that the building previously housed light manufacturing operations, and questions were raised about how the new proposal could proceed without a variance or waiver. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 10-22-25 Page 2 of 9 Mr. Crugnale explained that the plan had been reviewed and met the site plan approval requirements. They stated that the design aimed to balance financial feasibility, zoning compliance, and community improvement, noting that the corner office space would retain strong visibility and that the smaller offices would still serve professional uses. Board members expressed concern over the continuing reduction of downtown commercial space, referencing several recent business losses and emphasizing the town's goal to preserve a vibrant business district. Zoning regulations were cited, stating that in business districts, retail, office, bank, or restaurant uses must occupy the entire ground floor. Because the proposal includes ground -floor parking, some members believed a waiver would be necessary, consistent with similar past projects. There was acknowledgment of confusion regarding the interpretation of the bylaw, particularly whether non -habitable spaces such as parking and common areas satisfy the requirement for ground -floor commmercial use. The Board agreed that further clarification and potential guidance on whether a waiver or variance is required before rendering a decision. Ms. Raposa noted that everything on the ground floor is non -habitable space with a mix of office, stairwells, and mechanicals. Mr. Maxwell raised concerns regarding the limited amount of co i nercial space proposed in the building and the layout's efficiency. It was noted that the design includes nine stairwells leading to the second floor, each roughly the size of one of the small office spaces. This was viewed as an inefficient use of valuable downtown commercial real estate. While the large corner office space was considered well -designed and functional, the smaller 12' by 12' offices were seen as impractical compared to cubicles, lacking bathrooms, and having only single entries. Mr. Crugnale explained that, per code, residential spaces require two exits, whereas commercial spaces are permitted a single entrance. He added that the small offices are intended as rentable "shared workspaces," similar to modern co -working setups, with shared bathrooms located behind the larger corner office area. Mr. Maxwell suggested that combining some stairwells to reduce wasted space and improve the overall floor layout could be explored. The Board members acknowledged the effort and design improvements compared to the existing structure. They felt that the design requires refinement, but overall, the project would be an enhancement to the property. Ms. Friedman requested that the exterior design be more consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines. She also reiterated that more consideration should be given to make the office spaces larger. She felt that the plan did conform to the letter of the law, but questioned the feasibility of the design based on Board comments. There were no public comments and no further Board comments. Motion by Mr. Cerretani and seconded by Mr. Penney to continue the public hearing to November 12, 2025, at 7:00 pm. Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Planning Board Meeting Minutes 10-22-25 Page 3 of 9 Regarding the application of James Crawford for a Special Permit and Site Plan Approval pursuant to Bylaw Sections 230-5.5, 230-5.3, and 230-3.3E at 40 Pratt Street to demolish the existing structure and construct a new three-story, 5,980 SF 5-unit rowhouse building. The project site is owned by Sandra and Thomas Curtin and is shown on Assessor's Map 022, Lot 112, within the Business 2 (B2) zone. Josh White from JDE Civil, representing the applicant, and the applicant, James Crawford, were present. Mr. White presented updated plans for the Pratt Street residential development. Since the initial presentation in September, the project has been revised in response to board feedback and architectural refinements. The new plan reduces the number of units from five to four, increasing individual unit size to approximately 1,400 square feet. The units will be for sale, not rental. The building now includes two garage spaces per unit, plus two visitor parking spaces at the rear. The reduction in units eliminates the need for a dumpster. The town allows barrel pickup for developments of four or fewer units. Each unit will have trash stored in its garage. Site grading, drainage, utilities, and landscaping have been updated to reflect the new layout, with a catch basin and subsurface drainage system designed to handle runoff. Sewer and water connections have been upgraded at the Town Engineer's recommendation, and all utilities will be underground. The building setback, approximately 203 feet from Pratt Street, is slightly farther back than neighboring properties. Each unit features two bedrooms, front stair access, decks and patios at the rear, and shared landscaping along the frontage. Arborvitae screening and fencing are proposed along the rear and side property lines for privacy. Wall -mounted lighting above each garage. Board members debated the pros and cons of reducing from five to four units. Mr. Haworth expressed concern that larger units would increase housing costs, limiting affordability for first- time buyers. Others felt the new design was more proportional to the site, with better spacing and visual appeal. The Board was pleased that the applicant addressed prior concerns, particularly the removal of the dumpster near abutters, the addition of windows and facade details, and coordination with neighbors and fire officials. The board requested final renderings that would show all four sides of the building, including materials, colors, lighting, and signage, to assess architectural compatibility with the neighborhood. They also discussed proposed landscaping. Board members discussed clarifying the bylaw language related to rendering requirements, noting that earlier versions required perspectives from two opposite corners, while the current application specifies all sides. Public Comment Planning Board Nleetint; Minutes 70 22 25 Pal;c 4 of 9 Noreen O'Malley-Stanlpfi of 17 Thompson Street thanked the applicant and team for their professionalism, communication, and consideration toward abutting property owners. For the next meeting, the applicant will provide full renderings showing all sides and materials. They will obtain a confirming statement from the Town Engineer verifying that the updated plans meet approval conditions. Ms. Raposa will prepare updated findings and conditions for the next meeting. Overall, the Board viewed the revised plan as a significant improvement visually and functionally, and appreciated the applicant's responsiveness and collaboration with neighbors. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. Corsillo to continue the public hearing to November 12, 2025, at 7:05 pm. Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Regarding the application of Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering for a Site Plan Approval pursuant to Bylaw Section 230-5.3 for the property located at 235 Central Street for a modification to a Site Plan Approval, dated October 22, 2021, and modified on September 8, 2022, to allow additional parking on the site. The project site is owned by MSS Two Realty LLC and is shown on Assessor's Plat 018, Lot 436, within the Business 4 (134) zone Mr. Cygawnoski and Anthony Grossi, representing MSS Two Realty LLC, were present. Mr. Cygawnoski explained the history of the property, currently owned by MMS Two, and operates the dental practice. In October 2021, the Planning Board approved a site plan to expand the existing dental office from 988 square feet to 2,527 square feet, effectively tripling its size. The approved plan included a drainage system endorsed by the Town Engineering Department and a parking lot at the rear of the building with two 12-foot one-way driveways serving as the entrance and exit. About a year later, in 2022, the applicant requested permission to add a 1,000 square foot second -floor office. That request was approved through a letter submission since the parking already met town requirements. Around the same time, a design for additional parking spaces in front of the building was explored but never formally approved. During construction, however, the front parking area was built in addition to the previously approved rear parking lot. The applicant appeared before the board to seek retroactive approval for six additional front parking spaces. These front spaces are used for employee parking only, while the rear lot remains for patients. A post -development drainage study was conducted to confirm that the system could handle the additional impervious area. The Town Engineer reviewed the study and agreed that the existing drainage system is sufficient. A stamped drainage report and a full operation and maintenance plan will be submitted to finalize this portion of the project. The Conservation Conuuission reviewed the project and approved the relocation of the handicap parking space from a steep slope to the main parking area at the rear of the building, but requested additional landscaping at the top of the slope to the wetlands. Two dogwood trees and other plantings were installed in that area and have been approved by the Conservation Planning Board Meeting Minutes 10-22-25 Page 5 of 9 Commission. The Police Department examined potential pedestrian safety concerns, specifically whether vehicles could cross over the sidewalk from the front parking area. They determined that the existing bike rack and office sign placement provide sufficient protection. The Fire Department also reviewed the current site configuration and confirmed that the entrance and exit meet their requirements. Board members commended the applicant for the quality of the completed project, noting the attractive new building, the concrete sidewalk with granite curbing, and the preservation of existing trees. Several members, however, observed that the area near the front sign and crushed stone landscaping appeared bare. They recommended adding planters or additional greenery to enhance the appearance. The applicant agreed to add vegetation in that area and, where possible, along the property line with the adjacent Mobile gas station. A fence along the northern property line near a residential abutter had been proposed in the original plan, but because the existing trees were preserved and remain healthy, the fence was deemed unnecessary. The applicant also requested to waive the fence requirement between the dental office and the Mobile station, noting that both properties are commercial and the Mobile tenant does not desire a fence. The board discussed the conditions for approval, which included a submission of the final stamped drainage report and certification, completion of all safety markings and signage, such as pavement arrows, a stop bar, "Right Turn Only" signs, and striping to prevent vehicle overhang onto the sidewalk. The applicant also agreed to add landscaping in the crushed stone area at the front and to continue using off -site snow removal to prevent accumulation on the property. Board members expressed that they were pleased with the results of the project, agreeing that the six additional parking spaces do not create any drainage or safety issues. The applicant confirmed that a temporary banner currently displayed on the building would be replaced by a permanent sign in accordance with town requirements. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. Cerretani that the Planning Board approve the Site Plan Modification for 235 Central Street, contingent on improving the crushed stone area with some vegetation, the submission of a favorable drainage report, submission of a stamped plan for recording, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Drainage Certification: Prior to endorsement/CO, submit a Massachusetts P.E.-stamped letter certifying the stormwater system meets or exceeds the performance of the 2021 approval; provide an as -built, O&M, and CCTV report to the Town Engineer for acceptance. 2. Circulation & Safety: Install pavement arrows, STOP bar, and RIGHT -TURN -ONLY signage at the exit; stripe stalls to prevent sidewalk overhang; Police/Engineering to field - verify. 3. Landscaping Mitigation: Submit and implement a mitigation plan (street -facing greens/evergreens and/or buffer reinforcement) equal to or exceeding the landscape area displaced by the six front stalls; maintain for two growing seasons (replace in -kind upon failure). Planning Board Meeting Minutes 10-22-25 Page 6 of 9 All Other Conditions Unchanged: All conditions of the 10/28/2021 approval remain in frill force and effect unless expressly modified herein. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED �i 5 4�NQouanStr��d�icatl'n v ; Regarding a modification to the Planning Board's decision of approval dated June 11, 2025. Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering, was present on behalf of the owner, Stan Feck. Mr. Cygawnoski explained that Mr. Feck met with the Town Engineer to revise the site plan for a 40- foot-wide paper street. The original plan was to have the new driveway located next to the neighboring existing driveway with a drainage Swale. After discussion with the Town Engineer, so that there would be no interference with the neighbor's driveway, it was decided that it would be best to relocate the new 18-foot wide driveway to the property line along the westerly side of Noonan Street. A 20-foot utility easement across the neighbor's property (lots 1 and 2) provides access to the third lot, and Land Court filings are underway to formalize both the easement and a lot line adjustment. After review of the Fire Department's comments, a turnaround area was added to accommodate emergency vehicles. To separate driveways and prevent vehicles from driving straight through, the applicant would add either a low fence or low -maintenance shrubs (under three feet) along the frontage. The Town Engineer suggested that a stop sign or street markings be considered for the intersection of Noonan and Webster Streets. A fall utilities design will be completed. The Planning Board voted unanimously to approve the modification to the June 12, 2025 approval (Section 81G) dated October 22, 2025, reflecting the revised roadway alignment, drainage, and access control measures. All required signage, pavement markings, and driveway obstructions must be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final sign -off. Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. Cerretani that the Planning Board approve the Modification to the June 12, 2025 § 8 1 G Adequacy Finding for 0 Noonan Street (Assessor's Map 19, Parcels 126-138), submitted by Christian & Feck Development Corp., as shown on the plan entitled "Proposed Duplex Location Plan," prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc., dated May 9, 2025 and last revised October 22, 2025 (Revise Pavement Layout/Notes) with the following conditions: 1. Stop control at Noonan/Webster. A STOP sign (MUTCD RI -I), STOP line, and "STOP" pavement legend shall be installed on the Noonan Street approach to Webster Street in accordance with MUTCD and Town standards, subject to the review and approval of the Town Engineer/DPW. 2. Driveway obstruction/access control. To prevent vehicles from bypassing the STOP control, a physical obstruction shall be provided between the existing and proposed 18- foot driveways, such as a landscaped island with plantings, decorative fence/split-rail, Planning Board Meeting Minutes 10-22-25 Page 7 of 9 stone wall element, or approved clievron/delineators. The design, location, and materials shall be shown on a plan subject to Town Engineer approval. The obstruction shall be maintained in good condition in perpetuity by the owner of the property. Timing. All required signage, pavement markings, and the driveway obstruction shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the duplex of final sign -off by the Town, whichever occurs first. This modification reflects revisions to the roadway aligmnent and drainage design, including relocation of the 18-foot paved driveway to the west edge of the right-of-way, replacement of gravel shoulders with a grass -lined swale along the east side, and substitution of a rip -rap berm for the previously approved gravel turnaround. All other findings and conditions of the Planning Board's June 12, 2025, adequacy determination remain in effect, as amended to reflect the revised layout. Vote: 5-0-1 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 1] PASSED Parkway/Transit Oriented Development Zoning Bylaw Amendments Planning board Policies & Procedures ofthe Planning Board with Site Plan Approval and Special Permit rules and Regulations and Planning Board Fees 11Lleeting Minutes — October 8 2025 Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Ms. Allan to approve the minutes as presented with changes as Mr. Penney noted. Vote: 4-0-2 [Aye 4, Nay 0, Abstain 2] PASSED The Planning Board 2026 meeting schedule will be drafted and ready for discussion at the November meeting. No items Ms. Raposa informed the Board that, in the spring, she had submitted three grant applications to the One -Stop program. One application was for an economic development plan, which is part of the Master Plan and is awaiting results. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 10-22-25 Page 8 of 9 The second application was for $5 million request for the parkway, which was not awarded, but the Town was awarded finding through the TIP. Through the third application, the town had been awarded $100,000 to study the potential establislmient of a Chapter 40R Smart Growth District. She explained that while the grant was approved, there has since been feedback suggesting that no additional major zoning changes should be pursued at this time, especially given recent zoning updates. The proposed 40R study area, south of the trail station in the I3 industrial zone, was originally discussed in prior planning sessions but is now viewed as unlikely for residential use due to existing and planned industrial and utility development. The Board discussed other potential sites for the grant. �� �:d�v�uauent Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. Cerretani to adjourn at 9:10 pm Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is November 12, 2025, at 7: 00 p. m. _ it laln Date of Approval Documents Presented for the Meeting 1. Meeting Notice Agenda for October 22, 2025 2. Draft Meeting Minutes for October 8, 2025 3. 40 Pratt Street application and supporting documents 4. 1 West Church Street application and supporting documents 5. 235 Central Street application and supporting documents 6. 0 Noonan Street modification revised plan Planning Board Meeting Minutes 10-22-25 Page 9 of 9