Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 11/12/2025ape°N Town of Mansfield c 10 (i (; -r: t 6 Park Ito;v, Mansfield, AL4 02048 ASA Planning Board i Meeth g%'Minutes November 12, 2025 Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B Present: Sharon Friedman, Chair; Mark Corsillo, Clerk; Joseph Cerretani; Ralph Penney; Michael McClanahan; 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 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 properly 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 (B 1) zone. Marco Crugnale, Sophia Crugnale, and Attorney Peter Clark were present. Mr. Crugnale explained the plan changes based on the previous Board comments. The stairwells were changed and consolidated to create larger retail/office spaces. River Hawk Environmental had submitted a sight distance calculation narrative that supports the reasonable and appropriate safety of the current design. Mr. Crugnale stated that the design follows the downtown design guidelines. The current design changes create a total of 1,717 SF of retail/office space, which is an increase from the previous design to preserve and promote retail in the downtown area. Board members discussed whether the project complies with zoning requirements related to first - floor commercial use, frontage, and mixed -use provisions. Mr. Penney expressed concerns that downtown business space is limited and valuable, and that the proposal does not appear to meet the bylaw requiring the entire frontage along the public way to be used for business or professional space. He noted that the stairwells shown on the plan Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11-12-25 Page 1 of 13 appear to serve primarily as residential access points, not commercial frontage. He also referred to a requirement that at least 50 percent of the first -floor building depth be dedicated to commercial use and believed the project provided only about one-third. Attorney Clark stated that the project is a by -right mixed -use development under the overlay district and not a special permit or density bonus project. He argued that the sections of the bylaw Mr. Penney cited apply to projects seeking special permits or density bonuses, not to this type of mixed -use development. He also stated that there is a contradiction in the bylaw language that may need future clarification. Attorney Clark explained that first -floor stairwells, mechanical rooms, and common areas have historically been treated as part of the commercial component in similar downtown projects. He referenced the 214 Rumford Street project as an example where common areas were assessed as commercial space. Mr. Crugnale explained that he pursued the project under site plan approval based on preliminary meetings with staff and that seeking variances would make the project impractical. He emphasized that the revised design reflects changes made in response to previous Board feedback. Board members acknowledged that the overlay district bylaws contain inconsistencies. Several members agreed that the project meets the dimensional and parking requirements applicable in the B 1 district. Many members felt the revised plan is a substantial improvement and supported the creation of additional housing units, noting that access stairs and elevators are standard components of mixed -use buildings and have been accepted in previous approvals. Public Comment Nicole Wright, of 90 Gilbert Street, asked about current vacancy rates in downtown apartment buildings. The applicant and board members responded that these properties are consistently well -leased, with very few vacancies reported each year. The overall sentiment of the board was supportive of the project, with some members suggesting that the town may need to revisit and clarify certain zoning provisions in the future. Motion by Mr. Cerretani and seconded by Mr. Maxwell to close the public hearing. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Ms. Raposa read the draft decision, which included a standard review of documents, the site plan approval criteria, and project conditions. The project conditions include inclusionary housing to provide one affordable dwelling unit. The applicant recognized the concern of the Fire Department regarding non-compliance with the sprinklers in the existing structure. The applicant is in the process of terminating existing tendencies and intends to demolish the existing building in June 2026. The Town Engineer had not responded to the latest submission; therefore, the conditions include engineering review and compliance. Motion by Mr. Cerretani and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to approve the Site Plan Approval application, including the conditions as discussed with the contingency of the Town Engineer's approval. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11-12-25 Page 2 of 13 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 (132) zone. Josh White from JDE Civil, representing the applicant, and the applicant, James Crawford, were present. Mr. White presented updated plans based on the Town Engineer and the Board's feedback from the previous meeting. The applicant received a review from the town engineer regarding utility questions. In response, a revised plan set addressing the remaining comments related to roof drain materials should complete all the required site plan revisions. The applicant presented updated renderings showing the building from multiple angles, noting the stone masonry veneer, improved window placement, and revised front stairs. Board members asked clarifying questions about stair layout, landings, patio dimensions, and the clearance between the rear stairs and the fence. The applicant stated the fence sits about one foot off the property line, approximately two to three feet between the fence and the patio. They were uncertain whether a minimum clearance is required by code. The Board discussed that in the B2 district, there are essentially no setback requirements, with only a maximum height of 45 feet. Board members expressed appreciation for the applicant's efforts, including reducing the number of units from five to four, eliminating the need for a dumpster. A written comment from a resident opposing the project based on downtown design guidelines had already been read into the record at an earlier meeting. The Chair noted that, in their view, the project does incorporate several desired design elements. There were no additional public comments. Ms. Friedman said that as this is a special permit application, the Board will need to develop conditions and evaluate the project's benefits and detriments before making a final decision. Motion by Mr. Cerretani and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to close the public hearing. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Ms. Raposa noted that the project decision has the standard conditions with the inclusion of construction management and snow control protocol. Board Deliberation Mr. McClanahan, voting to approve, expressed that the benefits outweigh the detriments, that the applicant has worked to improve the design based on feedback. The design came out nicely and will add character to the neighborhood. Mr. Penney, voting to approve, expressed that the benefits outweigh the detriments. It is an improvement to the neighborhood. He appreciated that the applicant worked with the neighbors to make improvements and eliminate the dumpster. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11-12-25 Page 3 of 13 Mr. Cerretani, voting to approve, expressed that the benefits outweigh the detriments. I-Ie said, as the applicant, they were easy to work with and he was pleased that they worked with the neighbors and made the improvements as recommended. Mr. Haworth, as an alternative, with the full Board present, his vote would not be included. He did note that the benefits outweigh the detriments and applauded the applicant for engaging with the board in good faith and working with the neighbors. Ms. Allam, voting to approve, expressed her support for the project and noted that it would make the neighborhood a better place with good municipal units in that area. Mr. Maxwell, voting to approve, agreed with what had already been said by the other Board members. Mr. Corsillo, voting to approve, expressed that the project is a major improvement to what is currently there. It is a benefit in terms of aesthetics and function. The applicant has done a great job working with the Board and the abutters. Ms. Friedman, voting to approve, expressed that the benefits outweigh the detriments, especially that the applicant worked with the neighbors and incorporated design elements that are consistent with what is being built in the downtown area. Motion by Mr. Cerretani and seconded by Mr. McClanahan that the Planning Board approve with standard conditions the Special Permit and Site Plan Approval application of James Crawford for the property at 40 Pratt Street (Assessors Map 022, Lot 112) in the Business 2 (132) Zoning District (property currently owned by Sandra and Thomas Curtin) to demolish the existing structure and construct a new three-story, 5,980t sq. ft., four -unit rowhouse building, together with associated site improvements, pursuant to §§ 230-5.5, 230-5.3, and 230-3.3E of the Mansfield Zoning Bylaw, as shown on plans submitted with the application and as further revised during the public hearing. This approval is based on the Board's findings that the project complies with the Site Plan Approval criteria set forth in §230-5.3F and that the Special Permit criteria in §230-5.5 are satisfied. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering, representing the property owner, was present. The Applicant requested approval to adjust the conunon lot line between two existing house lots at 266 and 272 Pratt Street, resulting in proposed Lots I and 2A. No new lots are created; both lots continue to front on Pratt Street, a publicly laid -out way. Recent Zoning Board of Appeals finding action was noted on the plan: The Mansfield Zoning Board of Appeals has granted a finding on Lot 2A for the lot frontage and lot width requirements at a meeting dated October 21, 2025. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11-12-25 Page 4 of 13 The grandparents lived there and divided the land to build the house at 266 Pratt St. The lots do not conform to today's zoning, and they went before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a finding, which was granted. Raposa stated that the plan is straightforward and meets the requirements for endorsement. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to endorse the ANR as presented and discussed. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED a d. p w � Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering, representing the property owner and applicant Southbrook Development, Inc., was present. Recently, the zoning changed from R2 to R3, which allows the creation of four lots that meet current zoning. Ms. Raposa noted that the plan is endorsable. Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Permey to endorse the ANR as presented and discussed. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED r p CONTINUED Public Hearing Zoning Bylaw Amendments Pursuant to the provisions of MGL Ch. 40A §5, to accept public comments on the following proposed amendments to the Town of Mansfield Zoning Bylaws: Mr. Cerretani recommended combining the housekeeping items #3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 as one vote. 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. Ms. Friedman noted that no specific 40Y project application has been submitted. Concept neighborhoods have been presented for discussion of a 40Y overlay. The State has developed some regulations, which they are still fine-tuning, regarding 40Y housing. Ms. Raposa said that the Board received 13 ernails in opposition to the Planning Board moving forward with Item 13. She also received feedback from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) on the draft bylaw that would seemingly require some edits prior to being voted on at Town Meeting. Lynne Sweet of LDS Consulting Group reviewed a brief presentation. She said that they met with the Council on Aging and the Housing Development Corporation to get feedback on a proposed starter -home bylaw and an accompanying multi -generational housing concept for Mansfield. The project was presented as a response to a lack of smaller, affordable single-family homes in town and to demographic shifts toward smaller, older households. There has been a 30% decline in school -age population over the past decade, which has cost Mansfield roughly $8.4M in Chapter 70 funding. The idea grew from the town's Housing Production Plan and the State's recommended implementation strategy to create starter -home districts. The bylaw would enable small homes (up to 1,850 sq ft) on small lots, require that half the units be three -bedrooms (still limited to the size cap), and include an affordable component. If adopted, the state offers Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11-12-25 Page 5 of 13 incentives (a $75,000 grant to the town and $3,000 per closing), and the development would generate normal permit fees, taxes, and other modest revenue streams. The houses themselves would be on private streets with a private sewer system. Ms. Sweet stressed that passage of the bylaw is only the first step and that detailed studies and approvals will still be required, such as water capacity, electric capacity, stormwater, septic, and conservation. She described plan changes made after neighborhood meetings to reduce impacts, most especially buffer zones. The proposal has received positive State feedback, but is still being revised to align with the Town and State regulations. Some Board members felt the current draft needed more review before a final vote. Public Comment Kathy Betts of 250 Otis Street said that she likes the project concept, but does not like the proposed location. She expressed concern about increased traffic and danger to pedestrians on an already busy, narrow roadway. She mentioned that recently, Mansfield has been designated an AARP-designated senior community, and one of the things they look for in a community is walkability. With no sidewalks or transportation access for seniors, this would not be the best location. Esther Forbes of 410 Gilbert Street expressed opposition to the 80-home concept project, but was not opposed to affordable housing. She was concerned about the added traffic and did not feel this was the best location for a project like this. Beth Ashman of 51 South Main Street applauded the Board for trying to find age -friendly options for both young families and older families that include single-family options, not just downtown apartments. Luther Grant, a Mansfield excavator for 45 years, said he is very familiar with the property, which is very wet. He agreed that the concept of density and age -appropriate housing is needed. He expressed concern about the cost and replacement of the septic systems when they fail, and how to deal with the homes' waste during repair or replacement. He suggested consideration of a project with fewer homes. Evelyn Steele of 90 Pratt Sheet noted potential discrepancies with the proposed units per acre and State allowances. She was concerned with building near wetlands, a septic system on site and near wetlands, drainage, and potential damage to Gilbert Street during construction. Paul Sullivan of 26 Hemlock Lane said he is for development, but opposed to 40Y, and with Mansfield potentially being the first town in the Commonwealth to adopt it. He expressed concern about being asked to limit continents on the proposed development while the applicant was allowed to present a full slideshow about the project. He argued that the development and the 40Y starter -home bylaw are inseparable, noting that the developer's attorney is also working with the State on revisions that the Board has received but the public has not. He questioned how the Board could treat the project and the bylaw as distinct when the public does not have access to the same version of the proposed bylaw. Mr. Sullivan emphasized that zoning language is critical, especially because 40Y bylaws are passed by a simple majority rather than the usual two-thirds required for zoning at town meeting. He urged the Board not to advance the proposal if there is any doubt. He raised several concerns about the draft bylaw, including incorrect statutory citations, added uses, such as attached single- family/townhouse units, that are not found in the State 40Y legislation, and missing minimum density requirements that the State requires. He questioned whether the town has calculated the Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11-12-25 Page 6 of 13 developable acreage for the parcels and the true maximum number of units allowed under the State formula. He suggested that the Town simply adopt the 40Y language verbatim instead of presenting a customized version. He questioned why the bylaw does not explicitly require compliance with future State regulations. He also pointed out that interest in 40Y has arisen for other parcels in town and asked whether approving this district would set a precedent for additional similar applications. He expressed concern about fairness, wetlands impacts, and whether town -owned land has been or could be involved for access. Mr. Sullivan argued that a change of this magnitude should not be rushed, should be based on publicly available and posted revisions before the hearing, and should not go to a fall town meeting with lower turnout. He asked the Board not to advance the bylaw and to send a message that Mansfield is not prepared to adopt 40Y at this time. Bill Clemmey of 55 Fowler Street stated that while the Planning Board generally does a good job bringing information and proposals forward, he does not believe this particular 40Y article is ready to move to the town meeting. He said he is neither for nor against the concept, but based on what he has seen, it does not align with how the Board has historically handled major zoning changes. He cited past examples, such as the TOD and medical marijuana zoning, where the Board spent years refining proposals before the State adopted its own requirements, ensuring the Town's bylaws were done correctly. He emphasized that the simple -majority threshold for 40Y is a significant concern. If only 100 people attend a fall town meeting, 50 voters could make a decision with major long-term implications for the Town. He urged the board to defer the article to the Spring Town Meeting, when turnout is higher, and more residents can weigh in. He asked the Board to take additional time to fully understand the proposal and wait for the State to proceed before bringing it forward. Adam Norige of 197 Gilbert Street said that he was confused by the process and frustrated that the discussion kept shifting between the bylaw and a specific project. He asked what analysis the Town did to decide to pursue a 40Y bylaw rather than responding to a developer's proposal, and expressed strong concerns about the project itself. Andre Fernandes added that the town shouldn't pursue 40Y without an appropriate parcel, noting the subject site's extensive wetlands, flood zones, and wildlife constraints. He shared that currently there are five Mansfield listings with an average list price of about $691,000 and an average lot size of 0.87 acres. To argue, the proposed small -lot, HOA-supported homes, under 0.1 acre, may not be meaningfully affordable once HOA costs for wastewater and storruwater are included. He raised several questions: who will be eligible for the income -restricted units, whether units could be bought en masse and converted to rentals, and why the bylaw allows duplexes with a special permit, which could change the housing form. He also disputed the developer's outreach claim, noting he had not received any communication from them. He said the proposal does not require residency by Mansfield buyers, and reiterated that without a clearly suitable site, the Town should not advance the bylaw to a vote. Ed Freitas of 16 Saddle Ridge Road cautioned that the undeveloped tract is largely comprised of wetlands with high water tables, streams, and a history of past flooding issues. Previous construction nearby caused basement flooding, halting a project and leading to a lawsuit. He urged the Board to consider water impacts and recommended visiting the site to see its wet conditions firsthand. Ms. Sweet responded to some of the public continents. She explained that septic systems will be managed through both a financial reserve and a physical reserve, as required by modern Title V Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11-12-25 Page 7 of 13 standards, with oversight from the Board of Health. The proposed development would build out slowly over 10-20 years, creating an entirely new neighborhood rather than rapidly placing 80 new homes. The proposed bylaw would allow attached townhomes only with a special permit, and updated wording clarifies density calculations per acre. Affordable units could receive a 70% local preference, meaning Mansfield residents, or those who work or have children in town, would have two chances in the lottery, consistent with state -regulated procedures. Residents on Chesman were invited to earlier meetings, and continued input is welcome. Concerns about traffic were acknowledged, and she noted that such projects can open discussions about traffic calming measures, with engineers and reviewers collaborating on possible solutions. If the project moves forward, the plans would change as traffic and stormwater studies progress. Board Comments Ms. Friedman, Chair, asked the Board for their connnents to determine if the bylaw should move forward. Mr. Haworth responded to repeated questions about separating the bylaw from the development proposal, emphasizing that approving the bylaw does not approve the project. Passing the bylaw simply allows technical experts to evaluate whether the land can be developed. If studies later show it is infeasible due to wetlands, traffic, or other constraints, the project would not proceed. He referenced the national housing crisis, citing recent statistics, noting that the median age of first-time U.S. homebuyers has climbed to 40 years old. That is a dramatic increase from the 30- 33 range seen from 1996 to 2020. This shift delays major life decisions, including when people start families, and highlights the severity of the housing shortage. He concluded that, especially in the Northeast, housing is a crisis and urgent action is needed rather than delay. Ms. Allam acknowledged continuous comments regarding infrastructure and traffic impacts. She expressed that the timing of the bylaw and project is somewhat linked, and it is difficult to separate the two. She felt it would be best to pause and evaluate the concerns, have experts weigh in on the pros and cons of the bylaw versus the project, and then reintroduce the bylaw at the next town meeting. She said that she likes the 40Y concept, but that the proposed location is not optimal and other locations could be better suited. Mr. Maxwell also liked the starter home 40Y concept, but felt another location would be better. He felt that the bylaw needs further review and modification, and a delay would be best. Mr. Corsillo agreed with Mr. Haworth's earlier points. He noted that, for years, the Planning Board has been actively researching housing options to support the Housing Production Plan. Research for a 40Y project had begun well before the proposed project was introduced. However, he opposed adopting the 40Y bylaw now, not for the same reasons expressed by neighbors, but because the state has not yet finalized its regulations. Passing the bylaw before final guidance could be premature, and postponing until spring may be wiser. Mr. McClanahan agreed, noting that there are many concerns and issues, and the State has not finalized 40Y yet. Mr. Penney reiterated the public comments and was concerned that without a finalized State law, the Town would be a test case. The property is not ideal, especially for septic. He identified with comments relating to the proposed location not accommodating seniors and the lack of transportation. He emphasized that, typically, zoning bylaw changes are introduced at the Annual Town Meeting since Special Town Meetings are not well attended. He agreed that the Board should not move forward with the amendment at this time. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11-12-25 Page 8 of 13 Mr. Cerretani agreed that the bylaw is premature, but likes the 40Y concept to build housing stock in Town. He also felt that the landowner has a right to develop the land, and with due diligence, a 40Y project could work on the proposed property. Any project application submitted to the Board for review must meet Town standards and criteria. However, he was not in favor of moving forward with the bylaw at this time. Public Continent Nicole Wright of 90 Gilbert Street emphasized that this decision affects the future of Mansfield, not just one parcel. She had concerns about the Gilbert Street site, but was more concerned about 40Y being adopted as a blanket by -right zoning tool. She stressed that 40Y is optional and not necessary, and argued that passing the 40Y could force Mansfield to become a test case for an unproven State program, limiting the town's ability to evaluate impacts on traffic, safety, and neighborhood character. She disagreed with previous comments regarding how the schools are funded and the Town being stagnant, commenting that most of the land is already built out, which explains the limited new housing. She referenced a previous Board approval to build six single-family homes, which had not been opposed by the neighbors. The landowner did not proceed with the approved project. Lastly, she referenced questions she had written to the Board regarding: criteria used to deem the parcel appropriate for 40Y, how those criteria would apply to fature parcels, how soil and environmental constraints were handled, the role of the Master Plan, and whether any exceptions to local rules were allowed. Ms. Friedman acknowledged that the Board has received Nicole Wright's written letter. She agreed that the Board was not ready to move forward with the bylaw and that more time is needed for an in-depth 40Y review to develop a bylaw that reflects a collective need for housing and how to move forward. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to NOT advance 40YMulti- Generational Housing Overlay to Special Town Meeting. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Item 1- Signs (§230-4.7): 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. Motion by Mr. Maxwell and seconded by Mr. Penney to advance Signs to Special Town Meeting. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED The remaining public audience was interested in addressing item 10, therefore the Board moved that up in the discussion. 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. Ms. Raposa noted that this bylaw evolved over the course of public hearings, resulting in a simple definition change to alleviate the previous permitting issues. Ms. Friedman read the revised bylaw for the audience. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11-12-25 Page 9 of 13 Public Comment Steve Sullivan, representing the school bus company, expressed that since losing the Francis Avenue parking three years prior, it has been a challenge to find a Mansfield location for bus parking. Per contract, they pay about $250,000 per year in excise tax to Mansfield, and because they currently park out of Town, they also have to pay the other town taxes. He applauded the Town for working with them to find a Mansfield location. Ms. Raposa noted that the change essentially allows municipal uses, by contract, in all zoning districts with site plan approval. A brief discussion ensued regarding bus parking and location options, and whether this allows for other RI uses by a Town contract. The Board then recommended a change to the bylaw wording for school bus parking only. Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to advance School Bays Parking to Special Town Meeting. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Item 2 - Off -Street Parldng (§230-4.4): Updates pavement and drainage standards to reflect best engineering practices and 100-year storm design. Based on previous discussions, the Board agreed to keep the 25-year storm reference, remove the 100-year storm reference, and amend the total pavement thickness from five inches to four inches (2 ''/2" binder and 1 %2" topcoat). Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to advance Off -Street Parking to Special Town Meeting. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED The Board next voted on Items 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 simultaneously. Item 3 - Special Permit Submissions (§230-5.5): Removes redundant application requirements to streamline permitting and align with Board regulations. Ms. Raposa reviewed the bylaw for clarification regarding waivers that are in the Planning Board Rules and Regulations and are duplicative in the special permit bylaw. Item 4 - Resource Recovery Systems (§230-5.5H): Deletes long -expired moratorium language on trash incinerators to clean up the bylaw. Item 5 - Scheduled Rate of Development (§230-4.2C): Removes the outdated growth management section that expired in 2007. Item 8 - Host Community Agreements (§230-3.4N(9)): Removes outdated impact fee language to comply with updated Cannabis Control Commission regulations. Item 9 - Floodplain District (§230-5.4): Updates maps, standards, and definitions to maintain National Flood Insurance Program compliance. Ms. Raposa noted, for the record, that the individual map panel references are being eliminated, and the flood insurance study citation, through all of the floodplains, will still exist. Motion by Mr. Cerretani and seconded by Mr. Corsillo to advance Items 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 to Special Town Meeting. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11-12-25 Page 10 of 13 Item 6 - Senior Housing Parldng (§230-3.3J(7)): Reduces parking for 55+ residential facilities from 2 to 1.5 spaces per unit to reflect lower demand. Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. Penney to advance Senior Housing Parking to Special Town Meeting. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Item 7 - MSROD Map & 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. Motion by Mr. Cerretani and seconded by Mr. Corsillo to advance MSROD Map & Reference to Special Town Meeting. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Item 11 - New B5 Limited Business District: Establishes a new 135 zone to allow low -impact neighborhood coniniercial uses in West Mansfield. Mr. Penney was concerned that this could be spot zoning. Ms. Raposa noted that Town Counsel had no issues with this item. However, at the Annual Town Meeting, Attorney Bobrowski explained why it is not spot zoning. the rationale is that if the lot has a public benefit, then it would not be spot zoning. Ms. Raposa then read the definition of spot zoning: spot zoning occurs when a parcel is rezoned in a way that's inconsistent with a comniutnity's plctnning frameivork or when it serves only a private interest without a public put pose. For this land use, the public purpose would align with the master plan and the economic development goals of the public benefit for West Mansfield residents, because there is no gas station in that part of Town. A brief discussion ensued relating to the land owner agreeing to help fund the traffic study. Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Maxwell to advance New B5 Limited Business District to Special Town Meeting. Vote: 6-1-0 [Aye 6, Nay 1, Abstain 0] PASSED Item 12 - Pre-1989 Residential Lots (§230-4.1 G): Technical correction to remove restrictive language and ensure older lots can meet prior dimensional standards without variances. Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to advance Pre-1989 Residential Lots to Special Town Meeting. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Parkway/Transit Oriented Development Zoning Bylaw 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 11-12-25 Page 11 of 13 8xesuiuSa� attnerx ,:T...-.��.+,-, Meeting Minutes — October 22 2025 Motion by Mr. Cerretani and seconded by Mr. Penney to approve the minutes as presented, and corrections per Mr. Permey. Vote: 6-0-1 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 1] PASSED Hazard Mitigation Plan Letter of Support Ms. Raposa drafted a letter of support for the Board. For the record, she read: It's a practical, inplenentable roadmap for the next five years with a clear, locally grounded picture of risk that aligns with the community's lived experience, and it reflects strong collaboration already in place among planning, DPW, public safety schools, and emergency nanagernent partners. Ms. Raposa noted that the project was conducted with a local steering committee. Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to submit the letter of support. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED 2026 Planning Board Meeting Calendar The calendar was submitted to the Board for review. Any conflicts or changes should be submitted to Ms. McGill. Mr. Corsillo noted that he will be attending town meeting, but will be absent at the December 10th planning Board meeting. No items Ms. Raposa reported that the State offered to allow the change of location on the 40R feasibility study to the Hathaway Patterson Site. The Economic Development grant was not awarded to Mansfield. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11-12-25 Page 12 of 13 Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Penney to adjourn at 10:08 pm Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is December 10, 2025, at 7:OOP.m. C-lerk- ^ LTI 1-1 Li 6LY-1` yQ7l �(Qx �� Date of Approval Documents Presented for the Meetin 1. Meeting Notice Agenda for November 12, 2025 2. Draft Meeting Minutes for October 22, 2025 3. 40 Pratt Street application and supporting documents 4. 1 West Church Street application and supporting documents 5. 266 & 272 Pratt Street application and ANR plan 6. 35 Cobb Street application and ANR plan 7. Draft Bylaw Amendment — Revised 8. Hazard Mitigation Plan Letter of Support Planning Board Meeting Minutes 11-12-25 Page 13 of 13