Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 11/18/2025[,�„�� i �i FICA Meeting Minute November 18, 205 Town of Mansfield Zoning Board ofAppeals Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B and Virtually Using GoToWebinar Platform Present: Matthew List, Acting Chair; Eric Correira, Acting Clerk; Edward Valanzola; Joseph O'Malley; and John McGarry, Associate Member Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning and Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Darlene Pruitt, Chair s�"" y a- .:� sr `"�+^="x-'>r^w� �.?a�=,^'r„yv^; � -'.- "`" � -" m..rs`,� ".a ,wra.,r`" -`*r:✓�' . % . Matthew List called the meeting to order and read the introductory statement for video recording. As Ms. Pruitt was absent, lie then asked the Board to make motions to appoint an Acting Chair and an Acting Clerk. Motion by Mr. O'Malley and seconded by Mr. Valanzola to appoint Mr. List as Acting Chair and Mr. Correira as Acting Clerk. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Mr. List appointed Mr. McGarry as a voting member for the hearings. Regarding the application of Zeina Tabbaa-Hamra for a Variance from Section 230-43A to add one additional wall sign on the side of the building. The property is owned by Mansfield Center Apartments II LLC, and located at 300 N. Main Street; Assessor's Map/Parcel 021/184in the Business 1 (B-1) zone. Zeina Tabbaa-Harma, applicant, was present for the hearing. She explained that customers often struggle to find the cafe because the building is located at the corner of Thomas Street and Main Street. Drivers frequently circle the intersection trying to locate it, and the cafe continues to receive complaints. The existing sign is mounted high on the Main Street fagade and is partially obscured by trees that have grown since construction. As a result, the sign is not visible to people approaching from Thomas Street or coming up Route 106. To address this, the applicant proposed adding a small secondary sign on the Thomas Street side, above the bench between the cafe window and the neighboring bakery window. ZBA Meeting Minutes 11/18/25 Page 1 of 12 The board discussed the size of the existing sign and noted that the proposed signage is approximately 40.5 inches long with letter heights around 14% inches, which is below the maximum allowed. Even with the additional sign, the total signage would remain comfortably within permitted limits. Board members agreed that the building's curved corner configuration and dual street frontage create a genuine hardship that justifies an additional sign. Mr. Valanzola remarked that the space had been vacant for years and that the cafe is a good use of the space. They emphasized the importance of supporting local businesses and noted that the new sign would face Route 106, the train station, and commercial buildings, without impacting residential properties. The board expressed that the approval would be based on the unique characteristics of the corner lot rather than setting a broad precedent. Motion by Mr. O'Malley and seconded by Mr. Corfeira to close the public hearing. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Motion by Mr. O'Malley and seconded by Mr. Valanzola that the Board grant a Variance from Mansfield Zoning Bylaw §230-4.2A to allow one (1) additional wall sign on the side wall of Lawadessa Caf6 at 300 North Main Street, Unit 103B, substantially in accordance with the application materials and sign plans dated 07-28-25) as the Board finds that, owing to the unique corner -tenant configuration, extended window bays, side -facing entrance, and mature street -tree screening that limit visibility of the existing entrance -bay sign, literal enforcement of §230-4.2A would create substantial hardship by depriving the business of reasonable identification; and that the relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the bylaw. The Board reiterated that the cafe space is located on a corner lot with large window bays and an entrance on the side, making signage visibility more challenging. The existing trees fiurther limit sightlines. Members agreed that placing a sign on the side would not be detrimental, but would encourage and support the business as a valuable opportunity for the area. They emphasized that the space had been vacant for many years, as had a similar space across the street, and that these corner commercial locations can be difficult to fill. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Regarding the application of Foundry, LLC for a Variance from Sections 230-5.K(7)(e) Rear Access, 100 percent Retail Frontage, 50 percent Depth Retail; 230-4.4.1)(9)(a) 50-foot mininnun distance curb cut; and 230-4.5 corner lot 25-foot minimum distance setback, to include five existing parcels with vacant land and three dwelling, to be demolished, to construct a mixed use building consisting of retail/mixed first floor and 44 residential apartment units above. The property is owned by Foundry, LLC, and located at 4, 6, 8 W. Church Street, 15 High Street, and 206-214 N. Main Street; Assessor's Maps/Parcels 001-151, 001-380, 001-147, 001-152, and 1- 148 in the Business 1 (B-1) zone. Bill Clemmey of Foundry, LLC, was present for the hearing. He presented a mixed -use project proposed for two long -vacant lots and three existing structures in downtown Mansfield. This is their third appearance for variances; similar approvals were granted in 2017 and 2019, and while ZBA Meeting Minutes 11/18/25 Page 2 of 12 those variances are still valid, they opted to return due to time elapsed and minor project changes. The building is intended as a landmark for the middle common area, designed in a traditional New England style with full brick, a second -floor roof deck, a first -floor patio, and structured parking. The project includes 44 residential units: 24 one -bedroom, 17 two -bedroom, and three three -bedroom units. It is approximately 6,500 square feet of retail on the ground floor, including a large patio. Mr. Clemmey explained that the hardships driving the variance requests stem from the irregular lot shape and the surrounding one-way street network, including Old Colony Way, West Church Street, High Street, and Main Street. The lot narrows significantly on one end, making a standard building footprint impractical. They noted that while zoning would allow the building to be built directly to the lot line, doing so would create an imposing structure at a constrained and highly trafficked intersection, raising public -safety concerns. Minor layout changes were made to update the sidewalk designs and adjustments to improve safety and circulation. Five variances were requested, and the applicants walked through each one. First, they sought approval to maintain multiple curb cuts on West Church Street and High Street to safely distribute traffic in and out of both the structued garage and the rear surface lot. They emphasized that all traffic would flow away from Main Street and Old Colony, since both are one-way, and that retaining the existing curb cuts would reduce congestion and align with the bylaw's intent to limit front -street access. Mr. Clemmey addressed the requirement that businesses occupy the full length of the Main Street frontage. He noted that the entire ground floor, aside from a single staircase enhance, is dedicated to retail, with roughly two-thirds of the frontage as enclosed retail space. The next requirement is that at least half of the building depth along Main Street be devoted to retail. Because of the lot's angled shape, this standard can only be met on the High Street side; the depth decreases as the lot narrows toward Old Colony. Mr. Clemnney described the retail area, with the shallowest portion being about 30 feet deep. The building's stepped -back design, including a second -floor terrace for residents, reduces massing at the corner while maintaining the zoning intent of providing a strong retail presence downtown. Through the previously approved Site Plan with the Planning Board, there is a landscaping plan and public benches. They will be returning to the Planning Board for an informal update to the site plan design. Since the revisions do not create any increases, they do not need to submit a revision to the Site Plan Approval. Board members asked clarifying questions about the building distance to abutting neighbors, parking layout, retail depth, and the terrace design. The new building would be about 20-25 feet from the abutters and the proposed landscaping. They also reviewed the renderings and confirmed the orientation of nearby streets and businesses. The applicants reiterated that the design maintains the required amount of retail, avoids unnecessary density bonuses, and uses the downtown overlay incentives to create a safer and more appealing streetscape. The next variance related to the setback from corner lots, with the requirement being 50 feet from the intersection when there is a curb -cut. The property has existing driveways that are pre- existing non -conforming, which they intend to use for this project. ZBA Meeting Minutes 11/18/25 Page 3 of 12 Mr. Clemmey described the entry to the parking area and the one-way street turnings. The sight line is 37 feet to the intersection with clear directional signage, landscaping, and curbing. It was suggested that the design could be modified to have High Street be a one-way entry and Church Street be a one-way exit. Mr. Clenuney noted that he would consider that and noted that at the building permit stage, they would be meeting with public safety for further discussions. The Town will be doing street repairs on High Street. The applicant has worked with the Town Engineer to incorporate the sidewalk into the building design. Public Comments Thomas Siderwicz of 7 West Church Street expressed concerns about the overall traffic flow and potential safety issues. He explained that some neighbors occasionally drive the wrong way down West Church Street because it is more convenient, and was concerned that adding 44 residential units would increase the likelihood of wrong -way movements and unsafe behavior. They also stressed that, even with two access points, residents will naturally gravitate toward whichever garage entrance is easier, concentrating traffic on West Church Street and High Street rather than splitting it evenly as intended. He noted the plans do not show proposed signage and questioned whether the on -street parking dimensions are sufficient. He was also concerned that added volume and resident turnover could increase accidents. He opposed demolishing the three existing houses due to noise, dust, and their historic character, and also questioned whether the sewer system could handle the added load. Lastly, he raised issues about trash logistics, snow removal, and suggested that the project may be too ambitious for the space available. Michael Browne of 12 West Church Street liked the proposed design, but noted that the new structure height would obstruct the building where he lives, blocking the current natural light. He was concerned with light overflow from the parking area, trash receptacles, increased traffic flow, dust and debris during demolition, and asbestos remediation. He asked if there would be affordable housing rentals. Mr. Clemmey responded to the public concerns and comments. He said that nearly all concerns were previously addressed during the site plan review. All three houses will be demolished at the same time with fill dust control, safety measures, and required asbestos abatement by licensed professionals. Water and sewer connections have already been coordinated with the town, including new water lines and an approved sewer tie-in. The project will include six affordable units. All lighting will comply with dark -sky requirements and be directed inward. Trash will be handled through indoor chutes leading to private dumpsters, with no residential barrels allowed. Snow will be removed off -site after storms. The curb cut is permitted for mixed - use buildings downtown. The dunnpster location was shifted to allow pickup directly from High Street. The applicant also clarified the ages of the existing houses and noted that one was built in the 1930s. They stated that traffic patterns will vary depending on where residents are traveling and that they will coordinate with the police if traffic safety measures are needed. Mr. Clemmey reiterated that the site plan requirements, through the Planning Board, have been met. Once the building permit is issued, they will meet with Town departments as required and will continue to include the neighbors in the process. ZBA Meeting Minutes 11/18/25 Page 4 of 12 Mr. Clemnney responded to Mr. Siderwics's additional questions. He described the change from double garage doors to a single door, the parking spaces, and the dumpster location. Ms. Raposa clarified that the December 10°i informal discussion with the Planning Board and the applicant is not a public hearing and that there is no regulatory requirement for modification of the site plan. There was further discussion about height and density. The proposed building meets all requirements and will be under the allowed density. Mr. Clemmey described where the directional signs will be on the property and noted that the tenants will be fully notified in the lease agreements. Motion by Mr. O'Malley and seconded by Mr. McGarry to close the public hearing. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Motion by Mr. O'Malley and seconded by Mr. Valanzola that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant the following variances requested for 206-214 North Main Street / 4-8 West Church Street / 15 High Street: • §230-2.10.K(7)(e) (rear access) • §230-2.10.K(7)(e) (100% retail frontage) • §230-2.10.K(7)(e) (50% retail depth) • §230-4.4.1)(9)(a) (50' minimum intersection spacing) • §230-4.5 (corner -lot 25' visibility setback) Based on findings that the lotus's multi -frontage corner geometry and site constraints constitute circumstances especially affecting the property, that literal enforcement would involve substantial hardship, and that the relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or derogating from the bylaw's intent. Mr. O'Malley amended the motion to correct §230-2.10.K to §230-5.10.K. so the list of variances reads: • §230-5.10.K(7)(e) (rear access) • §230-5.10.K(7)(e) (100% retail frontage) • §230-5.10.K(7)(e) (50% retail depth) • §230-4.4.1)(9)(a) (50' minimum intersection spacing) • §230-4.5 (corner -lot 25' visibility setback) Deliberation Board members agreed the building is well -designed and that the requested variances make sense given the unusual lot shape and the surrounding one-way streets. They noted that the rear access, reduced retail frontage, and reduced retail depth are logical and consistent with what was previously approved in 2020. Members felt the proposal aligns with the goals of the downtown overlay district by encouraging higher -density, mixed -use development, and that the site is appropriately designed with good curb appeal and public open space. ZBA Meeting Minutes 11/18/25 Page 5 of 12 While acknowledging nearby streets' traffic concerns, they stated those issues fall outside the Board's purview for this application. Overall, members expressed support for the project. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Regarding the appeal of Attorney Kevin S. Freytag on behalf of James N. White, Kirsten Murawski, Nicole Mullen, Nirav Desai, and David S. Haring, of the Building Inspector's grant of a building permit in comiection with the construction of a 16,800 square foot facility with thirty-two (32) parking spaces at 19 Knight Way. The property is owned by FOD, LLC and located on Assessor's Map/Parcel 003/051 in the Residential 1 (RI) Zone. Mr. Valanzola recused himself and left the meeting. Present for the hearing: Attorney Keven Freytag, representing several families that reside on Knight Way Emily Miller, FOD LLC, applicant, and her Attorney, Mark J. Lanza (virtually) Attorney Naomi Kawamoto, representing the Town of Mansfield (virtually) Attorney Freytag requested that the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) rescind the building permit issued on June 11, 2025, for a 17,000-square-foot facility, a school and childcare center, located at the end of a residential cul-de-sac, and send the matter back to the Planning Board for ftirther review. He argued that the project's approval relied on the Dover Amendment (Massachusetts General Law Chapter 48, Section 3), which allows certain educational and nonprofit uses to override local zoning. He contended that the Planning Board did not conduct a thorough or adequate inquiry into whether the Dover Amendment applied properly in this case. The attorney highlighted that the property -owning entity (FOD LLC), the Montessori school, and the childcare facility are all effectively controlled by a single individual, Emily Miller, who serves as the manager or officer of each entity. The three entities share finances, employees, and operational oversight, and there is little to no operational independence between them. He argued that this close overlap suggests that the nonprofit entities may have been created primarily to facilitate the project and gain Dover protections that would not otherwise apply, effectively circumventing local zoning. A key concern is that the lease between FOD LLC and the school, which is the property's sole income source, has only been presented in redacted form. Without access to the lease terms, the Board cannot determine whether the nonprofit is truly independent or whether ftunds are being improperly siphoned to the for -profit owner. Additionally, the school entity recently guaranteed the construction loan for FOD, further linking the entities. These factors, he argued, warrant a full and careful review by the Planning Board to assess whether the Dover Amendment applies legitimately. ZBA Meeting Minutes 11/18/25 Page 6 of 12 Beyond the Dover Amendment issues, the attorney raised several concerns about project conditions and approvals: • The facility is significantly larger than surrounding single-family homes, yet the Planning Board imposed no limits on its bulk. • The project includes only 23 parking spaces, which is insufficient for up to 200 students, staff, and visitors. Deferred plans for parking management and vehicular traffic were not completed before construction began. • The Planning Board improperly postponed several critical determinations, including submission of a frill vehicular management plan, turning analysis, internal traffic flow and queuing, expansion protocols, and a landscape plan, which is now overdue despite construction nearing completion. • Neighbors continue to experience construction outside permitted hours, generating noise and disruption. There have been over 30 complaints regarding construction compliance. • No landscaping plan has been implemented, leaving neighbors uncertain about how the oversized building will be visually and spatially buffered from their properties. The attorney concluded that, given the lack of transparency regarding the nonprofit's structure and leases, the improper deferral of critical site plans, and the building's outsized impact on the residential neighborhood, the only appropriate action is to rescind the building permit and require the Planning Board to conduct a full and thorough review of the project, including a detailed assessment of Dover Amendment applicability, project bulk, parking, and site logistics. Ms. Miller responded to Attorney Freytag's comments, noting that the school had an existing nonprofit entity and there was no attempt to "work around" zoning protections under the Dover Amendment. The entity structure was adjusted after consultation with her legal counsel to optimize the benefits of a Massachusetts non -stock nonprofit versus a Delaware -based nonprofit. Regarding parking, Ms. Miller noted that while 23 spaces were mentioned, the actual number is 32 or 33. Landscaping has been addressed with mature trees that already exist along property lines, and additional evergreens, deciduous trees, and tall grasses have been planted, including in the center cul-de-sac. The new building will consolidate all school -age and preschool children in one facility. Since over 5 1 % of enrolled children are under seven, the facility is mandated by the Commonwealth to be licensed as a childcare center, meaning Dover Amendment protections apply regardless of nonprofit or for -profit status. On the subdivision, she noted that the Land Court has reviewed the matter and considered the property unique (over 13 acres), with historical planning allowing for future subdivision despite a pre-existing non -conforming lot with no frontage. Finally, she addressed traffic concerns, stating that the entrance and exit for the cul-de- sac were originally calculated to handle approximately 72 vehicles, and the redesigned cul-de- sac provides even more capacity, which was reviewed with the Town's safety officer. Mr. List noting that he was one of the two current members sitting on the Board during the first appeal of the building foundation, said that since then there have been depositions and discovery in Superior Court, dispute relative to the subdivision plan, dispute regarding the Delaware non- profit, and items that have been mentioned that are similar to the previous discussions. He asked Attorney Freytag to sununarize changes from the foundation permit appeal to this building permit appeal. ZBA Meeting Minutes 11/18/25 Page 7 of 12 Attorney Freytag explained that since the last hearing, there is now greater clarity about how closely connected the child-care program, the school, and FOD are. Although they have separate legal identities, the operations fimetion as a single entity, and new information shows stronger ties than previously understood. Evidence indicates the school guaranteed liOD's construction loan, FOD's only income is the lease with the school, and FOD continues to withhold an umedacted version of that lease. It was also noted that Town Counsel, Naomi Kawamoto, attended the deposition and has access to all related materials, including the transcript. This involvement represents a change from the last hearing. Additionally, neighbors have now been experiencing impacts from the project directly, leading to numerous complaints. Attorney Freytag expressed concern that despite these complaints, the building inspector appears not to have taken enforcement action on several site -plan conditions intended to protect abutters. This lack of enforcement is troubling to the neighbors, who feel the conditions offer little reassurance if they are not upheld. While there are legal avenues to compel enforcement, the speaker emphasized that pursuing further litigation is not desirable. Ms. Miller responded that during the deposition she had been asked about her income, bank accounts, private business income and expenses. She had answered that she had no desire or interest, unless mandated to do so, to share any personal or private finalcial information with the public. The businesses are in good standing, which is public information. Attorney Lanza, representing FOD LLC, commented that the current situation closely mirrors the earlier appeal of the foundation permit, with the exception that building now exists rather than just a foundation. The central issue remains whether the project qualifies for Dover Amendment protections for child-care facilities and the courts have already resolved this question, and nothing has changed that would alter that conclusion. He emphasized that daycare facilities can legally operate as for -profit entities, even when they also include educational components. Therefore, any arguments about whether the operator is for -profit are irrelevant to the Dover exemption. He recommended that the board confirm this with Town Counsel. Ms. Miller clarified that the redacted leases previously provided to the board were intended only to show long-term use of the property, as requested. The duration of the lease was left visible, while financial and other private details were redacted because they were not relevant to that purpose. Public Comment Jill Keyes of 11 North White Pine Lane, expressed her concerns about the nonprofit status and legal structure of the entities involved with the school project. She said that a prior nonprofit was dissolved with no assets, and questioned assertions made at the hearing about which types of corporations may merge, noting that Massachusetts law prevents any Chapter 180 nonprofit charitable or non -charitable from merging into an out-of-state corporation. It is undetermined what happened to the dissolved nonprofit. She then noted that the School Committee appears to have only one approval on file from 2007, yet a new entity formed in 2023 is now operating the school. She argued that state guidance requires school conunittees to review financial solvency ZBA Meeting Minutes 11/18/25 Page 8 of 12 and verify legal documentation, including articles of incorporation and tax-exempt status, and questioned whether any such review has taken place. She was concerned about children attending school on an active construction site and stated that the School Committee and DESE should be involved in monitoring safety. Ms. Keyes argued that none of the existing entities, two Massachusetts for -profit corporations and one foreign corporation, are nonprofits under Chapter 180 or recognized as tax-exempt by the IRS. She said the board has been provided only a statement claiming nonprofit status, which Delaware permits, but that there is no federal confirmation. She said that the Dover Amendment protections require nonprofit status, along with transparency requirements such as public access to financial information, none of which, in her opinion are met. She also noted that the Attorney General's Office has no record of the entity as charitable or non -charitable and has submitted a complaint. She suggested that the Board gather facts rather than relying on assumptions or deferring to the courts. She argued that no licensed child-care facility has ever operated on the site and that the EEC has never inspected it. She commented on neighbors' experiences, saying that during early -morning work hours, they have safety concerns during construction vehicle activity, and lack of traffic management. She commented that there is a new flagpole and paving and questioned if it was on the approved plans and questioned whether these features were reviewed and approved, expressing concern that major site elements may have changed without proper oversight. Nicole Mullen of 3 Knight Way, expressed concern with the construction going on during the neighborhood school children getting on and off school busses and cars driving past the bus stop sign. She described repeated safety problems involving parents associated with the applicant and incidents recorded by the bus and by police. She further expressed concern that it be far worse with the projected increase in the new school's enrollment. James White of 10 Knight Way, he noted that he has send more than 30 recorded violations by the applicant's subcontractors working outside of the specified allowed work hours for the project. He was concerned that the violations had not been addressed. He said that has personally planted 44 new buffer trees on his own property. He expressed his opinion that the building was too large and felt that the Plarming Board did not properly address the size, scope, and impact of a large building in the neighborhood. He felt that the Town needs to address the concerns of the neighborhood. Ms. Miller responded to the public comments, noting that the EEC was at the school building a few weeks prior and they did not expresss any safety concerns. She commented that in the past she had offered negotiations with the neighbors, which did not take place. She did not feel that a school within a residential neighborhood was unusual. Mr. O'Malley asked if Ms. Miller was aware of the work violation complaints. She acknowledged receiving the complaints, noting that she is not on site daily. She felt that the complaints at face value did not show actual work taking place, but possibly trucks arriving on site or equipment being delivered before the start of work. Some of the issues had been addressed by the Mansfield police. She assured that exterior work will be ending soon, with interior work starting, and noted that there are no restriction on time that the interior work can be done. ZBA Meeting Minutes 11/18/25 Page 9 of 12 Mr. List suggested that as a gesture of good will, she be conscience of the work complaints and that she pass the information on to the general contractor. Mr. Correira noted that the Board has found twice that the Dover Amendment applies. He asked Attorney Freytag if, during court discovery, the Superior Court made a determination on this. Attorney Freytag replied that there has not been an adjudication by the Court on Dover Amendment issue. Mr. Correira said that with that information, as a Board member, there would be no basis for him to vote differently than in the past. There are no new facts and no different determination from the Superior Court to vote differently on the Dover Amendment issue. Attorney Freytag argued that the basis would be all the new information that's been presented to the board at this meeting about the connection between FOD and the school regarding the lease, regarding the guarantee of the construction loan, regarding the only income that FOD, which is the owner receives is directly from the school. Those facts are not before the Superior Court. He expressed that there is a lack in clarity. If the intended use of these buildings has changed in a material way since the application was approved, then that's significant and the Board should reconsider whether or not that satisfies the inquiry that they made initially. Attorney Freytag again reiterated the concerns for public safety, size of the building, and the lack of a construction management plan, vehicle management plan, and the potential cars queing off site during pickup and dropoff and stated that the Planning Board should review the project again. The Board noted that a vehicle queing plan had been submitted to the Planning Board during their review, but were uncertain if a vehicle management plan had been submitted. Ms. Raposa responded that a plan for pickup and dropoff of the students is to be submitted to the Traffic Safety Officer with the a copy to the Plannnig Board for approval. Attorney Kawamoto replied to Mr. Correira's previous question that if it has twice been found that the Dover Amendment applies, would he be precluded from deciding differently. She clarified that the building permit that is being appealed relates apecifically o the phase two building, the larger building, and it was represented to the Planning Board that it would be the childcare facility. She did not feel that the nonprofit school came into play with this issue, because the Board is specifically looking at a childcare facility. Childcare facilities can be a for profit entity. There is no information showing that it is not a childcare facility. Ms. Miller responded that the largest space of the building is for general use. There will be six classrooms, four room for children age six and under and the other two for elementary age. They are required to be licensed for children age seven and under. The majority, which is overseen by the EEC, is for children age seven and under. Attorney Lanza restated that both the for -profit child care and the non-profit school are both using this building the overall use the majority use and therefore is what necessitates the license by EEC, the majority of use will always be child care, children seven and under. Attorney Kawamoto agreed noting that it is a Dover protected use. Attorney Freytag expressed his opinion that the details of the use seem to change and felt that the Planning Board should have conducted a more in depth review. Ms. Keyes noted that DESI numbers show 36 kids elementary and 35 kids preschool as of last year. She was concerned that Ms. Miller is currently marketing to middle school ages. ZBA Meeting Minutes 11/18/25 Page 10 of 12 Motion by Mr. O'Malley and seconded by Mr. McGarry to close the public hearing. Vote: 4-0-0 [Aye 4, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Motion by Mr. O'Malley and seconded by Mr. McGarry that the Zoning Board of Appeals uphold the decision of the Building Inspector to issue Building Permit No. 00174258, dated June 11, 2025, for the construction of a 16,800 sq. ft. educational/childcare facility with 32 parking spaces at 19 Knight Way, as the permit was issued in accordance with Chapter 40A, the Mansfield Zoning Bylaw, and prior approvals of this Board. Deliberation Mr. O'Malley stated that, per the appeal, the Board's position is to review whether the building inspector's issuance of the permit violated zoning or Chapter 40, not to relitigate broader site plan issues. Board members discussed the limits of their authority in response to residents' concerns and the request to overturn the building inspector's decision. One member noted uncertainty about whether the Board has the authority to take the action requested, and said doing so might be inappropriate given ongoing litigation. They acknowledged that the site has been contentious from the start and that construction -related complaints have made matters worse, but emphasized that enforcement does not fall within the Board's responsibilities. Members reflected on their previous vote to uphold the building permit, stating that while the nonprofit and for -profit structure is not perfectly clear, the information presented does not significantly differ from what was available during the earlier hearing. They expressed that factual disputes about the entities and Dover Amendment eligibility are already before Superior Court, which is the proper venue to resolve them. Without new, definitive facts or a new court determination, they did not see grounds to overturn the original decision. Another member echoed that the board is not the right body to address the broader operational, safety, and construction concerns, urging residents to bring those issues to the School Committee, police, and inspectors and expresses condern that some issues had not been addressed. Vote: 4-0-1 [Aye 4, Nay 0, Abstain 1] PASSED Minutes — October 21 2025 Motion by Mr. O'Malley and seconded by Mr. McGarry to approve the minutes as submitted. Vote: 4-0-1 [Aye 4, Nay 0, Abstain 1] PASSED ZBA Meeting Minutes 11/18/25 Page 11 of 12 General Business Ms. Raposa apprised the Board of the one application for December and the two applicatons for the January meeting. She reminded them that there will be two meetings in 2026 that have been moved to a later week due to school vacations and that they will be held in the second floor meeting room. Motion by Mr. McGarry and seconded by Mr. O'Malley to adjourn at 9:44 pm Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED The neat Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting iW11 be on December 16, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. Jjt+ aY1q Clerk J se/�9 7 �(q�� � Date of Approval G' Documents Submitted for the Meeting Meeting Notice and Agenda for November 18, 2025 Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2025 300 N. Main St. application and supporting documents 206-214 N. Main St.; 4-8 W. Church St.; 15 High St. application and supporting documents 19 Knight Way application, supporting documents, and continuance request ZBA Meeting Minutes 11/18/25 Page 12 of 12