HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 01/28/2026MRM
u 1 t-•.r4_
P�rf�ASAO
a-•
&feeti ig 1VTinnn tes
Town of Mansfield
6 Palk Rots, Mansfield, &L4 02048
January,28, 2026
Meeting Held in Person: in Meeting Room 3A/B
Planning Board
Present: Sharon Friedman/Chair, Mark Corsillo/Clerk, Joseph Cerretan, Sreelatha Allam
and Bryan Haworth/Associate
Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development
Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary
Absent: Ralph Penney, Michael McClanahan, and Ryan Maxwell
Ms. Friedman called the meeting to order and read the introductory statement for audience
members who wish to record the meeting.
PC
POP a. T
Daniel Merrikin of Legacy Engineering was present for the Board's consideration of a residential
compound at this address. He presented a proposal for a residential compound on approximately
27.5 acres of land located behind 451 Gilbert Street. The property is in the RI zoning district,
which requires 150 feet of frontage and 60,000 square feet per lot. A preliminary subdivision
concept shows a potential 650-foot roadway with up to seven lots. The proposal is for a
residential compound with five condominium -style single-family units. He noted that six units
would be allowed, but the affordable unit requirement makes that option unworkable.
The development would include a shared driveway with a standard 24-foot pavement width, no
sidewalks, and a turnaround area. A 40-foot buffer is proposed along adjacent single-family
homes. Mr. Merrikin said they are also considering installing a drainage swale along the
vegetated buffer to address runoff concerns from a neighboring property by directing stormwater
toward the rear of the site.
Of the 27.5 acres, about 3.5 acres would be developed, with the remainder used for septic,
storniwater management, and open space. The plan would preserve at least 14 acres of upland
area and avoid disturbing approximately eight acres of wetlands. Mr. Merrikin asked the Board
for their feedback to help refine the proposal.
Mr. Cerretani asked why the applicant proposed five units when a preliminary concept showed
seven potential lots. Mr. Merrikin explained that a residential compound allows a maximum of
six units, and the inclusionaty zoning bylaw would require one of those to be an affordable unit.
The soils on the site are challenging for septic systems, and the Board of Health does not allow
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 01-28-26 Page 1 of 8
shared septic systems for subdivisions. This led them to pursue the residential compound
condominium -style approach, which allows a single septic system.
The Board discussed alternatives under the inclusionaiy bylaw, including building an affordable
unit on -site, constructing one elsewhere in Town, donating land for affordable housing, or paying
a fee in lieu of providing a unit, which was estimated at roughly $400,000 to $500,000. The
Board also discussed whether affordable housing fiords could help offset costs and noted that the
bylaw can sometimes reduce overall housing production.
Mr. Merrikin confirmed the six -unit maximum under residential compound regulations and
explained that subdivision options are limited by septic constraints. He noted outreach to a
neighboring property owner, who reported past flooding concerns, and stated that the proposed
drainage improvements would help direct runoff away from neighboring properties. Ms. Raposa
said that she would follow up with Mr. Merrikin for the current rate for the inclusionary payment
option.
Ms. Friedman began by stating that there would be three consultant 30-minute interviews. Each
consultant had previously answered ten (10) questions. This session will allow each consultant to
respond to the Board's additional five (5) prepared questions, which were discussion -based and
not intended to repeat previous written responses.
JM Goldson partnering uvith BETA Group
Bill McGrath and Joe McLoughlin of BETA were present, with sub -consultants Michael Wang
and Dan Hodge attending virtually. Jen Goldson had a previous commitment and was not
present. The team answered and discussed the five prepared questions.
The consulting team discussed the challenges and approach for conducting a feasibility study of
a contaminated former Superfund site. They identified the site's environmental conditions and
deed restrictions, including limits on residential use and excavation in certain areas, as the
greatest challenges. They emphasized their experience working with contaminated properties,
regulatory agencies, and design constraints, noting that the site's narrow shape, nearby single-
family neighborhoods, and need for walkability and connectivity would also affect development
planning.
The team shared examples of handling community opposition, including a riverwalk project
where early public resistance was overcome through outreach and collaboration, ultimately
gaining public support. They emphasized the importance of educating residents about
contamination risks and safety measures, engaging both supporters and critics, and involving the
community throughout the process using workshops, public meetings, surveys, and design
charrettes.
They explained that environmental and regulatory constraints would guide market and fiscal
analyses by determining what development is feasible and financially realistic. The team also
noted their ability to work with state regulators to explore potential adjustments to deed
restrictions if appropriate. Drawing on past projects and local experience, they stressed the
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 01-28-26 Page 2 of 8
importance of clear project goals, strong community engagement, creative planning solutions,
and coordinated teamwork to produce practical, implementable redevelopment
recommendations.
Connnunity Scale
Nels Nelson, Principal at Commnunity Scale, attended in -person, with additional team members
from Community Scale, BBHS Law, and Tetra Tech virtually. The team answered and discussed
the five prepared questions.
The team emphasized that the primary challenge of redeveloping the site is managing both the
regulatory requirements of the Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) and public perceptions about
contamination. While the site still has restrictions, they explained that it is in good condition
following cleanup and that the AUL could potentially be modified through updated risk
evaluations. Additional enviroinnental challenges include wetlands and a FEMA-regulated
floodway, which would require careful design solutions and regulatory coordination.
The team highlighted their experience addressing community concerns and regulatory
requirements, including using data -driven analyses to respond to public fears about zoning
changes, housing impacts, and fiscal effects. They described a public engagement strategy that
includes stakeholder meetings, public workshops, surveys, and ongoing outreach, with a strong
focus on clearly cone nunicating enviromnental safety and project benefits.
Market analysis indicated strong local housing demand, limited multifamily housing options, and
steady population growth, suggesting redevelopment potential driven primarily by residential
uses. The team explained that environmental constraints would shape realistic development
scenarios, which would then be evaluated for economic feasibility and community compatibility.
They cited past redevelopment projects as examples of turning enviromnental constraints into
design opportunities through sustainable stormwater management, open space integration, and
context -sensitive building design. They emphasized the importance of early coordination with
regulators, strong community engagement, market -informed planning, and flexible zoning
strategies to create a practical and achievable redevelopment vision for the site.
The Board asked for further explanation of an example that they referenced. Mr. Nelson
explained that it did not involve a full government shift but rather leadership changes within
departments that altered priorities. While some long-term policy reforms were discontinued due
to new leadership agendas, the team was still able to complete short-term, implementation -
focused planning actions.
They noted that their firm has experience across urban, suburban, and rural Massachusetts
communities, allowing them to apply lessons learned from a variety of settings. They highlighted
a collaborative redevelopment project in Everett involving environmental challenges and transit -
oriented planning as an example of teamwork and technical expertise they would bring to
Mansfield. Additionally, they emphasized that regardless of community size, development
projects often face similar challenges, particularly balancing residents who support change with
those who prefer to preserve existing conditions. Mr. Nelson noted that their approach focuses on
clear communication, transparency about benefits and drawbacks, and community engagement to
help build understanding and support for plaiming and zoning initiatives.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 01-28-26 Page 3 of 8
Tighe & Bond
Briony Angus and Ryan Christenberry of Tighe & Bond were present with additional team
members and members from their partnering team, RKG Associates, attending virtually. The
team answered and discussed the five prepared questions.
The team stated that the greatest challenge of the feasibility study is not simply the
environmental or regulatory constraints, since those can be technically addressed, but clearly
communicating those constraints and realistic development possibilities to the public. They
emphasized that their firm's strength lies in providing comprehensive, multidisciplinary services,
including environmental analysis, infrastructure review, market analysis, design visualization,
and public engagement, allowing the Town to evaluate what development is realistically
achievable.
They explained that a key first step would be identifying the site's true developable area and
evaluating whether density requirements under potential zoning tools like 40R are feasible given
environmental and physical limitations. Their approach would include test -fit analyses, market
and fiscal studies, and visualizations to help the community understand potential outcomes and
stay engaged throughout the process. They highlighted their experience managing difficult public
feedback by listening to concerns, relying on data and transparency, and building trust through
outreach. They described using in -person engagement, workshops, surveys, and community
events to gather input while clearly communicating that the process is a feasibility study rather
than a specific development proposal.
The team explained how enviromnental conditions would be integrated with market, fiscal, and
infrastructure analyses to produce realistic recommendations. Their work typically evaluates
multiple potential uses, assesses infrastructure capacity, estimates development costs, and
determines whether projects would be financially viable for developers while benefiting the
Town. They noted that mitigation strategies could allow residential development even with
environmental restrictions.
They stressed that one of the biggest risks is that the site's environmental complexity and
development costs could make it unattractive to developers or unable to support the required
housing density. Their role would be to provide data -driven guidance, help the Town set realistic
expectations, and support informed decision -making about whether and how the site can be
successfully redeveloped.
Board Deliberation of the three candidates
Board members discussed and compared the three consulting firms, generally agreeing that all
were qualified but differed in strengths and presentation quality. One member expressed a strong
preference for Tighe & Bond, citing clear conumnication, a strong and coordinated in-house
team, familiarity with key personnel, and confidence in their ability to help the Town
communicate effectively with the community.
Other members noted that while JM Goldson had prior experience working in the Town, their
presentation seemed less prepared and did not fully demonstrate their local knowledge. Several
members felt it might be beneficial to bring in a new firm rather than continue with one that had
already worked with the Town.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 01-28-26 Page 4 of 8
Community Scale received significant support for its polished presentation, strong preparation,
detailed examples, and experience with transit -oriented development projects. Some members
felt their approach and methodology were particularly well -suited to the project and
demonstrated a clear understanding of the site and process. Others discussed the pros and cons of
in-house teams versus consultant teams assembled from multiple firms.
Members also emphasized the importance of having a strong project manager and maintaining
effective cormirunication with both the Board and the community. After discussion and a straw
poll, the Board appeared divided between Tighe & Bond and Community Scale, with the final
continents indicating a slight majority leaning toward Community Scale as the preferred firm.
Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Ms. Allaru that the Board select Community Scale as
the consultant to prepare the Town's Chapter OR Feasibility Study and authorize the Town to
enter into contract negotiations with the selected firm, subject to final scope, fee, and execration
of a professional service agreement.
Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED
Ms. Raposa presented the plan on behalf of the applicant. The proposal is to create a new
buildable lot with frontage on Court Street, and the remaining land would contain the single-
family dwelling at 90 Park Street. The plan is an endorsable plan.
The plan depicts the creation of two lots, each having frontage on an existing public way.
The plan proposes to divide the existing parcel at 90 Park Street into two lots, with the Proposed
Lot 1 approximately 10,309 sf, frontage on Court Street, a public way. Proposed Lot 2
(Remaining Land) approximately 13,315 sf, containing the existing single-family dwelling (#90
Park Street), with frontage on Park Street, a public way.
Court Street and Park Street are shown as 40-foot-wide public ways. No new roads or ways are
proposed.
Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. Cerretani to endorse, as Approval Not Required,
the plan entitled "Plan of Land, 90 Park Street, Mansfield, Massachusetts," dated January 12,
2026, as the Board finds that the lots shown thereon do not require approval under the
Subdivision Control Law pursuant to M.G.L. c. 41, §81P.
Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED
_..x n�,�sx, n'u,�-s„ ..✓rr, ��.... �.-w �.v-_rh�.r,�=a:.Y ..,-r„`� :�.,,N. r„�''�"-","'�="�.,-; �-%�=-?"�.
Ms. Raposa presented the plan on behalf of the applicant. The plan was previously before the
Board. The revisions reflect required Land Court changes only, and do not alter the underlying
ANR determination. The plan remains endorsable.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 01-28-26 Page 5 of 8
Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. Cerretani to endorse, as Approval Not Required,
the plan entitled "Plan of Land 13 Webster Street," dated January 12, 2026, as the Board finds
that the lots shown thereon do not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law pursuant
to M.G.L. c. 41, §81P.
Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED
r?a isn l�ta "G�1 1Yo11111d{Q1 a h 9
Ms. Raposa and the Board discussed creating zoning language to regulate potential data center
development in the Town. The plan reflects combining draft definitions and establishing tiers of
data centers by size. The proposal would likely prohibit hyperscale data centers, very large
facilities operated by major technology companies, while allowing mid -sized co -location
(COLO) data centers by special permit in industrial zones. Smaller micro data centers would
likely not be regulated. The draft would be circulated to Town departments for feedback and
forwarded to the Select Board as a placelrolder for the Spring Town Meeting.
The discussion continued for concerns about hyperscale facilities, including high energy and
water demands, potential groundwater and environmental impacts, and limited job creation
compared to the industrial space they occupy. While data centers can provide tax revenue,
members emphasized the need to weigh those benefits against infrastructure and environmental
risks. The goal is to establish regulations early to protect Town resources while still allowing
appropriate development opportunities and evaluating proposals on a case -by -case basis.
Motion by Mr. Cefetani and seconded by Ms. Allam to refer the draft bylaw to the Select Board
for a placeholder at the Annual Town Meeting.
Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED
Ms. Raposa noted that the public hearing would be scheduled for March 11 "' and a second public
hearing on March 25°i for a potential early May town meeting.
Parkrvay/Tiransit Oriented Development
Zoning Bylan, Amendments
Planning Board Policies & Procedures ofthe Planning Board with Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit rules and Regudalions and Planning Board Fees
_., ��� MINOR
r.•r-�a,%'���- �-'r?r`�.r � "r r ,''-fir c'�'�,-G-� ''�;��.- ems..-� � s.
Y � 0:Q 0' C��.B,U�'xl>1'?
y>r_.�.rs- ,.+�.m,_
Meeting Minutes — December 10 2025
Motion by Mr. Cerretani and seconded by Ms. Friedman to approve the minutes as submitted.
Vote: 4-0-1 [Aye 4, Nay 0, Abstain 1] PASSED
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 01-28-26 Page 6 of 8
Meeting Minutes —January 14, 2026
Deferred to the next meeting.
No items
Ms. Raposa said that she is working on the revised Subdivision Rules and Regulations for a
public hearing.
She is preparing to resubmit a grant application with Walpole and Foxboro for an extension of
the rail trail from a feasibility study between Mansfield Station and Gillette, and up to
Walpole. It wasn't funded last year, so she is submitting for this year.
Ms. Raposa noted that she will follow up with the board on the Department of Energy Resources
regulations regarding local permitting processes for small energy systems and renewable energy
systems, because there is a local permitting process that needs to be incorporated into zoning.
This can be put off until the fall.
Ms. Raposa apprised the Board of recent Phishing scams to applicants. Notices will be sent to
applicants, and the documents that we post on the webpage will have personal information
redacted.
Ms. Raposa updated the Board on several planning and funding initiatives. A request was
submitted through the Capital Improvement Plan for $50,000 over four years to fund the 2030
Master Plan update. Due to current fiscal challenges in Mansfield, the request was ranked as the
department's lowest priority, though it remains important.
They are also reviewing Town -owned land with administration and conservation officials to
determine which parcels could be placed under permanent conservation protection and which
may be suitable for development, with only a small number of potentially developable properties
identified.
Additionally, the Town is seeking to join the 495 MetroWest Partnership to expand regional
economic development opportunities and help address staffing limitations. The department has
also applied for approximately $100,000 in Local Technical Assistance funding to create an
economic development strategy outlined in the 2020 Master Plan. Although the project was not
funded last year, regional partners are working to help identify alternative funding sources.
A brief discussion ensued regarding Mansfield's inclusion in the 495 MetroWest Partnership.
This would depend on the value that the Town and its businesses could contribute to the regional
organization. The partnership focuses on economic development as well as related regional
issues such as affordable housing, infrastructure, water and wastewater, transportation, and
business collaboration, particularly with larger employers and industrial park businesses. The
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 01-28-26 Page 7 of 8
process requires the Select Board to submit a formal request for membership. That request has
already been submitted and will next be reviewed by the partnership's executive steering
committee, which will then make a recommendation to the fall board for a vote in the coming
months.
Ms. Allam asked how the Town is preparing for the upcoming FIFA games coming to Foxboro.
Ms. Raposa said she would inquire about it and follow up with the Board.
Motion by Mr, Corsillo and seconded by Mr. Cerretani to adjourn at 9:53 pm
Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED
The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is February 11, 2026, at 7: 00 p. m.
Z I1 vo
Date of Approval
Documents Presented for the Meeting
1. Meeting Notice Agenda for January 28, 2026
2. Draft Meeting Minutes for December 10, 2025, and January 14, 2026
3. County St. Ch. 40R Smart Growth Overlay District Feasibility and Planning Study question
responses by:
a. JM Goldson
b. Community Scale
c. Tighe & Bond
4. Approval Not Required (ANR) Applications/Plans
a. 90 Park Street
b. 13 Webster Street
5. Discussion - Data Center draft bylaw
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 01:-28-26 Page 8 of 8