Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 01/14/2026Town of Mansfield 6 Pmk Ray, Mansfield, MA 02048 01 uIJ Meeting Minutes January 14, 2026 Meeting Hell in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B Planning Board Present: Sharon Friedman, Chair; Mark Corsillo, Clerk; Ralph Penney; Michael McClanahan; Ryan Maxwell; and Bryan Haworth, Associate Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Joseph Cerretani and Sreelatha Allam 11 1:`Plannin ` 13oariiMeetm 'Called to prcler at 7,�0 pm 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 Zakary Medeiros for a Special Permit Modification pursuant to Bylaw Section 230-5.5 at 249 Oakland Street for a driveway layout change. The project site is owned by Arnold Medeiros Properties LLC and is shown on Assessor's Map 030, Lot 136, within the Industrial 2 (I-2) zone. Mr. Medeiros was not present and had requested a continuance to February 11, 2026. Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Penney to continue the public hearing to February It, 2026, at 7:00 pm. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Present was Craig Cygawnoski of RIM Engineering, representing James Marinelli, the property owner and applicant Mr. Cygawnoski explained that Mr. Marinelli recently purchased the property and is proposing to divide it into two lots with frontage on Spring Street. The property is in the R3 zone, which requires 80 feet of frontage, an 80-foot lot width, and a minimum of 10,000 square feet for a single-family home. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 01-14-26 Page 1 of 6 The Spring Street lot contains an existing house that sits very close to the street line, but the structure dates to the early 1900s and predates current zoning requirements. Both proposed lots meet the required 80 feet of frontage and have an 80-by-100-foot building envelope, and each lot exceeds 10,000 square feet. Mr. Marinelli would retain ownership of both Lot 1 and Lot 2. He intends to live in the existing house and build on lot 2. Ms. Raposa noted that it warrants endorsement. There were no further Board questions. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to endorse the plan as submitted. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Present was Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering, representing the property owner, Helene Souza and Peter Souza, Applicant. Mr. Cygawnoski proposed changes to the property line between 266 and 272 Pratt Street, which are owned by the same family. Peter Souza lives at 272 Pratt Street, and his mother lives at 266 Pratt Street. The plans were originally endorsed in November, but about a week later, the client requested a minor adjustment to the property line. The frontage on the street is unchanged. In the R2 zone, Lot 1 meets the required building envelope, while Lot 2 has a Zoning Board of Appeals finding because the rear lot depth is 94.5 feet instead of 100 feet, though the front width is 100 feet. The revised plan increases the separation between garages to 11 feet, up from 5.5 feet, aligning the property line with an existing decorative landscaping fence. No lot area is being exchanged; both lots exceed the 30,000 square feet required by zoning. There was also clarification of a long-standing deed error. When Mr. Souza's parents transferred property years ago, the deed mistakenly included both lots. Although Mr. Souza technically owns both, attorneys are correcting the record so the mother retains one lot and Mr. Souza retains the other. Ms. Raposa noted that it warrants endorsement. There were no further Board questions. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to endorse the plan as submitted. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Present was Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering, representing the property owner, Southbrook Development, Inc., and Marcus Baptiste, Applicant. Mr. Cygawnoski explained that the plan had been previously endorsed. Shortly after his client requested a minor change, which is what is presented for approval on the new plan. Because the lots already meet the minimum road frontage and lot width requirements, no changes were made near the street. The only adjustments occur toward the rear of the parcels, where lot lines were slightly shifted to widen Lot 1, taking into account the 25-foot conservation Planning Board Meeting Minutes 01-14-26 Page 2 of 6 no -work buffer along Back Bay Brook. All of the lots are currently vacant but are considered buildable, with existing water and sewer infrastructure installed when Cobb Street was constructed. Portions of the road are public, and portions are private. It was clarified that for Approval Not Required (ANR) plans, the Planning Board's statutory review is limited to confirming frontage and lot area. The lots do not need to be buildable for endorsement, although developers typically ensure buildability when creating lots. In this case, the plan meets the frontage and area requirements and is therefore endorsable. Access to the lots will be via their frontage on a private way. The property across the street is privately owned, and although it was sold to Southbrook between meetings, the way remains private. As a result, ongoing maintenance and drainage responsibilities remain private. A drainage easement exists but was never formally accepted by the town. It will remain in place and is currently functioning as intended. Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Penney to endorse the plan as submitted. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Mr. Burrell was not present, so the discussion did not take place. Mike Ahern, Operations Manager, explained that during the original site plan approval around 2016, the building's public safety elevator was proposed to run on vegetable oil, which was then considered a green alternative. The building opened in 2019, and the elevator functioned adequately for several years but has failed in recent months. Elevator companies have advised that the vegetable oil system has degraded internal components (valves and seals), rendering the elevator unsafe and out of service, leaving the second floor accessible only by stairs. Both the original elevator company and a second independent company reconnnended converting the system to standard hydraulic oil, noting that rebuilding the vegetable oil system would likely only last another four to five years. State elevator inspectors indicated that the conversion is allowed as long as it is done properly and inspected. Mr. Ahern emphasized that standard hydraulic oil is proven, widely used, and would likely last 15-20 years. He noted that the elevator pit and sump areas are fully lined and sealed, with safeguards similar to those used in other municipal facilities. There has been no oil leak; the failure is internal. The site's environmental professional (LSP), familiar with past remediation at the property and its proximity to a groundwater protection zone, did not see an issue with switching to hydraulic oil, provided proper precautions are taken, such as spill kits and regular inspections. Mr. Ahern noted that a conversation with the Conservation Agent did not raise any objections. Mr. Ahern said that he is seeking the Board's support to change from vegetable oil to standard hydraulic oil, acknowledging that this differs from what was originally represented to the Planning Board but arguing it is the most practical, safe, and durable solution. Funding approval is being pursued through the finance committee. Environmental monitoring options were briefly discussed, though no advanced monitoring system is currently planned beyond standard contaimnent and inspections. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 01-14-26 Page 3 of 6 Ms. Raposa noted that this issue was flagged because the original elevator system using vegetable oil did not require a special permit under Bylaw 230-5.1 Surface and Groundwater Resource Protection district. Changing to standard hydraulic oil could trigger that special permit requirement, which is why the matter was brought forward for discussion and review by the Board. There is a zoning bylaw that requires a special permit for these types of land uses within that groundwater protection district. A brief discussion ensued for leak containment, noting that the tanks are double -walled, hold 75 gallons, and are not anticipated to leak. There is also a containment pit large enough to contain hundreds of gallons. The Board suggested that Mr. Ahern provide a list of chemicals and oils at the site for review. Ms. Raposa also suggested that Mr. Ahern provide a review of the zoning bylaw that indicates what complies and how it complies. Mr. Ahern said he could submit the special permit application, including a list of onsite chemicals, and a brief synopsis of how those chemicals are contained in containment areas or sumps, including alarms. Mr, Ahern described extensive safety and environmental protections already in place at the DPW garage and related facilities. Multiple 55-gallon drums and large volumes of water department chemicals are stored indoors within secondary containment areas, with water stops, and floor drains that lead to sumps with alarm systems tied into the fire alarm network to alert staff of any leaks. Fuel tanks have leak detection systems that notify the fire department through the monitoring system if an issue occurs. Additionally, catch basins on site are lined so that if a spill or equipment failure occurs, it is contained and triggers notifications rather than reaching the environment. It was agreed that Mr. Ahern will submit an application for a special permit and return to the Board in February. 8, Iiifo�uial Drscuss on "Pote ►teal Zoning Bylaw for Data CentQrs (lYIarlr CorSift Mark Corsillo explained that Al and large-scale data operations rely on data centers, large facilities filled with servers that require constant electricity, generate significant heat, and use substantial amounts of potable water for cooling, much of which is lost or returned to the sewer as non -potable. These facilities are large, noisy, energy -intensive, and resource -heavy. Under current zoning definitions, a data center could be interpreted as an "office" use. He proposed creating a clear bylaw definition of a data center based on a threshold percentage of floor area devoted to server racks and related infrastructure, and requiring such uses to undergo special permit and site plan approval. This would preserve flexibility for incidental or minor server uses while ensuring proper review of true data center facilities. The concern is that even if Massachusetts is generally expensive, certain factors, such as the need to be located in -state to serve Massachusetts businesses or government agencies, and relatively low local electric rates, could attract data centers to Mansfield. Without regulation, these facilities could strain the Town's electric grid, consume large amounts of drinking water, and introduce constant noise and pollution from backup generators. Mr. Corsillo urged proactive action by bringing a zoning amendment to a town meeting before a proposal could be submitted, emphasizing the importance of planning. Planning hoard Meeting Minutes 01-14-26 Page 4 of 6 The Board discussed data center utility usage, lack of local employment, and safeguards that should be put into place. Ms. Raposa read a drafted bylaw definition that sets this use apart from office use, which speaks to the type of happenings that occur in data centers and includes specific requirements and findings. She noted that other towns are considering this, but to her knowledge, none have adopted a bylaw for data centers. Ms. Raposa and Mr. Corsillo will review and update the draft for discussion at the next meeting. Ms. Raposa stated that six proposals were received for the study, which is funded through the One -Stop grant. All the proposals were responsive and met the minimum qualifications. She created a matrix to weigh the criteria included in the RFQ. She explained the scores and referenced the top three consultants based on the scores and experience. She recommended that those three be interviewed at the next meeting and proposed to have a set of common questions to ask each consultant team. The responses would be submitted to the Board for review before the interviews at the next meeting. The Hathaway -Patterson site is proposed for the project. A brief discussion ensued relating to the site's prior uses. The chosen consultant would create a conceptual plan based on existing surveys. Ms. Friedman summarized that the key evaluation observations were that all proposals were technically competent in completing the study. The strongest differentiation occurred under criterion A, which was methodology, and criterion D, innovative zoning slash environmental expertise. Higher -scoring proposals demonstrated a clear understanding of Chapter 40R statutory requirements and DHCD review, explicit integration of environmental constraints and AULs, realistic treatment of market feasibility, fiscal impacts, and implementation, sequencing, and the lower -scoring proposals tended to be more conceptual, design -focused, or generalized with less emphasis on regulatory critical path and adoption strategy. She suggested that the top three scoring consultants be interviewed, as Ms. Raposa had also suggested. Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to invite JM Goldson, CommnimityScale, and Tighe & Bond to be interviewed by the Board. Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Parkway/Transit Oriented Development Zoning Bylau, Amendments Planning board Policies & Procedures of the Planning Board with Site Plan Approval and Special Permit rides and Regulations and Planning Board Tees Meeting Minutes — December 10, 2025 The vote to approve the minutes was postponed to the next meeting. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 01-14-26 Page 5 of 6 Zoning B4 previous discussion review Ms. Raposa recapped the use that Mr. Clemmey had proposed for mixed use. The question was raised for the Board to consider the mixed -use requirements for cornmereial on the first floor in a separate building. The Board discussed how the downtown areas are changing and how work with those changes without losing commercial space, and that consideration should be made for being responsible around development. Ms. Raposa noted that she will draft language for a future meeting. No items Ms. Friedman said that the Open Space and Recreation Plan, a 10-year plan, is in draft form and ready for review and comment. Ms. Raposa noted that both she and Mr. Haworth are taking part in the Massachusetts Housing Leadership Academy with the kickoff meeting relating to fair housing and the housing problem in Massachusetts. Ms. Raposa noted a few pending applications for upcoming hearings. Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to adjourn at 8:46 pm Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is danua y 28, 2026, at 7: 00 p. na. Z( o ('br Date of Approval 1. Meeting Notice Agenda for January 14, 2026 2. Draft Meeting Minutes for December 10, 2025 3. 249 Oakland Street application and supporting documents 4. Approval Not Required (ANR) Applications/Plans a. 231 Spring Street b. 266 & 272 Pratt Street c. 35 Cobb Street 5. Discussion Data Center — MassPlanners articles 6. Discussion Public Safety Elevator Technical Memo and Mike Ahern email dated November 25, 2025 Planning Board Meeting Minutes 01-14-26 Page 6 of 6