Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 02/11/2026Town of Mansfield 6 Park Raw, Man fteld MA 02048 Planning Board ,,lull ,+.Meetip Mi�uCe�'r February 11, 2026 Meeting Held'in Person in Meeting Roam 3AIB Present: Sharon Friedman/Chair, Mark Corsillo/Clerk, Joseph Cerretani, Ralph Penney, Michael McClanahan, Ryan Maxwell, and Bryan Haworth/Associate Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Sreelatha Allan Ms. Friedman called the meeting to order and read the introductory statement for audience members who wish to record the meeting. Joseph Sollecito, General Manager of Mansfield Municipal Light, was present. Ms, Raposa began the discussion with context for the proposed zoning bylaw amendment. The bylaw was initiated by Mark Corsillo to regulate the size and location of data centers in advance of Spring Town Meeting. A draft was circulated to Town departments for feedback before the public hearing process, and Mr. Sollecito had provided technical input regarding electrical capacity, infrastructure, and related considerations. Mr. Sollecito then explained that small data centers in the range of one to two megawatts could likely be accommodated within existing infrastructure. However, facilities exceeding four megawatts would require significant upgrades, potentially including new substations and transmission extensions, Very large data centers in the range of 20 to 100 megawatts would exceed Mansfield Electric's current system load and require substantial new power supply procurement. He noted that Massachusetts has not added new baseload generation in more than 15 years and that, according to ISO New England, the region's power supply is still heavily reliant on natural gas, with renewables comprising a smaller percentage. Mansfield Electric has already met the state's 2030 clean energy goals and is close to meeting its 2040 targets. A large new data center load could jeopardize compliance with the Commonwealth's non -carbon - emitting requirements if additional supply must be purchased from non -qualifying sources. He emphasized that Mansfield benefits from longstanding, low-cost power contracts, including shared nuclear ownership in Seabrook Station and Millstone Power Station. New power purchases on the open market would be significantly more expensive. Mr. Sollecito stressed that Mansfield Electric is obligated under state law to protect its ratepayers. Any large-scale power purchase to serve a data center would need to be negotiated to Planning Board Meeting Minutes 02-1.1-26 Page 1. of 7 ensure existing customers are not financially exposed. He noted that mechanisms such as bonding or other financial guarantees could be considered if a facility closed before long-term power contracts expired. Under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 164, municipal light plants have the authority to approve or deny connections to their systems. Mr. Sollecito indicated that locations near existing substations would be preferable from an electrical standpoint. Larger facilities located elsewhere in town would require major infrastructure expansion. He also suggested that zoning could require natural gas for backup generation to avoid on -site storage of large fuel tanks. The discussion briefly referenced emerging small modular nuclear reactor technology and the potential future reuse of existing sites such as Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, though such technology is not yet commercially available. Board members emphasized the need to establish zoning guardrails for data centers and to coordinate closely with Mansfield Electric and the Water Department in determining appropriate size limits. While Mansfield's relatively low electric rates may make it attractive within Massachusetts, members acknowledged that other regions of the country offer lower power costs. Mr. Sollecito concluded that although accommodating a data center is not impossible, substantial electrical, financial, and policy considerations must be addressed to protect ratepayers and maintain compliance with state climate goals. Public Hearing 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 (1-2) zone. Ms. Raposa noted that the applicant had requested a continuance, but the Board had requested that they attend this hearing to provide a project status update. Sarah and Zakary Medeiros were present. Ms. Medeiros, owner of 253 Oakland Street, who also owns Arnold's Gymnastics Academy at 249 Oakland Street, addressed the Board regarding outstanding site plan and drainage requirements for the properties. She felt that there had been a lack of clarity about what was required. She explained that the engineer, Mike Trowbridge, had indicated he would seek clarification from the Planning Board before providing a final scope of work and cost estimate. She expressed frustration that the requirements seemed to have shifted and stated that, as a business owner without expertise in drainage or site engineering, she has relied on her engineer and Town staff for direction. Ms. Friedman read into the record a memo by Ms. Raposa stating the requirements discussed at the November 18 departmental review meeting, which included attendance by Zakary Medeiros, the Planning Director, Town Engineer, Highway Operations Director, Building Commissioner, and Traffic Safety Officer. The requirements included that a stamped, updated site plan is required, which shows the existing as -built conditions for both 249 and 253 Oakland Street, including driveways, curb cuts, parking layout, circulation, pavement, landscaping, and drainage features. In addition, the Town Engineer had requested a letter from a professional engineer certifying that site changes have not increased stormwater runoff to the public way. Ms. Friedman stated that the Board has not yet received these materials and emphasized that it is the applicant's responsibility to submit the required documentation. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 02-11-26 Page 2 of i Ms. Medeiros responded that weather conditions had delayed the ability to complete certain drainage -related testing and that she had applied for a hearing continuance for that reason. She stated that she sought multiple engineering quotes and returned to Mr. Trowbridge, who prepared the original site plan. She also asked for clarification as to whether both properties required updated plans, noting that no alterations were made to 249 Oakland Sheet, though the two parcels share a connected parking area. The Board acknowledged her concerns but emphasized that the process has been ongoing and that progress must be demonstrated. The Board agreed that field tests cannot be performed with frozen ground conditions, but requested written confirmation from the engineer outlining the scope of work and anticipated timeline. The Board requested that for the next hearing session, the applicant provide a written update from her engineer indicating the status of the plan preparation and a projected completion date. Ms. Medeiros expressed difficulty attending meetings due to work and childcare obligations and asked whether she must appear in person. The Board indicated that her engineer could appear on her behalf and that scheduling accommodations could be made, including placing the item later on the agenda. The meeting concluded with agreement that Planning staff would resend a clear written list of requirements and that the applicant would provide a formal written update from her engineer so the matter can move forward. Motion by Mr. Cerretani and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to continue the public hearing to March 11, 2026, at 8:30 pm. Vote: 6-0-0 (Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 01 PASSED Public Hearing regarding the application of 150 Oakland Owner LLC for a Special Permit and Site Plan Application Modification pursuant to Bylaw Sections 230-5.5 and 230-5.3 to amend the previously issued Special Permit/Site Plan Approval to change the use of Building B, which is currently vacant, from 8,500 SF of commercial use to eight (8) residential units, one (1) of which will be affordable, and to reconfigure the interior of that building. The project site is owned by MCFA Chocolate Factory, LP, and is shown on Assessor's Map 030, Lot 039, within the Industrial 1 (I-1) Zone Present for the applicant were: Cindy Lee/Embarc, Johanna Schneider/H & B, Andrew Hayes/ Eastern Real Estate, and Phil Cordeiro/Allen & Major. Andrew Hayes, representing 150 Oakland LLC, introduced his team and presented a proposed modification to the 2016 special permit and site plan approval for the 14.9-acre mixed -use property at 150 Oakland Street. The original approval allowed 130 residential units, a 200-seat restaurant, approximately 11,500 square feet of manufacturing space, and 5,200 square feet of office space, along with 19 affordable housing units. A 2018 modification increased the affordable units to 27 while the owner had pursued MassHousing financing, but that financing was never obtained, and the affordability restrictions were never properly formalized. The applicant is now seeking to revert to the original 19 affordable units and work with the Town to properly document and list them on the Subsidized Housing Inventory. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 02-11-26 Page 3 of 7 The second component of the proposal is to convert Building B, an 8,500-square-foot vacant stone building previously approved for retail or restaurant use, into eight residential units. Four one -bedroom and four two -bedroom apartments, including one new deed -restricted affordable unit, The team stated that the building has been vacant since 2018 or 2019 and that a retail market analysis concluded the location is not viable for restaurant or retail use due to limited foot traffic, parking dynamics, and competition from more established commercial areas in town. They emphasized that the conversion would require only interior renovations, with no changes to the building footprint or overall site plan, The project engineer explained that the change from commercial to residential would result in either neutral or reduced impacts across key metrics. Traffic generation would decrease during peak hours, and water and sewer usage would be lower than what was projected under the original restaurant use. The existing parking, approximately 373 spaces, is sufficient under both the original permit ratio and current zoning requirements. The team also noted that they would formalize and memorialize certain utility and drainage easements as part of the process. The Board discussion reflected mixed views. Some members expressed concern about the continued loss of commercial space in town and questioned whether a restaurant could still succeed at the location, and noted that other local establishments are very successful. Board members noted that the space has remained vacant for years and supported residential use rather than leaving it empty. There was also discussion about the broader decline in commercial tax base, school enrollment impacts, and whether Building E, another vacant structure on the site, could instead be redeveloped for residential use while preserving Building B for commercial purposes. Mr. Hayes responded that Building E is not viable and is more likely to be torn down. However, if allowed to use Building B for residential use, they could consider Building E as a rebuild for commercial use. Additional concerns included ensuring proper documentation and enforcement of affordable housing requirements. Ms. Friedman encouraged the applicant to consider incorporating accessible units within Building B beyond minimum code requirements. The Board indicated interest in seeing a clearer long-term vision for the remaining commercial space on the property, particularly Building E, and suggested that future phases include mixed -use redevelopment. The applicant agreed to return at the next meeting with refinements addressing the Board's concerns, including potential conditions related to affordability and consideration of commercial components in the plans. Motion by Mr. Cerretani and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to continue the public hearing to March 11, 2026, at 7:45 pm. Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 01 PASSED The applicant submitted an ANR plan for the land formerly occupied by the Roland Green School property. The plan proposes to divide the existing parcel into three (3) buildable lots, consisting of two duplex lots and one single-family lot, all fronting on existing public ways. The existing school building is shown to be removed. The property is owned by the Town of Mansfield and is proposed for disposition following subdivision of the land. planning Board Meeting Minutes 02-11-26 pagr.. 4 of Under the Massachusetts Subdivision Control Law (M.G.L. c. 41, §81P), a plan is not a subdivision if each resulting lot has adequate frontage on a public way and does not require the construction of new ways or municipal infrastructure. The applicant has requested an endorsement that Planning Board approval under the Subdivision Control Law is not required. Ms. Raposa noted that the plan is endorsable. Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. Maxwell to endorse, as Approval Not Required, the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Mansfield, MA," prepared by Craig E. Cygawnoski, RLS, RIM Engineering, Inc., dated January 27, 2026, for property located at 29 Dean Street, Assessor's Map 23, Parcel 148, as Approval Under the Subdivision Control Law Not Required, pursuant to M,G,L. Chapter 41, Section 81P, finding that each proposed lot has adequate frontage on an existing public way and that the plan does not require the construction of any new roadways or extensions of municipal services. Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 01 PASSED The applicant has submitted an Approval Not Required (ANR) plan for the property located on Cobb Street. The plan proposes to create two (2) residential lots from the existing parcel configuration. Both proposed lots front on Cobb Street, identified on the plan as an existing private way. No new roadway construction or extension of municipal services is proposed. Ms. Raposa noted that the plan is endorsable. Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. Maxwell to endorse the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Mansfield, MA," prepared by Craig E. Cygawnoski, RLS, RIM Engineering, Inc., dated January 29, 2026, for property located on Cobb Street, Assessor's Map 27, Parcels 85, 86, and 91, as Approval Under the Subdivision Control Law Not Required, pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81P, as the plan shows that the proposed lots have adequate frontage on an existing way and no new roads or municipal infrastructure are proposed. Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 01 PASSED Mr. Haworth shared emerging information from discussions in Montana, indicating that some proposed data centers would use closed -loop water systems, which reuse water for cooling rather than continuously drawing new supplies. He expressed uncertainty about whether these systems are actually being implemented or are being presented to reduce public opposition, which has been stronger than anticipated and is slowing data center development. The Board discussed the technical implications, considering that while recycling water reduces consumption, it increases energy demand because the heated water must be re -cooled using chillers, effectively shifting the environmental burden from water use to electricity consumption. It was questioned whether geothermal -type systems, with concerns raised that such approaches still transfer heat elsewhere and may introduce additional enviromnental impacts. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 02-11-26 Page 5 of 7 The Board noted potential water contamination issues from particles collected during the cooling process, adding complexity to the system, They agreed that while these technologies are not simple solutions, it is important to stay ahead of the issue. It was agreed to invite the Water Department to the next meeting for discussion. Parkwap/Transit Oriented Develonmeni Zoning Bylaw Amendments Planning Board Policies & Procedures of the Planning Board with Site Plan Approval and pecial Permit rules and Regulations and Planning Board Fees Meeting Minutes — January 14 2026 Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Corsillo to approve the minutes with changes noted by Mr. Penney. Vote: 5-0-1 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 1] PASSED Meeting Minutes — January 28, 2026 Motion by Ms. Friedman and seconded by Mr. Corsillo to approve the minutes as submitted. Vote: 4-0-2 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 21 PASSED No items Ms. Raposa apprised the Board of upcoming meeting dates for Town Meeting and the 40R Feasibility Study, She will be submitting a One -Stop application in the Spring for a Townwide 40Y feasibility study. She noted that the Draft ADU Guidebook by SRPEDD will be distributed to the Board for review and feedback. In response to a Board member's inquiry, Ms. Raposa said that there have been approximately ten (10) ADU application submissions. Ms. Raposa said that there is a potential citizens' petition for the town meeting, by Mr. Clemmey, to change the parcel next to Shaw's plaza back to residential, The Board asked for an update on the previously approved 1 West Church Street project. Ms. Raposa said she would prepare a response to update the Board. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 02-11.-26 Page 6 of'7 Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Cerretani to adjourn at 9:13 pm Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 01 PASSED The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is February 25, 2026, at 7: 00 p. »r. Date of Approval �L �?� � ✓ �Y�l1iI � � � Documents Presented for the Meeting 1. Meeting Notice Agenda for February 11, 2026 2, Draft Meeting Minutes for January 14, 2026, and January 28, 2026 3, 249 Oakland Street Special Permit application and supporting documents 4. 150 Oakland Street Special Permit application and supporting documents 5. Approval Not Required (ANR) Applications/Plans a. Cobb Street b. 29 Dean Street Planning Board Meeting Minutes 02-7.1-26 Page 7 of 7