Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 03/11.2026Town of Mansfield 6 Palk Bo:v, Mansfield, NIA 02048 lath 11°li 1':> A 10: 23 M'eetink`MIft' utesi `=- March 11, 2026 Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B Planning Board 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. Ms. Friedman noted that due to the recent snowstorm, several hearings were continued to the March 25rh meeting. Ms. Raposa explained that public hearing notices must be published twice in the Sun Chronicle within strict legal timelines, including a requirement that the first notice appear at least 14 days before the public hearing. Due to the snowstorm, there was no newspaper or electronic publication for three days, which resulted in a failure to meet the statutory requirements. As a result, the scheduled hearings for 500 East Street, 71 Maple Street, and the data center zoning bylaw were readvertised and rescheduled to Match 25r" at the same times. Ms. Friedman clarified that the vote to continue the public hearings would take place at the scheduled hearing times. Ms. Raposa updated the Board on the Attorney General's (AG) response to articles from the Special Town Meeting. Relating to the Business 5 district, the use table requires updating to include educational, religious, and daycare centers, as they are exempted under the Dover amendment. She referenced additional AG advisory comments relating to Article 19 for the MSROD updates for compliance. Lastly, regarding Article 21, there were advisory comments for compliance checks for subdivision and floodplain bylaws, but the town had already coordinated with the appropriate state agencies. Overall, all changes are minor and administrative, with no need for further Board or Town Meeting action. A Board member questioned whether the Business 5 zone, for one lot, is spot zoning. Ms. Raposa clarified that the Town Council's opinion was that it is not spot zoning because it served legitimate public purposes, like articulated town goals for expanding economic development opportunities and neighborhood conveniences. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 03/11/26 Page 1 of 6 Additional continents related to the ADU setbacks, which will need to be updated to comply. Ms. Raposa said that she will draft a revision for the Board's consideration for the fall town meeting. The discussion continued on how new state rules for ADUs interact with local zoning, particularly setbacks. Because ADUs are treated as accessory structures, they currently fall under rules allowing structures as close as five feet from side and rear property lines, which raises concerns about density and neighborhood impacts. Board members consider increasing setbacks for all accessory structures, including sheds, garages, and ADUs, to maintain consistency and address these concerns, while acknowledging that existing structures would be grandfathered. They considered differences across zoning districts, the challenges of limited space in denser areas, and the need to balance flexibility with neighborhood character. Overall, the goal is to work toward updating the setbacks while staying within state requirements. 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. The applicant requested a continuance for the hearing. Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. Cerretani to continue the public hearing to March 25, 2026, at 7:45 pm. in Town Hall meeting room 3A/B. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED The applicant, Currivan Family Living Trust, has submitted a plan entitled "Plan of Land Owned by Currivan Family Living Trust, 300 East Street, Mansfield, MA," prepared by Trowbridge Associates, Inc., dated February 25, 2026, for endorsement as Approval Under the Subdivision Control Law Not Required (ANR). The purpose of the plan is to divide the existing property at 300 East Street into three lots with frontage on an existing public way. The applicant asserts that the lots have sufficient frontage and area and therefore do not constitute a subdivision under M.G.L. c.41 §81L. Ms. Raposa noted that Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 all have adequate frontage on East Street. The plan received relief from the ZBA at their January meeting for the lot width variance for lot two. Therefore, the only responsibility of the Board is endorsement of the plan, which meets the requirements of the subdivision control. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 03/11/26 Page 2 of 6 Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Ivlr. Corsillo that the Planning Board determine that the plan entitled "Plan of Land Owned by Currivan Family Living Trust, 300 East Street, Mansfield, MA," prepared by Trowbridge Associates, Inc., dated February 25, 2026, does not constitute a subdivision under the Subdivision Control Law (M.G.L. c.41 §81L) and that Approval Under the Subdivision Control Law is Not Required. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Ms. Friedman noted that both the water and light departments had conversations with the Board during the last two meetings regarding the data center bylaw. Ms. Raposa then began the discussion with a slide presentation and a brief review of the timeline, along with photos of large-scale data centers for reference, none of which are local or in Massachusetts. Next was a depiction of how data centers have evolved and increased in size. The discussion focuses on how to define, classify, and regulate data centers in the Town's zoning bylaw, with an emphasis on balancing impacts like electricity use, water consumption, noise, and location. Key points: • Data centers vary widely in size and type, but in Massachusetts, they typically resemble warehouse -style buildings in industrial areas. Larger "hyperscale" facilities are more connrron in places like Virginia or remote regions. • The group agreed that power usage (megawatts) is the most practical way to classify data centers, rather than ownership type (hyperscale, colocation, enterprise). Proposed tiers include under 2 MW (small/edge), 2-10 MW (mediurn), and over 10 MW (large), with only smaller facilities likely feasible locally. • Regulations would count total power consumption, including on -site generation, to prevent applicants from understating their true impact. • There was debate about water vs. electricity impacts, especially for cooling systems. The draft encourages minimizing potable water use (favoring closed -loop systems), but some concern was raised about over -prioritizing water at the expense of energy efficiency. • Additional standards were proposed for infrastructure (electric and water), noise limits, and environmental impacts, including stricter definitions like sensitive receptors for nearby homes or schools. • Where data centers should be allowed, with some suggesting industrial zones and others considering business districts, weighing tradeoffs like proximity to residential areas and limited job creation. • Concerns were raised about economic benefits, noting that data centers may generate limited employment and uncertain tax revenue. • The bylaw would include monitoring, reporting, enforcement, and 5-year permit renewals to ensure ongoing compliance. Overall, the conversation reflects an effort to create a clear, enforceable framework that focuses on measurable impacts, especially power demand, while addressing environmental and community concerns. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 03/11/26 Page 3 of 6 Ms. Raposa briefed the Board on the petition that requests a zoning change. Originally, the parcel was zoned Residential and rezoned to Industrial in 2012 at the town meeting. The applicant is now seeking to revert the land to the residential zone. Regarding the application of Jill Brenner, WB Engineers & Consultants, for a Site Plan Approval pursuant to Bylaw Section 230-5.3 for the property located at 321 School Street to modify the existing parking stalls to install six (6) new 400kw DCFC chargers serving 12 EV parking stalls, and includes a non -solar shade canopy structure and site signage. The project site is owned by Mansfield Country Square LLC, and is shown on Assessor's Plat 012, Lot 012, within the Industrial 1 (I1) zone. The applicant requested a withdrawal of this application. Ms. Raposa clarified that there had been an administrative site plan approval, which was denied by the plan review committee due to concerns that it could worsen an existing traffic safety issue at a nearby intersection. The project was then set to go before the Planning Board for full site plan approval, with the review committee recommendation to hire a traffic consultant to evaluate impacts. However, before the review process moved forward, the applicant withdrew the proposal. Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to grant the withdrawal for the 321 School Street application. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Regarding the application of Zakauy 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. Ms. Raposa said that following the last meeting, the Board wanted to ensure the applicant was making progress and staying aligned with expectations. The applicant did hire Hutchings Trowbridge, but fieldwork was delayed due to a blizzard, as noted in a submitted email. Given these circumstances, it was considered reasonable for the applicant not to appear at the current meeting and instead continue the discussion to March 25. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to continue the public hearing to March 25, 2026, at 8:30 pm. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Planning Board Meeting Minutes 03/11/26 Page 4 of 6 Ms. Raposa reported that Tetra Tech is expecting a preliminary environmental report, which should provide more clarity on the activity and use limitation, floodplain conditions, and overall site constraints. As part of the feasibility study, local stakeholders who have knowledge of the site and mixed -use development experience will be interviewed. While no final decisions are being made, the goal is to better understand what types of development are viable. Even if residential use is not possible, the town is interested in exploring commercial options to generate long-term economic value from the constrained five -acre site. • Parkway/Transit Oriented Development • Zoning Bylaw Amendments • Planning Board Policies & Procedures of the Planting Board with Site Plan Approval and Special Permit Rules and Regulations, and Planning Board Fees • Mark Corsillo o (initiated 1128126) - Scenic Road Bylaw (more teeth) o (initiated 2125126) —Bill HD.5686, An Act Establishing the Missing -Middle Starter Horne Development and Home Ownership Program • Bryan Haworth (initiated 1128126) - Inclusionary Zoning Bylmv Incentives for developers to include%onstruct neiv units • Ralph Penney (initiated 12110125) o Loss of Commercial / Business Space in Bl, B2, and Downtown Areas o Adequacy and Intent of First -Floor Commercial Requirements o Parking as the Primary Driver of Downtown Redevelopment Outcomes- • Employee Parking Expectations and Clarity in the Bylaw o Use and Interpretation of Density Bonuses and Structured Parking o Cumulative Impact of Incremental Decisions o Re-evaluation of Planning Board Policies and Site Plan Review Standards No comments on these items at this time. Meeting Minutes — February 25 2026 The minutes had not been submitted for approval. No items No Comments Planning Board Meeting Minutes 03/11/26 Page 5 of 6 Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Penney to adjourn at 9:10 pin Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is March 25, 2026, at 7: OOP. m. ,�,e 3 LS 2L Clerk p1 tr —el Date of Approval Documents Presented for the Meetine 1. Meeting Notice Agenda for March 11, 2026 2. Data Center bylaw PowerPoint presentation 3. Applications and supporting documents for the following public hearings: a. 150 Oakland Street b. 321 School Street c. 249 Oakland Street Planning Board Meeting Minutes 03/11/26 Page 6 of 6