HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 02/25/2026gQE0,N0, „J }
iP r4 i i-_L lr�i_
p)9 q iL.
Qg9lF�ASAO\0�4
Meetiug Minutes
February 25, 2026
Town of Mansfield
G Paik Bow, Alan feld, AA 02048
Meeting Hetel in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B
Planning Board
Present: Sharon Friedman/Chair, Bryan Haworth/Associate/Acting Clerk, Joseph Cerretani,
Ralph Penney, Michael McClanahan, Sreelatha Allam
Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development
Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary
Absent: Mark Corsillo/Clerk, and Ryan Maxwell
Ms. Friedman called the meeting to order and read the introductory statement for audience
members who wish to record the meeting. Due to the absence of Mr. Corsillo, the following
motion was made:
Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Penney to appoint Mr. Haworth as Acting
Clerk for the meeting. Vote: 4-0-0 [Aye 4, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED
,r?.�, a u.. rr-"... .��� 1, ��u ,_..��..K_-: ��;.r';Rs..t- „w' .,. -'r .._, 'Y" ,•^;. =.. ,r_v,...m.. _
Sean Precourt, Water Operations Manager, explained that while he is not an expert on all aspects
of data centers, water usage varies significantly depending on the cooling system, with electrical
demand also a key concern. He noted that evaporative cooling systems are energy efficient but
consume very large volumes of water and generate substantial noise from fans and generators,
which has been a primary complaint in other commmnities. In contrast, closed -loop and hybrid
systems are more common in New England, particularly due to seasonal advantages, with
hybrids using little to no water in winter but increasing usage during summer peak demand.
Mr. Precourt explained that closed -loop systems use minimal water, roughly a few thousand
gallons per day, even at higher megawatt levels, while hybrid systems can reach tens of
thousands of gallons per day, and evaporative systems can reach hundreds of thousands daily,
making them a significant concern. Mr. Precourt expressed opposition to evaporative systems
due to their high water consumption, especially if facilities expand over time. He explained that
evaporative systems rely on cooling towers that lose water through evaporation, whereas closed -
loop systems recirculate water using chillers, trading lower water use for higher electricity
demand.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 02-25-26 Page 1 of 7
The discussion highlighted that smaller "edge" or "micro" data centers, potentially around 2-5
megawatts, would be more feasible locally, with water demand from closed -loop systems
remaining relatively low and consistent. However, cumulative impacts would depend on the
number of facilities and their locations. Considerations such as wastewater handling, zoning, and
proximity to sensitive areas and water protection zones need to be addressed. Wastewater from
some systems may require treatment due to possible contaminants, while closed -loop systems
would generate minimal discharge.
The Town's current water regulations are outdated and under revision, and while there are no
explicit caps on water usage, all projects require approval and could be denied if demand is
excessive. Mr. Precourt indicated that water withdrawals are regulated and subject to
conservation measures, and that a denial of service comiections is possible with sufficient
justification, such as excessive consumption. He suggested that a reasonable upper threshold
might be around 50,000 gallons per day, though closed -loop systems would fall well below that.
Board members discussed the need to establish bylaws and conditions, including prioritizing
hybrid or closed -loop systems, evaluating trade-offs between water and electricity usage, and
determining how many facilities the town could realistically support. Emergency authority to
restrict water use during drought conditions was also acknowledged. Additional concerns
included noise impacts, siting, and construction -related water impacts such as groundwater
pumping. Mr. Precourt advised against on -site wells due to potential over -extraction concerns
and noted that State oversight would apply. The discussion concluded with an emphasis on
developing clear regulatory guidance, incorporating water department review into permitting.
� � 4i u�'1�►�scus�zo��2������n�e�anc�3�xrV�<���xi�7'�a'tx o"� ��pl��-��� �r
Bob Barry and Jeff Vigeant were present for the discussion.
Mr. Barry presented a preliminary proposal to redevelop the properties at 162 and 172 Copeland
Drive by transitioning them from the current B4 mixed -use zoning requirement, which mandates
100% ground -floor retail with residential above, to a fully multi -family residential development.
They are seeking feedback from the Board, as the transition does require a special permit. He
explained that they purchased 172 Copeland Drive in 1995 and currently operate Patriot Supply
there, later adding a second -floor addition designed to resemble a residential structure. They
purchased the adjacent parcel at 162 Copeland Drive in 2012, which is classified as residential
developable land. Since those purchases, several zoning changes have occurred, including the
creation of the B4 mixed -use gateway district and increases to the floor area ratio (FAR), which
allowed for greater development density.
Mr. Barry explained that lie previously explored a mixed -use plan in 2022 that included
approximately 2,000 square feet of retail space on the first floor and ten apartments above.
However, the required 30 parking spaces, 10 for retail and 20 for residential, combined with
buffer requirements, made the project impractical, as the site would be dominated by surface
parking rather than usable space or green areas. The applicant argued that forcing retail use
would create unnecessary parking demand and contribute to excessive pavement, which conflicts
with smart -growth goals such as walkability and environmental preservation. He also noted that
the surrounding area already contains significant retail and commercial uses but relatively little
mixed -use development. He suggested that a purely residential project would better fit the
immediate neighborhood context. Nearby properties include residential homes and multifamily
buildings, including the Rosewood apartment buildings on Chauncey Street.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 02-25-26 Page 2 of 7
Mr. Barry referenced the upcoming 2026 MassDOT corridor improvements, which will add
sidewalks, bike lanes, and other infrastructure. he emphasized the site's proximity to the
commuter rail as additional support for residential development. He expressed concern about
noted examples of vacant retail space in other mixed -use buildings. Plarming Board members
acknowledged the proposal and discussed the broader purpose of the B4 district, which was
created as a gateway business corridor intended to encourage commercial development. Some
members indicated reluctance to waive the requirement for first -floor commercial space,
emphasizing the importance of maintaining the district's business character. However, several
members also recognized that the current parking requirements may be excessive and could
discourage development. The Board discussed whether parking standards should be reevaluated,
noting that other districts in town have already reduced parking requirements. Board members
expressed openness to continued discussion and possible zoning adjustments, but emphasized the
need to balance housing development with the original intent of the gateway business district.
Ms. Raposa noted that potential bylaw amendments could address parking reductions,
dimensional relief, or alternative approaches to mixed -use development, such as separating
residential and commercial components while maintaining an overall amount of commercial
space on the property.
The B4 zoning district was created to separate certain commercial uses from the broader B3
zone. At the time, officials were concerned that if the B3 rules were changed along Copeland and
Chauncey Streets, those same uses, such as gas stations, drive-throughs, or fast-food restaurants,
could also appear in other village locations like East Street or near the country store, where they
were not considered appropriate. The B4 district was therefore carved out to allow more
intensive commercial uses in a specific area. The intent was to attract higher -traffic locations
along Route 140 or near the Interstate 495 exit, and efforts to bring convenience stores or fast-
food establishments to the B4 area have largely been unsuccessful. Many B4 parcels directly
abut residential neighborhoods. Mr. Barry argued that the requirement for 100 percent ground -
floor retail is too rigid and does not reflect how the properties function or what developers are
realistically able to build. He suggested that each parcel is different and that flexibility, such as
allowing varying amounts of retail with incentives or bonuses, would better accormnodate
development. The current definition of "100 percent retail" can also be ambiguous when
accounting for building elements like staircases or parking areas. Some locations would be better
suited to primarily residential buildings, especially where they are surrounded by homes, rather
than forcing retail uses that may generate more activity and conflict with nearby residents.
Board members acknowledged the request for greater flexibility but emphasized that the B4
district was intended to remain a gateway business district and that the cormnunity still wants
commercial activity there. They encouraged the applicant to consider a more creative mixed -use
proposal that incorporates some commercial component rather than pursuing a fully residential
project. Under current zoning, a frilly residential building is not allowed in B4, and any change
would require a zoning amendment affecting the entire district rather than a single parcel.
Mr. Vigeant reiterated that this particular lot has unique constraints related to size, parking, and
surrounding residential uses, making mixed -use development difficult. He argued that residential
development could complement the existing neighborhood, especially given nearby apartment
buildings and transit access. hn response, it was suggested that the possibility of allowing
multifamily residential by special permit be allowed, similar to provisions in other districts, so
proposals could be reviewed on a case -by -case basis. Board members said they would consider
that option but noted it could reduce commercial space in the district.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 02-25-26 Page 3 of 7
Ms. Raposa referenced earlier conversations with Bill Clennrney regarding the origins of the B4
zoning changes, particularly the market for mixed -use development and the required commercial
space percentage. She noted that at that time, the Board emphasized a goal of avoiding a net loss
of existing commercial or allowable non-residential space. hi response, amendments were
drafted to clarify the board's intent, including allowing nixed -use projects to be bifurcated so
that residential and commercial components could be separated within a project, while still
requiring the overall property to maintain the required amount of non-residential space. The
board also discussed the possibility of incorporating additional B4 bylaw amendments, such as
reducing parking requirements for both residential and commercial portions of mixed -use
developments and allowing some dimensional relief for site -specific or project -specific
conditions, similar to the flexibility used with MISRAD requirements.
Bill Clemmey of Fowler Street expressed that the B4 Zone was created about ten years ago to
separate the Copeland and Chauncey area from the broader B3 Zone. At the time, any zoning
change made for that area would also have applied to other B3 locations such as the country
store, East Street, and Cousins Pizza, which limited what could be allowed there. Creating the B4
Zone allowed the town to permit uses like drive-throughs, fast-food restaurants, and gas stations
without affecting those other locations. He noted that many of the businesses originally
envisioned for the district prefer higher -traffic areas such as Route 140 or the I-495 exit, making
it difficult to attract those uses. Much of the land in the B4 district also abuts residential
neighborhoods, which further complicates development. The current requirement that 100% of
the ground floor be retail is viewed as too rigid and unrealistic, and pointed out that some recent
mixed -use projects approved elsewhere in town have not achieved full ground -floor retail. Mr.
Clemmey suggested the zoning should allow greater flexibility, possibly through incentives or
bonuses for providing some retail rather than mandating it entirely. Since each parcel in the
district has different conditions and many are near homes, some sites may be better suited for
residential or mixed uses with limited commercial space. He argued that relaxing the strict retail
requirement would make development more practical while still allowing business uses where
they make sense.
The Board suggested that further exploration for a more creative mixed -use of the property
would be best for the current zoning. Ms. Raposa reiterated that under the current zoning, 100%
residential use is not permitted at that property. Rezoning would be required.
Jeff, Mr. Barry's business partner of 38 years, spoke in support of reconsidering the zoning
requirements for the property. He argued that mixed use is difficult at the property, and asked the
Board to consider the unique circumstances of the site. The site is surrounded by three apartment
buildings and a post office, making residential use appropriate. He argued that despite various
discussions about the B4 gateway business district over the past 15 years, very little has actually
changed aside from Chase Barak replacing the Payne School. Given nearby MBTA access and
ongoing improvements in the area, he believes the site is well -suited for a residential component.
He asked the board to keep an open mind and consider flexibility, explaining that strict mixed -
use requirements limit the ability to design a quality project that works for the property.
Ms. Raposa clarified again that zoning cannot be changed for one specific right; the district
zoning would require modification, or a new sub -district would need to be created. She noted
that in the use table, there is a 3.31) for multiple residents. In the Bl and B2 districts, people can
apply for a special permit to have 100% multifamily, no commercial component, but it is not
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 02-25-26 Page 4 of 7
allowable in the B3 or B4 districts. She asked the Board if they would consider a special permit
component for consideration on a case -by -case basis.
Ms. Raposa explained that at the previous Planning Board meeting, Mr. Penney had requested
clarification on the permitting framework for the project at One West Church Street. She had
followed up by email and wanted to confirm that the board was comfortable with the reasoning
used in the decision -making process. She noted that the project location is permitted in the B 1
zoning district with site plan approval rather than requiring a special permit, and that the
structured parking component did not trigger the need for a special permit. She asked the board
to provide any feedback if there were concerns with that rationale.
Ms. Raposa explained that she reviews each application for alignment with the zoning bylaws.
She noted that the North Main Street Overlay District bylaw is not clear. Important substantive
requirements are listed in footnotes and tables, which created challenges during the review of
this application. Mr. Penney noted that it is crucial to review all applications to confirm that they
are complete. Ms. Raposa said that the Rules and Regulations include an application submission
checklist. Mr. Penney referenced the bylaw, noting that structured parking is only allowed in the
North Main Street Overlay District by a special permit. This led to a discussion regarding
parking and special permits in the overlay district, and there were questions about why the
applicant was allowed less than 50% commercial space on the first floor in that district.
Bylaw Section 230-5.10K was referenced relating to structured parking in the North Main Street
Overlay District. Mr. Clemmey said that they were granted variances in 2017 from that bylaw
section because they did not meet 100% of the frontage requirement and 50% depth because of
the shape of the lot. They also added a front patio in lieu of retail.
The conversation resulted in agreement that the bylaw should be reviewed and cleaned up to
clarify ambiguities.
ParkrvaY/Transit Oriented Development
Zoning Bylaw Amendments
Planning Board Policies & Procedures of the Plannini? Board with Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit rules and Regulations and Planning Board Fees
Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw Incentives for Developers (Bryan Haworth)
Mr•. Haworth provided a progress update from the Bass Housing Leadership Academy,
highlighting key lessons on zoning and housing policy in Massachusetts. The first month focused
on the history of zoning, noting that modern downzoning expanded after the Fair Housing Act as
communities sought to limit development, contributing to a long-standing housing shortage.
The second month examined inclusionary zoning, arguing that while well-intentioned, it often
discourages development. Data showed many municipalities with inclusionary zoning
requirements produced no affordable units, and developers may avoid projects that trigger those
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 02-25-26 Page 5 of 7
requirements. He suggested shifting inclusionary zoning from a "tax" on developers to a
subsidized model supported by goverrinent funding. Mr. Haworth cited examples from Portland,
Maine, and Oregon to illustrate how stricter inclusionary zoning requirements can reduce
housing production and how some states are exploring reimbursement models. He noted legal
challenges, and research suggests that increasing overall housing supply, even market -rate, can
improve affordability through vacancy chains. The discussion concluded that towns should be
more deliberate in how they use inclusionary zoning, consider alternative approaches like
subsidies or payments, and remain mindful of financial constraints, while continuing to explore
new strategies for funding affordable housing.
"We
+s"goo dmadnerad3usrnssY .,..,.
Meetini, Minutes — February 11, 2026
Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to approve the minutes with changes
as noted. Vote: 5-0-1 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 1] PASSED
Ms. Raposa outlined the timeline for the data center proposal, noting that the first public hearing
is scheduled for March 11, followed by a second on March 25, after which the language must be
voted on if ready.
Ms. Raposa explained that the data center bylaw is being created because none currently exists.
The bylaw defines the different types of data centers (hyperseale, colocation, and smaller
edge/micro facilities), but recognizes the need to distinguish them by size rather than ownership
structure. No Massachusetts communities have adopted specific data center regulations yet.
The proposal would prohibit large hyperscale and colocation facilities while allowing smaller
ones by special permit in designated industrial zones. It also outlines detailed review criteria,
including electrical demand, water use, cooling methods, noise, emissions, and infrastructure
impacts, along with ongoing monitoring and reporting requirements.
Overall, the goal is to proactively establish a flexible framework that gives the planning board
oversight while acknowledging that the bylaw may be somewhat preliminary, with the option to
refine it later as needed.
��?a�����ms�ofan#a<c��#�c���tlxec#rt►��8�3r�urs�?�£�r�� ��xs�►ie�t�n�a � ,,���i_.�-..��f.,�
No items
Mr. Pemrey referenced the February 13'1' article Population Growth Slows to a Trickle as a
reconunendedread.
hi response to an inquiry, Ms. Raposa noted that the ADU setbacks cannot change unless there is
a change to the current Accessory Structure setback requirements.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 02-25-26 Page 6 of 7
Future discussions will include policy issues for the downtown area, the changing nature of the
spaces, and the perception of a loss of business spaces. There are existing downtown spaces that
have been vacant for a long time and should be changed to accommodate current needs, which
are changing toward services rather than retail.
f
� 1� Adlour�meni r
Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Penney to adjourn at 9:46 pm
Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 01 PASSED
The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is March 11, 2026, at 7: 00 p. in.
3 ZS126
Clerk lel-k �a ')lo Date of Approval
Documents Presented for the Meeting
1. Meeting Notice Agenda for February 25, 2026
2. Draft Meeting Minutes for February 11, 2026
3. Data Center bylaw PowerPoint presentation
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 02-25-26 Page 7 of 7