Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 03/25/2026l Town of Mansfield 6 Paik Ro)u, Alansfield, AIA 02048 Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 25, 2026 Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B Present: Sharon Friedman/Chair, Mark Corsillo/Clerk, Ralph Penney, Michael McClanahan, Sreelatha Allan, Ryan Maxwell, and Bryan Haworth/Associate Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Joseph Cerretani 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 the Town of Mansfield for a Special Permit Application pursuant to Bylaw Sections 230-5.5, 230-3.4A, and 230-5.1 for the use, storage, handling, and/or generation of hazardous materials within a Zone II Wellhead Protection Area and to allow a change from the originally permitted vegetable oil to standard weight hydraulic oil, due to failures with the vegetable oil systems at 500 East Street and 99 Maple Street. The project site is owned by the Town of Mansfield, and is shown on Assessor's Map/Lot 031/037 and 030/067, within the Residential 1 (R-1) zone. Mr. Penney recused himself from the hearing, having previously done work for the site. Mike Ahern, Mansfield Department of Public Works Operations Manager, was present. He stated that this hearing is a follow-up to the January 14 meeting, where a special permit application was prepared to address a minor oversight from prior approvals. Most of the site's uses and conditions were already permitted in 2016, and no major changes are proposed. The only current modification is switching the hydraulic elevator at the public safety building from standard oil to vegetable oil due to repeated failures. The application also includes the adjacent 99 Maple Street property, combining both sites under one permit since they function together as part of the municipal complex. Existing uses include the highway garage, water department, public safety building, PFAS facilities, generators, and chemical storage areas. All hazardous materials are regulated under Mass DEP, fire code, and Planning Board Meeting Minutes 03/25/26 Page 1 of 13 OSHA standards, with safety measures such as indoor secured storage, secondary containment, coated floors, spill response protocols, and storrnwater controls already in place. The conclusion is that, with these protections, the current and proposed uses are consistent with prior approvals by the municipal clearinghouse system and appropriate for the zoning district. Board Comment - The Board agreed that the information was articulated well and there were no additional comments. Public Continent — There were no public comments. Board Deliberation - Ms. Friedman read the required findings for discussion. Mr. McClanahan (in favor) noted that public safety is not an issue. The update is required due to the current fluids being used, and he had no issue with the special permit. Mr. Corsillo (in favor) said that the benefits outweigh the detriments. The plan appropriately implements safeguards against contamination so that the impact on health and safety, convenience of general welfare is minimized, as well as the effects on adjoining premises, which are also municipal buildings. There is no impact on vehicular pedestrian traffic. Mr. Maxwell (in favor) agreed with the previous Board member's comments. Ms. Allum (in favor) agreed with the previous Board member's continents. Mr. Haworth (in favor) said that restoring accessibility is very important, and thought that there are plenty of safeguards in place to counteract any conservation or environmental concerns. Ms. Friedman (in favor) agreed with the previous Board continents. Ms. Friedman then read, for the record, additional findings for the Protection of Soils and Natural Characteristics and the Protection of Water quality and Qumrtij). Ms. Raposa noted that in relation to this, the deliberation consisted of the special permit findings and findings specific to surface and groundwater. Ms. Raposa expressed that Mr. Ahern had previously reviewed the Conditions of Approval and had no commnents or concerns. Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by McClanahan that the Planning Board grant a Special Permit to the Town of Mansfield for the use, storage, and handling of hazardous materials at 500 East Street and 99 Maple Street, located in the RI District and within the Zone II Wellhead Protection Area, pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A and Sections 230-5.5 and 230-3.4A of the Mansfield Zoning Bylaw and is based on the application dated February 3, 2026, and the materials submitted therewith. Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Planning Board Meeting Minutes 03/25/26 Page 2 of 13 Regarding the application of BFS Group LLC for a Special Permit Application pursuant to Bylaw Sections 230-5.5 for a use change of proposed retail use, with no expansion of the building footprint, no increase in impervious surface, and minimal interior modifications at 71 Maple Street. The project site is owned by 71 Maple Street, LLC, and is shown on Assessor's Map/Lot 030/085, within the Industrial 2 (I-2) zone. David Pelletier, Area Manager, and Micah Carr, General Manager of National Lumber, were present. Mr. Pelletier said the business originally operated a retail lumber yard at 245 Oakland Street and later added a kitchen design center at 71 Maple Street, which eventually transitioned into office space as the company grew. In 2022, the business was acquired, and as remote work increased, reducing office needs, excess space became available. The company now plans to move retail operations back to 71 Maple Street to consolidate everything into one location, improving efficiency and eliminating the inconvenience of customers having to visit multiple sites for purchases and pickups. Ms. Raposa noted that the original special permit allowed only warehouse and office use, not retail. Since there's no clear record of continuous retail use, and retail now requires a special permit in the district, the building official determined a new permit is needed to comply with current regulations. However, the request is largely administrative, as the site has consistently had customer activity, and the expected traffic and operations would remain essentially unchanged. Hours of operation will not change, Monday through Friday, 6.30 am to 5.00 pm, Saturday, 8.00 am to 3.00 pm. No additional parking is required; it remains as is. 245 Oakland Street will no longer be used, as all operations will move to 71 Maple Street. Public Cormment Colin Cauldwell, representing Natural Resources Trust, which owns land abutting 71 Maple Street. He supports the project but raises concerns about a long-standing potential trespass onto town -owned conservation land. They note that part of the parking lot and possibly a rail spur appear to encroach on this land, an issue that may date back decades and has never been resolved. Since conservation land camiot be easily transferred or used by private entities, they urge the board to investigate the situation, potentially involving town counsel and the Conservation Corminission, to clarify ownership and legality. Katelyn Gonyer, Conservation Planner, explained that the potential encroaclmient issue was previously researched in 2019, when the town identified about 5,000 square feet of overpaved area on conservation land dating back decades. Although National Lumber was cooperative at the time, the issue was never fully resolved. Further investigation confirmed the land was acquired for conservation in 1966, making its sale or lease legally complex. Ms. Gonyer proposed restarting discussions with town counsel, the Conservation Commission, and the property owner to resolve this matter. Ms. Raposa said that the encroachment can be handled separately from the current application, with a condition added to the decision. Mr. Carr noted that even if parking spaces are lost, the site would still have sufficient parking capacity. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 03/25/26 Page 3 of 13 Ms. Raposa inquired whether, before going into deliberation, the Board could approve the waiver from the technical specifications for the application submission since plans had previously been prepared. The Board agreed and made the following motion: Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan that the Planning Board grant the requested waiver from submission of updated site plans and related technical materials, as allowed under the Planning Board's Site Plan Approval and Special Permit Rules and Regulations because the proposed project consists solely of a change of use within an existing, legally constructed commercial building, with no expansion of building footprint, no increase in impervious surface, and no changes to site access, grading, drainage, or circulation patterns. The Board finds that the plans and materials submitted are sufficient for the Board to evaluate the proposal and that strict compliance with the submission requirements would not serve a meaningful planning purpose in this instance. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Review of findings for discussion. The Planning Board has determined that the application materials meet the submission and technical requirements of the zoning bylaw and that the benefits of the proposed project to outweigh its detrimental effects after consideration of the following criteria, the impact on health safety, convenience, general welfare, and amenities of the inhabitants of the town, the effect on the natural enviromnent, and the fiscal impacts. Board Deliberation Mr. McClanahan (in favor) said the benefits outweigh the detriments. It is pre-existing and did not foresee any issues. Mr. Penney (in favor) said the benefits outweigh the detriments. The site was previously used for retail; this is a change in use back to what it had previously been used for. Mr. Haworth (in favor) said the benefits outweigh the costs to improve business efficiency without any material impact on traffic or anything like that. Ms. Allum (in favor) said that the request is minor to consolidate their operation. Mr. Maxwell (in favor) said that it is a minor change. Mr. Corsillo (in favor) said that the benefits outweigh the detriments and did not feel that there were any detriments to any of the stated categories. . Ms. Friedman (in favor) agreed with the previous Board comments. She underscored the conditions of the approval for the special permit in relation to the existing paved encroachment and was pleased that the Conservation Commission and the NRT can work with the applicants to find a resolution. Mr. Corsillo then read, for the record, the conditions of approval. Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. Maxwell that the Planning Board grant a modification to the existing Special Permit to BFS Group LLC, with the consent of 71 Maple Street, LLC as property owner, for the establishment and operation of a retail use within approximately 3,000 square feet of the existing commercial building at 71 Maple Street, pursuant Planning Board Meeting Minutes 03/25/26 Page 4 of 13 to MGL Chapter 40A and Section 230-5.5 of the Mansfield Zoning Bylaw. This approval is based on the application materials dated January 2026, including the Special Permit narrative, parking and circulation information, and plans submitted therewith. The Board finds that the application satisfies the submission and technical requirements of the Zoning Bylaw and that, after consideration of the criteria set forth in § 230-5.517, the benefits of the proposed project outweigh any detrimental effects. This Special Permit is granted subject to the conditions as discussed. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED ,,, `"'� •^ - s' `-..-� aa�,. »r"' r ^::r 5 r , r-�" -r ,c r-.ate,. ,--�-.,�.--'� /w `� '��' PUBLIC HEARING to accept public comments on the following proposed amendment to the Town of Mansfield Zoning Bylaws: Item 1— Data Centers: This proposal defines and regulates data centers as a distinct land use, clarifies that they are not office uses, and limits them to certain zoning districts by Special Permit with criteria for approval. Ms. Friedman explained that the zoning bylaw amendment had been under development for about three months and has been taken seriously due to concerns about potential strain on the Town's water and electrical resources. Mr. Corsillo clarified that the proposed zoning amendment does not allow data centers; in fact, it effectively bans most types of data centers, including large AI -related facilities. The goal is to prevent them from being classified as existing categories, such as office or warehouse. Ms. Raposa and the Board worked with experts and reviewed other municipalities' approaches to create clear definitions, ensuring the bylaw properly addresses modern data center uses and reduces confusion. Ms. Raposa noted that the discussion was based of the marked -up bylaw version, dated March 23`d• and said there were copies in the room and on the website. She began with a review of the timeline and progression of the bylaw. Due to the recent snowstorm, this would be the only public hearing for comment and changes to the bylaw as the final language to be submitted to administration by April 0. The proposal establishes a new zoning framework that defines data centers as a distinct land use and regulates them based on electrical demand rather than building size, reflecting typical large infeastructtue and high energy use. The bylaw would clarify that data centers are not traditional office, warehouse, or research uses, and classifies theta into tiers based on megawatts to better measure their intensity and impacts. Under the bylaw, only small, low -impact facilities (Tier 1, under 2 megawatts) would be allowed and only in limited industrial and planned business districts through a special permit process. Moderate and large-scale data centers (above 2 megawatts), including those typically associated with Al and hyperscale operations, would be prohibited entirely. Any allowed project would undergo detailed public review and must meet striet.performance standards. These standards require applicants to demonstrate sufficient electrical capacity, minimize water use, especially potable water, control noise levels at nearby sensitive locations, limit generator use and emissions, and avoid overburdening municipal services. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 03/25/26 Page 5 of 13 The Planning Board would have authority to impose conditions such as caps on energy and water use, operational limits, and phased development tied to infrastructure capacity. Ongoing monitoring and reporting would also be required to ensure compliance. The bylaw is proactive and not tied to a specific proposal, providing the town with clear tools to evaluate future applications and protect local resources. Additionally, Ms. Raposa presented a contingency option of adopting a temporary moratorium on data centers to pause and allow more time for review and refinement before bringing a final version to town meeting. Board Continents Mr. Haworth praised the efforts and speed of developing the bylaw, and was pleased that Mansfield was taking a leadership role in developing this type of bylaw. He expressed that he would prefer moving the proposal forward to town meeting rather than adopting a moratorium. Ms. Allum deferred her continents. Mr. Maxwell felt that the concerns had been captured in the bylaw language and preferred bringing the bylaw to town meeting as opposed to a moratorium. Mr. Corsillo explained that the allowance for Tier 1 small, low -impact data centers is meant to support normal business operations, such as offices or warehouses that need small server rooms for internal functions like phone and internet systems. They emphasize this is not an effort to attract data centers, but to avoid unintentionally restricting businesses from operating effectively. Mr. Penney agreed there is a need for the bylaw and thanked those involved for their work. He noted that while he hoped that no data center proposals would come forward, the Town would be prepared. Mr. McClanahan expressed the need for additional clarification for the sound aspect of the bylaw. Public Conmients Thomas Fuller of 35 Darby Drive thanked the Board for proactively addressing data centers, citing firsthand experience from Virginia, where rapid growth has caused significant issues like noise, high water, and electrical use, rising utility costs, and negative impacts on nearby homes. He stressed the importance of focusing on these impacts, especially noise and infrastructure, while also cautioning against completely discouraging data center development, noting its importance for technology, education, and national competitiveness. Jim Carlson of 115 Park Street shared his personal and professional background to highlight growing economic pressures in the Town, including rising costs and increasing demand for community support. He emphasized that the Town's key asset is its strong and relatively affordable energy supply, which creates both an opportunity and a risk when considering energy - intensive uses like data centers. While acknowledging the potential economic benefits of attracting such development, he stressed the need to protect residents, especially vulnerable populations, from rising energy costs and resource strain. He argued that if data centers are considered, they should provide clear conmiunity benefits, such as supporting schools or offsetting local costs. Ultimately, he supported a temporary moratorium, urging the Town to slow down, fully assess its energy capacity and community needs, and ensure any fature decisions are made carefully and on the town's terms. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 03/25/26 Page 6 of 13 Mr. Corsillo responded that while sympathetic to Mr. Carlson's continents, he expressed support for attracting new tax revenue but was concerned about large corporations like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft avoiding local taxes through legal maneuvering. He referenced the Amazon warehouse as an example, where expected excise tax revenue from delivery trucks never materialized because the trucks were registered out of town. He concluded that the potential tax benefits of a data center could be outweighed by the risk that the company may avoid paying the expected taxes. Mr. Carlson emphasized that the Town should take a proactive role in evaluating proposals for new businesses, rather than leaving decisions solely to the Planning Board. He advocated for a comprehensive energy policy to guide development, ensuring that energy capacity is allocated wisely, balancing the needs of existing industry, potential new investment, and current residents, before approving zoning or entitlements. Ms. Friedman noted that larger infrastructure guidelines would be beyond the Planning Board's capacity. Mike Parsons of 76 North Main Street highlighted that the proposed definitions of small, medium, and large energy use are insignificant compared to the scale of modern data centers. He cited examples in Indiana that use hundreds of megawatts, enough to impact 50% of that state's electricity demand. He stressed that even one large data center could drastically alter local and regional energy capacity, emphasizing the importance of the Board's proactive planning and careful policy language. Ms. Raposa explained that initial facility categories were refrained after assessing Mansfield Electric's capacity. While 2 MW is minimal, larger facilities could exceed local capacity. She emphasized that if a major project, like an AI facility, offers clear Town benefits (e.g., energy synergies, revenue), zoning and policy should be flexible to support it, similar to past adaptive decisions like the school bus zoning amendment. Daniel Beals of 792 West Street, an experienced HVAC and building automation technician, emphasized the significant noise and vibration impacts of large data center equipment on local communities, affecting sleep, concentration, and property values. He stressed that quality -of -life considerations are as important as utilities and energy planting. He also noted a recently proposed federal moratorium on Al data centers and asked whether Mansfield is coordinating with neighboring towns or state authorities, given that several states have already imposed temporary bans pending safeguards. Ms. Raposa responded that only two Massachusetts connrnunities, Shrewsbury and Lowell, have passed or introduced moratoriums on Al data centers, with Lowell's moratorium temporarily limiting expansion of the Markley facility. Beyond these cases, no other Massachusetts towns have adopted bylaws regulating data centers, though there is growing interest among professionals statewide. Mike Wilkinson of 662 Elm Street conniended the Board's thorough approach but questioned the tangible benefits of data centers, noting potential negative impacts on water and electricity. He suggested that smaller enterprise server needs, like those in call centers, could be addressed separately, and proposed considering a ban on all tiers of data centers, as lie did not see a clear benefit to the community. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 03/25/26 Page 7 of 13 Ms. Raposa explained that the bylaw includes a 25% floor area threshold defining a data center. This carve -out ensures that data center uses remain ancillary, no more than 25% of a business's space, protecting existing businesses and allowing flexibility as technology evolves. Mr. Corsillo clarified that large-scale data centers provide minimal employment, typically only three staff for an entire facility. They do not generate meaningful economic activity or fulfill the intended purpose of the industrial park as an economic stimulant for the Town. Ms. Raposa then reviewed changes based on comments by Town Counsel and Board members, which clarified the Building Inspector's authority, continuous operational sound and DBA limits, added medical facilities as sensitive receptors, outlined what counts as substantial changes, and noted that the 2 MW threshold could be revisited for larger, potentially beneficial facilities. Ms. Raposa noted that the defining continuous operational sound has limits of 50 dBA daytime (7 a.m.-10 p.m.) and 45 dBA nighttime (10 p.m. 7 a.m.) at sensitive receptors. The definition, guided by town counsel, covers normal facility operations, mechanical systems, cooling, and transformers, while excluding short-term or emergency events, aiming to ensure residents can maintain normal residential activities without disruption. Ms. Allum thanked staff for their work and acknowledged resident input, but felt more time was needed to assess noise impacts and conununity benefits. They support limiting facilities to tier one, see value in staying proactive, but personally favor a temporary moratorium to allow further study before moving to a formal town vote. Mr. McClanahan expressed that the sound limits in the bylaw are too low. Ms. Raposa responded that the limits had been discussed, but he had not previously commented. A brief discussion ensued for clarification. 9: 00 pm Bill Clemmey asked to make a point of order, that traditionally, scheduled public hearings were opened as scheduled. He suggested that the Board open the public hearings as scheduled and postpone them to the next meeting if the applicant agrees, particularly relative to his article. Ms. Friedman responded that the Board would need to continue raith the Data Center bylaw to make a decision whether to do a moratorhon or bring the bylaw to town meeting. Mr. McClanahan continued and noted his preference for a moratorium pending farther sound research. Ms. Raposa clarified that if the vote is to move forward with a moratorium, a new public hearing would need to be scheduled for discussion and public input for the Board to vote. Mr. Penney said he was in favor of moving forward with the bylaw to get something in place in case an application gets submitted, with the understanding that the bylaw can be amended. After an informal poll, the majority of the Board agreed to move forward with the bylaw amendment. Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. Penney that, pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 5, the Planning Board close the public hearing on the proposed zoning amendment entitled "Data Centers," and further vote to reconviiend that the Select Board include the language as discussed in the Town Meeting warrant and that Town Meeting adopt the amendment. Vote: 6-1-0 [Aye 6, Nay 1, Abstain 0] PASSED Planning Board Meeting Minutes 03/25/26 Page 8 of 13 PUBLIC HEARING to accept public comments on the following proposed amendments to the Town of Mansfield Zoning Bylaws: Citizens' Petition — Proposed Zoning Map Amendment: To see if the Town will vote to amend the Town's Zoning Map to the extent necessaiy to rezone from its present classification of Industrial 1(1-1) to the classification of Residence 2 (R-2). Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to waive the reading of the Rill public hearing notice for the Citizen's Petition— West Street Rezoning (Industrial I (I-1) to Residence 2 (R-2)), as the notice has been duly posted and published in accordance with M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 5, and copies are available for the public. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Dan Clemmey presented on behalf of the petitioner, Bill Clemmey. He described the location of the parcel and explained that in 2012, the property had been approved for rezoning from Residential 2 to Industrial 1, and they would like to rezone it back to its original Residential 2. He reasoned that retail business has slowed in the area, and there is a greater need for housing. Mr. Corsillo referenced a parcel across the street from this parcel, owned by Mr. Clemmey, that he has tried to rezone to Industrial, and asked why they want this parcel to be zoned residential. Mr. Clemmey said the other parcel is not conducive to residential use due to high traffic at the intersection. Public Comment Susan of 60 South Walnut Street, new to Mansfield, values the neighborhood's quiet character and is concerned that adding apartments or 55+ housing would overcrowd the area, increase traffic on the narrow South Walnut Street, especially if an existing right-of-way becomes a road, and lead to more noise and negative impacts on residents. Catherine Harding of 43 South Walnut Street did not object to adding housing. She expressed concern with additional traffic access to South Walnut Street and suggested that the development have access from West Street or consider alternative traffic routing. Jason Murray of 60 South Walnut Street, new to Mansfield, was concerned with noise, traffic, and sewer. Sandra Levine of 20 Walnut Street expressed that the petitioner cannot be held to previous considerations for the land. There is no proposal for the land, but whatever is approved affects the residents abutting the land. She advocated for continuing the hearing to hear directly from Bill Clemmey, a more knowledgeable representative. Mr. Corsillo noted that the parcel is currently zoned Industrial-1, which allows potentially disruptive uses, like storage facilities, by right without Planning Board review. In contrast, rezoning to Residential-2 would require a special permit for a 55+ residential development, giving the Planning Board and residents more oversight, and he encouraged considering this comparison when evaluating the proposal. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 03/25/26 Page 9 of 13 Mr. Clemmey offered that people could contact their office at 508-339-6316 with any questions or meet for a site walk. Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. Penney to continue the public hearing to April 8, 2026, at 7:00 pm. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 01 PASSED Carlos Santana of 106 Walnut Street inquired about the agenda item for the discussion with Mr. Clemmey for a 55+ community and whether the public could participate in the discussion. Ms. Raposa responded that the discussion will be moved to the April 8°i meeting immediately following the citizen petition 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. The applicant requested a continuance for the hearing. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to continue the public hearing to April 22, 2026, at 7:00 pm. Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED 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. Sarah Medeiros was present and referenced that the property owners and subject property were not accurate in the hearing notice. Ms. Raposa replied that the legal ad was based on the information presented in the application, but could make corrections as needed. This continued hearing was held to provide the applicant with an opportunity to update the project status. Ms. Medeiros said that Mike Trowbridge, the engineer, had been unable to complete the site plan due to the recent snowstorm and did not offer a time frame for completion. Mr. Corsillo read a memo submitted by Mr. Trowbridge outlining the project requirements and timeline, indicating work completion within the month, pending weather conditions. As a result, tine Board recommended the hearing be continued. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 03/25/26 Page 10 of 13 Ms. Raposa will continue coordinating with the applicant's team and will update the Board once the engineer completes the field survey and prepares the updated plan documenting existing site conditions. Ms. Medeiros inquired whether a revised site plan is required for both parcels. The Board responded that since both parcels are interrelated, a plan is required to show both parcels. Ms. Medeiros expressed concern about an existing water runoff condition on other portions of Oakland Street. The Board said they are aware of the issues and of the specific information that the Town Engineer has requested. The Board is seeking confirmation from Mr. Trowbridge that the driveway that had been done did not contribute to the drainage issues. The Board will review the original site plan and the new site plan to make an appropriate determination. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to continue the public hearing to May 27, 2026, at 8:30 pm. Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED The Board vote would be to accept the remaining portion of Cobb Street, together with the associated drainage, water, and sewer easements, beginning at station 3+67.00 and extending to station 10+87.35, as shown on the plan entitled "Acceptance Plan for Cobb Street in Mansfield, Massachusetts," dated July 19, 2006 and last revised August 8, 2006, prepared by Dunn - McKenzie, Inc., and recorded at the Bristol County Northern District Registry of Deeds in Plan Book 453, Page 16, as a public way of the Town of Mansfield. Ms. Raposa said that an issue was discovered where road acceptances were assumed to have been completed. However, some acceptances were not officially recorded with the Registry of Deeds, due to missed filing deadlines. This action is a formality to correct the paperwork, as requested by the Town Engineer. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. Corsillo that the Planning Board recommend to the Select Board that Town Meeting vote to accept the remaining portion of Cobb Street. Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED This discussion was moved to April 8, 2026, at 7:00 pm. Parkway/Transit Oriented Development Zoning Bylaw Amendments o Accessory Dwelling Units setbacks - Mr. Penney asked whether the density table could be revised for setbacks. Ms. Raposa said that a general statement for 15-foot setbacks was proposed and reviewed by Town Counsel, who agreed that it was a good approach. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 03/25/26 Page 11 of 13 • Planning Board Policies & Procedures of the Planning 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 Home Development and Home Ownership Program • Bryan Haworth (initiated 1128126) - biclusionary Zoning Bylaw Incentives for developers to include%onstruct neiv units • Ralph Penney (initiated 12110125) o Loss of Commercial /Business Space in BI, B2, and Downtown Areas o Adequacy and Intent ofFirst-Floor Commercial Requirements o Parking as the Primary Driver ofDowntown Redevelopment Outcomes o Employee Parking Expectations and Clario) in the Bylaw o Use and Interpretation of Density Bonuses and Structured Parking o Cumulative Impact of Incremental Decisions o Re-evahration of Planning Board Policies and Site Plan Review Standards r �., a,., w*'i= �-' � �^.—r�^.�.„r.r�^_a^�rrr-✓4/''T---= rr�--S ' -33 w a� �' .r "��~ � ��"� �� n ,�Snx?'. _ .. ,-'a, .. �4. �:.. .r ..a ,�ry � r�r��„'�^-r „w�„ram ..,.a^. ���ir�"-air, t�•^�-^;'ram.- v,". Meeting Minutes — February 25, 2026 Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to approve the minutes as amended. Vote: 4-0-2 [Aye 4, Nay 0, Abstain 2] PASSED Meeting Minutes — March 11, 2026 Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to approve the minutes as submitted. Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED 7a'"� 'x�.�r` �=-.;'w �-., a%�-�r'"",r.„-' �z, '"-' '�� � � �r-� -3•-.- r ~r+,-'":` � w / 'r�.,'Y No items y-'... .r ...i C+AU�i1,£-?'A„U> '.'r''fwr^a.`.�^,�„'" No Comments Planning Board Meeting Minutes 03/25/26 Page 12 of 13 Motion by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Penney to adjourn at 9:54 pm Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is March 25, 2026, at 7: 00 p. m. Date of Approval Documents Presented for the Meeting 1. Meeting Notice Agenda for March 25, 2026 2. Data Center bylaw PowerPoint presentation 3. Applications and supporting documents for the following public hearings: a. 500 East Street and 99 Maple Street b. 71 Maple Street c. Bylaw Amendment - Data Centers d. Citizens Petition e. 150 Oakland Street f. 249 Oakland Street 4. Draft Warrant language street acceptance — Cobb Street (portion) 5. Bill Clemmey's letter for 55+ discussion Planning Board Meeting Minutes 03/25/26 Page 13 of 13