Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 04/08/2026Town of Man4field 6 Park Rory, Mansfield,, AL-102048 Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 8, 2026 Meeting Hell in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B 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 Allarn 1. Planning hoard Meeting Called to Order at 7:00 pin= Ms. Friedman called the meeting to order and read the introductory statement for audience members who wish to record the meeting. 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 necessary to rezone from its present classification of Industrial I (1-1) to the classification of Residence 2 (R-2). Bill Clemmey was in attendance for the article petition. He described the parcel as two roughly three -acre lots located behind Erin's Center shopping plaza, noting it was originally zoned residential (R2), rezoned to industrial (I-1) in 2012 for anticipated retail development, and is now proposed to be rezoned back to R2 due to declining retail demand and increased need for housing. Mr. Clemmey clarified that a small access strip connecting to South Walnut Street has always remained residential and could legally be used for residential access, though it may not meet frontage requirements without Planning Board relief. He emphasized that no specific project is being proposed, only a zoning change. He noted that multi -unit apartments are not allowed in the R2 zone. Although a 55+ residential development is the most likely scenario. That type of development would require a special permit and further board review. He reasoned that residential use would likely be less impactful than allowed industrial uses, highlighted that traffic and access would be addressed through required studies and state approvals, and noted that any fixture development would undergo additional scrutiny, conditions, and public input before proceeding. Mr. Clemmey clarified that the residential access strip between the houses would not be required for a future project; however, the fire department may want it for emergency access. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 04/08/26 Page I ol7 Board Comment Mr. Penney asked how many 55+ units could be constructed at the site. Mr. Clemmey said that based on the site size and current special permit requirements, a 55+ project could have approximately 40-50 1- or 2-bedroom units. Under the current Il zone, recreational storage, transfer station, or storage units are allowed, but would not make sense there. Mr. Clernmey noted that they had intended to use the site for retail, as the highest and best use, but it was unsuccessful. In his opinion, the change to R2 is more restrictive, but a better use for a potential 55+ development. Mr. Cerretani felt that the zoning change would be better for the abutters. Some of the Il allowed uses would not be conducive to the neighborhood. He recommended that if a 55+ community were to be proposed in the future, buffers and vegetation be included in a proposal. Mr. Haworth agreed with Mr. Cerretani that R2 would be less intrusive, potentially not as invasive as what would be allowed under I1. He reasoned that the zoning decision should be based on what best serves the Town overall, not on specific development proposals. He noted that the lots have been vacant for 14 years without industrial use, suggesting little to no demand for industrial zoning: He believed that rezoning to R2 would better serve the Town by encouraging productive use of the land rather than leaving it vacant. Mr. Maxwell confirmed with Mr. Clenmiey that Erin's Center was already built when the parcels were rezoned to industrial in 2012. He agreed with the other Board members that R2 is a less intense and better use of the land. Mr. Corsillo agreed with other Board members and emphasized that I1 zoning allows many uses "by right" (such as warehouses, manufacturing, and offices) without oversight from the Planning Board or input from neighbors. hu contrast, R2 zoning is more restrictive and often requires special permits, giving the town and abutters more say in development. I-Ie noted the area was originally zoned residential and is surrounded by R2, and while some may prefer no development, that's unrealistic. He felt that rezoning to R2 would enable needed housing, especially for 55+, and improve overall housing availability in the town. Mr. Clemmey referenced a recent Select Board meeting where the Council on Aging presented data showing a rapidly growing senior population, highlighting increasing future demand for age -related housing in Town. He agreed that this strengthens the case for residential zoning. He also clarified a prior point about rezoning, that while there has been interest in converting nearby R2 land to I1, that interest is largely driven by visibility and access to Route 140. A specific corner lot attracts commercial buyers (like banks or pharmacies) because of its frontage on 140, whereas the site under discussion does not, making it less appealing for similar conmrercial or industrial uses. Ms. Friedman acknowledged the need for 55+ housing but, after reviewing the Town's Housing Production Plan, emphasized that seniors also want diverse options like townhouses, not just aparhnents. She added that there is also a significant need for starter homes, as that demographic currently struggles to afford housing in Town. She suggested that if the land is rezoned to R2, consideration should be given for 55+ housing and starter homes to better meet overall community needs. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 04/08/26 Page 2 of 7 Public Comment Catherine Harding of 43 South Walnut Street expressed concern for traffic and safety for the property access road onto West Street. She also expressed concern for water runoff onto her property. Dan Palmer of 18 South Walnut Street raised environmental and safety concerns. He noted issues with groundwater and surface water, suggesting conditions may have worsened since nearby developments were built. He also highlighted access and safety problems, pointing out that a sharp turn onto a narrow South Walnut Street could make it difficult for emergency vehicles to navigate, especially with on -street parking. Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to close the public hearing. Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to recommend the Citizen's Petition to the Select Board for town meeting. Vote: 5-1-0 [Aye 5, Nay 1, Abstain 0] PASSED 7: 38 pin Mr. McClanahan left the meeting. Mr. Clemmey explained that he previously submitted a letter encouraging the Planning Board to review the 55+ zoning regulations. He highlighted that the current limit of eight units per building increases development costs by requiring more buildings and infrastructure (e.g., utilities and sprinkler systems), and suggested that allowing 10-12 units per building could be more efficient without changing overall density. He noted that while the zoning allows up to 10 units per acre, actual designs yield fewer units, making building configuration a bigger cost concern than density limits. Overall, he urged the board to conduct a comprehensive review of the 55+ zoning to identify potential improvements and updates that would benefit both developers and the Town. He referenced several diverse 55+ conmumities in Town. Mr. Penney acknowledged that the 55+ bylaw is unique in that no building shall exceed 40 feet, and suggested further review of that requirement. A brief discussion ensued regarding the use of septic versus sewer in 55+ development. Ms. Friedman suggested more management planning for starter homes, village concepts, or a combination of structures (i.e., apartments, townhouses, and single-family homes) for 55+ needs. Mr. Corsillo responded to Mr. Clemrney's earlier comments by emphasizing that the housing production plan calls for lower -density, village -style housing for residents 55+, closer to single- family living, rather than higher -density townhomes or apartment -style developments. He reasoned that increasing density for 55+ housing conflicts with these goals, even if it might produce more units, and stressed the importance of providing a variety of housing types. He opposed the idea of allowing 55+ housing in industrial zones, noting that industrial areas are intended to separate incompatible uses from residential living, making such a proposal inappropriate. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 04/08/26 Page 3 of 7 Ms. Friedman reflected on the Town's broader planning goals, noting that past zoning efforts aimed to create balanced development by attracting business alongside existing industrial areas. However, attracting desired industries has become more difficult over time. As a result, there is a need to thoughtfitlly and intentionally reassess how land is used, considering both property owner interests and evolving community needs. She supported continuing a balanced, data - driven approach, guided by studies as noted in the housing production plan and recent master plan. 1100111 4 Ms. Raposa reviewed the schedule and Board attendance as follows: • Select Board's warrant hearing on April 15'h. (Mr. Corsillo and Ms. Friedman) • Information session at the Council on Aging Library on May 1st at 10:30 am. (Ms. Raposa and Ms. Friedman + any other Board members) • May 51h Annual Town Meeting Planning Board reports on: o Article 14 - Cobb Street (Ms. Friedman) o Article 22 — Date Centers (Mr. Corsillo and Ms. Raposa) Ms. Raposa noted that for the Data Center article, the plan is to keep the report at a higher level to underscore the point that the Board is prohibiting large-scale data centers and allowing smaller -scale centers. Ms. Raposa noted that this discussion began in 2024, but was put on hold until. the Town could do a comprehensive review of fees, which the Select Board would like to undertake at this time. Ms. Raposa explained that a review of the current fee structure found it to be outdated (largely unchanged since 2002), lower than surrounding communities, and not filly covering administrative costs such as staff time, application reviews, and department head review meetings. She proposed updates to better align fees with actual costs, including changes to special permit fees, residential compound fees, and adding new categories for uses not previously included. She said that fees are meant to cover the Town's costs, not generate profit, and suggested passing certain direct expenses, like the abutter mailings, on to the applicants. Overall, the goal is to modernize the fee schedule, improve clarity, and ensure the Town is not subsidizing development review costs. Mr. Corsillo referenced the scenic road fees and suggested additional review to address the imbalance between fees and infraction fines. The Town took an initiative to add sign toppers to scenic road street signs. Discussion ensued for infractions and the course of action to address them. The Board agreed that the $50 infraction fine is insufficient and should be increased. Ms. Raposa noted that the enforcement officer is the Tree Warden, who is also the DPW Director, and that is the person who would issue the violation fine. She also noted that the Town is improving awareness of scenic road rules by adding announcements to the newsletter, helping inform residents who didn't know they were affected. Ms. McGill read the list of scenic roads for the Board's information. Mr. Corsillo suggested that a webpage be added to the Town site for scenic roads and noted that, currently, there is a scenic road overlay map in GIS. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 04/08/26 Page 4 of 7 Ms. Raposa explained that the Select Board can issue special permits for temporary nonprofit uses in I-1 zones (beyond standard time limits), such as for entertainment or festival licenses. She suggested adding this to the use table and flagging it to ensure the Select Board follows proper special permit procedures under state law. Ms. Raposa asked the Board members to submit any comments to her before the next meeting's continued discussion. U Parkway/Transit Oriented Development Zoning Bylaiv 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 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 Horne Otvner•ship Program • Bryan Haworth (initiated 1128126) - Inclusionary Zoning Bylary Incentives for developers to include%onstr•uct new units • Ralph Penney (initiated 12110125) o Loss of Conunercial / Business Space in B1, B2, and Downtown Areas o Adequacy and Intent of First -Floor Commercial Requirements o Parking as the Primary Driver of Downtown Redevelopment Outcomes o 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 AN 110 ' Q , , ,. Meeting Minutes — March 25, 2026 Motion by Mr. Pemrey and seconded by Mr. Maxwell to approve the minutes as submitted. Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Executive Session Meeting Minutes Lor approval and NOT release —April 24, 2024 Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. Cerretani to approve and not release the minutes as submitted. Vote: 4-0-2 [Aye 4, Nay 0, Abstain 2] PASSED Planning Board Meeting Minutes 04/08/26 Page 5 of 7 Executive Session Meeting Minutes for approval and release — January 25 2023 Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. Cerretani to approve the minutes as submitted. Vote: 4-0-2 [Aye 4, Nay 0, Abstain 2] PASSED Executive Session MeelingMinutes for approval and release — February 2 2023 Motion by Mr. Cerretani and seconded by Mr. Penney to approve the minutes as submitted. Vote: 4-0-2 [Aye 4, Nay 0, Abstain 2] PASSED NWg � WOM No items v 0, r, Ms. Raposa updated the Board on two items: • The 40R feasibility study work session is on hold due to floodplain and floodway constraints. Further analysis is needed to determine if the site is viable, and updates will follow. • Draft zoning bylaw amendments are being prepared for possible submission at the fall town meeting. ICey items include updates to B4 zoning (including potential multifamily by special permit), ADU setback provisions, clarifying minimum size requirements for primary dwellings, aligning senior parking rules, and revising the North Main Street overlay to require special permits and prevent loss of commercial space. Ms. McGill said that eCode had recently included updates to the Town's online bylaw and would forward the information to the Board. Ms. Friedman reported on a productive, extended meeting with the new Town Manager, where they briefed her on ongoing plaiming items. She was supportive of the Board's direction and shared initial ideas of her own. There was a brief discussion on improving how public hearings are scheduled and opened. It was noted that delaying hearings can frustrate attendees and suggest more realistic scheduling, possibly grouping items or adjusting order based on attendance, while balancing the need to follow posted agendas and avoid making ad hoc changes a regular practice. Mr. Corsillo cominended Mr. Crugnali for allowing the fire department to use a building slated for demolition on West Church Street for valuable training exercises, noting it as a generous and beneficial opportunity. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 04/08/26 Page 6 of 7 "J�2"aur-a`"'Y L z'zs,,.w ✓ '='�}Y�.-r'y�' ,y '`�,„:.„ �-., i fr' r' ,..✓�,-.-,^�-.��ry, '.,-"'-=.` _.ram-- '-" rr,�,-✓�,.�. ,:-�.-., � ,�.�.G ,.�,.�-.!,.-..l'.". �.�„ Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. Corsillo to adjourn at 9:06 pm Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is April 22, 2026, at 7:00 p. m. y2- Date of Approval 1. Meeting Notice Agenda for April 8, 2026 2. Meeting Minutes, March 25, 2026 3. Executive Session Minutes, January 25, 2023, February 2, 2023, and April 24, 2024 4. Citizen's Petition (William Clemmey) for Annual Town Meeting 5. Bill Clenmey's letter for 55+ discussion Planning Board Meeting Minutes 04/08/26 Page 7 of 7