HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 04/22/2026xo,;�' RECEIVED
04YN CLERKS OFFICE
ASAO\5 TOZb MAY 28 A 8: Zi
PSANSFIELD Meeting Minutes
P�ASS,kI(:IrtlSEjjc April22,2026
Town of Mansfield
6 Park Iorv, [Mansfield, MA 02048
Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Room 3A/B
Planning Board
Present: Sharon Friedman/Chair, Mark Corsillo/Clerk, Joseph Cerretani, Ralph Permey,
Michael McClanahan, Ryan Maxwell, Sreelatha Allam, 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.
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 at 150 Oaldand Street. 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 were Andrew Hayes/Owner, Johanna Schneider/Attorney, Phil Cordeiro/Civil Engineer, Eric
Halvorsen/Economic Development Consultant, and Cindy Lee/Architect.
Mr. Hayes reminded the Board that they are seeking a special permit modification for two reasons: to
restore and formalize 19 affordable housing units as originally approved in 2016, ensuring they are
properly restricted and counted on the Town's subsidized housing inventory; and to convert the 8,500-
square-foot stone Building B from approved commercial use into eight residential units, including one
affordable unit. After Board concerns were raised in February about removing commercial space and the
building's viability as a restaurant, the applicant delayed the March hearing to connnission a retail
viability study. That study, conducted by Eric Halverson of RKG Associates, was presented to help the
Board assess whether conunercial use remains feasible for the property.
The Assessor's conunents indicate that the proposed change would increase the property's assessed value
by approximately $600,000, effectively doubling the value of that portion of the site from its current
assessment. However, the use change would also shift the property from the commercial tax rate to the
residential tax rate.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 04/22/26 Page 1 of 9
Mr. Halvorsen explained that the analysis focused on whether Building B is realistically viable for
commercial use, given its long-term vacancy and the proposed residential conversion. He argued that the
proposal aligns with the Town's prior planning goals by reactivating a vacant building, generating
income, and supporting fiscal sustainability.
Market data showed that the broader retail sector is facing rising vacancies, negative absorption, and flat
rental growth, signs that demand has leveled off both locally and nationally. In Mansfield alone, over
26,000 square feet of retail space is currently vacant, and the Town has more retail space per capita than
the national average. A local demand analysis found limited support for additional retail or restaurant
space near the site, especially within a one -mile radius, where only a few hundred square feet of new
restaurant demand was identified, far below the building's 8,500-square-foot size. Even within a three-
mile radius, projected demand remained modest relative to the space scale.
The study also showed that most locally owned businesses and restaurants in Mansfield occupy much
smaller footprints, generally under 5,000 square feet, making the building oversized for the target market.
Financial Modeling suggested that even with conservative rents, a restaurant would need unusually high
sales per square foot to remain viable, well above typical Mansfield restaurant performance. Additional
barriers include the building's challenging layout, lack of existing restaurant infrastructure, historic
preservation constraints, and the high upfront investment required for tenant improvements. Together,
these factors were presented as evidence that commercial reuse is difficult and that residential conversion
may be the more practical long-term option.
Mr. Halvorsen presented cost estimates showing that converting the space into a restaurant would be
exceptionally expensive. While second -generation restaurant spaces typically require lower renovation
costs, this building is considered a fast -generation space with no existing restaurant infrastructure,
pushing build -out costs to roughly $600 per square foot, or potentially around $5 million. That level of
investment, combined with industry risks and ongoing operating expenses, makes the space financially
challenging for prospective tenants.
Parking was identified as another major obstacle. Of the site's 373 spaces, only about 47 remain available
for Building B. Under zoning requirements, a restaurant of this size could need over 100 parking spaces,
and market expectations may demand even more. This shortfall further reduces the building's
attractiveness for restaurant use. He concluded that these factors help explain the building's long-term
vacancy. He also suggested that, if the Town wishes to preserve future commercial opportunities, another
building on site, Building E, May be a more practical location due to its easier access and larger available
parking area.
Mr. Hayes referenced that Building E would be a teardown and rebuild and they are open to including a
retail component for that building. He emphasized that the key challenges with Building B, a stone
building, are its size, location, and physical limitations. Based on the consultant's analysis, smaller retail
spaces are better suited to the site and surrounding market conditions. He suggested that Building E
presents a more practical long-term opportunity for future conunercial use, as it could be designed and
sized in a way that better supports retailer and operator success.
Mr. Corsillo raised the possibility of attracting a specialty grocer, such as Roche Brothers' smaller
Brothers Market concept, to the site, with the idea that it could serve commuters, nearby residents, and fill
a gap in that area of Town. The applicant agreed to consider the idea, but noted that Building B's layout,
particularly its extensive windows and historic tax credit restrictions, also creates challenges for grocery
use. Mr. Hayes confirmed that their request remains focused on converting Building B into eight
residential units, while viewing Building E as the future location for commercial or retail use.
\ Planning Board Meeting Minutes 04/22/26 Page 2 of 9
However, he acknowledged there is no set timeline for that future development. It was also confirmed that
Building B has been vacant since at least 2018, and likely longer. The applicant provided additional
background on prior marketing efforts for Building B, noting that a potential lease had previously been
negotiated for 3,300 square feet of the building, but it never moved forward. That proposal also required
50 dedicated parking spaces, highlighting another barrier to commercial occupancy. The main building
has Rill occupancy, with mixed demographics, and they expect that trend to continue.
Ms. Friedman noted that the applicant's request for the Board's consideration is for residential units in
Building B, and that in the future, Building E would be razed and rebuilt for mixed use.
Board Conurient
Mr. McClanahan had no further comments.
Mr. Penney recalled the former chocolate factory as a major employer and community asset, emphasizing
the economic and emotional loss when it closed. He questioned whether sufficient effort was made to
lease the vacant cormnercial space and cautioned against continued conversion of commercial properties
into residential use, arguing it threatens the town's economic balance. He expressed that demand still
exists for certain conunercial tenants, including professional offices and restaurants, which can serve as
anchors for surrounding businesses. While acknowledging the challenges and costs of redeveloping an
older industrial building, he argued that owners should be more flexible, such as helping with build -out
costs, to make commercial uses feasible instead of defaulting to residential development.
Mr. Cerretani contended that the commercial space was not effectively marketed since 2018, with COVID
disrupting key years for leasing opportunities. He believed the previous owner prioritized residential
development while treating the commercial component as secondary, noting that the properly had little to
no visible listing presence. Based on his experience in commercial real estate, he concluded that
insufficient effort was made to attract tenants, despite the strong economic analysis presented.
Mr. Haworth questioned the parking dedicated to Building B. Ms. Schneider replied that the parking was
based on the previously issued special permit, which also only permitted a restaurant for Building B's use.
Mr. Penney inquired whether the special permit use could be changed. Ms. Schneider was unsure, but
noted that the presentation had shown that a restaurant would not be a viable use of the property. She
noted that the removal of the special permit restaurant condition would only help to the extent that they
could find potential tenants for other types of commercial use.
Ms. Raposa suggested that a restaurant may not fit Building B based on current market standards, but a
restaurant could work in Building E in the firture. She suggested that future planning should focus on
creating adaptable, market -driven commercial spaces, but cautioned that without more detailed
information, modifying the special permit could risk repeating past shortcomings.
Mr. Hayes said that commercial use within the existing 8,500 SF Building B is not financially viable due
to its size and market limitations. He explained that national retail brokers typically target larger -scale
users, but the property faces several challenges that make it unattractive for those tenants. He felt that
firture development in Building E offers a stronger opportunity to create properly scaled conunercial
spaces that could support sustainable, long-term businesses.
Mr. Corsillo expressed that he would be more amenable to converting Building E for conunercial first,
then reviewing Building B for residential. Mr. Hayes responded that a switch to Building E would be a
greater financial and time -intensive endeavor.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 04/22/26 Page 3 of 9
Mr. Haworth asked if the razing of Building E could be a condition of the approval. He noted the growing
number of requests to convert commercial space into residential use, viewing it as a broader market signal
rather than isolated cases. He argued that while the Town may want more commercial activity, the market
suggests that there is insufficient demand to make certain spaces viable. Given the challenges of adapting
a historic building for restaurant use, including high startup costs and structural limitations, he believed it
was more practical to support a productive new use rather than leave the space vacant. Ultimately, He
sees the market as an indication that it is time to reconsider the building's purpose.
Ms. Allan expressed concern that it was unclear whether the vacant space had been adequately marketed
since 2018, especially given the lack of visible advertising efforts. She believed more exploration is
needed before abandoning commercial use, including revising permit language to allow a broader range
of business types rather than limiting it to restaurant rise. She also raised concerns about the plans for
Building E, questioning whether the Town could face the same request years later to convert additional
commercial space into residential use. Overall, she felt that there were still unanswered questions and
gaps in the proposal.
Mr. Cerretani emphasized that the project was originally presented as mixed -use, to create a small, active
community where people live, gather, and interact. He noted that the value of mixed -use development lies
in adding amenities and services that make the space vibrant, not simply residential units. While
acknowledging that the original focus on restaurant use may have been too narrow, the intent should
remain broader conunercial activity that supports community life, such as shops, restaurants, or service
businesses.
Mr. Hayes acknowledged the Board's concerns but emphasized that their position is grounded in both
market data and extensive retail expertise. He noted that their team, along with third -party consultants,
understands tenant needs and believes the evidence supports their conclusion that the current conunercial
space is not viable. He argued that adding residential use is the best way to activate the site in line with
the Town's master plan, while preserving future opportunities in Building E for a more sustainable and
appropriately scaled retail program.
Mr. Maxwell echoed the sentiment of the other Board members. He was not in favor of removing
commercial space from the original permit for residential use. He described the commercial component as
an essential "carrot" of the project and something they would want to preserve. At a minimum, he
believed the permit should be amended to allow broader conmiercial uses rather than limiting it to just a
restaurant.
Mr. Corsillo argued that the site is uniquely positioned in Town and should be viewed as having strong
commercial potential, especially given the success of nearby restaurants. He suggested exploring
incentives, such as state programs to support the redevelopment of vacant storefronts, to help offset costs
and encourage commercial use. He also raised concerns about public safety impacts and questioned
whether adding residential units would increase service calls. While acknowledging modest fiscal benefits
from increased property value and tax revenue, he believed these are outweighed by the loss of
commercial opportunity. He proposed alternative uses like a market, art space, or co -working facility to
activate the site and cautioned approving a residential conversion before ensuring meaningful commercial
redevelopment, particularly in fixture building plans.
The Board considered the options for the special permit modification based on the discussion. Ms.
Schneider also reminded the Board that, in addition to seeking a change of use for Building B, they were
also asking to revert to the original affordable units.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 04/22/26 Page 4 of 9
Mr. Hayes explained that they have met with the police to review the history of emergency calls at the
site. Part of the acquisition would be to bring in a full-time, on -site management company as part of the
redevelopment. This would be an improvement to both the market and current residents, and would help
reduce emergency call volume in coordination with the police.
Ms. Friedman agreed that creating a micro community is very important. She supported maintaining the
historic building in commercial use rather than converting it to restaurant -only or residential use, and
suggested exploring broader commercial possibilities. She encouraged further, more practical evaluation
of future development options for Building E through preliminary planning work to understand feasibility
and economics. Given the current market uncertainty, she questioned whether a residential conversion of
Building B is feasible at this time and expressed concern about approving a change now only to revisit the
same issues later. She suggested that if a well -planned commercial plan for Building E is achievable, there
may be more opemiess to adjusting the project's flexibility.
Ms. Raposa suggested permit modification language for the Board to consider. Ms. Schneider responded
that the language is moving in the right direction and offered that they would not want the language styled
as a denial of the request for residential conversion that would preclude them from refiling the same
application after the marketing period concludes. She also had reservations, on her client's behalf, about
tying the reapplication to a submission of a plan for building E.
Ms. Friedman suggested that residential consideration for Building B is not off the table, but as a
modification to move forward in the Town's best interest. Ms. Raposa said she could draft language
acceptable to everyone.
Ms. Raposa restated the draft language that would allow the modification of the special permit decision to
allow for the conmmercial uses allowed in the MSROD district. Also, allowing the original 19 affordable
units with the SHI language previously mentioned, with the condition that the applicant can come back in
nine months with a demonstrated marketing plan or record if they are unable to lease up with the broader
spectrum of commercial uses. Building E would not be tied into the conditions other than for an update on
market conditions.
Public Continent — There were no public continents.
Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. Cerretani to close the public hearing.
Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED
Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. Corsillo for Ms. Raposa to coordinate with the applicant to
modify the special permit final language per preliminary draft language "to modify the special permit to
allow Building B to be used for the commercial uses listed in the MSROD district and remove the
restriction that it only be used for a restaurant. To revert the original 19 affordable units with a plan or
timeline for getting the units properly on the subsidized housing inventory, with the condition that the
applicant may reapply after a nine -month marketing period if the eight units are still necessary or
desired."
Board Deliberation
Mr. McClanahan (in favor) said the benefits outweigh the detriments
Mr. Penney (in favor) felt that the benefits outweigh the detriments.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 04/22/26 Page 5 of 9
Mr. Cerretani (in favor) said that the benefits outweigh the detriment and felt that this modification was
the proper result.
Ms. Allum (in favor) agreed with the other Board members.
Mr. Maxwell (in favor) also agreed with other Board members.
Mr. Corsillo (in favor) did not feel that there were any detriments to the modification, and the original
special permit was unnecessarily restrictive.
Ms. Friedman (in favor) said the benefits outweigh the detriments and is looking forward to the marketing
results.
Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED
Design review per the 2005 special permit. The applicant submitted materials for storefront modifications
associated with a new tenant, MiniLuxe.
• Installation of face -lit channel letter signage
• Addition of a decorative backer panel system (wood -look composite slats on ACM backing)
• Mounting to the existing fagade system
Ms. Raposa recommended approval, as the change is minor. Ms. Friedman inquired how the backlighting
differs from the rest of the buildings. Mr. McClanahan replied that it only creates a shadow and does not
emit outward light.
Ms. Raposa noted that the 2005 special permit required fagade changes to be reviewed by both the
planning director and Planning Board, an uncommion rule for this type of property in Mansfield. The
Board's recent approach has been that if WS Management approves the proposed fagade changes, the
Planning Board is likely to support them as well.
Kate Colon with Metro Sign was present remotely on behalf of MiniLuxe. She stated that the proposal
involves an exterior sign change that would not permanently alter or damage the existing fagade. Because
it can be removed if needed, the impact is minimal, making firtme updates, such as changing signage after
a few years, low -risk.
Motion by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to approve the proposed fagade alteration.
Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED
Ms. Raposa said that she is seeking a recommiendation for the updated fee schedule, based on changes
discussed at the last meeting, to submit to the Select Board. The changes focused on organization and
clarity. The update also makes previously unclear items explicit, especially for special permits, and
reflects a comprehensive review of the zoning bylaw and use table to ensure all planting Board actions
and required permits are properly included.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 04/22/26 Page 6 of 9
Mr. Penney was opposed to the fee increases, arguing that added costs reduce affordability and are
ultimately passed on to buyers, making projects more expensive in an already challenging economy.
Mr. Corsillo asked if fees could be stacked. Ms. Raposa replied that only for large-scale projects, if other
fees apply. Overall, the proposed fee increase is minimal based on a regional review of surrounding town
fees.
Motion by Mr. Corsillo and seconded by Mr. Maxwell that the Plaraiing Board recommend the proposed
Planning Board fee schedule, as discussed, to the Select Board for consideration as part of the Town -wide
fee review.
Vote: 6-1-0 [Aye 6, Nay 1, Abstain 0] PASSED
Ms. Friedman noted that she and Mr. Corsillo had attended the last Select Board meeting. There was a
positive reception to the portion of Cobb Street acceptance. Ms. Raposa clarified that there was a clerical
error in 2008 where the plans were not recorded at the Registry of Deeds within 120 days of town meeting
acceptance of the road.
• Parkway/Transit Oriented Development
• Zoning Bylaul 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 Home Ownership Program
• Bryan Haworth (initiated 1128126) - Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw IncentNes,for developers to
include%onstruct new units
• Ralph Penney (initiated 12110125)
o Loss of Commercial / Business Space in BI, 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 oflncremental Decisions
o Re-evaluation of Planning Board Policies and Site Plan Review Standards
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 04/22/26 Page 7 of 9
Meeting Minutes — Allarch 25 2026
Motion by Mr. Penney 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 for 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
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 Meeting Minutes 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
No items
Ms. Raposa updated the Board on two items:
• The OR 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. Key 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 planning 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.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 04/22/26 Page 8 of 9
Mr. Corsillo commended 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.
Mr. Corsillo also noted that Mr. Cahill's West Street scenic road wall restoration is completed.
Ms. Raposa said that the Town Engineer's approval is also needed as part of their approval.
10: Adjpurnment
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 May 13, 2026, at 7:00 p.m.
R 1512,1ia
Clerk t�(?� ����xu��, j� Date of Approval
Documents Presented for the Meeting
1. Meeting Notice Agenda for April 22, 2026
2. Meeting Minutes, April 8, 2026
3. 150 Oakland Street application and supporting documents
4. 280 School Street Special Permit Modification, MiniLuxe application, and sign plan
5. Planning Board application fees for submission to Select Board
Planning Board Meeting Minutes 04/22/M Page 9 of 9