Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 07/22/2026Town of Mansfield i;��: I`if_Il 6 Park Rmv, Mansfield, MA 0204 Planning Board 1YI`eetirig'1GIinates July 22, 2026 Meeting Meld in Person in Meeting Roont 3AM Present: Michael McClanahan/Chair, Ryan Maxwell/Clerk, Joseph Cerretani, Ralph Penney, Sreelatha Allam, Bryan Haworth, Kaitlyn Malkin/Associate, and Michael Parsons/Associate Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Sharon Friedman The meeting was called to order, and the introductory statement for audience members who wish to record the meeting was read. Mr. Haworth was appointed Acting Clerk with Mr. Maxwell attending remotely. It was noted that votes would be by roll call. Regarding the properties located at 87 Central Street and 30 Winthrop Street, to construct a 7,250 SF building to be attached to the existing Building B, to be used for the manufacturing of building materials. The project site is owned by Freetown 3 Acquisition LLC and is shown on Assessor's Plat/Lot 021/189, 021/389, 021/256, and 021/190, within the Industrial 3 (I3) zone. As a direct abutter, Mr. Penney was recused. John Erickson, General Manager, Nathan Dunbar, and Craig Cygawnoski, RIM Engineering, were present. Mr. Erickson provided a history of the industrial property, explaining that it has been used for manufacturing since the 1940s, with multiple building additions over the decades and approvals for a vehicle repair shop (1999) and a building expansion (2011). The current owners acquired the property in 2019, which includes several parcels bordering the MBTA railroad and residential neighborhoods with existing screening, including fencing, berms, and arborvitae, buffering nearby homes. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07/22/26 Page 1 of 7 Mr. Cygawnoski explained that the proposal is to construct an addition (Building Bl) onto the existing manufacturing building (Building B) to accommodate production of a new ultra -high- performance window and door system for a Belgian manufacturer. The expansion is driven by a $1 million investment in specialized equipment and is expected to create six to eight new jobs. The addition will match the existing building in appearance and function, with all loading occurring at grade inside the building and no loading docks. The site is designed to separate customer and employee traffic from truck traffic. Customers and employees will continue using the Central Street entrance, white all delivery tricks will use the Winthrop Street entrance to minimize impacts on nearby residential streets. Additional parking, accessible parking, lighting, drainage improvements, and a new fire hydrant are proposed. The drainage system has been oversized at the Town Engineer's request and designed to avoid impacts to the MBTA railroad corridor. Utility connections will tie into existing water and sewer infrastructure, and the applicant's attorney is researching the status of the adjacent paper street (Waverly Street) as part of the project. The project consists primarily of constructing Building B 1, adding parking spaces, and extending utilities within an area that is already heavily developed and largely impervious. The proposed building area is currently gravel, compacted by decades of industrial use and truck traffic. Approximately 29% of the site remains as open space, primarily along the residential property boundaries where existing buffers are located. Mr. Cygawnoski noted that Town departments have reviewed the project, and the primary outstanding comments came from the Town Engineer, whose review prompted the submission of revised plan details. The Town Engineer's continents were received and addressed the same day through revised plans. The revisions corrected minor inconsistencies, clarified the required 10-foot separation between water and sewer lines, ensured adequate cover over the force main, and addressed excavation concerns near the MBTA railroad, where seven feet of unsuitable fill will be removed while avoiding the railroad's protected work zone. Ms. Raposa confirmed that the applicant had resolved outstanding comments related to landscaping, lighting, and other site plan details, leaving only a question about whether the reduction in open space requires zoning relief or can be addressed by the Building Commissioner during the building permit process. She concluded that the project meets the site plan approval criteria. She also recommended granting the applicant's request for a reduced application fee based on the 17,400-square-foot area of disturbance rather than the full 17-acre parcel, while still requiring payment of the standard $2- per-abutter notification fee. Motion by Mr. Haworth, seconded by Mr. Ceretani, to grant a partial waiver from the Planning Board filing fee requirements for the Sunrise Erectors site plan application to be an application fee of $690 for the area of disturbance plus an abutters notification fee of $398 for 199 abutters, totaling $1,088. Roll Call Vote: Ryan Maxwell, Aye; Joseph Cerretani, Aye; Sreelatha Allam, Aye; Bryan Haworth, Aye; Michael McClanahan, Aye Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Mr. Erickson stated that the company employs approximately 350 people, with its main office in Canton and about 200 field employees. The Mansfield expansion is expected to create five to six new jobs without changing the current operating homy, which are generally 7:00 am to 4:30 pm. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07/22/26 Page 2 of 7 Mr. Cerretani raised questions about the number of exterior light fixtures proposed for the addition. The applicant explained that the lighting was designed by the project architect and supported by a photometric plan demonstrating no light spillover onto neighboring properties. The fixtures are LED, dimmable, and can be adjusted if necessary. In response to Ms. Allam's questions, Mr. Erickson confirmed that the new addition (Building BI) will be physically connected to the existing Building B by removing the separating wall once the new building has been constructed. Building code and emergency egress requirements will be addressed during the building permit review. Existing parking is not fully utilized, with an estimated 10 to 1,5 spaces typically remaining available each day, and additional parking is being added to support the expansion, including one new handicap space. Ms. Allam recommended that the applicant proactively notify the MBTA of the project and obtain a letter of no objection before construction begins to avoid potential issues related to work near the railroad right-of-way. The Board discussed that the application is a modification to an existing site plan approval for a long-established industrial property that has existed since tine 1940s, predating the existing zoning. Because the property has expanded incrementally over time, each new construction project has gone through review, but a comprehensive baseline for the entire site's lot coverage, impervious area, or open space has never been established. The 2011 approval only identified that impervious area removed was offset by impervious area added, resulting in a net "wash," without documenting total site calculations. Discussion continued on whether the current proposal would similarly result in a net change for lot coverage and open space and whether the reduction in open space or increase in a pre-existing nonconformity would require additional zoning relief Ms. Raposa indicated this issue was not a barrier to site plan approval but would need to be resolved during the building permit review, potentially involving a determination by the Building Commissioner or, if required, a finding by the Zoning Board of Appeals that the change is substantially consistent with the neighborhood character. She farther noted that recent changes to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A, Section 6, regarding nonconforming structures and uses, may provide additional flexibility. The proposed open space and lot coverage changes were disuussed, noting that while improvements to open space are typically preferred, the industrial nature of the property makes additional impervious surface reasonable. Mr. Erickson explained that paved areas help contain potential spills and reduce the risk of contamination entering groundwater. He also described prior enviromnental cleanup efforts, including the removal of approximately 4,400 tons of contaminated soil, discovery and removal of previously unknown underground storage tanks, and an overall investment of approximately $650,000 to remediate the property. Mr. Haworth referenced a parcel boundary issue raised by the Assessors' Office. Because the proposed building addition crosses multiple contiguous parcels (87 Central Street and 30 Winthrop Street), including two registered land parcels, there may be challenges assigning the new building footprint for assessment and taxation purposes. Mr. Erickson indicated that their attorney had said that there is no need to merge the parcels. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07/22/26 Page 3 of 7 Ms. Raposa suggested that the Board may want to include a condition requiring the applicant to work with the appropriate Town departments to resolve the issue. Mr. Maxwell expressed support for the project, noting that converting existing paved/underutilized industrial space into a productive manufacturing use that creates jobs outweighs concerns about a minor reduction in open space. There were no public conunents. Ms. Raposa reviewed the potential conditions of approval for parcel/registered land issue, open space/zoning table, landscaping and screening, lighting (reduced at 9:00 pin), refuse and waste, traffic/site circulation, no expansion beyond approval, and notice fee. These conditions are in addition to the standard conditions per the rules and regulations. There were no further Board comments. Motion by Mr. Cerretani, seconded by Mr. Haworth, that the Planning Board approve the Site Plan Approval Modification for Sunrise Erectors at 87 Central Street / 30 Winthrop Street, pursuant to Mansfield Zoning Bylaw §230-5.3, for construction of the proposed Building B 1 manufacturing addition and associated site improvements, as shown on the plans prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc., as revised through July 21, 2026, subject to the findings and conditions discussed this evening and as set forth in the staff report. Roll Call Vote: Ryan Maxwell, Aye; Joseph Cerretani, Aye; Sreelatlra Allam, Aye; Bryan Haworth, Aye; Michael McClanahan, Aye Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Before the Zoning Act review, the Board had a brief discussion regarding the assessment of land disturbance fees, whether it should be a waiver request or if the Rules and Regulations should be changed. Ms. Raposa reviewed recent changes to the Massachusetts Zoning Act that took effect July 1, focusing on how they will affect local zoning administration and future bylaw amendments. The most significant change is the revision to the variance standard, which replaces the traditional hardship test with a more flexible balancing test based on "practical difficulty," giving ZBAs greater discretion in evaluating variance requests. Members discussed how this approach more closely resembles the balancing analysis already used for special permits and may make variance decisions easier to defend. Ms. Raposa also reviewed several procedural changes to Chapter 40A, including allowing electronic notification for certain zoning amendment requests, clarifying when zoning protections begin for pending applications, extending building permit protection from 12 months to 24 months, creating a three-year zoning protection period for special permits and site plan approvals, and extending the abandonment period for non-use from two years to four years. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07/22/26 Page 4 of 7 Some of the statutory changes will require updates to Mansfield's zoning bylaws, likely to be proposed at Spring Town Meeting. She also referenced a notable new provision allowing applicants to seek a residential use variance on non-residential properties, potentially enabling vacant office, retail, or commercial sites to be redeveloped for housing if the ZBA finds the practical difficulty standard has been met. The Board acknowledged this could have significant implications for future redevelopment and housing production while noting that each application will continue to be evaluated on its individual merits. The Board discussed new provisions permitting electronic hearing notices to interested property owners and explored ways the Town could better collect email addresses and use existing communication channels, such as utility bills and the Town newsletter, to improve public outreach on zoning matters. • 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 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 (nnore teeth) o (initiated 2125126) —Bill HD.5686, An Act Establishing the !Missing-A1lliddle Starter Home Development and Home Ownership Program • Bryan Haworth (initiated 1128126) - Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw Incentives for developers to inclydelconstruct 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 ofbncremental Decisions o Re-evaluation of Planning Board Policies and Site Plan Review Standards No discussion of these items. Bylaw Amendments for STM The Planning Board reviewed upcoming zoning articles for Fall Town Meeting, including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), floodplain zoning amendments, and a minor change regarding primary dwellings. The public hearing will be on August 26`h with a secondary hearing on September 91". Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07/22/26 Page 5 of 7 The Board discussed proposed ADU setback requirements by zoning district with updated language to establish the setbacks. Ms. Raposa also clarified that existing nonconforming accessory structures may be converted to habitable ADUs where protected under Chapter 40A, Section 3, subject to applicable requirements. 8:30 pm Ms. Allcnn departed the meeting. Ms. Raposa noted that future zoning discussions will include 55+ housing districts, business districts, and the proposed North Main Street Overlay District, with additional public outreach planned during the fall and winter before potential Spring Town Meeting action. 8: 32 pm Mr. Maxwell departed the meeting. A discussion ensued of pending state legislation that could allow duplexes by right in single- family zoning districts, as well as a proposed ballot question permitting single-family homes on 5,000-square-foot lots by right. Members observed that these state initiatives, if adopted, could significantly affect local zoning. The Board discussed the Commonwealth's growing emphasis on housing production, noting that legislators are responding to both the state's housing shortage and broader economic concerns. Members observed that many lawmakers are personally experiencing housing affordability challenges and that Massachusetts is seeking to retain residents and strengthen its economy though housing initiatives. They noted that these goals have driven recent state policies, including housing provisions within the economic development bill and the adoption of MBTA Communities requirements. Following the departure of the Town's former Economic Development Director, Ms. Raposa has increased involvement in economic development efforts for the Town. She explained that, over the past year, she has developed a greater interest and understanding of economic development through professional training and expanded responsibilities. Meeting Minutes — Aly 8, 2026 Moved to August 26, 2026 No items Mr. Penney inquired about the status of the previously approved Pratt Street four -unit condo project. There was some uncertainty about the project's current status. One member believed construction had begun after seeing equipment on the site, while another reported that the property had been listed for sale and, according to the Building Inspector, no work had started. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07/22/26 Page 6 of 7 Mr. Pemmey also inquired about the proposed small cottage -style housing development across from the Chocolate Factory. Ms. Raposa responded that the owner has been addressing geotechnical issues, additional ledge discovered on the site, and conflicts between Board of Health regulations and building code requirements, including concerns related to minimum bedroom or kitchen sizes. The project is on hold and is expected to come back before the Board in the future. Motion by Mr. Penney, seconded by Mr. Cerretani, to adjourn at 8:45 pm Vote: 4-0-0 [Aye 4, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED The date of the Next Planning Board Meeting is August 26, 2026, at 7: 00 p.m. 1'W� Clerk Kra na e// Documents Presented for the Mectin Date of Approval 1. Meeting Notice Agenda for July 22, 2026 2. 37 Central Street and 30 Winthrop Street application and supporting documents 3. Meeting Minutes draft for July 8, 2026 4. Zoning Bylaw Articles for discussion Planning Board Meeting Minutes 07/22/26 Page 7 of 7