Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 08/26/2026��pEp1N0[I)J , Aglf�AS A6S5SP 2�26 1' 10 'A I? I i� Meeting Minutes August 26, 2026 Meeting Held in Person in Meeting Roonr 3A/B L_ Town of Mansfield 6 Park Row, Alansfield,, AiIA 0204 Planning Board Present: Michael McClanahan/Chair, Ryan Maxwell/Clerk, Ralph Penney, Sharon Friedman, Sreelatha Allam, Biyan Haworth, Kaitlyn Malkin/Associate, and Michael Parsons/Associate Sarah Raposa, Director of Planning & Development Priscilla McGill, Administrative Secretary Absent: Joseph Cerretani The meeting was called to order, and the introductory statement for audience members who wish to record the meeting was read. Regarding the application of Faceoff Holdings LLC for a Special Permit and Site Plan Application pursuant to Bylaw Sections 230-5.5 and 230-5.3 for a residential compound consisting of five new single- family residential dwellings, along with all associated driveways, landscaping, utilities, and stormwater management systems at 0 Gilbert Street. The project site is owned by Joan M. Zarek Trust and is shown on Assessor's Map/Lot 004/003, within the Residential 1 (R-1) zone. Regarding the application of Faceoff Holdings LLC for the removal of five trees and the removal of the stone wall (approximate dimensions: 19' long x 1' high) within the Town right-of-way along Gilbert Street, a designated Scenic Road, to improve sight lines and safety for the proposed Residential Compound access. The hearing is held in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 167, Scenic Roads, of the Town of Mansfield General By -Laws. The subject property is located at 0 Gilbert Street and is owned by Joan M. Zarek Trust and is shown on Assessor's Map/Lot 004/003, within the Residential 1 (R- 1) zone. Mr. List disclosed that the office he works for does work with the architect for this project. He completed the appropriate disclosure paperwork. There was no opposition that there would be any conflict. Daniel Merrikin of Legacy Engineering LLC was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Merrikin noted the submission of the applications for a special permit and scenic road. He referenced a previous conversation with the Board for a conceptual plan discussion. He presented a proposal for a five -unit residential compound at 0 Gilbert Street, consisting of approximately 27.6 acres Planning Board Meeting Minutes 08/26/26 Page 1 of 10 with wetland in the south portion that has been flagged by a botanist. There is also a 50-foot access strip in the northeast corner. As part of a residential compound, there is a requirement for a traditional subdivision yield shady, which concluded that the lot could potentially yield seven lots, but the applicant explained that the Board of Health regulations prohibit shared septic systems. histead, the applicant is proposing a condominium -style development consisting of five single-family homes. Although the residential compound bylaw permits up to six units, the sixth unit would be required to be affordable. The applicant stated that an affordable unit would not be financially feasible under the current bylaw because its anticipated sales price would be substantially below construction cost. The proposed development would be accessed by a 20-foot-wide private road leading to a cul-de-sac. Each of the five homes would have a separate exclusive -use yard area of approximately 26,000 to 35,000 square feet. The entire property would be owned and maintained by a condominium association, including the open space, utilities, site amenities, and septic system. The Town would have no responsibility for operation or maintenance of the development. Stormwater management was a s described with proposed swales between the homes and neighboring properties and a large Stormwater basin at the rear of the site. The purpose is to capture runoff that currently flows toward Gilbert Street and redirect it toward the rear of the property. Mr. Merrikin stated that the proposed system should substantially reduce the rate and volume of runoff reaching Gilbert Street during design storms. The applicant has completed the required soil testing and submitted revised drainage plans, which were still being reviewed by the town engineer. The proposed septic system would be a single system owned and operated by the condominium association. Each home would have its own septic tank comiected to a gravity sewer and pump chamber, with the effluent then pressure -dosed to separate septic trenches. The development would also include a looped water main, two fire hydrants, and underground electric service. The private road would be approximately 550 feet long. The two hydrants were requested by the Fire Department, with one located near the beginning of the driveway and one near the end. Lighting would be limited, with five proposed approximately 10-foot-high, Rill -cutoff fixtures to provide limited lighting around the homes. There would be several possible house designs, including Colonial - style two-story homes with three or four bedrooms and a ranch -style option for buyers. Approximately 86% of the site would remain open space, while approximately 78% would remain completely undisturbed existing woodland. The total open space would be approximately 23.8 acres, substantially exceeding the applicable residential compound open -space requirement. The proposed Scenic Road application for Gilbert Street includes removal of four dead trees and a 24-inch maple tree located within the street layout, as well as removal of a low stone wall. The stones were proposed to be reused to create low entrance walls on either side of the development entrance, while maintaining adequate sight distance. In the absence of Board member Joseph Cerretani, Mr. Parsons was appointed as a voting member for both public hearings. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 08/26/26 Page 2 of 10 Board Comments Ms. Friedman expressed concern that one of the proposed units appeared to overlap the wetland and wetland buffer. Mr. Merrikin clarified that the Board member was looking at the yield plan, which illustrated the theoretical seven -lot subdivision, rather than the actual five -unit proposal. He clarified that the closest yard areas in the proposed development would be approximately 250 feet from the wetland. Ms. Friedman questioned the decision not to pursue a sixth unit. Mr. Merrikin explained that the sixth unit would trigger the inclusionary zoning requirement and would have to be comparable to the other units. The resulting affordable sales price would be significantly below the cost to construct the unit, resulting in a substantial loss to the developer. He suggested that the Town consider incorporating bonus -unit provisions into the residential compound bylaw as a potential way to make affordable housing requirements more financially feasible. Mr. Penney viewed the proposed five -unit residential compound as an appropriate use of the land. The residential compound complies with the applicable 80,000-square-foot minimum lot -area provisions, and it was noted that the proposal provides substantially more open space than required. Mr. Penney noted the 20-foot-wide private road and agreed that the width is adequate and meets access and fire requirements. Relating to the septic system, Mr. Merrikin clarified that the property will be owned as a condominium by a single association; the system is treated under Title 5 as a single -owner system rather than a shared septic system. Clarification memos from the Health Director and Town Counsel were also referenced. Mr. Penney said that a note should be added to the plans that the Town would not be responsible for maintenance of the private way, or any future acceptance of the private way. Mr. Merrikin responded that the condominium association will submit documents, prior to obtaining building permits, for Town Counsel review, which can state that the association may never request any kind of street acceptance, monitoring, or maintenance of septic or drainage from the Town. Ms. Raposa also clarified that for future home buyers, the development may look like single-family homes, but they are not. She also recommended that a septic system maintenance fiord account be funded prior to any lots being sold. 7:30 pm The Board Chair inquired if any persons from the audience were present to speak on the next Zoning Bylaw public hearing. None were. The hearing continued. Mr. List noted that the drainage appears to collect runoff toward the far portion of the property where it can infiltrate into the ground rather than creating additional problems along Gilbert Street. He said that the proposed drainage connection within the town layout and the location where the system would ultimately discharge did not appear to be an issue. Mr. List questioned whether additional landscaping or screening was required. Ms. Raposa indicated that there did not appear to be a specific requirement. Mr. Merrikin explained the intent to work with the Town to install a new manhole for better drainage and explained the drainage outlet to the storage tank on the property. Ms. Allam inquired about trash pickup and the different styles of units. Mr. Merrikin explained that it will be a private contractor for pickup at the units. The owner wanted different home styles for potential buyers to choose from. Ms. Malkin asked for clarification of the swale and tree buffer on the plan. Mr. Merrikin said that there will be a 40 to 50 foot vegetative buffer between the swales and property lines. They would be amenable to adding screening trees in that area. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 08/26/26 Page 3 of 10 Mr. Parsons questioned the locations of the catch basin and septic field and asked whether there were hydrologic considerations that influenced their placement. Mr. Merrikin explained that the drainage system was designed to capture as much runoff as possible from the top of the hill behind the neighboring properties and direct it toward the rear of the site. As a result, the storinwater basin mist be located at the lowest feasible point on the property. The septic system was located based on the results of the pere testing, with the selected area being the only location where the test results were acceptable. Ms. Friedman expressed concerns about the proposal being structured as a condominium rather than a traditional residential subdivision, particularly because the five homes would fimction as individual residences while sharing a septic system and being governed by an association. She questioned whether the condominium structure would be sustainable and enforceable over time and expressed skepticism about the approach, while acknowledging that the proposal could be a beneficial use of the property and that she supports the inclusion of open space. She further raised concerns about the proposed vegetative buffer, preferring natural woodland vegetation rather than primarily arborvitae, and requested definitive clarification regarding the removal of the Chapter 6 1 A designation. Mr. Haworth questioned whether the condominium arrangement was truly unique or novel. Mr. Merrikin explained that the zoning bylaw appears to contemplate condominium ownership through its use of the term "exclusive -use area," and noted that condominiums can take many forms, including single -family - style homes, duplexes, and multi -family buildings. Ms. Raposa clarified that zoning regulates building types and configurations, not forms of ownership. She noted that a property may appear to consist of single-family homes while legally being structured as a condominium, and that ownership, rental, or condominium status is not generally a matter of zoning discretion. Mr. Penney said that the Planning Board does not have the authority to approve or deny a septic system. He noted that they are also required to have a reserve area in case there is a failure, which Mr. Merrikin confirmed. Public Comments Karen Thompson of 425 Gilbert Street expressed strong concerns about the proposed development due to longstanding flooding and groundwater issues in the area. She described severe flooding at her home and questioned whether the proposed swale and septic system would adequately manage increased runoff from five large homes, particularly given the area's clay soils and poor drainage. While she does not oppose development, she urged the Town to require stronger measures to protect neighboring properties from flooding and enviromnental impacts. Mr. Merrikin explained that the proposed swales and stormwater basin were specifically designed to reduce runoff flow from neighboring properties, particularly Ms. Thompson's yard. He stated that the development is required to avoid worsening existing conditions and that the proposed design will significantly reduce runoff from the site. He also noted that some existing groundwater pumping is related to older homes being built into the groundwater table and stated that the proposed development would not make those conditions worse. Ms. Raposa recommended that any conditions be attached to the special permit, which would be enforceable through the Zoning Enforcement Officer. She noted that they are still awaiting comments from the Town Engineer, who is collaborating with the Health Agent and Conservation Agent. Jeff Carrara of 421 Gilbert Street reiterated concerns about longstanding groundwater and runoff issues on the property and experiences water and winter ice problems. He was not opposed to development, but was concerned that the proposed grading changes will not address the underlying groundwater conditions. He questioned landfill for basements. Mr. Merrikin replied that the units will have fill basements. They Planning Board Meeting Minutes 08/26/26 Page 4 of 10 would only partially excavate and bring in fill, because the grade is low enough due to the water table and the elevation of the properties. Mr. Merrikin explained that the northeast portion of the site has dense glacial till that creates a perched groundwater table after heavy rainfall. He stated that the existing groundwater issues are caused by this condition rather than wetlands, and that diverting surface runoff away from neighboring yards should reduce groundwater infiltration. He referenced the proposed grading, noting that the homes would be built near or slightly above existing grade, with fill primarily added to the front yards with walkout basements at the rear. This design would result in minimal displacement of groundwater. Mr. Parsons questioned where stoanwater from the proposed Unit 5 driveway would flow. Mr. Merrikin explained that the runoff would be captured by swales, piped to the rear of the property, and directed to the stormwater basin rather than toward the neighboring property. The site's perched groundwater conditions were discussed, and it was generally agreed that capturing surface runoff should reduce the amount of water infiltrating into the ground. A possible subgrade drainage system, such as a French drain, was discussed as a potential additional measure, although its feasibility and impact have not been evaluated; it could be discussed with the project engineer. Ms. Raposa said that the Town Engineer will be attending the next meeting regarding planned improvements to Gilbert Street, including a proposed subdrain to capture groundwater along the road shoulder. The resident at 471 Gilbert Street was concerned that despite redirecting surface runoff, groundwater perched above the glacial till may continue to flow toward the road due to the underlying slope. Mr. Merrikin acknowledged that groundwater would remain an issue and stated that adding a subdrain could further improve conditions. Motion by Mr. Penney, seconded by Mr. Haworth, to continue the public hearing for the Residential Compound Special Permit application and the related Scenic Road Application to Wednesday, September 9, 2026 at 7:00 pm. Vote: 7-0-0 [Aye 7, Nay 0, Abstain 01 PASSED Endorsement of an Approval Not Required plan entitled Plan of Land in Mansfield, MA, dated August 6, 2026, prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc., for the property located at 1 Dean Street, Assessor's Map 023, Parcel 148. The purpose of the revision is to carve out a small area at the Dean Street/Summer Street intersection for a fixture Roland Green memorial. The plan creates: • Parcel A: A 101-square-foot, nonbuilding parcel at the corner of Dean Street and Summer Street. Parcel A will remain in Town ownership. • Lot IA: The remaining 17,797-square-foot parcel. Lot IA has approximately 109.88 feet of frontage on Dean Street and approximately 127.21 feet of frontage on Summer Street. The plan identifies Lot IA as a conforming building lot. In the R-3 District, the minimum requirements shown on the plan are 80 feet of frontage, 80 feet of lot width, 10,000 square feet of lot area for a single- family dwelling, and 15,000 square feet for a two-family dwelling. Lot I continues to satisfy these dimensional requirements. Lots 2 and 3 are shown for reference and are not being altered by this plan. Ms. Raposa recommended endorsement of the plan. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 08/26/26 Page 5 of 10 Motion by Mr. Maxwell, seconded by Mr. Haworth that the Planning Board endorse the plan entitled "Plan of Land in Mansfield, Massachusetts," prepared by RIM Engineering Co., Inc., dated August 6, 2026, as Approval Under the Subdivision Control Law Not Required. Vote: 5-0-0 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED *Mr. Penney had stepped au,ay and did not mote. Endorsement of an Approval Not Required plan entitled Plan of Land 8 Eddy Street, dated August 13, 2026, prepared by Hutchins Trowbridge Associates, Inc., for the property located at 8 Eddy Street, Assessor's Map 027, Parcel 256. The plan identifies Eddy Street as a 40-foot-wide public way and Branch Street as a public way of variable width. Lot 2 has approximately 122.20 feet of frontage along Eddy Street. The plan is identified as a resubdivision of a prior plan prepared by Kelly Surveying & Engineering, dated June 27, 2008, and recorded at the Bristol County Registry of Deeds in Book 467, Page 22. Ms. Raposa recommended endorsement of the plan. Motion by Mr. Maxwell, seconded by Mr. Haworth, that the Planning Board endorse the ANR plan entitled for 8 Eddy Street, Mansfield, prepared by Hutchins Trowbridge Associates, Inc., dated August 13, 2026, as Approval Under the Subdivision Control Law Not Required. Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED To accept public comments on the following proposed amendments to the Town of Mansfield Zoning By- laws: • Item 1— Accessory Dwelling Units and Accessory Building Setbacks: Technical amendments to update the calculation of gross floor area for Accessory Dwelling Units, clarify the zoning districts in which ADUs are permitted, remove potentially inconsistent dimensional requirements, and establish setback standards for new detached accessory buildings. • Item 2 — Minimum Dwelling Unit Size: A housekeeping amendment clarifying that the existing minimum requirement of 600 square feet applies to a primary dwelling unit and does not conflict with the separate size requirements applicable to Accessory Dwelling Units. • Item 3 — Floodplain Regulations: Technical amendments to update the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map and Bristol County Flood Insurance Study dates; revise flood -zone definitions and remove designations that do not apply in Mansfield; clarify FEMA Elevation Certificate and Dry Floodproofrng Certificate requirements; update special -permit, subdivision -review, and regulatory- floodway provisions to conform to current state and federal requirements; remove language that may conflict with the State Building Code; update an incorporated FEMA reference; and apply recreational -vehicle requirements throughout Special Flood Hazard Areas. Ms. Raposa recommended that the clerk make a motion to waive the full reading of the public hearing notice for the proposed zoning bylaw amendments. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 08/26/26 Page 6 of 10 Motion by Mr. Maxwell, seconded by Ms. Friedman, to waive the reading of the Rill public hearing notice. Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED Ms. Raposa began by announcing that there is a link on the Town website for the Rill hearing notice and proposal for the public. The meeting was for public hearing number one, with the presentation followed by public input. She recommended that the Board leave the public hearing open until the September 9°i hearing to vote on the language then, in case public comments are received before that time. The Town Meeting date will be November 12, 2026. Ms. Raposa then reviewed the articles. Item 1 Accessory Dwelling Units and Accessory Building Setbacks - Mansfield is proposing targeted amendments to its ADU zoning bylaw following additional state guidance and the Attorney General's review. The changes are intended to clarify the regulations and ensure they remain consistent with state law without eliminating ADU provisions. Key changes include clarifying the definition and calculation of gross floor area for determining the maximum size of a protected ADU, updating the zoning use table to identify all districts where ADUs are permitted, and removing setback requirements that were found to be more restrictive than state law allows. The amendment also establishes district -specific setbacks for new detached accessory structures, including garages, sheds, and detached ADUs, while addressing how existing and attached structures are treated. Overall, the amendments are intended to make Mansfield's ADU regulations clearer, more consistent, and easier to administer. Item 2 Mininnan Dwelling Unit Size - The proposed ADU amendment clarifies that the existing 600- square-foot minimum floor -area requirement applies to the primary dwelling, allowing ADUs to be smaller as permitted under state law. The article also includes housekeeping updates to the Town's floodplain regulations. These changes update FEMA references to automatically use the most current Flood Insurance Rate Map and replace the previous 2021 Bristol County Flood Insurance Study reference with the updated June 23, 2026 study. The amendments are intended to keep the regulations current and consistent with state and federal requirements. Item 2 F000dplain regulations - The proposed floodplain amendments are primarily technical and housekeeping changes to align Mansfield's zoning bylaw with current FEMA maps, terminology, and state guidance. They do not change floodplain boundaries, review requirements, or the Planning Board's authority. The amendments update flood zone terminology, clarify required FEMA certificates and documentation, remove construction requirements already covered by the state building code, and replace outdated lists of flood zone designations with broader defined terms. Existing requirements and recreational vehicle provisions remain unchanged. Public Comment Frances MacDonald of 24 Bird Road questioned the proposed 15-foot setbacks in the RI district, noting that residential lots vary significantly in shape and that a uniform 15-foot setback could be impractical on narrow lots. They asked whether a smaller standard setback, such as five or 10 feet, could be considered. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 08/26/26 Page 7 of 10 Ms. Raposa replied that the original bylaw required detached ADUs to meet the larger setbacks of primary structures, but the Attorney General determined this was too restrictive. Under state law, ADUs must be treated like other accessory structures, prompting the Board to reconsider accessory structure setbacks. Ms. MacDonald expressed that the proposed setback in the R1 district is excessive, suggesting 10 feet or 5 feet with a variance approval. She also felt that the ADU setbacks were restrictive and extreme. The Board debated the current setbacks, the proposed setbacks, and property owner rights. They also discussed different perspectives due to the statewide zoning changes. Mr. Parsons inquired what the criteria would be to grant a variance in an ADU setback relief case. Ms. Raposa confirmed that it would be through the Zoning Board of Appeal with the use of the new Practical Difficulty Standard as read: Instead of requiring the traditional findings based on unique soil conditions, shape or topography, and substantial hardship, the ZBA may grant relief i-Men strict enforcement of the Zoning By-law would result in practical difficulty. In making its determination, the ZBA must weigh the benefits to the applicant and the public interest, including the interest in supporting housing production against any detriment to the public health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. The ZBA may also consider whether the practical difficulty relates to the property's soil conditions, shape, or topography, whether strict enforcement would impose a substantial financial or other hardship, whether the benefit sought wo¢dd be achieved through another feasible method, and whether the practical difficulty was self-created. The practical effect for the ZBA: the variant standards become more flexible and balancing -based, but variances remain discretionary. The Board again debated the justification of imposing new rules for accessory structure setbacks. Motion by Mr. Penney, seconded by Ms. Friedman, to continue the public hearing for the zoning bylaw amendments to September 9, 2026 at 7:30 pm. Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED • Parkulay/Transit Oriented Development • Zoning Bylaw Amendments o Accessory Dwelling Units setbacks - Mi•. 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 Bylan, (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) - Inclusionar y Zoning Bylaw Incentives for developers to include%onstruct nein units Planning Board Meeting Minutes 08/26/26 Page 8 of 10 Ralph Penney (initiated 12110125) o Loss of Conrnrercial / Business Space to BI, 132, and Downtown Areas o Adequacy and Intent of First -Floor Connnercial 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 oflncremental Decisions o Re-evaluation of Planning Board Policies and Site Plan Revieu, Standards No discussion of these items. Meeting Minutes — July 8, 2026 Motion by Mr. Maxwell, seconded by Mr. Haworth, to approve the minutes as submitted. Vote: 5-0-1 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 1] PASSED Meeting Minutes —July 22, 2026 Motion by Mr. Haworth, seconded by Mr. Maxwell, to approve the minutes as submitted. Vote: 5-0-1 [Aye 5, Nay 0, Abstain 1] PASSED No items Ms. Raposa Staff reported that the Montessori school on Night Way has received a temporary Certificate of Occupancy, but several outstanding conditions and documentation issues remain. The constructed roadway does not appear to match the approved subdivision/site plan, so an as -built plan and potentially a site plan modification may be required. The applicant is responsible for providing the necessary documentation and demonstrating compliance with all approval conditions. She also noted that inspection records and documentation for roadway and utility work have not been received, and additional information is still needed regarding the school's vehicular management plan and landscaping. The school currently has approximately 84 students, with an eventual capacity of 200 discussed. Mr. Parsons requested a more organized record of the project's history and prior approvals for review, which Ms. Raposa will provide. Ms. Raposa prepared a memorandum for Town Counsel outlining the local bylaw changes needed to comply with the 48 changes included in the state budget bill. The amendments will not be brought forward at the fall Town Meeting, but will remain under review, with additional changes potentially packaged for the spring depending on upcoming state legislation and Question 7. Planning Board Meeting Minutes 08/26/26 Page 9 of 10 Motion by Mr. Maxwell, seconded by Mr. Penney, to adjourn at 9:14 pm Vote: 6-0-0 [Aye 6, Nay 0, Abstain 0] PASSED The dale of the Next Planning Board Meeting is September 9, 2026, at 7: 00 pm y V - � y � .6 Cler _'75Z(E.r/6 h, '�� (1,°I) Date of Approval Documents Presented for the Meeting 1. Meeting Notice Agenda for August 26, 2026 2. 0 Gilbert Street a. Special Permit/Site Plan Approval application and supporting documents b. Scenic Road application and supporting documents 3. Zoning Bylaw amendments 4. Approval Not Required (ANR) application and plan a. 1 Dean Street b. 8 Eddy Street 5. Meeting Minutes draft for July 8, 2026 and July 22, 2026 6. Zoning Bylaw Articles for discussion Planning Board Meeting Minutes 08/26/26 Page 10 of 10