Norton Planning Board continues review of 72‑unit Mansfield Avenue development after technical questions

The Norton Planning Board voted Dec. 2 to continue the remand of Special Permit 30, a proposal for two 36‑unit apartment buildings (72 units) at 0 Mansfield Avenue, to its Jan. 6, 2026 meeting as the applicant coordinates with the Conservation Commission and the town’s water and sewer officials.

Attorney Jack Jacobe, representing the applicant Pern Homebuilders LLC, told the board the project team submitted updated plans and that a peer review filed the same day "raised no issues." Jacobe said the applicant would accept a deed restriction for Lot E rather than transferring the parcel, and that the project would meet the board’s 10 percent affordability requirement.

Traffic consultant Daniel Baciva of Vanessin Associates told the board an updated assessment comparing a prior 60‑unit plan with the current 72‑unit program showed only a modest increase in traffic. "The 72‑unit development would not result in significantly more traffic than the 60‑unit development," Baciva said, adding the project is expected to generate "between four to six additional peak hour vehicle trips" and about 78 extra daily vehicle trips above the earlier study; the underlying report shows roughly 538 daily trips total with about 45 morning peak and 52 evening peak trips.

Pat Brennan, the town’s peer reviewer from PGB Engineering, addressed neighbor concerns about flooding and stormwater. Brennan said the revised plans use detention and infiltration basins to keep runoff at or below existing conditions and that they comply with MassDEP stormwater standards and the Norton stormwater management bylaw. "This project ... is not going to worsen [existing flooding issues]," Brennan summarized.

Engineer Phil Cordero (Allen & Major Associates) described plan changes: marking high‑turnover delivery/ride‑share spaces in front of each building, noting EV‑charging compatibility to meet the code’s 20 percent requirement (10 percent at initial occupancy, 10 percent scalable), and a snow‑storage strategy that would remove excess snow from the site if capacity is exceeded. He said the site driveways were intentionally aligned to avoid direct headlights onto neighboring residences and that catch basins will be placed at driveway transitions so runoff does not reach Mansfield Avenue.

Board members focused substantial discussion on sewer design and scalability. The project proposes a privately funded force main with an on‑site pump station; board members and the applicant discussed how pipe diameter, pump phasing and grinder pumps for individual tie‑ins could affect future town connections. Jacobe said the sewer extension is included in the water & sewer commission’s master plan but that earlier cost estimates have risen; he reported an updated ballpark for the extension of about $1.25 million to $1.5 million depending on commission requirements.

Town counsel Robin Stein reminded the board of its legal standard for denials: site‑plan approval is largely nondiscretionary while special permits are discretionary, but any denial must be grounded in the zoning bylaw and on concerns that cannot be readily mitigated to withstand Land Court review. "The reasons for the denial need to be grounded in your bylaw," Stein said.

Resident Bill Rotundi of Reservoir Street voiced concerns about visual scale and runoff, saying the buildings (each roughly 220 feet long) would be highly visible from the street. The applicant reiterated that buildings will be screened by landscaping, that first‑floor elevations are roughly 2–3 feet above Mansfield Avenue (not five feet as some commenters believed), and that stormwater features were peer‑reviewed.

The board made a motion, seconded, and by unanimous roll call continued the remand of Special Permit 30 to Jan. 6, 2026 at 7:15 p.m., with the applicant to return after coordinating with Conservation and the water & sewer commission. Earlier in the meeting the board also continued Special Permit 28 (0 Sturdy Street) to Jan. 6, 2026. The board then voted to enter executive session to discuss pending litigation (Premier Fence LLC v. Town of Norton Planning Board) and adjourned from executive session.

What’s next: The applicant will pursue Conservation Commission review and work with the water & sewer commission; the Planning Board will expect updated materials and any clarifying letters from those bodies before the Jan. 6 continuation.