The focal point of the discussions centered on the application 708 by Plus Holdings LLC, which included proposed revisions to the site plan, such as adjustments to the building facade and a traffic impact study. However, the board’s attorney raised significant objections about the notice’s adequacy, questioning whether it provided sufficient information about the impervious coverage variance and the deed restriction on the property. Furthermore, there was mention of a lis pendens, signaling ongoing litigation tied to the site. The applicant’s attorney contended that the board had jurisdictionally cleared these issues in an earlier meeting and that the notice adhered to municipal land use law. Despite the legal arguments presented, the board chair allowed the objecting party to testify on these objections but clarified that the board was not there to consider the grant of a variance for impervious coverage.

Another topic was the adequacy of amenity space and pedestrian safety in relation to the same zoning application. Board members questioned the effective utilization of the amenity space, fearing it might become a snow dumping area, and discussed the requirement for 15% for sale units. Concerns about the design guidelines for parking lots, landscape buffers, and the estimated 655 tandem truck loads of excess material to be excavated were also voiced, highlighting the need for a review of the project’s impact on pedestrian safety and the surrounding environment.

The board also examined the environmental aspects of the project, including the site’s location outside the highlands preservation area and its role in aquifer recharge. An updated traffic impact study, which suggested only minor increases in traffic, was scrutinized, as well as the site’s existing sidewalks and pedestrian crossings. Discussions touched upon the practicality of installing a mid-block crossing on a state highway and the need for additional pedestrian safety measures such as warning systems.

The planning board addressed concerns related to the potential impact of construction on neighboring properties and businesses, including signage approval and the confirmation of the absence of wetlands that would be affected by the development. Fire department reports were discussed, focusing on the maneuvering of larger trucks and the impervious surface coverage. The stormwater drainage system’s maintenance and compliance with water quantity and quality requirements were also key agenda items.

Public comments were robust and varied, touching on aspects such as the proposed development’s entrance, the importance of maintaining the town’s charming aesthetic, the architectural style of the building, affordable housing units’ distribution between for-sale and rental options, and the demographics of potential tenants. The proximity of a marijuana dispensary to the children’s bus stop location and the impact on school enrollment were also points of contention.

The meeting further delved into the specifics of the project’s parking space dimensions, sidewalk width, landscaping plans, noise pollution from heating and cooling units, and the electrical supply’s adequacy. Legal and traffic flow implications of existing easements were debated, as well as the need for comprehensive transportation and bus stop reports.

The board concluded the meeting with discussions on the design standards of the building, emphasizing the need to adhere to the town center requirements and to address discrepancies in the proposed materials and colors. The possibility of engaging a traffic engineering consultant and reviewing a revised zoning map were also contemplated. The board agreed to consider these matters and carry the application to the subsequent meeting.