The citizens’ petition, presented by Neil Bingham on behalf of the property owners, sought to transfer the three properties to a business district. Bingham argued that the properties are already surrounded by commercial and non-residential uses and that rezoning would lead to uniformity in the area. The Planning Board opened the hearing for the petition, with Bingham using maps and photographs to support the case, emphasizing that the change would allow for flexibility in land use and address the limitations of developing residential properties amidst businesses.

The board clarified that its role was not to decide on the zoning change but to recommend for or against it, with the understanding that the town meeting would ultimately vote on the matter, requiring a two-thirds majority to pass. The possibility of scheduling a sidewalk to inspect the properties was raised, but it was determined that some board members were already familiar with the area.

During the discussion, the board examined the differences in zoning regulations between residential and business districts, such as lot coverage, frontage, setbacks, and permissible uses. The property owners discussed their current use of the land and potential development plans, which included using the area for extra parking and expanding operations. The board sought to understand the zoning status and ownership details, focusing on the potential impact on neighboring residential properties.

Several residents voiced concerns during the public comments portion of the meeting. Issues raised included the potential for increased water runoff and drainage problems, which the area already experienced, as well as the impact on property values and the visual character of the neighborhood. Concerns about increased traffic and the effect on the local school zone were also brought to the board’s attention. The historical context of previous zoning requests for the same property was mentioned, with residents and a member of the zoning advisory committee expressing hesitation about changing the zoning without a specific plan.

In response to these concerns, the applicant pointed out that water issues were pre-existing and suggested that any future development could potentially address them. Residents’ concerns unrelated to the application were also highlighted by the applicant. The board maintained that the proposed zoning change should be evaluated based on its merits and encouraged the community to consider the broader interests of the town.

After a thorough debate, the motion to recommend the rezoning did not carry. It was noted that the issue would be revisited during the upcoming town meeting for further discussion and decision.

Aside from the rezoning debate, the Planning Board discussed the process of approving plans that do not require endorsement (ANRs). The board voted to allow the principal planner to endorse these plans on behalf of the board, thereby streamlining the process and reducing the need for obtaining multiple signatures for ANRs.

Moreover, the board touched on the administrative aspects of their operations, including the planning board ANR endorsement process and a request for more time to review storm water regulations by the Conservation Commission for Elmwood Farms. The board decided to continue the hearings on these matters to future dates, specifically the storm water regulations public hearing to April 1st and the Elmwood Farms storm water management permit to the same date with a decision by April 8th. Discussions on proposed amendments to the zoning bylaws for MBTA communities led to a decision to continue the public hearing until April 22nd to allow additional feedback and recommendations before voting.