The applicant for the 300 South Washington Street project presented a revised plan that incorporated previous feedback from the board, which included increasing parking spaces from 17 to 30. The plan detailed the allocation of parking spaces for employees and overflow, as well as the addition of a walkway and entrance to improve the building’s facade.

The board discussed the elevation of the building’s front, the changes to the facade, and the addition of a road to the subsurface infiltration system that had been submitted to the Conservation Commission for notice of intent. Members expressed confidence that the design would meet state and local regulations. Despite concerns about a Landscape and Lighting plan, snow storage, and requests for waivers and conditions related to the stormwater permit, the board closed the public hearing and voted to approve the special permit with conditions.

Another point of discussion during the meeting was the proposed development at zero Mansfield Avenue. The board addressed concerns regarding the total volume of traffic that the development would generate, particularly during peak hours. There was a specific focus on the intersection of Route 140 and Route 123, areas already experiencing traffic issues. The board required further input from the fire department on access, circulation, and snow storage on the site before finalizing the site plan. The project, initially proposed with 72 units, was revised down to 60 units, and a traffic study was conducted to assess its impact. However, the board decided to continue this discussion on April 8th, pending opinions from the Conservation Commission and further consultation with the fire department. A peer review of the traffic study was anticipated, though feedback had not been received at the time of the meeting.

The board also deliberated on a variety of other issues, including the process of signalizing intersections, the progress of the sewer line, and the interpretation of affordable housing regulations. The need to work with the state for signalizing intersections and permit applications was emphasized, as was the potential for traffic flow improvements. A traffic engineer reported positive developments regarding the sewer line’s financial feasibility. The discussion on affordable housing regulations revealed a disagreement with the Town Council’s opinion and an emphasis on the need for clarity. The town had voted to continue requiring affordable housing despite meeting the quota.

Public comments included concerns about the density of a proposed development and the conservation of local trails. One public member pointed out that the development’s density was initially 6.54 times the permitted density without a special permit, and even with the elimination of one lot, the density was ten times the original proposal. They urged the board to consider the Conservation Commission’s desire for reduced density and to maintain public access to the wetlands and trails network. An error in advertising the meeting location was noted, and a request for clarification on the date of the next meeting was made.

Addressing the concerns related to traffic impact, one board member inquired about the effects of a new building on Reservoir Street, questioning if the traffic study had accounted for the potential changes. Issues related to stormwater drainage and design were also discussed, with a focus on the need for a conservative design to mitigate flooding issues. It was noted that the town requires developments to manage as much water on-site as there was before construction.

Lastly, the board acknowledged the withdrawal without prejudice of an application for a boarding house at zero West Main Street. The meeting concluded with the board moving into an executive session related to pending litigation.