The Stratton Hill project, represented by attorney Collins, was granted a continuance for its hearing to May 28, 2024, after the board received a letter detailing delays caused by the attorney’s illness. In the meantime, the Dillis and Roy Civil Design Group submitted revised plans for the project, with a peer review by Green International anticipated. The board also considered their decision-making timeline, mindful of the applicant’s prior extensions, and clarified that their final decision could range from approval to denial, with the possibility of conditions.

Meanwhile, the Aho Development’s site plan for 333r Street was scrutinized for its stormwater management strategy involving subsurface infiltration to handle roof runoff. The project’s location within the floodplain and its potential impact on Third Street improvements were of particular concern. Coordination with the Department of Public Works was earmarked as essential for the design modifications to the street, which prompted debate over pavement width and the finer points of stormwater management.

Beyond the stormwater issues, the board deliberated on waivers sought by the applicant for traffic, landscape, and lighting plans. Comments received from the planner, DPW, and conservation were carefully considered, especially those pertaining to Third Street’s improvements and flood storage. The board postponed further voting and discussion to allow more time for review and deliberation.

In the broader context of development planning, the board expressed concern over the layout of a new road and its connection to existing streets, with the sidewalk inclusion and its effect on emergency vehicle access taking center stage. The board called for updated drawings to clarify road continuation and geometry, alongside discussions about stormwater management for the development’s lots. Maintenance plans for the infiltration systems and the natural gas installation were also areas where the board sought additional information.

A critical topographical issue was examined, with the board assessing the need to lower a portion of the land to match adjacent elevations. The clarity on stormwater maintenance inspections and the homeowner’s responsibilities was requested. The impact of constructing a street on the project’s stormwater calculations was debated, prompting a call for a review of the environmental and community impact.

The board tackled the issue of who should bear the responsibility for extending Third Street, with uncertainty over the plans’ language. A community member voiced concerns about tree removal and its effect on the local heat index, prompting assurances that the road would be rerouted and sidewalks preserved. Communication with the DPW was flagged as ongoing, with the board and the department working together to refine the development plans.

Lastly, the board addressed procedural matters, including the Zoning Board of Appeals’ denial of special permits for duplexes and the approval of waivers for detailed project plans. The logistics for a site visit were arranged, including the identification of significant trees and marking the right of way. The board also contended with setting the next meeting date, accommodating the availability of board members and a member’s upcoming surgery.