The proposal for the expansion of a campground became a focal point, as it involved a request to rezone the property from AC Zone to residential single-family use. The proposal sparked debate over potential environmental impacts, including the disruption of wildlife corridors, water pollution, and the effect on the natural drainage system. Public comments emphasized the presence of wildlife and wetlands on the property, with suggestions to split the property into different parcels to mitigate the environmental impact. A visual presentation highlighted the topographical constraints and the need for rezoning to facilitate potential expansion plans for the campground. The board also discussed the possibility of a non-conforming use bylaw change at an upcoming town meeting, which could permit greater expansion of non-conforming uses and structures. After much deliberation, a motion was made to recommend the proposed bylaw change, with the provision for further modifications if necessary, and the decision to formally withdraw the request for a zoning change.

Another topic was the proposed retail building on College Highway. The project’s proponent, John Tom, outlined the revised site plan, which included relocating the stormwater basin, reducing the building’s footprint, and setting a restriction for vegetated open space around the property’s perimeter. There was a back-and-forth over architectural elements and parking availability, with a new facade design presented and a revised parking plan that added potential spaces. Concerns were voiced about falling below the 80% threshold for parking reduction and the necessity of a public hearing for any future parking expansion.

The board also reviewed a subdivision infrastructure project that proposed construction in four phases, with bonding for each phase. The discussion looked at various plan requirements, such as the need for a designer certificate, 40-scale plans, contour interval specifications, and zoning table amendments. The debate touched on the importance of including proposed building and driveway locations in the plans.

Other discussions included the handling of non-conforming properties, specifically the timeframe for submitting plans and the planning board’s oversight role. The debate centered on the authority of the planning board versus the building inspector in determining the intensity and impact of non-conforming use when properties are rebuilt after a catastrophe.

Furthermore, the board engaged in a discussion about the Oak Ridge Estates at Mort Vining Road subdivision plan and stormwater management. The applicant presented responses to comments and plan modifications, addressing DPW concerns. Despite some agreement on certain points, there were still areas of contention and a need for further review, especially regarding stormwater management and road design.

Concerns about proposed exterior lighting for a new development were raised, as well as the impact of lighting fixtures on nearby residences, traffic congestion, safety, and property values. One resident described the location of the Dollar General store as intrusive and out of character with the neighborhood. Additionally, concerns about the safety of a road bend near Windfield Circle were discussed, including the challenges of left-hand turns due to limited visibility.

The meeting concluded with a discussion on the potential impact of the proposed zoning map amendment for a property split-zoned with R40 and agricultural conservation. The amendment aimed to make the entire parcel R40, allowing potential compliance with existing facilities and the possibility of expansion, subject to site plan and special permit applications. The board closed the hearing and postponed the vote to allow for further review and potential revisions.