The most pressing topic of the meeting centered on Sheri Estates LLC’s application for preliminary and final site plan approval. The applicant, Walter Toto, presented the proposal with particular focus on the reduction of impervious coverage on the site. The board engaged in an in-depth analysis of the plan, discussing the current occupancy of the property by HPAC, a company with five employees and standard operating hours. HPAC intended to lease parts of the buildings to various local, family-owned businesses, which necessitated discussions about the size and occupancy of the buildings, the history of the property’s tenants, and overnight parking requirements for the company’s vans.

Further scrutiny was given to the engineering aspects of the plan, with the board evaluating the details of the site’s features, including building sizes, access points, parking spaces, and landscaping. The board reviewed the drainage calculations and proposed adjustments to the impervious surfaces. However, the debate extended to whether a traffic study waiver should be granted, as concerns about traffic safety due to the site’s proximity to a busy area were significant. The board questioned if the number of parking spaces met the ordinance requirements and discussed potential changes to the property’s access points and the impact of nearby road realignments.

Another issue was the realignment of Brickyard Road, with the board debating the number of access points needed and the implications for traffic flow and safety. The discussion also touched on compliance with setback requirements, with the applicant requesting a waiver for a specific setback due to the presence of a septic system. The necessity of sidewalks along Main Street was debated, with some members advocating for a buffer with trees instead, considering the county’s role in mandating sidewalks.

The meeting also covered the topic of environmental concerns, particularly the existing septic system and the need for an environmental impact assessment. The applicant was asked to provide information on the septic system’s functionality and any environmental issues on the property. Additionally, the board discussed the absence of trees on the site, emphasizing the need for planting trees to enhance the town’s aesthetic goals.

The board’s discussion on the necessity of a sidewalk led to the engineer suggesting that planting more trees would be a better alternative than a sidewalk to nowhere. Concerns regarding accessibility and drainage were also addressed in the context of curbing placement. The landscaping plan was scrutinized, with attention to the width of loading areas, waste storage and disposal, environmental impact assessment, and lighting. The board provided feedback and emphasized the importance of site improvements aligning with the town’s vision.

Finally, the meeting concluded with a discussion about scheduling future matters, debating the merits of a June meeting over July and addressing the procedure for notifying the board of absences. A motion to table the matter was made, and a discussion led by Mr. Fron highlighted the planning board’s role in advocating for issues within their authority. A request was made for the planning board’s endorsement to review sign-related issues as part of a zoning committee, implying a willingness among members to investigate exceptions to the sign ordinance further. The meeting ended without public comments and was adjourned thereafter.