The meeting began with a moment of condolences for the loss of Christopher John Collins, brother of Tom Collins, and a note of thanks to the attending professionals. The board then delved into the intricacies of the Pine Cone Plaza proposal. The application outlined the need for a waiver for providing a loading space and the number of parking spaces. The proposed changes to the freestanding sign and the variance requested for sign coverage on the building were subjects of debate, particularly the compliance of the proposed sign with town ordinances.

Parking was a recurring theme, with discussions around the accuracy of the updated plans and the implications for parking requirements. The applicant argued that the proposed tenants—a nail salon, an exterminator, a women’s fitness area, and an accountant—would not necessitate the standard number of parking spaces. However, board members expressed concerns over discrepancies in square footage calculations, especially for the gym area, which had expanded and required additional parking spaces.

The board also focused on the architectural design, including the addition of a tower element, materials to be used, and proposed signage. The need for accurate representations of the proposed signs and their compliance with ordinance requirements was a point of contention. The applicant’s plans for a new sign at Pine Cone Plaza included an 8-foot high sign with 6 feet allocated for signage, totaling 32 square feet in area. Despite the sign exceeding the allowed area by 12 square feet, the applicant advocated for its necessity for tenant identification and visibility from the roadways.

Environmental considerations were also addressed. The board raised environmental concerns about the impact of lighting and the use of native, non-invasive species for landscaping. The proposal to replace rusty post lights with downward-focused lights to mitigate environmental impact was discussed.

The Planning Board’s discussion also ventured into the property’s impervious coverage, with the applicant noting a reduction of 1,700 square feet but still exceeding the 40% maximum. Debates ensued over further reducing impervious coverage and the feasibility of connecting parking lots without affecting the septic system and parking spaces. The possibility of using permeable pavement in the parking lot was considered, though concerns about the cost and maintenance were raised.

In addressing the community’s concerns, the board considered the historical use of the plaza, the number of attendees at the fitness center, and the benefits of the proposed project to the community. Public comments raised issues regarding the use of the building in relation to the town’s zoning ordinances, ownership structure, soil testing, and the impact on the parking lot and surrounding area.

One of notable topics was the definition of a sports center and its corresponding parking regulations, as the board grappled with varying sections of the code referring to sports centers, recreational uses, and indoor recreational uses. After much debate, the board accepted the facility as a sports center, assuming it is instructor-led with no other fitness use, and discussed the need for a redesign of the top of a tower to better fit the surrounding area.

Lastly, the board touched on administrative matters, including the allocation of funds for master plan work and scheduling future meetings, with the possibility of a special meeting depending on the zoning board’s calendar.