The primary focus of the meeting was the town’s proposed water supply zone bylaw. The board examined the draft in detail, debating whether to send the draft back to the planning board with specific changes or comments. A point of discussion was the requirement for a special permit for activities in Zone One, which one member deemed unnecessary, stating, “I just think this is like brand new, never seen anywhere else before.” This sentiment was echoed by another member, who argued that a site plan review should suffice, emphasizing that special permits are typically reserved for more substantial projects. There was a consensus to eliminate the special permit requirement from both zones, preferring to use site plan review language instead.

Additionally, the board focused on the language regarding permitted uses within the bylaw. There was a suggestion to add wording clarifying the activities necessary for the operation and maintenance of the well and infrastructure, consistent with Massachusetts drinking water regulation 310 CMR 22. Bill Handy from Hand Engineering participated in the discussion, seeking clarity on the board’s stance. He confirmed the board’s preference for site plan approval over special permits. The board reiterated their desire to substitute special permit language with site plan review language.

The board also discussed the procedural aspects of the bylaw’s progression. The planning board would issue the bylaw, which would then proceed through the town meeting process for approval before being reviewed by the Attorney General to ensure compatibility with state laws. A member of the public raised concerns about passive recreation definitions within the bylaw, particularly regarding activities like hiking and cross-country skiing in water supply zones. The board acknowledged these concerns but did not make final decisions on the recreational language, recognizing the need for further careful consideration.

In another significant topic, the board addressed the progress of temporary water lines installed on Mass South Side. The superintendent reported that while the flushing and chlorination of the lines were completed, two bacteria samples had failed. After re-treatment, one side of the line was to be tested the following day, while the other side had already undergone testing twice. There were logistical challenges, especially for houses far from the road. A proposal was made for a directional drilling project requiring an additional $10,000 to $15,000 to extend beyond a certain driveway, which the board seemed open to considering.

Communication systems were another key discussion point. Two-way radios experienced significant static issues, possibly due to lightning strikes. A backup repeater had been installed, but the radios’ effectiveness remained uncertain. The superintendent suggested creating a joint radio system with the police and fire departments to mitigate interference, potentially enhancing communication efficiency. The fire chief faced challenges with upgrading systems due to legal and bidding constraints, and the superintendent proposed collaboration to alleviate some of these hurdles. Reliable communication during emergencies was emphasized, referencing past incidents where miscommunication had severe consequences.

The board also discussed the status of submissions to the state for clean water funding. A resident, Andy Starasi, inquired about the timing and thoroughness of the testing process, emphasizing public interest in comprehensive data before proceeding. The board clarified that they were awaiting results from ongoing pilot tests before making any submissions for State Revolving Fund (SRF) funding. Starasi raised questions about testing frequencies and data availability related to the King well and Lancaster levels, and the board confirmed that these wells were tested biannually, offering to provide public access to the collected data.

Finally, the board faced a decision regarding the reinvestment of a significant sum due from an investment made last year, specifically $1.5 million. Two options were presented: a six-month investment at 4.75% or a twelve-month investment at 4.5%. The board leaned towards the twelve-month option, anticipating that interest rates might drop, making it a more strategic move.