The board addressed the completeness of application PB 1-24 from McDonald’s USA LLC, focusing on whether the applicant had submitted all required information according to a formal checklist. The board engineer reported that McDonald’s requested waivers for ten items on the site plan checklist, noting that many of these items were irrelevant due to the property’s existing conditions. For instance, the property had no water courses, wetlands, or industrial operations, and existing signs and lighting were set to be removed. The board engineer also mentioned that concerns about stormwater impacts and environmental factors were mitigated by the property’s previous development.

A board member inquired about whether McDonald’s had submitted elevations of the proposed building and its hours of operation. The engineer confirmed that while the elevations had been submitted, hours of operation were not part of the checklist and would be addressed in future hearings. The board then voted unanimously to deem the application complete, allowing McDonald’s to proceed with issuing necessary notices for a future meeting where the full site plan application would be heard.

Public concerns were also a part of the meeting. Lee Connor, a resident of Two Tower Hill Road, raised issues about vacant properties in town and inquired how the board or citizens might assist in attracting businesses. The mayor acknowledged the challenge, noting that negotiations often stall due to disagreements over terms. The mayor cited a specific case involving the Friendly’s lot, where a proposed development of 50 apartment units was deemed unsuitable due to inadequate parking and potential negative impacts on local services. Another board member emphasized the extensive work done by the master planning committee to review zoning and other specifics to facilitate development and address community needs.

During a public discussion regarding the McDonald’s application, several residents expressed concerns and sought clarification on various aspects of the process. Carl from 22 Dayon Road voiced worries about the waiver for the environmental impact assessment, particularly regarding possible increased traffic and air quality impacts. The board explained that the applicant had provided an extensive traffic report and that the board’s traffic expert would also testify on the matter.

Mark Casparer from 120 Littleton Road asked whether the final decision on the application would rest with the Planning Board or be forwarded to the Board of Adjustment. The Board confirmed that the decision would remain with them, outlining the process where the applicant would present their experts, followed by questions from the board’s professionals, members, and the public.

Questions about public notification also arose. It was noted that while only those residing within 200 feet of the property would receive certified letters, public notices would be posted on the bulletin board and published in local newspapers. Casparer also raised a concern about the meeting’s venue if attendance exceeded capacity. The board assured compliance with fire department regulations in such a scenario.

Another attendee sought to understand whether the application could be denied, given that it was an approved use and no variances were being sought. The town attorney explained that the board’s ability to deny the application was limited to the application’s adherence to established ordinances. The board could not impose restrictions beyond what the governing body had established.

Carl from 22 Dayon Road returned with a question about the implications of the development on a state route and whether state authorities would need to be involved. The response clarified that the board’s decisions would be based on local ordinances, though approvals from outside agencies might also be required.

Jessica Williams from 22 St inquired about the public’s access to information regarding the experts who would be testifying. The board assured that the qualifications of these experts would be shared with the public, and they would be available for questioning at the end of the process. However, the specifics about which experts would attend which meetings might not be disclosed in advance.

The conversation also touched on the topic of changing land use permissions in anticipation of an application. The attorney explained that changes could not occur once an application was submitted, protecting applicants from sudden regulatory shifts.