The most notable issue discussed revolved around the hours of construction for a significant project. Board members and residents voiced concerns about the proposed start time of 6:30 a.m., which would facilitate smoother construction traffic flow and avoid conflicts with school traffic. However, this proposal met with resistance due to potential noise disturbances for nearby residents. One participant expressed discontent with the notion of beginning construction earlier than the standard 8 a.m., stating, “The neighbors do feel it, and it’s just concerning.” The board debated the implications of traffic around school hours, with some members questioning whether the proposed construction traffic would exacerbate existing issues, particularly with increased business traffic.

Beyond construction hours, the meeting also delved into the safety of proposed pedestrian and bicycle routes, especially concerning a suggestion to direct traffic over Route 128 onto Mill Street. Resident Mary Ellen Moers highlighted the existing dangers of Mill Street and urged increased public awareness, noting that directing more people onto this route could exacerbate safety problems. This concern was echoed by other residents.

Blasting activities also featured prominently in the discussions, with residents expressing concerns about the shift from one blast to two blasts per day. One resident recounted a previous assurance that only one blast would occur daily, which was subsequently contradicted. They mentioned the escalating construction hours and the potential for increased noise levels as leaves fall, exacerbating existing disturbances. The resident articulated feelings of unfairness regarding construction impacts, stating, “It is not fair that you’re building this on our backs.”

The current blasting schedule allowed for blasting between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., but there was uncertainty about the 8 a.m. start time mentioned in some instances. Another resident pointed out that the week when the blasting was increased to two per day coincided with the largest blast recorded to date, generating significant concern among those living nearby. A board member expressed frustration, clarifying that the planning board had not approved a two-blast schedule and emphasized the need to avoid misrepresentation of the board’s position in future communications.

The meeting also addressed the concerns about stormwater management tied to ongoing projects. Discussions focused on the bylaw mandating a long-term operation and maintenance plan for stormwater management, including specific reporting intervals for the first two years—semiannual reports—and subsequent annual reports thereafter. It was suggested that instead of creating separate conditions, the planning board could reference the specific bylaw to ensure consistency and avoid duplicating efforts.

Lighting levels and their implications for neighboring properties were another point of contention. A member expressed concern over how light intensity could impact neighboring properties, even if the lighting was designed according to the submitted plans.

Further, the board discussed a performance guarantee to secure site stabilization and prevent off-site damage should the applicant fail to complete the permitted improvements. Concerns were raised regarding the adequacy of the $250,000 figure as a performance guarantee, with one resident suggesting it might need to be closer to $2.5 million to cover potential costs.

Communication with residents was a recurring theme throughout the meeting, with a member articulating frustration over the lack of acknowledgment of public input. This member suggested that the board should incorporate a section in the agenda to list and discuss correspondence received on various topics, including blasting, docks, financial impact studies, and pedestrian safety. They argued that ignoring residents’ questions was disrespectful, asserting, “I think it’s respectful to acknowledge the receipts of these and to address the questions.”