The most pressing topic was the board’s deliberation on a proposed child care center. The facility’s classification sparked debate, with some members arguing it should be considered a child care center rather than an educational facility, impacting the zoning applicability. An attorney present clarified that current zoning bylaws did not explicitly prohibit for-profit child care facilities.

As the meeting progressed, members expressed varying opinions on the facility’s suitability for the proposed location. Concerns centered on the building’s size—16,000 square feet—significantly larger than the typical 4,000 square foot structures allowed in the residential neighborhood. Members highlighted the potential mismatch with community standards and the logistical challenges associated with drop-offs and pick-ups, which could exacerbate traffic and safety issues.

Despite these concerns, members acknowledged the limitations imposed by the Development Overlay (DO) Amendment, which restricted their ability to apply discretionary criteria. This led to a reluctant agreement to vote in favor of the project, with several members expressing their dissatisfaction with the necessity of approving a project they deemed unsuitable for the neighborhood. The consensus was to proceed with the site plan and special permit votes, with the understanding that while the site plan might pass, the special permit faced significant opposition.

In another discussion, the board addressed the proposed subdivision on Hilder Street, which generated substantial community interest and concerns. Residents and board members alike raised issues regarding road safety, neighborhood character, and environmental impacts. The introduction of three large duplexes in a predominantly residential area was seen as detrimental to the street’s character, with particular emphasis on the road’s adequacy to handle increased traffic.

Concerns about drainage and flooding were also prominent. Residents detailed how increased hardscape and retaining walls could exacerbate existing flooding issues, particularly during rainstorms. The potential impact on vernal pools and local hydrology was also noted, reflecting broader environmental concerns.

Traffic safety emerged as a major theme, with residents and board members debating the implications of converting Hilder Street into a one-way street and the necessity of installing sidewalks to ensure pedestrian safety. Some members argued that widening the road to 18 feet could improve conditions, while others contended that such changes would fundamentally alter the neighborhood’s character. The lack of sufficient traffic data complicated the board’s ability to make definitive decisions about safety hazards.

Residents expressed frustration over the perceived lack of transparency and the adequacy of existing infrastructure to support the development. Concerns about the timing and thoroughness of traffic studies, particularly in capturing actual usage during school hours, were also raised.

The need for thorough consideration of all factors—safety, community feedback, and regulatory compliance—was highlighted as essential before any decision could be made.

In addition to these primary topics, the board also discussed administrative measures such as the acceptance of Parkhurst Road and the final plans for a property on Bill R Road. The acceptance of Parkhurst Road was deemed an administrative measure, unanimously agreed upon to be sent back to the select board for consideration at the upcoming town meeting. The final plans for a property on Bill R Road were endorsed without further action, confirming that necessary revisions had been incorporated.