A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussing the site plan review application for a property on Home Street. However, the process was hindered by procedural misalignments between the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board. Concerns were raised about the perceived disorganization when businesses or residents presented plans, which one participant suggested made the commission appear unprepared.

A concern was that despite receiving a positive assessment from the town’s engineer—who described the plan as “awesome”—the Conservation Commission insisted on waiting for Planning Board approval before proceeding. This led to a proposal to establish contingencies, suggesting it would be reasonable to approve the project “subject to confirmation from conservation,” thereby allowing the process to continue.

The conversation also delved into the specifics of the water drainage report, which was identified as a critical factor hindering approval. The town’s engineer confirmed the new plan satisfied stormwater runoff requirements, yet a conflict with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) regarding drainage further complicated the situation. Members noted that previous plans had errors in elevation, which had since been rectified but continued to create confusion among the boards.

To address these procedural challenges, a motion was made to draft a letter to the Conservation Commission, urging them to proceed with their approvals so that the Planning Board could review the plan comprehensively. This motion highlighted the need for a combined effort to resolve the ongoing stalemate and establish a clear protocol for future applications. The idea of creating a flowchart to clarify the application process, where each board would sign off sequentially, was proposed to streamline approvals and prevent current delays.

The site plan review also addressed stormwater management permits and emphasized the need for comprehensive documentation. A letter from PGB Engineering outlined modifications to the proposed stormwater system. Landscaping considerations were also discussed, particularly regarding vegetative screening to mitigate light pollution, with the decision not to extend screening trees along the entire property line due to the presence of non-residential structures.

The discussion then shifted to operational concerns for the property project, including specified business hours and complaints from abutters about disconnected lights and storage issues. The commission debated their authority to impose conditions preventing the storage of vehicles and items post-approval, emphasizing reliance on the zoning enforcement officer for enforcement. The broader procedural requirements were reinforced, highlighting that no permits should be granted unless conforming with an approved site plan.

An issue arose around the Planning Board agenda’s exclusion of a discussion topic, “Dealy Way,” despite a previous board vote to include it. This led to a heated exchange, with accusations of disregarding board decisions and procedural guidelines. The need for specific information to proceed with agenda items was emphasized, along with the complexities of discussing private property issues without Town Council presence.

The meeting concluded with a motion to adhere to bylaw 16728 regarding a project deemed to have minor impacts, alongside a proposal to request a Conservation Commission hearing. The urgency of scheduling a hearing was noted, with concerns over timeline extensions. The need for timely communication and adherence to procedural requirements was reiterated, reflecting ongoing challenges in the commission’s operations.