The meeting’s primary focus was the continued site plan review for a property owned by Premier Fence LLC at Zero Hill Street. Represented by L. To Stano from Bowler Engineering, the applicant presented updates on unresolved traffic issues. Notably, the Traffic Safety Commission had unanimously approved the project, with no safety concerns, but the proposal for speed humps was rejected by public safety officials, citing objections from fire and police departments. Upcoming discussions with the Selectmen were noted, where a potential reduction of the speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph on the relevant roadway would be considered.

Residents from Hill Street expressed concerns about traffic safety and quality of life. Stewart of 51 Hill Street highlighted the road’s narrow width, below state recommendations, arguing it could not handle existing truck traffic, let alone the additional load from the proposed developments. Netta and Amy echoed these concerns, emphasizing the dangers posed by increased truck traffic, especially during adverse weather conditions. Conley added relief that speed humps were removed from the plan, as they would have exacerbated disturbances due to heavy truck traffic.

Attorney Steven Greenwell, representing the property owners, acknowledged residents’ concerns but maintained that the proposed use was permitted. This divide between residents’ safety concerns and assurances from the applicant’s traffic studies and safety commissions underscored ongoing debates about the project’s community implications.

Discussions then shifted to the special permit application for an industrially zoned parcel. A public supporter of the application argued for its approval, stating that the land’s use was permissible under existing bylaws and that the applicant had made efforts to address concerns. The board debated the specifics of the special permits sought, including those for a building exceeding 10,000 square feet and earth removal involving more than 500 square yards, as well as site plan approval for the proposed structure.

Amy Conley reiterated her concerns over increased industrial traffic on Hill Street, arguing that the road was ill-suited for such use. The applicant’s representative responded by discussing the balance between roadway width and speed, suggesting that a wider road could encourage faster driving, thereby compromising safety. They assured that the anticipated traffic would involve contractor-based vehicles rather than heavy industrial traffic.

The meeting saw board discussions about the criteria for special permits, focusing on whether proposals were socially and economically desirable and if advantages outweighed potential detrimental effects. The board also considered the implications of earth removal. Discussions included legal aspects, contemplating the board’s authority to deny applications if legal requirements were met, while also considering potential appeals.

The meeting concluded with motions on the special permit for earth removal and the building, both resulting in split votes. The earth removal permit faced a tie, prompting discussions on separating criteria for earth removal and building permits. The building permit vote also split, reflecting board divisions on the project’s suitability. A motion for site plan approval, including waivers for driveway width and landscaping, failed as well, highlighting continued contention.