The board’s attorney clarified the legal avenues available, emphasizing that while there isn’t a formal water moratorium, the existing capacity limits could justify denying the application. This revelation led to a broader discussion about the board’s authority under Chapter 40B to refuse applications lacking municipal infrastructure. Board members were reminded that appeals to the housing appeals committee often do not defer to local decisions, necessitating a comprehensive approach to denial reasoning.

Some board members advocated for denying the application based on water supply issues. Others highlighted the need to address additional concerns like traffic and density in any denial to strengthen their position against potential appeals. These discussions revealed a need for a multifaceted strategy to navigate the legal frameworks and community apprehensions surrounding the project.

In addition to water supply concerns, the meeting delved into the project’s broader impacts. Members raised issues regarding traffic flow, particularly in relation to existing infrastructure. The potential traffic increase on Maran Drive and Copper Beach, a dead-end road, was highlighted, alongside concerns about road width and access, especially near a nearby school. The board debated the necessity of traffic studies, with some members acknowledging traffic and density problems without needing extensive analysis.

The applicant’s attorney contested the notion of water insufficiencies justifying a denial, arguing the project could improve the town’s water infrastructure. They requested confirmation of previously selected peer reviewers for the project’s civil and traffic needs, volunteering to cover these costs. However, board members expressed varying opinions on the project’s merits, with some suggesting a comprehensive evaluation before making judgments and others leaning toward denial due to water and traffic concerns.

The meeting also addressed the project’s revisions since its original submission. The development team representative detailed changes aimed at reducing environmental impact, such as reducing the number of buildings and units and preserving buffer zones. Despite these modifications, procedural concerns arose as board members noted the absence of updated plans for review. This lack of documentation prompted calls for a comprehensive peer review process before further actions.

Public comments added another layer to the debate, with residents voicing worries about increased traffic, especially concerning neighborhood safety. These community concerns further emphasized the need for clear communication and thorough evaluation before advancing the project.

As the meeting concluded, the board agreed to continue discussions on April 2nd, allowing developers time to prepare revised plans and address feedback. They stressed the importance of making updated plans publicly accessible to ensure transparency.