The meeting’s most critical discussion centered on the proposed 44-unit multifamily development on Central Street, submitted by the Massachusetts Housing Opportunities Corporation. The project aims to provide affordable housing options, featuring a mix of four-plexes, five-plexes, and three-plexes. Key elements include a school bus stop, community garden, dog park, and bio-retention ponds. However, board members expressed concerns about the project’s entrance, located near the Central Court and Central Street intersection. They emphasized the need for traffic mitigation measures due to the potential for increased congestion and safety risks. The idea of adjusting the entrance configuration and possibly repositioning buildings was suggested to ensure safer access.

Another focal point was the proposed development on Central Street, which involved discussions on infrastructure and safety. The board debated the necessity of a pump station to manage wastewater and considered the installation of an emergency generator. Traffic safety at the intersection remained a priority, with suggestions for adding deceleration lanes and a bus stop shelter for children. The board ultimately accepted the application and scheduled a public hearing for April 16, transitioning from virtual to in-person format.

In parallel, the board examined a subdivision proposal for a property on High Road, presented by Tom Ney, a civil environmental engineer. Ney offered five subdivision plans, with varying layouts including conventional subdivision and open space residential development (OSRD) approaches. Despite the OSRD’s potential environmental benefits, board members questioned its value, citing limited public advantages and expressing a preference for conventional subdivisions. Concerns about emergency access and the impact of common driveways on safety were also raised, prompting suggestions for widening driveways to accommodate emergency vehicles.

The board’s discussion revealed a cautious approach towards balancing development with community and environmental considerations. Ney highlighted the property’s agricultural history and potential, noting the absence of wetlands and the feasibility of conventional development. Members emphasized the importance of adhering to zoning bylaws and maintaining community standards, while welcoming further input to refine the proposals.

The meeting also addressed unfinished business related to the 105 High Road development. The applicant’s attorney sought the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Unit Nine, arguing that standard requirements had been met. Despite this, board members highlighted incomplete tasks, particularly concerning plant installations and site conditions. A review of completed work was deemed necessary before approving any bond release. The planning director called for a more in-depth discussion on open space issues, highlighting responsibilities among the project, homeowners association, and town.

The meeting concluded with a report from the Conservation Commission, which discussed the Newbury landfill and a shooting range proposal involving solar panel integration. Transportation projects, including the Route 110 Corridor and a potential electric ferry service on the Merrimack River, were also noted. The meeting ended with the approval of previous minutes and adjournment, amid ongoing discourse about project timelines and outstanding tasks.