A central issue was the proposed car wash on Route 20, where council members debated the special permit application. Concerns were raised about traffic safety, particularly involving left turns from the site and the potential for water runoff to cause icy conditions during winter. A council member highlighted that the site had previously operated as a bank with a drive-thru. They noted the property’s vacancy and argued that a car wash would be a suitable replacement, emphasizing that conditions imposed would better regulate safety concerns compared to older facilities. However, opposition centered on safety issues, with one member stressing, “Safety, safety, safety,” and the risks posed by water accumulation near a traffic light.

The debate was marked by differing perspectives on traffic study data, with some members skeptical of comparisons to other car washes, questioning whether the proposed facility would indeed generate less business. This skepticism was challenged by those advocating for the permit, who argued that denying it lacked sufficient evidence and could prompt legal challenges. Despite concerns, supporters pointed out that conditions tied to the special permit aimed to control water accumulation and included provisions for police oversight.

Ultimately, the council voted on the motion to deny the special permit, resulting in a close decision. A motion to reconsider the denial was proposed but did not carry, highlighting the contentious nature of the discussions and the division within the council.

In addition to the car wash debate, the council addressed several other issues. A public hearing was held for a proposed warehouse and distribution facility on Elm Street. The project, introduced by Bill Pazone, aimed to adapt to changing market conditions by expanding permitted uses within the zoning category to attract tenants and prevent vacant buildings. Dante Angeluchi from Lincoln Property Company emphasized the economic benefits, projecting approximately $500,000 annually in tax revenue. The proposal included tailored limitations to prevent excessive traffic and negative impacts, with assurances that hazardous substances and large-scale operations would be excluded.

Environmental concerns surfaced during discussions, including the management of stormwater runoff due to the site’s elevation and proximity to residential areas. Plans were detailed to handle runoff effectively, with measures in place to mitigate water issues up to a 100-year flood event.

Another proposal involved the Ames Village Overlay District, a zoning amendment to facilitate multifamily housing at an 11-acre site at the intersection of Ames and Forest Streets. The amendment, presented by attorney Brian Faul, sought to allow up to 90 multifamily units, preserving a vegetated buffer from existing single-family homes. The proposal promised $450,000 in annual tax revenue, contrasting with a net loss from single-family homes due to school service impacts. Councilor Roby raised concerns about age-targeted designations, emphasizing the need for clarity on potential school-age children residing in the development.

The council approved grants for environmental protection, bulletproof vests, and cybersecurity enhancements with unanimous support.

The meeting concluded with discussions on public space use, particularly involving the plaza behind City Hall and Weed Street. Councilor Roby proposed a compromise to amend existing permits, allowing for outdoor activities while maintaining accessibility. The amendment passed with majority support.