The most pressing discussion centered around the proposal to increase liquor licenses in certain zones, particularly along Route 28. This proposal follows a tragic accident that resulted in three fatalities, raising notable safety concerns. One board member highlighted the dangers associated with Route 28, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive safety study before any expansion of liquor licenses. The board echoed concerns about increasing traffic density and its implications for pedestrian and cyclist safety. The debate also considered the presence of underage students at Curry College, located in one of the proposed zones, questioning the appropriateness of such a location for liquor licenses.

The board’s conversation extended to the possible benefits of expanding liquor licenses to existing businesses, such as package stores or restaurants, which could enhance their services. However, members stressed that without infrastructure improvements, the addition of more licenses might exacerbate existing safety and traffic issues. The idea of improving Route 28 for better pedestrian and cyclist access was suggested.

In addition to the liquor license debate, the meeting addressed significant legal concerns regarding the handling of Articles 5 and 6 from a recent town meeting. A community member with extensive local government experience expressed concerns about the legality of actions taken, particularly focusing on oversight and adherence to state and local laws. They pointed out procedural issues during the town meeting, such as the recusal of the town moderator and the questionable actions of the temporary moderator. The speaker also highlighted the lack of essential details in the certification document submitted to the attorney general, warning of potential legal complications for the town if these issues remain unaddressed.

The concerns extended to the town’s approach to funding projects, with specific criticism directed at the $250,000 appropriation to Peverly Park. The speaker argued that such funds should be allocated only to the entity responsible for the land’s care and custody. The Select Board was urged to scrutinize every step taken with Articles 5 and 6 to avoid placing the town in a precarious legal position.

Another portion of the meeting was devoted to discussing signage regulations, revealing a complex interplay of regulatory intent, community standards, and legal constraints. The board examined the cut and fill bylaw, signage permit processes, and the advisory role of the sign review committee. Concerns were raised about the cumbersome nature of current bylaws, particularly regarding the high threshold for fill permits and the inclusion of shade tree regulations.

The board explored potential amendments to improve clarity and consistency in signage regulations. Members emphasized the importance of simplifying the current framework to make it more accessible for applicants, acknowledging the frequent challenges professionals face in navigating confusing zoning regulations.

The review of the signage regulations also touched on specific categories such as non-conforming, protected, and exempt signs. Discussions focused on the need for clear definitions and consistent enforcement practices, with the building commissioner designated as the authority for compliance. Members debated various aspects of signage, including illumination methods and size limitations, while considering the impact of signs on the town’s aesthetic and historical character.

The meeting also introduced the topic of the finance subcommittee, aimed at enhancing coordinated financial planning to prevent unexpected budgetary shortfalls. This subcommittee would include representatives from the select board, school committee, and planning board, emphasizing the need for comprehensive financial planning related to land use and zoning.