The board’s decision to approve the Victory Programs proposal on William Street was a focal point of the meeting. Public comments revealed a community deeply divided over the proposed transitional housing facility. Concerns were raised about the potential impacts on neighborhood safety, with particular emphasis on the absence of safety protocols in the proposal, such as mandatory drug testing and bans on certain offenders. Residents urged the board to ensure community safety by incorporating these safeguards into the agreement.

The board’s deliberation included input from Victory Programs’ representatives, who defended the proposal by highlighting the distinct nature of the Portis family home environment compared to other recovery homes. They assured that the facility would cater to individuals at a different stage of recovery, mitigating risks associated with more traditional sober houses. Despite these assurances, community members remained apprehensive, citing past incidents that had raised concerns about safety and transparency.

In addition to safety, the fiscal implications of assigning the right of first refusal to Victory Programs were scrutinized. A speaker noted that keeping the property off the tax rolls would exacerbate the town’s projected $7 million deficit. They argued that developing the site into condominiums could generate substantial tax revenue, a point that resonated with those concerned about the town’s financial stability.

The select board acknowledged the community’s concerns, emphasizing the importance of inclusivity and the need to support individuals in recovery. Acknowledging the contentious nature of the decision, the board committed to ensuring that any agreement would include conditions addressing the concerns raised by residents. The chair reiterated the board’s openness to community input, encouraging suggestions for reasonable license conditions that would govern the lodging house operation.

The meeting also addressed a 40B proposal for a property on Harvard Street, which sparked debate over adherence to local zoning regulations. The proposal, which seeks to provide affordable housing, faced opposition from residents who argued that it circumvented the town’s zoning consensus. This sentiment was echoed by board members who emphasized the importance of respecting the community’s established zoning guidelines.

The board’s discussion highlighted a divide over how to approach the proposal, with some members advocating for outright denial to maintain zoning integrity, while others favored a more collaborative approach.

In addition to housing issues, the meeting covered various administrative and policy matters. The board approved several policies related to information technology and data governance.

The meeting concluded with discussions on the select board’s goals and objectives for the upcoming fiscal year. Members debated the inclusion of specific goals, such as the comprehensive plan and climate action initiatives, emphasizing the need for actionable plans and funding alignment.

Throughout the session, the board faced criticism from residents who felt their concerns were not adequately addressed. This sentiment was particularly pronounced regarding the proposed recovery program’s siting, which some argued was too close to vulnerable populations. In response, the board acknowledged the need for improved communication channels and committed to considering public input in future decisions.