The project for Newbury Heights, presented by applicants Mike Graves and Jerry Welch, encountered extensive examination regarding the proposed site layout and its environmental implications. A key point of focus was the dual-option site plan. Option A presented the current project configuration, while Option B proposed a crossing of wetlands, contingent upon approval from the Conservation Commission. This dual-option approach was favored by the planning board for its flexibility, allowing the project to proceed with minimal disruption if the wetlands crossing faced regulatory rejections.

The meeting included discussions on the likelihood of state intervention, specifically from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), should the Conservation Commission approve the wetlands crossing. Town counsel clarified that while the DEP has the authority to offer comments, it rarely overturns well-reasoned local decisions. Nonetheless, contingency plans were discussed, including reverting to Option A if Option B faced insurmountable regulatory challenges.

In tandem with environmental considerations, the board scrutinized traffic safety measures associated with the development. Concerns were raised about the project’s impact on local traffic, particularly at the intersection of Central Court. Despite the lack of specific line-of-sight data, assurances were made that the design would comply with safety standards endorsed by traffic consultants.

Visual aesthetics and screening were also pivotal topics. To address concerns about the project’s visual impact on surrounding properties, an enhanced row of evergreen plantings was proposed to provide immediate visual screening. The board explored the concept of constructing a berm with vegetation on top to further shield the development from neighboring views, with an emphasis on collaborating with landscape architects to avoid unnecessary environmental disruption.

The Newbury Heights project also underwent scrutiny regarding its topographical impact. Board members examined differences in elevation between existing homes and proposed buildings, with concerns about the visual prominence of the new structures. The developers were urged to provide accurate visual representations to mitigate community concerns and prevent surprises upon project completion.

Public concerns were voiced, notably by resident Nino Scaderi, who expressed apprehension over the proximity of leach fields to his property and the adequacy of buffer zones. The board acknowledged these concerns, emphasizing the importance of clear communication with abutters and adherence to setback guidelines.

The board showed readiness to continue evaluating the project, entertaining a motion to extend the public hearing to September 17, 2025, to gather additional information and ensure all aspects are thoroughly considered before reaching a decision.

Beyond the Newbury Heights development, the board addressed other noteworthy agenda items, including the finalization of the Gadsden Lane subdivision. The board confirmed the project’s completion, acknowledging that all requirements, including the Homeowners Association agreement and peer review, had been satisfied. This led to a unanimous vote to close out the project and release escrow funds.

Additionally, the board reviewed a preliminary subdivision application for a property on Central Street, with developer Michael Becker presenting modifications to the plan designed to minimize environmental impact. The board expressed satisfaction with the adjustments, particularly the relocation of the planned road to avoid topographical challenges.

Stowway Storage LLC’s request to close the site plan for their property on Sled Road was also discussed. Although the board was prepared to approve the closure, concerns about access impediments involving an excavator blocking an easement prompted a decision to delay until these issues were resolved.

The meeting concluded with an update on the Plum Island Boulevard project, which had secured select board approval to utilize town-owned land for improvements, including the installation of a sidewalk. This project remains in the permitting phase, with ongoing discussions about design materials and long-term maintenance responsibilities.