The most notable topic revolved around the site plan review for Mansonet Street, where zoning regulations proved to be a central concern. The applicant presented updated plans, but the discussion quickly centered on the contentious issue of outdoor seating. The building inspector clarified that while seating outside might be allowed, current zoning laws strictly prohibit serving food or beverages outdoors. This prohibition raised questions among board members, especially in light of similar establishments, such as the 550 Tavern and the former Monet, offering outdoor service. It was explained that these venues operated under pre-existing non-conforming uses, effectively grandfathering them in under older regulations.

Debate ensued over the possibility of obtaining a special permit for outdoor service, but it was confirmed that such a permit would not be applicable in this case, as the use is outright prohibited by zoning laws. The applicant’s intention to include a mobile bar for service further complicated the matter. The board emphasized the need for a well-defined site plan, particularly concerning parking arrangements, due to the complexities introduced by potential outdoor seating.

Parking requirements were another issue, as the proposed occupancy of the establishment necessitated precise calculations for parking spaces, including handicap spots. Concerns about water runoff impacting Mansonet Street and snow placement adjacent to sidewalks were articulated by representatives from the Highway and Conservation Departments, highlighting the multifaceted nature of planning for this project.

In another discussion, the board examined a septic system plan that required an engineered design due to concerns over exceeding current septic capacity. The project, initially conceived as a coffee shop, had evolved into a proposal for an event space capable of hosting small weddings and popup shops. This transformation called for careful consideration of parking across the street, sparking suggestions for a crosswalk to improve safety. However, the placement of such a crosswalk faced skepticism due to traffic dynamics, prompting an alternative proposal for valet service, pending evaluation by the traffic study committee.

A broader conversation ensued concerning the town’s zoning map, which had not been updated in 40 years. Members acknowledged the importance of revisiting the map to determine if changes were necessary to protect property values and prevent overdevelopment. The absence of a town planner was cited as a disadvantage, with suggestions made to engage the Old Colony Planning Council for support, despite mixed feelings about past interactions with the organization. The dialogue also touched on new state mandates that could impact local zoning, emphasizing the board’s role in proactive planning to address future infrastructure needs and avoid financial burdens on residents.