The proposal for an assisted living facility near the Knights of Columbus facility drew attention. Concerns were raised about the developer’s failure to map the environmental constraints, particularly concerning the MSOP St. Brooke area. The council noted the proposed density exceeded community norms, further complicating the project’s viability. The lack of proper environmental assessment led to skepticism about the project’s feasibility, with some council members suggesting the likelihood of it progressing was minimal given current conditions.

Zoning issues continued to dominate the meeting, particularly in the context of property applications and related compliance challenges. A detailed debate unfolded over a variance application by the Bendic family for property alterations on Cotch Peak Avenue. The application was delayed due to incomplete paperwork and inaccuracies in a recent property survey. The board stressed the necessity of accurate documentation, especially concerning impervious coverage and height calculations. This led to the decision to postpone the application to the next meeting, with the requirement that all necessary documents be submitted by then.

The council also discussed the application of Jose Penfield, who sought an extension of a resolution for a new single-family home on Jefferson Avenue. The deliberations revolved around whether the necessary revised plans had been submitted. Although ownership documentation was confirmed, the absence of updated plans prompted debate about the prudence of approving an extension without complete information. The council considered the legal implications of denying an extension under these circumstances, emphasizing the need for a cautious approach to avoid potential lawsuits.

In addressing the procedural aspects of handling applications, council members highlighted the importance of clear communication with applicants to prevent delays. A suggestion was made that an individual from the council should follow up with applicants to remind them of outstanding documents. The board agreed to establish clearer timelines for submitting revised plans in future applications.

Budget discussions were also on the agenda, though a decision was reached to table the matter until the next meeting. A query about a driveway application for a property on Manhattan led to a clarification that discrepancies in the plans, particularly regarding the size of a shed and driveway expansion, had put the application on hold. The conversation touched on the classification of impervious surfaces and compliance with updated ordinances, with the need for further investigation into these issues.

The council’s examination of escrow and fee structures pointed to a broader consideration of aligning with neighboring towns. References to Oakland and Westwood’s fee structures were mentioned, and it was proposed to gather more information before proceeding with any changes. This discussion underlined the council’s effort to ensure a fair and informed approach to zoning fees.

Board membership was another topic of importance, as the council underscored the urgency of filling a vacancy by January. The process of advertising for new applicants was discussed, with a consensus on the need to appoint regular members rather than alternates to ensure full staffing for upcoming meetings and decisions.