Attorney David Assad, representing Little Hands College, presented the petition, arguing that under the Massachusetts General Law Dover Amendment, educational facilities are shielded from certain zoning restrictions. Assad maintained that requiring a special permit for the daycare was inconsistent with state protections. Despite his arguments, concerns about the potential impact on the neighborhood persisted. Residents, including Connie Silver, voiced fears about increased traffic and parking challenges, particularly due to the facility’s proximity to the Antioch school, which already experiences congestion during peak hours. Silver expressed apprehension over the safety of children and the burden on homeowners without private driveways.

The board acknowledged the educational use’s allowance but emphasized their duty to evaluate the broader implications for the community. Discussions highlighted the contrasting interpretations of local and state regulations concerning the public good. While Assad argued for parking relief based on Massachusetts General Law Chapter 15D, which supports educational facilities, some board members and residents insisted that the daycare’s parking plans were inadequate. The debate led to scrutiny of the daycare’s employee parking provisions, with concerns that the facility’s reliance on street parking could exacerbate existing issues.

A decisive moment came when the board considered a bifurcated motion regarding the special permit for parking. Despite arguments for the facility’s public benefit, the board moved to deny the request, citing insufficient off-street parking and potential detriment to the public good. This decision underscored ongoing tensions between local zoning authority and state-level educational protections.

Following the daycare discussion, the board addressed River Investment Properties LLC’s application for a variance to construct a six-unit apartment building on East Main Street. The proposal, which sought relief from setback and lot coverage regulations, aimed to replace an existing two-story multifamily building with a larger structure. The project was presented as financially viable and consistent with neighborhood development, but concerns about density and parking resurfaced.

Resident opposition was vocal, with neighboring property owners highlighting existing traffic and parking difficulties. The proposal’s potential impact on local infrastructure, particularly in a densely populated area, was a recurring theme. Despite these concerns, the board recognized the property’s zoning designation, which allows for apartment use, and deliberated on the balance between development needs and community preservation.

Another item at the meeting involved a variance request for property on Len Street. Attorney Peter Acelino sought relief from lot coverage and setback requirements to construct a new single-family dwelling and convert an existing structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The proposal aimed to accommodate the Sharp family’s needs while adhering to zoning regulations. The board discussed the implications of setting precedents for future applications and emphasized the importance of maintaining zoning integrity. The motion to approve the variance included conditions to prevent further ADUs or subdivisions.