A major focal point of the meeting was the narrow 18-foot road that serves the proposed development site, which presents a potential safety hazard as vehicles frequently need to move partially off the pavement to pass each other. The board acknowledged this issue, debating whether road improvements could inadvertently increase traffic by encouraging more vehicles to use the route as a shortcut. Trucks were noted to frequently traverse the narrow road, raising concerns about worsening traffic safety. Discussion ensued about widening the road to accommodate two-way traffic, though this proposal was met with apprehension regarding its impact on historical walls and the character of the area.

Further safety discussions included the necessity of a fire alarm box, a code requirement for subdivisions with more than 12 lots. Additionally, sight distance at intersections was scrutinized, with a particular tree obstructing views and a wall that exceeded five feet in height both flagged as safety risks. The board considered relocating the intersection to improve sight lines, a move that would involve significant work and expense. Alternative solutions, such as altering the wall’s height, were discussed to meet safety standards without compromising the neighborhood’s aesthetic.

The proposed development’s infrastructure also drew attention, particularly the specifications for road construction materials. Discrepancies in proposed asphalt and gravel layers compared to code requirements raised questions about compliance. On-street parking prohibition was suggested due to narrow road width, while guest parking provisions were considered necessary to manage visitor traffic without exacerbating congestion.

Concerns about retaining walls required for the development were highlighted, with speculation that sufficient fill could remain onsite, negating the need for additional material. The impact of these walls on drainage and water management was another topic of concern, with the board emphasizing the need for effective stormwater management to avoid issues with septic systems and snow removal.

Public comments added to the debate over the development, with residents voicing concerns about the project’s density and its potential impact on local infrastructure, traffic, and environment. One resident, an experienced architect, criticized the layout as unimaginative and environmentally disruptive. The resident also highlighted the potential impact on local wildlife and emphasized the importance of managing water quality and septic systems to avoid groundwater contamination.

The topic of lighting in the development was discussed, with a board member advocating for “dark sky friendly” lighting to minimize light pollution, particularly for children walking from school. Public comments echoed these concerns, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the area’s natural character while ensuring safety. The prospect of using solar-powered lights was raised as an economical solution to improve visibility without excessive lighting.

Traffic management emerged as another key issue, with suggestions of adding speed bumps to slow traffic on Wild Harbor Road and restricting through traffic to address concerns about vehicle speed and safety. Residents expressed a desire to maintain the rural character of local roads, using them as resources for walkers and cyclists.

While some residents supported affordable housing initiatives, they called for a thoughtful approach that considers the unique characteristics and needs of the neighborhood. The board recognized these concerns, emphasizing the importance of compromise and collaboration to address the challenges posed by the proposed development.