One of the central issues discussed was the evaluation of soil classifications and their impact on local flooding. Concerns were raised about inconsistencies in the methodology used for testing wells and drill pits, with several board members questioning the reliability of the lab tests compared to infield testing. The soil classification was a factor, as it directly influenced the project’s potential flooding impact. Board members were particularly troubled by the applicant’s reliance on a soil classification that differed from the state’s, which could lead to increased flooding risks.

The board also scrutinized the project’s stormwater management plan, expressing dissatisfaction with the engineering assessments submitted. Members highlighted the importance of considering the project’s broader impacts on properties, including sound, light, water, and traffic. They emphasized their responsibility to ensure that the development would not be detrimental to the local environment and residents. The board’s previous decision to deny the application had been based on similar concerns, and the applicant’s failure to provide additional testing and information only reinforced their stance.

Public comments further echoed these concerns, with residents and representatives questioning the accuracy and completeness of the applicant’s submissions, particularly regarding permits from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). There was a shared sentiment among board members and the public that the planning board’s duty extended beyond state-level approvals, requiring a thorough independent evaluation of the project’s compliance with local environmental standards.

Another aspect of the meeting was the remand proceedings concerning Harvard Way JMJ4 LLC. The board considered a judge’s order allowing the applicant to supplement their record with proofs regarding stormwater management, though this did not necessitate a reclassification of site soils. However, the absence of a professional to testify on the DEP permits raised doubts about the reliability of the information presented. The board and public alike expressed skepticism about the applicant’s reliance on paper submissions without expert testimony, complicating efforts to assess the validity of the documents.

The deliberations also touched on the project’s lack of clarity regarding its intended use. Board members noted the absence of testimony from the actual owner or operator of the facility, which compounded the uncertainty surrounding the application. This lack of concrete information led to a consensus that the application remained speculative, with no definitive understanding of the operational specifics.

In addition to these discussions, the meeting addressed the Campus Drive residential project by Fernmore Homes. The board received an update on the site’s progress, with reports of completed site work, partial paving, and ongoing electrical conduit installations. The project includes a phasing plan with four residential buildings and a clubhouse, integrating affordable housing units with market-rate options. The board underscored the importance of adhering to the phasing plan, which governs the issuance of occupancy certificates based on the ratio of affordable to market-rate units.