One notable issue before the Planning Board was the proposed two-lot subdivision on Central Street, including a duplex development that stoked considerable community concern. Residents expressed apprehensions about the safety and visibility of the proposed driveway, the environmental impact on the wooded site, and potential traffic congestion. A point of discussion was the driveway’s location, with Melissa Gasper and other residents of Johnson Lane stressing the dangers posed by the proposed oblique angle of the new driveway on Church Street. They highlighted the poor visibility and steep embankment, which could exacerbate winter driving conditions, potentially leading to accidents. Gasper further noted that the existing driveway off Central Street offered better visibility and safer access for motorists.

Additionally, residents like Tom Rogers and Kelly voiced concerns about the visual impact, light pollution, and the number of trees to be removed for the development. Rogers, who resides on Church Street, was apprehensive about the light pollution and the change in scenery from his living room after 40 years of viewing woods. Kelly, from 11 Central Street, worried about the driveway’s impact on mailbox placement and traffic flow, especially during snowy weather.

The board deliberated on the feasibility of a site walk to better understand the site’s conditions. Members discussed whether to conduct a collective site walk or individual visits, ultimately leaning towards a group visit to assess traffic flow and sight lines. A member highlighted the need for additional vegetation, such as evergreens, to address light pollution concerns raised by Scott, who noted increased visibility during winter months.

Public participation was robust, with individuals like Bill Prescott echoing concerns about the driveway’s visibility and the potential increase in traffic. Prescott questioned the suitability of locating a duplex near wetland areas. In response to environmental concerns, applicants clarified that no work would occur within 100 feet of the wetland area, addressing proximity issues.

To ensure comprehensive public involvement, a resident called for an additional public hearing, emphasizing the importance of gathering feedback from those unable to attend the current meeting. The board agreed to continue the public hearing to the next meeting on March 18, allowing time for more public input and revisions to the project, particularly concerning drainage and peer review.

Another topic discussed was a zoning amendment request from the select board to increase the Zoning Board of Appeals membership from three to five members. The Planning Board supported this proposal, recognizing its potential benefits. The amendment, which required updating language to reflect current terminology, would be submitted to the select board for referral and a public hearing was tentatively set for March 18.

In addition, the board reviewed a proposal from a couple planning to build a new home on a lot with a dilapidated farmhouse. The couple, represented by Neil Swain, intended to demolish the existing structure and renovate a nearby barn. The board discussed modifications to the drainage design, including relocating a swale to manage water runoff effectively. Board members expressed support for the proposal, noting anticipated improvements to the drainage dynamics once the new home replaces the existing dwelling.

Lastly, the board addressed a request for a partial release of security funds for the Cypress Wall subdivision on High Road. The applicant sought the release of $13,998 from a cash bond for road construction, with the board approving the request following peer review recommendation, leaving a remaining balance of approximately $55,000.