The expansion of the Noya Food Factory was a focal point, with project manager Victoria Holland from TETRA presenting a revised site plan. Originally approved for a 77,000 square foot addition, the new proposal called for a reduced expansion of approximately 43,000 square feet, bringing the total to 158,000 square feet. The board scrutinized changes to parking and loading dock positions, as well as utility improvements including water and sewage systems. Notably, there was a variance in place for a 75-foot-tall building, yet the proposal presented a 58-foot structure. Questions arose about potential amendments to this variance and its impact on surrounding properties. Concerns regarding the discharge of roof drains onto neighboring properties were also raised, prompting discussions on the need for corrective actions and further communication with relevant authorities and property owners.

Apart from the Noya Food Factory, the board engaged in a public hearing for the redevelopment of a property on Groton Harvard Road. The applicant presented plans for demolishing an existing building to construct a new commercial building with associated parking and utility connections. The board members sought clarification on the project’s adherence to regulations, especially regarding the proposed stormwater management system which included innovative solutions such as a “focal point” for phosphorus removal, similar to a rain garden but with enhanced infiltration.

Another topic under discussion was the requirement for a waiver related to soil testing and fill material suitability for a project on Harvard Road. The debate centered around the number of test pits conducted and whether adequate soil logs had been provided. There were also apprehensions about the unsuitable fill and the practicality of removing it to be replaced with suitable material. The board debated the suitability of the proposed subsurface infiltration system and its compliance with stormwater management regulations. The calculation of impervious areas and the inclusion of certain areas in the stormwater system were also points of contention.

The board further discussed concerns about the stability of a slope on a property, prompted by an incident involving a crane rolling down the slope. This led to a conversation about the necessity of a barrier or fence to prevent such occurrences, with alternative solutions proposed by the applicant. The exchanges underlined the board’s concern for the slope’s stability and the site’s overall impact on the environment, emphasizing the need for a collaborative approach to resolve the issues.

Additionally, the board’s dialogue touched on the construction industry’s best practices for parking heavy equipment, discrepancies between steel and submitted site plans, and aesthetic suggestions for the property’s landscape. Aesthetic considerations like a concrete sidewalk and walkways were recommended, and the implementation of an overflow system was discussed.

The meeting also examined the stormwater management plan for a new development, with the board questioning the adequacy of the proposed drainage system. A debate ensued over whether the redevelopment portion of the project site should be considered in stormwater management, leading to a request for reassessment if deemed necessary. Concerns about fuel storage and potential environmental impacts were also raised.

Other discussions covered practical matters such as the presence of wildlife like turkeys, debris control, and the definition of use areas. The Conservation Commission expressed concerns about the impact of heavy equipment on conservation land, focusing on the need for precautions against potential environmental hazards.