During the meeting, emphasis was placed on the changes made to the application, which included a deed restriction to prohibit any principal warehouse uses for 25 years. This restriction was part of a settlement agreement with specific parties and intended to address concerns about the property’s future use. The revised site plan also proposed modifications to the building floor area, the ratio of light manufacturing, and the number of loading bays, alongside plans to restrict tractor-trailer traffic from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.

One of the primary concerns discussed was the potential for increased traffic, particularly from heavy trucks. The board examined the potential impact of truck movements, the reduction in square footage of the light manufacturing space, and the proposed restrictions on truck traffic hours. The debate also centered on the need for variances related to lot frontage, access, and the impact of intensification on the access easement of an adjacent property. The necessity of a D1 or D2 variance was debated, taking into account the traffic generation and use of the driveway in relation to the proposed changes.

The board engaged in discussions about the environmental impact of the project, with a focus on the proposed truck routes and the disturbance of environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and steep slopes. The expert witness assured the project’s compliance with all applicable regulations regarding wetlands and stormwater management.

Another point of contention was the parking requirements for the proposed facility. The board questioned the traffic engineer about the number of parking spaces, with a detailed inquiry into whether the parking plan accounted for visitor spaces. Comparisons were made to the previous office facility, which had substantially more parking spaces.

Public comments raised concerns about the alignment of the proposed development with the town’s master plan, which emphasizes the retention of rural character, improvement of streetscapes, and conservation of open spaces. The public and board members also questioned the interpretation of what constitutes light manufacturing and the possibility of a 24-hour operation.

The meeting saw residents and board members inquire about the number of variances being requested for the development. There was a discussion about the categorization of the variances and the implications of not granting them. The board sought clarification on the historical context of zoning in the area, particularly the allowance of light manufacturing and the anticipated level of truck traffic it would bring.

The board also addressed concerns about the potential impact of the proposed development on the surrounding community, including noise and air pollution from increased truck traffic. The planner emphasized that the development’s truck traffic was within the allowed range by the zoning regulations and that trucks would need to comply with applicable rules and regulations.

In addition to the substantive discussions, the meeting acknowledged the departure of a board member, expressing gratitude for their contributions. The board announced the next meeting date and the plan to continue the hearing, allowing for further cross-examination of witnesses and public comments.