The appeal against the planning board’s approval for the child care facility on North Road was a focal point of the meeting. The appeal was lodged by Michael Goya, a resident on North Road, who raised concerns about the size and impact of the proposed facility, claiming it was unreasonable for the neighborhood. Goya argued that the planning board’s decision was based on a misunderstanding of the Dover Amendment, which limits the town’s ability to regulate child care facilities as long as they meet zoning requirements. Goya’s appeal alleged that the project’s scale was inappropriate and questioned the planning board’s interpretation of zoning laws related to bulk and dimensional regulations.

During the meeting, the board discussed whether the planning board’s approval adhered to the zoning bylaws. It was noted that the child care facility is considered a protected use under the Dover Amendment, meaning towns can only impose reasonable regulations on aspects like bulk, setback, and parking. The planning board had determined that the project met these criteria, aside from parking, which was deemed sufficient based on the applicant’s evidence.

The board also examined whether Goya had standing to challenge the decision. Proximity to the proposed site generally provides a presumption of standing, but the board noted that any challenge would require evidence of actual harm. Goya expressed concerns over potential property value reduction and aesthetic impacts, comparing the facility’s size to a “mega mall” and raising safety concerns about increased traffic on North Road.

A representative for Viking Development, the company behind the child care center, defended the project, emphasizing that the facility was a by-right use under existing zoning regulations. The representative pointed out that the proposed center was similar in size to another nearby facility and that the parking provided exceeded that of the neighboring center. The board was reminded that without substantive evidence, claims regarding property value impacts could not be speculative.

Further discussion revealed that the approval of the site plan was a prerequisite for a building permit, and the board’s role was to assess whether the planning board’s actions were correct. After deliberation, a motion to deny the appeal was made and passed unanimously, confirming the planning board’s actions.

In addition to the appeal, the board addressed a variance request for a residential addition on Smith Street. The applicants, Thong Q. Hoang and Linda Li, sought a variance to construct a 28 by 24-foot addition that did not comply with the 25-foot side setback requirement, proposing a 16-foot setback instead. The addition was intended to create separate living spaces with a two-car garage and living quarters above for privacy between Li and her son, Thomas Wong.

The board engaged in discussions about the variance, with one member highlighting the lot’s unique topography as justification for the variance. The board reviewed letters from the fire prevention office and the Department of Public Works, which required compliance with current codes and sewer flow limitations. No public comments were made during the hearing, and the board approved the variance request unanimously.