A request by Hershma Singh, the owner of Motu Indian Cuisine, to extend the restaurant’s operating hours from 9:00 p.m. to midnight generated considerable debate. Singh, who operates the restaurant on North Main Street, highlighted the demand for late-night dining options, particularly for takeout, noting that current options in the area are limited. He argued that extended hours would better serve the community, especially night-shift workers. Despite departmental approval, residents expressed concerns about potential disruptions to their quality of life due to extended hours.

Jim Wland, a resident living nearby, strongly opposed the proposal, highlighting noise and activity disruptions late at night. He stressed that the extended hours would interfere with children’s sleep and residents’ peace. Paige Ler echoed these concerns, emphasizing the impact of noise on her family’s home life, particularly regarding customers leaving the restaurant late at night. Both residents voiced apprehensions about outdoor seating arrangements, which they believed exacerbated noise issues and potentially endangered neighborhood safety.

Singh responded by asserting that his business primarily relies on takeout and that only a handful of customers used the outdoor seating, which was intended for takeout consumption rather than dining service. The board, acknowledging the residents’ concerns, opted not to decide on the request immediately. Instead, they deferred the matter to their next meeting on August 5th, encouraging further dialogue between Singh and the community to explore potential compromises, such as restricting outdoor seating after a specific hour.

Meanwhile, the board tackled a comprehensive site plan review for a proposed 4,837 square foot agricultural commercial building on Summers Road, presented by We Are a Farm LLC. The project, located within a residential zoning district, aims to extend agricultural use and potentially host on-site events. Concerns were raised about traffic management and parking adequacy, especially with the proposed occupancy of 176 people and only 61 parking spots available. The applicant suggested additional space for overflow parking, although this was not included in the primary plan.

Issues of jurisdiction arose due to the site’s proximity to the town of Hampton, which houses an apiary related to the project. The planning director emphasized that the building commissioner would determine the agricultural use’s applicability under Massachusetts law, while the current hearing focused on the building’s layout and its traffic and stormwater management. An attorney for the applicant responded to previous inquiries, detailing measures to address concerns, including trash pickup during off-peak hours and enhanced screening for neighboring properties.

Traffic management sparked debate, with residents questioning the adequacy of the proposed study and its consideration of peak traffic conditions. A participant called for a study to address vehicle speeds on Route 83, particularly concerning large events. The board discussed related conditions, including no parking areas and traffic control measures for special events.

Further discussions included landscaping and vegetation plans surrounding the project, with provisions for screening to protect neighboring properties. The plan integrates a six-foot stockade fence and additional plantings, utilizing an orchard to buffer neighbors. Concerns about dust from gravel parking areas were addressed with assurances of using a poly pave additive to bind the aggregate and minimize dust.

As the meeting progressed, the board approved waivers for stormwater and traffic study requirements, alongside surfacing and signage design waivers, with the applicant agreeing to coordinate a site visit post-construction. A robust dialogue highlighted the challenges of balancing agricultural development with community standards, with the board emphasizing the need for clarity in operational aspects and adherence to zoning regulations.