The proposal for the development on Summers Road includes plans for an agricultural operation with facilities for growing various crops, such as apples, berries, and pumpkins, along with a farm stand. The project aims to revitalize the historic state line farm, adding educational and experiential elements for the community. However, residents voiced worries about increased traffic, noise from events, and the proximity of the building to their properties.

During the meeting, the board considered the project’s site plan, which detailed the building layout, parking provisions for 81 vehicles, and traffic management strategies. Concerns were raised about the potential for significant traffic increases, with projections estimating approximately 308 vehicle trips on weekdays and 610 on Saturdays. The traffic management plan aims to mitigate these impacts by coordinating with local authorities and setting procedures for event days. Despite these measures, residents like Jeff Flesi questioned the adequacy of the plan.

Residents also addressed issues of safety and privacy, particularly regarding the proposed placement of an apiary and access roads. John Dalton highlighted the proximity of the apiary to his property and its potential risks, given his son’s allergic reaction to bee stings. He requested that the apiary be relocated and suggested additional barriers to prevent children from accessing his swimming pool. Other residents, like Lisa Adam, expressed dissatisfaction with the buffering of trees between their properties and the development, citing previous assurances of better vegetation buffers.

The board acknowledged the community’s concerns, with discussions highlighting the need for additional plantings and traffic management improvements. The board emphasized that all necessary adjustments and conditions would be considered before granting site plan approval. The potential for light pollution from vehicles and the development was also discussed, with suggestions for directing lights downward and minimizing their impact on neighboring properties.

The planning director and board members committed to taking the community’s feedback seriously and ensuring any required changes to the project plans would be made. The dialogue between residents and the board illustrated a clear desire for accountability and a resolution that respects neighborhood concerns while allowing for the development’s progression.

In addition to the agricultural development discussions, the board addressed procedural changes and zoning issues. A significant procedural update was the elimination of the requirement for a site plan review waiver for certain businesses, such as hair salons, streamlining the process for obtaining business licenses. This change was noted as a positive step towards enhancing efficiency for new ventures in the town.

Zoning concerns were also a topic of interest, with discussions about the need to balance property rights and community standards. The board considered the impact of unregistered vehicles and home-based businesses on neighborhood aesthetics and property values. There was a call for better enforcement of existing bylaws and potential revisions to zoning regulations that could help maintain the character of residential areas while accommodating business needs.