The applicant’s representatives, including a traffic engineer and professional planner, provided explanations for the proposed parking layout, which includes 35 parking spaces—eight fewer than required by ordinance. Emphasizing that the store would generate low traffic, the traffic study suggested minimal impact to service levels at nearby intersections and driveways. The applicant’s team assured board members that the truck loading would occur during off-peak hours and that delivery trucks would not impede customer parking or access. The professionals also addressed the board’s concerns about the maneuverability of delivery trucks and the circulation plan.

The proposed architectural design features upgraded elements such as windows on all sides, a split facade with stone and siding, and awnings above the front windows. In response to board inquiries, the applicant’s representative discussed three design waivers, including one for landscaping, one for the absence of sidewalks on the main road frontage, and one for building facade projections and recesses. The board’s planner believed that the design met the intent of the waiver related to the building facade.

Public participation was an aspect of the meeting, with residents expressing concerns about the project’s impact. Questions were raised about the safety of having only one driveway on Route 40, especially near a busy intersection, and the potential increase in traffic from Main Road School and nearby locations. Residents also debated the necessity of a farm buffer and its applicability in the commercial district.

Amidst these discussions, the board also addressed the landscape waiver for the parking lot, agreeing that additional plantings along the perimeter would enhance the area’s aesthetics. Further debate ensued on the appropriate types of trees for the site, the use of lighting shields, and the maintenance of landscaping over utilities. The board took note of the public’s concerns about the single driveway entrance onto Route 40, the adequacy of lighting, and the potential conflict of store deliveries with school hours.

The meeting also touched on broader community issues, such as the construction of a new Highway plant and the potential traffic concerns it might raise. Residents called for landscape improvements and the planting of trees behind the Basin and along specific areas, subject to sight triangle regulations. Additionally, the impact of a well near a gas station was questioned regarding remediation efforts and environmental safety.

The debate over the farm buffer requirement was particularly notable, as participants discussed the zoning regulations and the potential need to seek input from the State Agriculture Development Committee. While some members of the community urged caution and a review of the regulations, others emphasized the importance of not setting a precedent that could affect future developments.

As the meeting progressed, the board considered the draft master plan and proposed discussing potential changes in an upcoming August meeting. The session concluded with the approval of minutes and the adjournment of the meeting.