The board’s deliberation on the West Street School project was thorough. The primary issue discussed was the visibility of town equipment stored in the parking lot adjacent to the property. Members highlighted the need for aesthetic improvements to shield equipment from neighbors, with suggestions including fencing or shrubbery. One member remarked that it would be a “nice common courtesy” to provide such screening. This condition was seen as essential given the transition of the lot from a school parking area to a utility space, now storing containers and hoop houses.

The project, managed by EDM Studios, had already addressed other board concerns effectively, such as traffic, noise, lighting, and waste disposal standards. Utilities are to remain underground, which was deemed acceptable by the board. The board also noted that the parking arrangements would largely remain unchanged, with modifications primarily aimed at enhancing accessibility.

Beyond the focus on the West Street School project, the meeting also tackled the development of planning rules and regulations. The board discussed the first five sections of new proposed guidelines, which cover operational aspects, including meeting conduct and application procedures. These guidelines, though not requiring town meeting approval, must undergo a public hearing by the planning board due to their basis in the zoning bylaw. Concerns were raised about potential overreach and the document’s alignment with existing processes, but reassurances were given that the guidelines are purely administrative.

Fee structures for applications were another topic of discussion, with some members suggesting that current fees may not cover processing costs. Ideas such as a retainer system or requiring applicants to directly pay peer review costs were floated to streamline financial management. There was an emphasis on the need for clarity in peer review processes, including specifying how fees are assessed and invoices processed.

The procedural aspects of peer reviews, particularly for subdivisions, were further scrutinized. The board emphasized the importance of having qualified firms conduct these reviews to ensure construction aligns with design specifications and safety standards. Concerns about accountability were raised, referencing past projects like the Dollar General that faced construction issues.

To enhance compliance, a proposal for a systematic approach requiring planning board sign-off upon completion of specified conditions was introduced. This would serve as a check and balance, mitigating issues arising from personnel changes in the code enforcement and building inspection departments.