Central to the board’s decision was the extensive discussion about the property’s contamination issues, which have persisted for years. The board heard from environmental experts and community members about the site’s history of soil and groundwater contamination, primarily consisting of gasoline-related substances like benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. The presence of these contaminants prompted a detailed examination of the potential for vapor intrusion in occupied structures, which would require further air sampling to assess.

The Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) involved in the case elaborated on the complexities surrounding the site, highlighting gaps in remediation efforts and the need for comprehensive soil removal to prevent further plume migration. Despite past efforts, the board remained unconvinced of the applicant’s ability to address these issues adequately, as evidenced by the missed regulatory deadline for remediation set for February 28, 2024. The lack of a finalized work plan for cleanup, combined with ongoing concerns about off-site contamination, played a critical role in the board’s decision-making process.

Board members expressed frustration with the applicant’s perceived lack of progress and accountability, with one member remarking on the importance of protecting community health. The applicant’s failure to provide necessary documentation and assurances of site safety led the board to question the feasibility and desirability of the proposed light industrial use. This skepticism was echoed by community members, some of whom voiced concerns about the applicant’s track record and the potential risks of allowing any development without proper remediation.

The board’s decision to deny the use variance was framed as a protective measure for the community, with the understanding that the applicant could return with a revised application once the contamination issues were satisfactorily addressed.

In another significant agenda item, the board reviewed a preliminary and final site plan application for CVS Health, aimed at modernizing their facility on Berry Drive. The proposal included constructing a new employee break room, utilizing approved loading doors, and installing a generator. The board scrutinized the plans, focusing on operational impacts such as parking, truck routes, and the potential noise from the generator. The CVS representatives provided detailed testimony, emphasizing the need for improvements to accommodate an increased workforce as the facility transitions to a three-shift operation.

The board’s discussions highlighted the importance of compliance with local noise ordinances and the potential for using a gas-powered generator instead of diesel, considering the existing gas supply at the facility.

Additional variance requests were discussed concerning another site, where the applicant proposed modifications for restaurant equipment restoration operations. The board considered variances for front yard setbacks, impervious coverage, and signage, while also addressing stormwater management and landscaping plans. Public comments raised concerns about operational hours, environmental implications, and the long-term impact of these modifications on the community.