The foremost topic of discussion was the subdivision modification for Hild the Lane, a project dating back to its original approval in 2005. The plan, presented by a representative, Mr. Webby, and property owner Scott Bridg, involved altering the previously approved design to avoid wetland interference by shortening the roadway by approximately 250 feet. This change necessitated a reduction from six lots to five, with two lots already housing existing structures. The revised plan proposed converting the gravel roadway to a paved surface in line with town standards, including the installation of water services and fire hydrants.

Commission members debated the impact of narrowing the road from 30 feet to 22 feet, addressing concerns about traffic flow and pedestrian safety due to the absence of sidewalks—an issue highlighted in previous meetings. A peer review was advocated by some members to ensure comprehensive assessment of the drainage and utility provisions, which remained consistent with the original 2005 plan. The proposal’s drainage system, featuring a leaching drain, was confirmed to prevent runoff onto Haywood Street, although some voiced the need for additional scrutiny to address community concerns.

The commission ultimately decided to proceed with a peer review and circulate the updated site plan to relevant boards, ensuring examination before the next meeting on December 5, 2024. This decision aimed to balance the need for progress on the subdivision with the due diligence required to address concerns from abutters and local residents.

Following the subdivision discussion, the commission turned to a proposed code of conduct for board members. This topic generated substantial debate, focusing on the balance between ethical standards and the board’s independence from the Board of Selectmen. Concerns were raised about the code’s implications, particularly regarding public expression and the potential for selectmen oversight.

Some members expressed apprehension that the code could lead to government overreach, with one participant emphasizing the need for board members to remain accountable primarily to the electorate.

Despite differing opinions, there was a consensus that the document’s framework required refinement. Members suggested addressing specific sections that raised concerns rather than dismissing the entire proposal. The emphasis was on ensuring respectful conduct among board members while maintaining independence from external influence.

Further complicating the discussion was the requirement for board members to collectively sign the code of conduct. Some argued for individual discretion rather than a majority vote. A motion to not recommend the code, under the condition that the Board of Selectmen does not preside over the Planning Board, passed. This decision reflected ongoing concerns about potential repercussions for non-compliance and the need for a more nuanced approach to implementing the code.

In addition to these primary discussions, the meeting addressed resident concerns, including safety issues related to street conditions and procedural transparency in addressing community inquiries. A proposal was made to streamline the process of adding resident inquiries to the agenda.

One specific case involved the inclusion of a resident’s request concerning “Deal Away” on the agenda. The commission agreed to address this matter in the next meeting.

The meeting concluded with an update on a proposed remodel of Walmart, raising questions about architectural design restrictions and historical district considerations. The commission decided to review the original conditions set during Walmart’s initial construction to ensure compliance with any relevant standards.