The primary focus of the meeting was the site plan review for PSPR 24-20 concerning 1 Ponent Street. Gabriel PF from Great Consulting presented the updated plan, which addressed previous comments from a review by Patrick Brennan. The board discussed in detail the modifications made to the site, including the removal of certain surface drainage and changes to pipe materials to accommodate anticipated traffic. Gabriel assured the board that references to subsurface systems had been removed from the plans, and a cut and fill analysis had been submitted. However, the board noted the absence of feedback from the fire chief on the updated plans, prompting a request for written confirmation of compliance from the fire department.

The project had also been reviewed by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, and Gabriel confirmed that it met performance standards concerning state-listed species, specifically the eastern box turtle. These findings had been submitted to the Conservation Commission with no objections raised. A motion to approve the site plan with conditions was made, requiring necessary approvals from the Conservation Commission and adherence to stormwater management regulations. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.

Meanwhile, the board wrestled with a special permit application related to building sizes and existing bylaws. The bylaws stipulate that commercial structures of 15,000 square feet or more require a special permit. The debate centered on whether this requirement applied to individual buildings or the aggregate of multiple structures. Opinions varied, with some suggesting each building should be considered separately, while others argued for a conservative approach, recommending a special permit to avoid future complications. Ultimately, a motion was approved with unanimous support, stipulating that buildings should not be combined to exceed the size limit.

The board also addressed a site plan modification for the property on Plymouth Street, known as CCO. There were unresolved issues concerning easements and drainage, particularly how drainage from 314 flows through adjacent properties. The lack of a finalized easement complicated matters, and the town engineer had stated that no occupancy permit would be approved until drainage was resolved. Concerns were raised about the potential for development to proceed without resolving these issues, which could lead to significant problems for surrounding properties. The board emphasized the need for clear communication with all parties involved to ensure compliance with the approved site plan.

The ongoing development at CCO raised further discussions about the necessity for site plan modifications, particularly given that the original storage facility plan was not moving forward. There was confusion about responsibilities for road modifications and infrastructure related to shared access points. The board decided to reschedule the discussion to the March 6 meeting, requesting the presence of representatives from the engineering firm and legal counsel to address these concerns comprehensively.

Public comments during the meeting expressed frustration over the protracted discussions related to the Casco storage development. Residents raised concerns about drainage issues and potential legal ramifications if construction continued without addressing these problems. Another resident inquired about Walmart’s informal discussions about their facility and expressed opposition to a proposed gas station at the site, citing past issues with construction encroaching on residential areas.