The meeting began with attention given to the construction activities on Plymouth Street, where a member raised concerns about ongoing work at Starbucks and AutoZone. It was noted that construction was proceeding despite the absence of a critical easement, which had been previously identified as necessary by the town engineer. The member argued that without the easement, water runoff could adversely impact his property, urging the board to ensure no occupancy permits would be granted until the easement was properly established. The board members acknowledged these concerns, emphasizing the need for compliance with easement conditions before any occupancy permit issuance.

The discussion shifted to procedural aspects, highlighting a potential disconnect between verbal agreements made during meetings and the written documentation registered with the deeds. This gap underscored the necessity for clear and consistent paperwork to prevent discrepancies in the building permit process. The board considered their role in advocating for the building inspector to review the permit issuance, agreeing that while they could not directly revoke permits, they could formally express concerns regarding the missing drainage easement.

Additionally, the board proposed an action plan to address these issues, including notifying the building inspector and suggesting a site plan modification to incorporate the necessary easement. A motion was made to submit a detailed letter outlining these points, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and adherence to all site plan requirements.

In another major topic, the board deliberated on the change of use for a property on Plymouth Street, previously a restaurant, now set to become an urgent care facility. Concerns were raised about parking and potential congestion, though it was determined that the new facility would not increase parking issues compared to the former restaurant. The board also considered ambulance service needs, noting that such services would only be called as necessary. The site plan was ultimately approved with conditions regarding handicap parking.

The meeting also included discussions about a proposed property at Autumn Lane. A resident presented challenges related to building a home with specific zoning requirements, citing the lot’s topography as a potential justification for a variance. Despite the difficulties, the resident expressed gratitude for the board’s assistance throughout the process.

Attention then turned to conservation regulations and a proposed building project. Discussions revealed potential issues with the property’s topography and limitations for construction near protected areas. The board advised on the process for requesting a variance, emphasizing the need for compliance with all conservation regulations, including considerations for septic system placement.