The board’s discussion on Plymouth Street centered around the revised plans presented by an engineering representative. These plans included a fire department turnaround in a “hammerhead” shape. The board emphasized this feature’s necessity, particularly for accommodating a ladder truck while also addressing stormwater management through comprehensive measures such as a gravel driveway and sediment forebays. The board’s attention to detail extended to historical compliance, with the historical commission’s approval required for the property’s signage and other structures.

Lighting plans for the nursery emerged as a point of discussion, with the board noting that no exterior lighting had yet been decided. While interior lighting for the shed was permissible, the board underscored the need for any outdoor lighting to adhere to the town’s bylaws, particularly in terms of direction and intensity. This discussion led to the suggestion that conduits be installed underground during excavation, facilitating future lighting additions without disruption.

The nursery’s operational hours were deliberated, with proposals suggesting a 7 AM to 7 PM schedule. The conversation included concerns about water supply adequacy, with assurances that a water service line from Pullman Street would suffice, although the potential need for a well was mentioned. The board confirmed that the zoning board of appeals had granted a special permit for the nursery.

In another development, the board reviewed an estimate from Bell Traffic Signal Maintenance Company for a traffic signal system on Plymouth Street. Valued at $106,000, the estimate included essential components but omitted installation-specific costs. The board sought clarification on these exclusions to prevent misunderstandings about the project’s financial implications. There was a consensus on the importance of confirming whether existing infrastructure was in place, with plans to invite a representative from Midland General Contractors to the next meeting for further discussions.

The meeting also addressed the procedural adherence for a youth variance application, with concerns about the lease arrangement and its compliance with bylaws. The board emphasized the need for thorough documentation.

A separate discussion at the meeting involved the board’s reluctance to sign a decision letter for an application on Maza Street without the applicant fulfilling all requirements. The board insisted on receiving the necessary plans before granting approval.