Western Earthworks LLC’s proposal for a 7500 square foot prefabricated metal building with a storage yard on North Hatfield Road sparked discussions regarding its site plan, with the stormwater management system being a point of contention. The applicant, represented by Jeff S. from the Bricker Design Group and Jack Henderson, addressed various concerns raised by the board. They clarified the primary use of the site for temporary storage of construction materials and equipment, stating that the business would not engage in the processing or storage of mulches, and that deliveries would be infrequent, limited to typical construction working hours. However, concerns persisted regarding the absence of screening along the northern property boundary and the adequacy of the proposed Swale for stormwater runoff, especially considering the gravel lot’s imperviousness and the potential for flooding in neighboring properties.

The discussion also turned to the visual and auditory impacts of the proposed structure, with the board stressing the importance of natural screening for privacy and dust reduction, as well as the aesthetics of the building and the type of fencing. The impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood, specifically regarding noise from truck traffic and security lighting, was a key issue. A resident voiced concerns about flooding, noise, increased traffic, and the visual impact on the residential area, fearing potential repercussions on property values and quality of life. In response, the project proponent outlined a stormwater management plan that purportedly adheres to state and local standards and detailed measures to minimize noise and lighting impacts on the surrounding area.

Another focal point was the presentation of plans for an indoor tennis and pickleball facility at zero West Street, an 8.81-acre business zone parcel. The facility would include indoor courts, locker rooms, a snack bar, and gathering space, with two parking lots comprising 65 spaces utilizing porous asphalt for stormwater management. A future phase could introduce outdoor courts. The project was approved by the board with conditions, such as down-shielded exterior lighting and a screening plan along the north boundary. However, the traffic impact of the facility, particularly the conflict in numbers on average daily trips, was debated extensively. Audience members expressed anxieties over the potential increase in traffic volume on West Street and its overall impact on the area.

Additionally, the meeting touched on a proposed large building project, which faced scrutiny regarding its integration within the historic district and the sheer scale of the structure. The debate on the notification of abutters before voting revealed procedural concerns, eventually leading to a decision to continue presenting the project without a vote until abutters were properly informed and given a chance to express their views.

The design of the large building also raised questions about the lack of appealing architectural elements and the potential noise from possible future outdoor courts. The project’s hours of operation, lighting, and the impact on the neighborhood were further discussed, alongside the need for an archaeological survey and the lack of notification to residents. A resident opposed the project, citing traffic, lighting, and lifestyle impacts, contributing to the debate on the significance of the additional traffic.

Support for the indoor tennis and pickleball facility was not unanimous, with some residents highlighting the popularity of pickleball and the potential economic benefits, while others remained concerned about traffic and the effect on nearby properties. The project would undergo a review process, addressing concerns raised by the public, including additional information on landscaping, lighting, and traffic impact. The board decided to table the discussion until further details were gathered and the historic commission reviewed the plan.

The meeting also saw the Planning Board discuss updates to the open space development bylaw, focusing on changes to lot size requirements and setback regulations. Debate ensued over the clarity of the proposed changes, with members recognizing the need to clearly communicate these changes to address potential opposition from residents.