One point of discussion was the proposed development on East Main Street, which involved the construction of a commercial building and recreational sport courts. The commission scrutinized the plans for managing invasive species, the transformation of meadow to building and lawn areas, and the installation of infiltration basins within buffer zones.

The commission expressed concerns regarding stormwater management and erosion control for the same project, emphasizing the importance of considering stormwater direction during the construction phase. There was a query about the planning board’s peer review of stormwater management, leading to a motion to continue the hearing until July. Furthermore, the commission engaged in a work session that focused on Heritage Properties and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) peer review reports. Issues of compliance, the need for a third-party contractor’s review, and financial considerations were at the forefront of the discussion.

Another topic was the discussion surrounding the proposed improvements on South Street, where the commission debated the appropriateness of non-native species within the buffer zone and the need for a professional engineer to oversee the stormwater system improvements. The commission also reviewed a request for determination of applicability for a commercial site improvement, which included surface regrading and the installation of a fence, guardrail, conduit, and pavers. Questions were raised about the stormwater infrastructure, with the commission advising the applicant to consider potential incremental improvements.

At One Fox Hollow Road, the commission reviewed a proposal for a temporary access road, installation of C-tech chambers, and site grading. Concerns about worker safety, disruptions to neighboring properties, and environmental impact due to buffer zone encroachment were paramount. The commission sought clarification on various project aspects, such as access alternatives, retaining wall design, and proper drainage to mitigate environmental impact.

The reconstruction of a stone wall and proposed construction work were discussed, with the commission raising questions about vehicle access, the potential impact on conservation land, the size of the driveway, and the configuration of walls. The need for a temporary access road for drainage system installation and the placement of the septic system were also debated, with the commission requesting a response from the applicant regarding the drainage system’s sizing and placement.

The commission also discussed a request for determination of applicability for a sunroom addition on Hopkins Road. A representative presented the plan for a new deck and steps, with an emphasis on minimizing disturbance. The commission raised questions about erosion control and the use of permanent immovable barriers, ultimately issuing a negative determination contingent upon receipt of a revised plan.

Lastly, the commission discussed administrative concerns, including delays in obtaining foundation permits for a construction project and the annual contract review for Lucas Environmental. The commission expressed a need for more cooperation from the project overseer and debated the responsibility for funding inspections. The meeting concluded with a decision to postpone further discussion until the next meeting.