The most significant part of the meeting focused on a detailed proposal concerning parcels along South Street, presented by Scott Richardson from Gorman Richards and Lewis Architects. The parcels, currently designated as Lakefront residential, are situated in an area predominantly zoned for industrial and business use. The proposal aims to rezone these parcels to rural business, facilitating the construction of an 8,000 square foot office building. The building is planned to be owner-occupied by Jim Margarite and primarily operate between 7 A.M. and 3 P.M.

The committee engaged in an extensive discussion on the implications of the rezoning. Scott Richardson emphasized that the building’s use would strictly be for office work, not industrial activities, addressing a concern in the rezoning request. He outlined the zoning requirements and specifics of the proposed development, including maintaining a buffer zone along Hayward Street to preserve the residential character of the area and compliance with various zoning criteria such as setbacks and maximum building height. The proposal also included plans for landscaping and green space preservation around the building.

Committee members and residents raised several concerns during the discussion. One notable issue was the potential for increased traffic, particularly during the construction phase. Scott Richardson assured that, except for concrete trucks during the foundation pour, there would be no regular traffic from heavy vehicles. Another concern was the possibility of future driveway access from the commercial property to Hayward Street. The committee debated whether the proposed 10-foot wide strip of Lakefront residential zoning along Hayward Street would effectively prevent such access, with some members suggesting the strip be donated to a land trust or designated as open space to provide stronger assurances against future development encroachments.

Residents like Terry and Reba voiced concerns about traffic implications and the potential reduction in housing opportunities due to the conversion of residential properties to commercial use. Terry specifically pointed out the potential dangers for drivers turning left onto South Street due to the new traffic flow. Reba highlighted the housing shortage in Massachusetts and questioned the rationale behind converting residential properties, which could otherwise alleviate this shortage, to commercial use.

Another resident, Misha, opposed the zoning change based on previous town meetings where similar proposals were voted down. Misha also emphasized the importance of protecting the natural environment surrounding the area, noting the presence of wildlife in the nearby woods.

In response to these concerns, committee members acknowledged the need for thorough traffic impact and access studies as part of the planning process. They also discussed the historical context of the zoning in the area, referencing maps dating back to 1831. It was noted that the area had been designated as residential since at least 1920, which some argued should be maintained to honor over a century of planning history.

Despite the debate, the committee voted on the motion to recommend the rezoning proposal to the planning board, resulting in four votes in favor and one against, with one member recusing themselves. This recommendation is not an approval but a step towards further examination by the planning board, which will ultimately decide on the proposal.

Following the discussion on South Street, the committee briefly touched on other topics, including updates on the new Commonwealth ADU law and zoning regulations for MBTA communities. The committee discussed potential changes to zoning districts to comply with state regulations for housing density, considering the downtown district and other areas like Indian Brook and Walcott Valley. The need for further analysis and potential adjustments to the zoning strategy was emphasized to ensure compliance while considering community preferences and practical implications.