The matter of the affordable unit had been a prolonged issue, and members expressed relief at the progress made. One member noted that “a couple of years ago this was brought up and we were sort of despairing of it ever going forward,” highlighting the challenges faced in bringing closure to the issue. The board sought to ensure that all necessary protocols were followed, including a reminder for the new building inspector about permits needed for the affordable housing unit.

The meeting addressed public concerns related to infrastructure projects, particularly those affecting the town’s scenic road bylaw. A resident raised questions about construction on Foster Street impacting stone walls and expressed hope for their restoration. Additionally, concerns were voiced regarding the Gly property at 195, where trees tagged for removal prompted inquiries about oversight of construction activities on the private property.

A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the ongoing public hearing concerning a special permit and site plan amendment for the water resource district on Russell Street. The project involved developing new tennis courts and updating the baseball field at Littleton Middle School and Russell Street School. The board was awaiting a peer review on drainage issues before making a decision. Legal complexities surrounding the property, under land court jurisdiction, were clarified by a board member, who explained that “land court is basically where very old deeds reference certain stone walls or fences that have since long since been moved.”

The review of the project was detailed, with a peer reviewer raising concerns about stormwater management and the project’s location within a wellhead protection area. The project team proposed switching to porous asphalt to enhance infiltration, addressing increased runoff concerns. They argued the project, intended primarily for pedestrian use, did not require pre-treatment measures typically needed for roadways. Nonetheless, the board emphasized the importance of having some form of pre-treatment, although they were open to not requiring dual treatment.

Concerns were also raised about the availability of the new facilities for residents, particularly during school hours. One board member emphasized that public access should be allowed even when school activities were ongoing. The project team assured that the facilities would be accessible to residents as long as it did not interfere with essential school functions.

Safety concerns from nearby residents were highlighted, particularly regarding the proximity of the field to private properties and the potential for stray balls to enter yards. A resident expressed apprehension about the field’s new orientation, which now directed activities toward their yard, raising liability and property damage concerns. The project team clarified that the new field configuration would likely reduce the number of users and that the tennis courts would be enclosed with fencing to mitigate concerns.

The meeting also covered a proposed zoning bylaw amendment for the upcoming May 6th annual town meeting. This amendment aims to prohibit the cultivation of adult-use marijuana in the town while clarifying air quality special permit requirements for medical marijuana treatment centers. The amendment focuses on improving HVAC standards in these facilities and aligns wetlands and floodplain bylaws with FEMA requirements to benefit residents using flood insurance.

The board discussed the importance of clear communication regarding the scope of these changes, noting potential confusion among community members. The proposed changes do not affect retail sales and solely pertain to cultivation. There was no debate on the floodplain amendments, as they are required for FEMA compliance.