The stormwater permit for a property on Sunny Hill Road, represented by Brian Maret, was a focal point of the meeting. Maret provided a detailed history of the project, which began in September of the previous year and included a subdivision into five lots. The project faced delays due to wetland delineation issues, necessitating the engagement of a third-party consultant. The conservation commission eventually approved the plan with modifications, including a driveway shift and an increase in wetland area.

Discussion among board members and residents highlighted several concerns. Ken Patton, a resident on Lemoner Road, raised issues about an existing six-inch drain on his property that was not accurately depicted in the project’s plans. Patton emphasized that the conservation commission had required the designer to verify the drain’s location before construction could commence. The conversation revealed flaws in the initial understanding of the drainage system, prompting further investigation.

Patton also suggested extending the existing drain by 20 feet instead of installing a new catch basin, arguing it would be a more efficient solution. However, Maret and the board discussed the necessity of a catch basin to manage significant water flow, especially from neighboring properties. The need to balance infrastructure improvements with existing conditions was a recurring theme, with the board showing receptiveness to Patton’s suggestions while emphasizing the need for effective drainage solutions.

Concerns extended beyond the immediate project, touching on broader issues of drainage and environmental management. Participants expressed unease about the capacity of existing drainage infrastructure and the potential for overflow from the proposed catch basin. The necessity of obtaining written permission before any work on adjacent properties was underscored.

The stormwater permit discussion ended in a tie vote, with two members in favor and two against, preventing a majority decision. The board agreed to defer the decision to the next meeting, allowing for further discussion and clarification about the rules governing their decision-making process.

In parallel, the board tackled the issue of special permits versus site plan approvals for new construction projects in sensitive areas, particularly Zone One, which pertains to water supply protection. The debate centered on whether a special permit or site plan review should govern these projects, with a strong emphasis on the implications for community oversight and developer accountability.

A member of the board noted the importance of protecting community interests, arguing that the special permit process affords greater authority over development decisions, particularly in light of community concerns about potential adverse impacts. Despite some frustrations over the lack of progress in resolving the special permit issue, the board acknowledged the necessity of weighing community concerns against the regulatory framework.

The discussion also delved into the financial implications for the water district, which expressed concerns about the substantial upfront investment required for special permit applications. The board recognized the unique nature of different town locations, asserting that residential areas might necessitate more oversight than commercial zones. The Planning Board’s historical context was highlighted, with a member recalling that special permits had rarely been denied.

Ultimately, the board decided to maintain the special permit requirement, recognizing it as a “safety valve” to ensure community concerns are addressed before development proceeds.

The meeting also addressed other topics, including the approval of a sign permit for a property on Lancaster Avenue, which required a special permit due to its location in the Village District. The board unanimously approved the permit after confirming compliance with relevant bylaws. Additionally, discussions on proposed bylaw amendments for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) aimed to align local regulations with new state laws set to take effect in 2025. The proposed changes would allow one ADU per lot without requiring owner occupancy, with larger ADUs necessitating a special permit.