The proposed warehouse use on South Worcester Street generated an in-depth conversation about traffic safety and community impact. A speed study and sight line analysis were presented, which revealed that vehicles were traveling slightly above the speed limit. In response to speeding concerns, the board considered implementing measures such as speed bumps or rumble strips but faced practicality issues due to the road’s narrowness and heavy truck traffic. The majority of operations were confirmed to be moving services, alleviating some concerns about the site’s use. Additionally, the board addressed a possible adverse possession case affecting the site plan and agreed that any changes resulting from the case might necessitate further board approvals. Conditions for the special permit were discussed, including vegetation trimming for sight lines, parking restrictions, and construction hours, leading to the approval of the permit with a vote that included both favor and opposition.

The classification of the facility on New Tonton Avenue sparked a debate. The applicant, represented by Edward Canon, provided documentation supporting the educational nature of the facility. However, the board grappled with the question of whether to classify it as educational or long-term care, which held implications for zoning and permitting. Legal counsel from KP Law offered guidance, noting that “educational facilities” under the Dober Amendment have been broadly interpreted to include residential facilities with education as a primary purpose. While the Building Commissioner would ultimately determine the classification upon building permit application, the board faced uncertainty over the applicant’s choice to seek a special permit instead of directly approaching the commissioner.

Home Market Foods’ proposed project also raised traffic and safety concerns among board members and the public. The increased truck traffic and its alternative routes through residential areas were highlighted, along with the need to direct trucks to appropriate thoroughfares. The board considered potential conditions to mitigate traffic issues, such as signage and designated truck routes. Noise from rooftop refrigeration units and trucks was also a concern, although the applicant clarified that these would serve office space only. Residents voiced their apprehensions during public comments, questioning the traffic study’s effectiveness and the necessity of the project’s location. Discussions concluded with the board deciding to continue the hearing to a future date, allowing time to explore issues like easements and access to waterways.

The Waiting River Estates project underwent scrutiny as the applicant presented a revised plan that addressed environmental concerns. The updated proposal reduced work limits, clearing, and impervious area while preserving the same number of units and including affordable housing. The board focused on stormwater management and its potential effects on neighboring flood-prone areas. The preservation of natural habitats, particularly turtle nesting sites, was also discussed, with the applicant committing to address conservation commission requests for habitat verification and revisions.