A resident, John Kramer, voiced his frustration with the project, particularly targeting the swift construction and the mayor and council’s decision-making process. Kramer criticized the aesthetic of the building and lamented the lack of community involvement or notice, pressing for alternative uses of the site that could benefit the community, such as a recreational facility. This critique sparked a discussion among board members about the oversight in the planning process and the need for improved communication between public bodies and the community.

The Planning Board members acknowledged that while the project was a capital venture, typically exempt from public hearings, a customary courtesy review might have been prudent. The board has no jurisdiction over the building, as it was constructed without mandatory submissions to the planning board. This situation led to disappointment among members.

The board learned that the storage building was erected by a contractor under a bid of $533,000, although details about the project’s planning were not adequately shared. This lack of transparency extended to the environmental impact, with concerns raised about the speed of construction and the clear-cutting of trees, which one member noted left the area stark. The DPW representative confirmed the building’s necessity for housing equipment currently exposed to the elements, which would prolong the equipment’s lifespan.

Further dialogue revealed that the site work, including grading, was performed by DPW staff, with landscaping plans still pending. Questions were raised about compliance with local ordinances, particularly concerning tree preservation and the industrial design’s appropriateness in a residential area. Members discussed the importance of ensuring proper waste management and drainage compliance, emphasizing the need for inspections and adherence to local codes.

Suggestions emerged for the Planning Board to request a review of the final landscaping plans to better understand the intended outcome. A member expressed willingness to communicate the board’s concerns to the mayor and council, advocating for more involvement in future projects to avoid similar oversight issues.

The discussion also touched on the broader implications of setting a precedent for public buildings in residential zones without the standard review process. The need for zoning compliance and potential variances was raised, questioning the decision to forgo routine oversight when taxpayer money is involved. The conversation underscored a collective unease about the lack of planning process transparency, with members proposing updates to the master plan that could foster openness and community engagement in future projects.

In addition to the controversy surrounding the DPW building, the meeting addressed concerns about the development known as The Enclave. While the residential units appeared occupied, commercial spaces remained unoccupied, drawing comparisons to a “ghost town.” Prospective tenants, including a Dunkin Donuts, a sushi place, and an office space, were mentioned, yet no definitive updates were available for the supermarket space.

Board members discussed the need to expand commercial opportunities within the B Zone and establish design guidelines, linking these to housing obligations. A public member noted the disconnection between new and existing commercial spaces, pointing out an unattractive fence separating properties and suggesting enhanced connectivity measures like walkways.

Reflecting on prior discussions about property connectivity, some initial considerations were to combine driveways and add walkways, though state control over these matters complicated the process. The conversation eventually shifted to the master plan and affordable housing, with a call to review current numbers from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).

The meeting also saw the passing of resolutions, including a rear yard variance for replacing an existing sunroom and constructing a new two-story addition. Also approved was a resolution concerning Colonial Manor, summarizing a settlement stipulation between the applicant and objectors.