The most significant decision made during the meeting involved a plan presented by a civil engineer and planner to construct an outdoor playground associated with a child care center on Webro Road. The proposed playground addition would increase the impervious surface area by 3,183 square feet and incorporate extensive landscaping. The board’s concerns included the design of the playground’s surrounding fence, the safety of the children in case of a fire, and measures to prevent cars from accidentally entering the playground area. The engineer addressed these concerns by committing to safety features such as alarmed gates and a setback fence. The board suggested the addition of evergreen shrubs for landscaping variety, which the engineer agreed to consider. The approval of the minor site plan came with the condition that the engineer’s stipulations would be met.

Moreover, the application included plans to utilize existing church rooms for the daycare, which would operate from Monday to Friday for children from birth to kindergarten age. The daycare aimed to serve both church members and the broader community, with a specific parking area designated for safe child drop-off and pick-up. Security measures were discussed to ensure the safety of the children, and the application also proposed replacing the facing of a freestanding sign with a new text that included the Chick-fil-A logo, due to a partnership with the church to offer menu items in their café. Concerns about traffic and safety measures were raised, and suggestions such as a striped crosswalk and designated crossing area were proposed for added safety. However, the board did not reach a decision on this application during the summarized portion of the meeting.

Another notable application discussed during the meeting came from Tedel Patel, who sought approval for a modified plan for an addition to their property, which included removing the second story and adjusting the front yard setback. The board reviewed the variances required for the proposal, specifically related to building coverage and front yard setback. They inquired about discussions with neighbors and potential water runoff issues before ultimately approving the application, noting the improvement from the previous submission.

AIT Chandra’s application involved a request for a variance to construct a walkway that would exceed the permissible coverage by 1.92%. The board regarded the excess as minimal and approved the variance. Salah Elan’s application discussed was for a soil moving permit for the construction of an open deck with landing and stairs and a patio underneath. The applicant’s architect clarified that the soil moving was already approved but required a separate application due to the volume of soil to be imported. The board scrutinized the amount of soil, the tree removal involved, and the adherence to the town engineer’s recommendations.

The meeting also touched upon an application for a property on Littleton Road, which required a major soil moving permit and a variance for an open deck, landing and stairs, and a patio. The applicant stated that the project had prior approval but required a variance due to an oversight in the application process regarding building coverage ordinances. The discussion also covered construction meeting fees, tree replacement, and the materials used for the deck and patio, with the board eventually voting in favor of the application while noting concerns about the oversight.