A major point of contention was the West Main Street area redevelopment study, which proposed criteria for redevelopment. The study revealed that most properties in the area are in good condition, challenging the notion of redevelopment. A member expressed frustration over the use of the term “criteria H,” which pertains to smart growth principles, questioning the necessity of redevelopment when properties appear well-maintained. The Granite building and its parking lot were identified as specific challenges, yet the board leaned toward a non-condemnation policy, allowing property owners to opt into redevelopment voluntarily. This approach aims to provide flexibility for property owners and avoid forcing redevelopment in areas not suffering from urban decay.

Further discussions delved into specific properties west of Noon Street, including two-family homes from the 1920s and a group home from the early 2000s. The area was generally assessed as well-kept, prompting questions about the urgency of redevelopment. The board planned to compile a list of homeowners within the proposed redevelopment area to facilitate communication. Questions about the timeline for public hearings on the redevelopment study were raised, with an initial date proposed for October 8. However, it was suggested to delay this to the second meeting in October to ensure proper notification and preparation.

Another element of the meeting was the discussion on the floor area ratio (FAR), which controls the size of structures relative to lot sizes. The board considered increasing the FAR from 25% to 30% in certain zones to provide flexibility for property owners regarding renovations and improvements. This adjustment is intended to facilitate the rehabilitation of properties without requiring variances, addressing community needs while preventing overdevelopment. The board recognized the necessity of adapting land use regulations to reflect current trends, emphasizing the importance of effectively utilizing existing structures while adhering to safety codes.

The board also addressed zoning in the B5 zone and an application for an AI school previously denied due to its classification as an educational business. This raised questions about the definition of educational uses within zoning laws. The mayor suggested there was interest in allowing such businesses to support community growth, particularly in light of changing retail and educational landscapes. The board acknowledged the need to revisit zoning definitions to accommodate evolving business models and market demands.

Tree management along Main Street emerged as a contentious topic during the public comments segment. A resident proposed replacing existing trees with potted ones to avoid damage to sidewalks and utilities. This suggestion sparked a debate with another participant who emphasized the aesthetic and environmental benefits of trees. The mayor clarified that there would be no clear-cut plan for the trees, reiterating a commitment to address the issue responsibly while maintaining the town’s beauty. The mayor confirmed that a tree renewal plan would focus on sustaining tree vitality while ensuring public safety regarding sidewalk conditions.

Additionally, the board addressed the Improvement Covers Subcommittee and ongoing issues with residential pools and decks. A previous resolution aimed to alleviate penalties for certain residential zones, but the pool issue remained unresolved. The board also discussed Architectural Review Board approvals for sidewalk cafes, emphasizing compliance and enforcement of regulations. Concerns were raised about the condition of downtown infrastructure, particularly hazardous paver stones due to tree roots, prompting ongoing efforts by the Department of Public Works and the Downtown Special Assessment to address these issues.