A major focus of the meeting was the redevelopment study for the West Main Street area, presented by planner Michael Cole. The study encompassed approximately 15 lots, with an emphasis on properties near New Street. Cole highlighted the underutilization of the Grants building and its adjoining parking lot, identifying them as prime targets for redevelopment. However, he stressed that redevelopment would only be pursued if property owners were willing.

The board agreed to adopt the redevelopment report, with a resolution to be prepared for the next meeting. Despite the lack of public comments during the session, the board expressed a collective understanding of the potential benefits redevelopment could bring, particularly for the Grants building, which has remained vacant for years. The redevelopment plan aims to inject new life into the area while respecting property owners’ preferences.

Attention then turned to the B5 zoning area along Route 22, where the board, including Cole, discussed aligning zoning regulations with modern needs. A proposal was made to update classifications to accommodate newer educational facilities, like AI training centers, which were previously restricted by outdated zoning codes. This conversation mirrored past discussions on evolving industries, such as the cottage food industry, highlighting the necessity for zoning that reflects current trends.

The board’s zoning discussions were not limited to the B5 area. An examination of the East End of town was also proposed. No redevelopment was deemed necessary, but a fresh look at the existing plan was considered prudent.

Mike, the board’s planner, provided a detailed overview of the changes to the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) rules, which now require municipalities to address water quality and groundwater recharge more rigorously. The threshold for “major development” has been lowered, meaning more projects will need to comply with these stricter standards.

The board discussed the potential impact of these changes on residents, emphasizing a focus on understanding DEP requirements. The Environmental Commission’s proposed additional regulations were also a topic of debate, with discussions around introducing a “minor development” category for projects disturbing over 400 square feet. The board recognized the need to balance regulatory compliance with community interests.

A fee structure for tree removal was proposed, with exemptions for hazardous trees. The board explored options for distinct processes for major developments and individual residents to alleviate financial burdens on the latter.

Public comments offered varied perspectives on the board’s discussions. Resident David D’vorne urged the board to define broader goals for stormwater and tree management, cautioning against a purely compliance-driven approach. Another resident, Richard Bowski, raised concerns about the effectiveness of tree canopy initiatives in flood prevention.

Britney Burton, a local business owner, inquired about the potential impact of redevelopment plans on her business. After reassurance that current discussions would not affect her property, she sought clarity on future standards.

The meeting concluded with a reminder about the upcoming deadline for the master plan update and a note on the revised approval process for outdoor dining, requiring joint approval from the Architectural Review Board and the planning board. This procedural change is expected to influence future development applications involving outdoor dining components.