The meeting kicked off with an update from the Town Planner, who informed the board of an appeal against the planning board’s decision on the Dollar General project on College Highway. The Planner revealed that the decision had been contested and that the board was in the process of handling multiple filings in court.

During the public comment segment, the focus shifted to the suitability of proposed sites for a telecommunications tower, with specific attention given to the Pioneer Dairy location. Concerns were raised about the land currently used as yard space within a traditional fall zone. The Planner expressed skepticism about this location, emphasizing the importance of safety and adherence to existing regulations, despite some flexibility in the law.

Another discussion centered around the delineation of open spaces within the proposed Oak Bridge Estates at Mor B Road. A board member recounted a recent site visit with Terry Reynolds, emphasizing the importance of clearly marking trails and ensuring accessibility. The board agreed on a revised proposal for a five-acre lot, acknowledging that the project included slightly over ten acres of open space, which exceeded the minimum requirements.

The board then moved on to the contentious public hearing regarding a proposal on College Highway, where applicant Andre Mosesi sought to renovate a pre-existing, non-conforming four-unit apartment building on a lot smaller than the required 40,000 square feet for the R40 zone. The discussion revealed skepticism about the proposed parking plan, which allocated 19 parking spaces for the four-unit building. The board questioned the necessity of such a high number of spaces. Additionally, concerns were raised about the building’s condition, given its construction date of 1900, and whether the existing septic system met Title 5 regulations.

The board also deliberated on the procedural implications of the Attorney General’s approval process for special permits. It was noted that moving forward without this approval could place the applicant at risk. This led to further dialogue about balancing the urgency of the applicant’s needs with the procedural requirements, ultimately deciding to continue discussions at a later date.

As the meeting progressed, the board addressed the timeline and conditions related to the construction of stormwater ponds and the overall subdivision development. A proposal was made to extend the construction timeline for the stormwater ponds from three to either nine or twelve months, citing challenges posed by inclement weather. There was consensus that extending the overall construction timeline from five to seven years would provide more flexibility and better project management amid uncertain weather patterns.

The board also tackled the issue of street light installation at intersections, reflecting on an original waiver request and whether the bylaw mandated their installation. The discussion revealed a preference for consistency in enforcement, with one member advocating for street lights even in conventional developments.

Other administrative matters included the review of signage for various developments, such as a warehouse on Hudson and a café at 141. The proposed signage was non-illuminated and met area requirements, though there was a suggestion to consider more colorful signage to enhance the town’s aesthetic appeal.