During the meeting, representatives for the proposed Dollar General store presented their case, asserting that the project meets or exceeds all zoning requirements. They highlighted the inclusion of a significant buffer around the perimeter to maintain a rural farm-like feeling and addressed concerns about parking and building design. Two members of the public expressed their objections to the store. One individual cited zoning bylaws related to inconvenience or hazard to abutters, vehicular traffic, and pedestrians, emphasizing pedestrian safety due to the lack of sidewalks and high-speed traffic near the proposed location. A retired police officer also voiced opposition, concerned about potential negative impacts on property values and the peaceful nature of the retirement community.

The board received several emails and letters from community members opposing the Dollar General store. These correspondences raised issues about the negative impact on property values, increased traffic, and the preservation of the town’s rural character. Concerns about the store’s maintenance and potential threats to wildlife and conservation efforts were also mentioned. A resident questioned the legal responsibility in the event of a traffic incident at the proposed location, leading to a broader discussion on potential legal liability and the history of zoning and development in the area.

The Town Planner’s report opened the meeting, addressing multiple ongoing projects. The planner discussed the submission for a grant to assist in zoning bylaw and subdivision regulation work and provided updates on the Hudson Drive solar facility construction, which faced delays due to feedback on the draft bond document. The Noble Seed subdivision was mentioned concerning drainage issues and wetland crossings. Additionally, inquiries about marijuana retailers and the language in an approved bylaw were reviewed.

Public hearings included the proposed self-storage facility and the Oakridge Estates subdivision plan. Discrepancies in dimension separation distances between properties were noted.

A separate discussion revolved around the need for a 30-day extension for a 90-day deadline. Board members raised concerns about a phased approach for a development project, specifically the construction of temporary access roads and the potential for incomplete phases to lead to bylaw non-compliance. They deliberated on the implications of creating developments that do not conform to bylaw specifications and the responsibility for maintaining open space, including the use of bio-retention basins.

Another agenda item was the proposed retail facility on College Highway. The site plan was presented, outlining the location of the building, parking, and buffer zones. Concerns from neighbors regarding septic systems were addressed, with assurances that the project met all separation requirements.

Public comments included a point on access to open space, with a discussion on its definition and usability for recreational activities. Clarifications were made regarding the maintenance and accessibility of the open space, with bio-retention basins mentioned as habitat areas.

Further, the board examined a question about the road’s passing zone and deliberated on the rental of boat slips at a residential property, debating whether it constituted a commercial enterprise and its impacts on the area. The board also considered the significance of this specific dock rental in the context of other potential similar activities in the area.

The meeting concluded with the board’s decision to send a memo to the building inspector regarding a property owner running a business using a rental house and dock without proper permits. Additionally, a debate arose over the measurement of distances for marijuana establishments near residential properties and the wording of a specific bylaw.