A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to a heated discussion surrounding the public notice, or alleged lack thereof, for the Tatlock Field Lighting Project. The controversy emerged during a public hearing where members of the community, led by attorney Rob Simon representing the Tadlock Community Preservation Association, voiced concerns about the Planning Board’s adherence to statutory requirements under the municipal land use law. Simon’s arguments focused on sections 10 and 12 of the law, which dictate the necessity for public awareness through newspaper notices, asserting that compliance was not met.

He emphasized that the public’s ability to engage was compromised, stating, “We’re not talking 10 days prior. We’re talking at all.” The debate extended to questions about whether the agenda item was accurately represented as a public hearing rather than a “consistency review,” potentially misleading the public about the meeting’s true nature.

In response to these allegations, board members sought clarification on statutory authorities and the procedural timelines associated with the referral process for the project. As tensions escalated, the board decided to enter an executive session to discuss the legal implications of the objections raised, focusing on attorney-client privileged matters.

Parallel to the notice controversy, the board addressed the city’s affordable housing initiatives, particularly the Morris Broad’s Crossroads rezoning and the Harmon Holdings project. The board emphasized the importance of public engagement and transparency, despite ongoing litigation that limits disclosure. The discussion clarified that the city is navigating a single lawsuit related to its affordable housing plan, highlighting the procedural history and revisions of the Morris Broad’s Crossroads project. Originally proposed as a 33-unit development, the project was refined to a mixed-use development with 20 residential units, including four affordable units, aligning with the city’s zoning requirements.

In addition to affordable housing and public notice concerns, the Planning Board evaluated amendments to the historic preservation ordinance. The proposed changes aim to address gaps in the current process that allow for the demolition of historically significant structures without adequate oversight. The ordinance seeks to ensure Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) review for demolitions of designated historic properties, emphasizing the advisory role of the HPC. The ordinance sets a threshold of 100 years for structures to qualify for review.

The board discussed the ordinance’s alignment with the city’s master plan and its potential impact on future projects, referencing experiences from other municipalities with varying levels of historic preservation regulations. The conversation highlighted the balance between development and preservation of the city’s character, acknowledging the ordinance as a pilot initiative expected to evolve based on community feedback.