The most discussion centered around 80 Main Street, where a proposed system for a church rehabilitation project was under review. The original plan included an addition for handicap access and a septic system located near the river, raising concerns about potential parking limitations. Gary Shepard, a property owner across the street, offered to grant an easement for the septic system to be relocated, thereby preserving parking space near the church.

Board members considered the implications of moving the system across the street, articulating concerns about potential underground issues and the need for proper drainage and maintenance access. Specific questions were raised regarding pumping requirements and the feasibility of maintaining the system with minimal disruption. The proposal included provisions for an easement that would allow for future maintenance without necessitating additional roadwork.

The church’s future usage was discussed, indicating it would primarily serve as a rental space for events rather than a traditional church, which would limit the volume of wastewater generated. The plan suggested a total capacity of 480 gallons per day, with no cooking allowed on-site, reducing the potential strain on the septic system. A tight tank was mentioned as an option but noted to be suitable only in scenarios where a traditional system could not be accommodated.

Concerns about the engineering aspects of the proposed plan, such as drilling under a state road for utility access, were voiced. The board was reminded that any construction would require approval from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), including provisions for the protection of existing utilities. Suggestions were made to include a sleeve for any pipes running under the road to facilitate future maintenance without significant disruption.

Ultimately, the board expressed a willingness to consider the variance request based on the minimal expected wastewater usage and the associated benefits of relocating the system away from the river. The discussion concluded with the board indicating they were open to exploring this option further but noted that no formal variance request had been submitted at this time. The meeting proceeded with a focus on gathering more information to address the outstanding concerns before any formal actions were taken.

In another development, the board discussed the current state of the town’s select board, described by one member as being in “crisis.” Concerns were raised about the wisdom of continuing the pay-as-you-throw initiative amidst the turmoil, with fears that it could exacerbate existing difficulties for residents. The sentiment was that the program was being implemented without sufficient consideration of its impact on the community, especially given the ongoing confusion and chaos surrounding the select board’s leadership.

A proposal was made to pause the pay-as-you-throw program until after the upcoming elections, allowing for a reassessment of its viability. The logistics of bag sales for the program were discussed, with mention of various stores agreeing to sell bags, although a few were cited as having issues with corporate policies that might hinder participation. The sale of bags was confirmed to be cash-only in some locations, raising questions about accessibility for residents.

The board also reviewed expenses related to operational necessities. There were invoices for various items, including business cards and camera maintenance. The cameras, which had been upgraded, were noted to be functioning well, with one member humorously mentioning a “huge Bobcat” captured on film during early morning hours. The board discussed the need for additional containers for needle disposal, which had seen a price increase, but the hope was to maintain the existing charge of five dollars for disposal services, viewed as beneficial for town residents.

Employee conditions at the recycling center were another topic of concern, particularly in relation to adverse weather. It was proposed that rain jackets be purchased for staff, priced at $75 each, which included printing with the town’s logo. This was framed as essential for employee visibility and morale. Additionally, there was mention of grant funding being used to cover toner costs for flyers related to the pay-as-you-throw program.

The board also touched on the completion of fencing at the recycling center, which was reportedly well-received. Despite this positive update, there remained underlying tensions regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of the current waste management strategies.