A primary focus of the meeting was the mandatory referral concerning a proposed development at the long-abandoned gas station located on Main Street. The applicant’s plan involves transforming the existing structure into a new gas station, coffee shop, and convenience store. The proposal includes the reconstruction of a commercial building featuring a coffee shop with drive-thru service, eight fueling positions, and adequate parking accommodations. Given that the location falls within the aquifer protection overlay district, the board raised concerns about environmental safety and potential contamination risks. Double-walled tanks and other protective measures were deemed necessary to mitigate these risks.

Board members recalled historical contamination at the site, questioning whether the area had been remediated for past contamination. This information was considered crucial for informed decision-making. The discussion included the potential hazards of establishing a gas station in an aquifer overlay area, with gas leaks being a concern.

The specifics of the proposed development also included second-floor office space and a fast-food restaurant. The board noted the need for a minimum of 27 parking spaces based on the proposed commercial uses. Additionally, there was interest in incorporating electric vehicle charging stations at the new gas station. While the board recognized limitations in their ability to directly influence such decisions, they discussed the possibility of incentivizing developers to include these features.

The board expressed general support for revitalizing the long-vacant property, viewing it as a positive step towards enhancing local commerce. There was a consensus that the presence of a third gas station could enhance competition and potentially lower fuel prices in the area. The project will undergo further review by the Zoning Board of Appeals, with a hearing scheduled for October 23rd. The Planning Board members were invited to submit their comments and concerns to the Zoning Board, formally encouraging the site’s revitalization as long as appropriate safeguards are established.

Another topic was the planning board’s new responsibility for issuing stormwater management permits for minor projects. This shift was intended to streamline the review process, as supported by the building commissioner. The board agreed unanimously to take on this permitting authority.

The meeting also addressed upcoming changes in state legislation concerning ADUs, which will be allowed “by right” in residential districts starting February 2, 2025. Current town regulations, which require a special permit and restrict occupancy to blood relatives, will conflict with the new state law. To align with the new requirements, the board discussed plans to revise the town’s site plan review special permit bylaw, incorporating a non-discretionary review process to streamline future applications, including those for ADUs, age-restricted developments, and renewable energy projects. The board plans to work with the Montachusett Regional Planning Commission (MRPC) and anticipates receiving a planning assistance grant within a month to aid in this revision process.

The discussion included the implications of relying on state law for ADU applications between February and the subsequent fall town meeting. Concerns were raised about the town and the building commissioner depending on state regulations during this interim period. The board acknowledged that the ADU regulations are specific to individual projects and involve standard zoning setbacks, which would be easier to navigate compared to the broader site plan review process.

Additionally, the board reviewed changes to zoning regulations for multifamily projects and ADUs, noting an increased setback from Fitzburg Road to 35 feet and a 15-foot setback for accessory buildings intended for human habitation. A 35-foot vegetated buffer was introduced for all multifamily dwellings within 50 feet of the zoning boundary. The board emphasized that any project involving multiple buildings would trigger a site plan review.

There was considerable discussion regarding the adequacy of outdoor spaces in residential units, with suggestions to define an area as 100 square feet. Concerns about the subjective nature of space requirements and the varying needs of different households were raised, along with the challenge of meeting state requirements for affordable housing.

Lastly, the board addressed the necessity of adopting federal standards for floodplain requirements to reduce insurance costs for local residents. A motion to adopt these standards was approved unanimously.