The redevelopment plan, particularly focused on properties at 37-49 Harrison Avenue and West Prospect Street, was a central topic. Residents and some board members were apprehensive about introducing buildings that could reach four stories, a height perceived as incompatible with the town’s established architectural character. Concerns were voiced about the potential overshadowing of older buildings and the strain on local resources, such as parking, sewage, and waste management. A resident noted a shortfall in parking spaces compared to municipal code requirements and questioned whether an environmental or financial study had been conducted to assess the redevelopment’s impact.

The financial implications of the redevelopment were also a point of discussion. A resident raised the issue of $200,000 in taxes associated with existing lots, questioning whether the development would lead to increased local resource demands. There was a call for a financial assessment to evaluate potential tax losses due to enhanced service needs, especially considering the possibility of hundreds of new residents. Board members clarified that financial arrangements like Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) are typically negotiated separately and remain outside the Planning Board’s current remit.

Discussions also touched on the rationale for redeveloping lots 9 and 10, which have been used as a parking lot since 2015. Participants questioned the necessity of redevelopment in 2024 without a clear, practical need, arguing that redevelopment should focus on properties that fall into disrepair and no longer serve a valid purpose. The conversation highlighted the importance of timing in redevelopment efforts, with one speaker emphasizing that immediate action on every instance of disrepair would be impractical.

The Central Business District’s redevelopment plan was scrutinized, with skepticism about its effectiveness. Notably, participants pointed out decreased usage of train station parking lots. Some residents walk to the train station, reducing car ownership, but the underutilization of parking lots raised questions about redevelopment’s viability. Concerns were also raised about the designation of nearby properties for affordable housing and whether residents would effectively use train services.

Attention turned to a property on Crescent Avenue, which has been boarded up for eight years. The property’s neglected state was cited as aligning with redevelopment criteria. Flooding issues with neighboring properties were also noted as potential hindrances to redevelopment. The importance of smaller, well-integrated redevelopment projects was stressed, with concerns about proposed building heights potentially disrupting the existing community framework.

In response to these discussions, a letter detailing the board’s and residents’ concerns was prepared for the mayor and council. The motion to send the letter received unanimous approval.

As the meeting concluded, the mayor announced upcoming changes in board membership, with some individuals set to receive notifications about their status. Additionally, the mayor acknowledged the need for a new attorney for the zoning board and extended well wishes for the holiday season, reminding attendees of the next meeting scheduled for January.