The board’s most discussion centered on Application PB24 D07, concerning Square West Windsor’s proposed pet hospital. Stan Slachetka, a licensed professional planner, provided detailed testimony confirming the application’s adherence to the conditional use standards and zoning regulations. He emphasized that the facility would include a regularly maintained dog waste station and a 12×12 outdoor fenced area, maintaining the original development conditions without significant physical alterations. Slachetka stated, “There will be no impacts on the terms and conditions intended to protect the interests of the public.”

A key aspect of the approval was ensuring that the facility would comply with all state licensing requirements and building codes, particularly those concerning ventilation. Conditions were set that animals could only stay overnight for medical reasons, and a veterinarian would always be present. This was to reassure the board and the public about the facility’s operations.

Board members sought clarification on several points, including inconsistencies between descriptive statements and photographs of the fencing surrounding the designated animal area. Questions also arose about the placement of the pet waste station in front of the building rather than the rear. The board temporarily set aside these queries to discuss the potential impact on neighboring businesses, notably Starbucks. One member remarked on market dynamics, “If something’s wrong or they’re unhappy, they’ll just leave, and I don’t think you want to lose a Starbucks.”

Further testimony from a representative of the veterinary hospital outlined operational details. It was confirmed that two doctors and two assistants would be available during overnight hours, catering to a limited number of animals based on medical needs. The hospital would not treat certain animals like horses, cows, or monkeys. The discussion also covered logistical considerations, such as designated areas for truck unloading and animal drop-off points.

Concerns were raised about the lighting from the facility and its potential disturbance to nearby residences. It was noted that the lighting would be directed away from residential areas. The representative emphasized the importance of having staff available at all times, which resonated with board members who shared personal experiences about the anxiety of leaving pets unsupervised.

Following the discussions, the board opened the floor to public comments, though no members of the public came forward. A motion to approve the application was made and seconded, receiving unanimous support, except for one member who abstained due to a potential conflict of interest related to a family member in a veterinary residency.