The most notable outcome from the meeting was the board’s approval of Verizon Wireless’s request to install an emergency generator. This decision followed a comprehensive presentation detailing the generator’s specifications and safety measures. The generator, designed to serve as a backup for a wireless communications facility, will be mounted on a double-walled fuel tank to prevent leaks and will be housed within a fenced enclosure to ensure security. Verizon’s attorney assured the board that the generator would comply with all safety and environmental regulations, as outlined by the Board of Health.

The board scrutinized the storage and handling protocols for hazardous materials associated with the generator, which include approximately 300 gallons of fuel, oil, and antifreeze. Verizon committed to adhering to a spill response plan and ensuring that a licensed hazardous waste hauler would manage any waste. Additionally, safety data sheets and absorbent materials will be available on-site, although the facility will not have a permanent staff presence. Board members emphasized the importance of having a local emergency response service on standby, a condition that was incorporated into the approval decision.

In contrast, the board faced considerable debate over petitions related to signage and parking for businesses on Route 6A. One petition involved GCB 169 Route 6A LLC’s request for a variance to install a larger off-premise directional sign to address traffic and parking issues. The business owner, Gregory C. Belzikian, argued that the current signage was insufficient for directing customers, which was causing congestion and confusion. Despite his arguments, the board expressed concerns about setting a precedent for other businesses and the potential for visual clutter due to multiple logos on the proposed sign. The board highlighted the need to balance business needs with maintaining community aesthetics.

Similarly, the Lighthouse Keepers Pantry faced challenges with its signage and parking arrangements. The petitioner highlighted an increase in customer traffic and the resulting parking difficulties. The board debated the feasibility of a proposed sign, which was deemed too large by some members. A proposal was made to consolidate parking areas between neighboring properties to improve access, but concerns about traffic flow and legal implications arose. The board ultimately allowed the petitioner to withdraw one of their signage petitions without prejudice.

Both businesses expressed a willingness to refine their proposals and continue discussions with the board.