It probably wouldn’t be a Planning Board meeting if there weren’t some dust-up, postponement, or decision deferred. This session had all three.

First there was the postponement for the second time of a hearing on the proposed commercial construction at the Hendries site on Eliot Street. The hearing had been initially postponed to the 12th because abutters had not been notified of the hearing. It was postponed last night because the developers did not feel they were properly prepared. Not knowing this, several concerned residents showed up. One who came to hear the presentation was Jay Olin. He took advantage of Citizen Speak to voice his concerns over the aggregate traffic impact two developments within close proximity would have on an area already plagued with traffic issues. Those being the 18 condos going in at 36 Central Ave and the 38 proposed units for the Hendries site. The developers have been disinclined t accept the board’s recommendation that they come in in advance of the hearing to listen to concerns and objections so that they can be factored into their formal presentation at the hearing. That hearing is now scheduled for September 23rd.

Then there was the kerfuffle. Residents of Brush Hill Road and members of the Brush Hill Neighborhood Association complained about the fact that they had not been properly informed of a residential development going in. There were accusations that the board had violated the open meeting law. There is no basis for that and Mr. Whiteside, chairman of the Planning Board, clearly irked, responded that they get a lawyer. One gentleman rose out of his seat to confront the board. Ed Duffy formally requested that the chairman ask the man to take his seat. It was rather testy with the gentleman being clearly out-of-order. Whiteside temporarily closed citizens speak in order to move onto other agenda items at which point the Brush Hill residents left the meeting.

The board also discussed an article in the upcoming warrant regarding the height of accessory structures (e.g. a garage, tool shed). There appears to be disagreement among board members about how to resolve this. At issue is the fact that there are court cases regarding structures that have second floors. Though the current zoning is clear that the structures should only be one story, some residents have attempted to bypass that. In any event, one judge noted that there was no height specified. Hence, the building inspector and Board of Selectmen were hopeful of removing any confusion by addressing the judge’s opinion. The suggested height was 14′. Mr. Whiteside does not feel that to be appropriate. To impose the same height restriction on a 1,2, or 3 car garage for example seems unfair and would result in buildings that appear out of scale. The board at this time is going to recommend that town meeting refer the article back to the planning board for review which would allow them the time to develop a height restriction appropriate for  a variety of structures.