During a recent government meeting, significant discussions emerged regarding the ongoing review of a project that has faced legal challenges and delays. Board members expressed concerns about the adequacy of the current technical analysis related to water and sewer provisions, emphasizing the need for the applicant to provide updated information and interactions with town departments. The passage of time since the project's initial approval has raised questions about the relevance of previous assessments.

One board member highlighted the unusual nature of the remand, suggesting that it warranted a comprehensive review akin to a new project evaluation. This perspective was met with some contention, particularly regarding the role of the town's legal counsel, who was accused of potential conflicts of interest due to their previous involvement in the case. The board member proposed obtaining separate legal counsel to ensure impartiality in the ongoing proceedings.

The discussion also touched on the procedural aspects of hiring consultants for a peer review of the project. While there was agreement on the necessity of such expertise, the board acknowledged that any decision to engage separate counsel would require approval from the select board, the appointing authority.

As tensions rose over the interpretation of the judge's remand order and the implications for the project, board members reiterated the importance of clarity and transparency in the decision-making process. The meeting underscored the complexities of navigating legal and procedural frameworks in local governance, particularly when past decisions and counsel involvement are called into question.