The Zoning Board of Appeals heard a lengthy and contentious presentation and public comment session on a Chapter 40B comprehensive-permit application for Broken Bow Lane, in which Broken Bow Residences LLC proposed 16 units (four duplexes and one multiunit building) with four affordable units.

Applicant representative Nick Marione presented site plans, parking arrangements (32 spaces), drainage design and a leaching-field layout. Town referrals in the file include an engineering memo with roughly 17 pages of comments, a Board of Health review noting septic suitability pending confirmation and a planning-board note expressing concern about the proposed architectural features and apparent lack of tenant storage.

Many nearby residents told the board the site experiences recurring flooding and significant runoff; residents and board members described a rough private road (Broken Bow Lane) at the property entrance, limited sight distance at Route 28, and a history of periodic inundation tied to storm surge and watershed flows. Several residents urged the board to treat the site as unsuitable for dense development unless engineering and hydrology questions were addressed. One speaker said the immediate neighborhood had become overbuilt and called the proposed buildings ‘‘Motel 6’’ in appearance; others said the proposed footprint and layout were incompatible with existing single-family context.

Board members asked for the following additional evidence before deciding whether to proceed or to impose conditions: hydrology and soil borings (to detect hydric soils and potential wetlands), revised drainage calculations, nitrogen-load computations and evidence about when sewer service will be available and whether the project can connect. The board also asked the applicant to explore modest architectural revisions and to provide a plan for paved-road repairs or other mitigation to Broken Bow Lane should the board choose to move forward.

Given the number and technical nature of outstanding issues, the board instructed the applicant to retain peer engineering review focused on stormwater and desgn and continued the hearing to give the applicant time to revise the plans and provide the requested technical reports. The applicant agreed to supply a soil scientist/botanist report, revised elevations, nitrogen-loading calculations, drainage clarifications and to coordinate with the town’s sewer/wastewater staff and conservation commission where required. The board noted statutory 40B appeal rights for applicants and the evidentiary burden that would fall on the town if it were to deny the application.

The hearing was continued to allow the applicant to deliver the requested technical materials and for the peer-review process to be undertaken; the board members said they would expect a hydrology report and revised plans at the next appearance. No final permit decision was made at the meeting.