The commission discussed a proposed text amendment to regulate storage containers more stringently. This issue had previously been the subject of a public hearing, but questions about enforcement and compliance brought it back to the commission. The crux of the debate was how to handle existing properties using storage containers that might not comply with the new regulations. Discussions explored whether these properties would be grandfathered in or required to update their practices. The commission recognized several properties in town that might be non-compliant under the new code, complicating enforcement.

A point of discussion was the temporary use of storage containers for construction or moving. Suggestions for temporary use ranged from six months to a more flexible duration tied to active building permits. Concerns about the practicality of tracking all properties for compliance and the potential burden on the city were raised. The idea of a permit system to monitor container use duration was also considered.

Additionally, the commission discussed engaging business owners who use storage containers to gather input on the proposed changes. This feedback could inform the final recommendations to the city council. The commission aimed to accommodate existing structures while establishing clear guidelines for future use, balancing regulation needs with a lack of significant complaints or issues.

The meeting also featured a proposal from Preston Fox regarding the old Creary property. Fox, representing Fox Properties and working with Four Square Builders, expressed interest in developing garage condominiums on the site, currently zoned as C2. This proposal would require rezoning to commercial industrial, necessitating amendments to the comprehensive plan. The commission examined existing zoning regulations and the implications of Fox’s proposal. The current zoning supports various commercial establishments but does not align with the industrial use Fox suggested.

Concerns arose about the compatibility of garage condominiums with existing businesses and parking needs. The commission considered the potential impact on local traffic and parking, particularly given the lack of parking at nearby businesses. The discussion touched on the practical limitations of the lot, including a pond that could hinder commercial development.

The commission’s stance on supporting the potential rezoning was debated, with implications for the types of businesses allowed and the area’s development. Some members advocated maintaining the current zoning to preserve future commercial use potential. Others cited the lot’s limitations and suggested storage might be the most feasible option.

The meeting also addressed zoning regulations for cannabis-related businesses, a topic of growing importance given upcoming regulations from the Office of Cannabis Management. The commission discussed where various types of cannabis businesses would be allowed within existing zoning districts. An interim use permit was proposed to regulate these businesses, offering flexibility by tying the permit to the person rather than the land.

The discussion included specific categories of cannabis operations: cultivation, manufacturing, wholesaling, and retail. It was proposed to limit cultivation and manufacturing to Agricultural and Commercial Industrial districts. Concerns about proximity to residential areas were raised, with potential buffer requirements around cannabis retail locations to avoid conflicts with existing land uses. The importance of public hearings was highlighted to allow residents near proposed cannabis businesses to voice their opinions.

Hours of operation for cannabis sales were another point of discussion, with proposed hours from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., reflecting local jurisdiction flexibility. Aligning cannabis sales hours with those of alcohol sales was suggested for consistency and clarity, with concerns that limited hours might sustain illicit dealers.