The board’s primary focus was the ordinance 01-26 discussion, which would align local notice requirements with new state law by transitioning from newspaper publications to internet postings. The board examined the ordinance’s implications, particularly its exclusion of references to the zoning board, sparking debate over whether such omissions should be addressed. One member argued that the board should recommend including zoning board references, while another contended that this was outside the planning board’s jurisdiction. Consensus leaned towards the board focusing on its designated responsibilities.

Further deliberations centered on the procedural changes necessitated by the ordinance. Concerns were raised about the administrative burden on staff, with discussions on whether notices should be electronically submitted to ease publication processes. One board member clarified that if notices were provided in electronic format, it would simplify the clerk’s responsibilities by eliminating the need for retyping. A member of the public, identified as Cindy, emphasized the importance of compliance with the new requirements and the need for proper archiving of public notices for a year. She also raised concerns about the potential costs to applicants and the need for a clear fee structure to cover the additional workload on municipal staff.

Cindy’s comments highlighted the complexities of the ordinance, drawing attention to the legislative changes and urging the board to examine how other municipalities are implementing these changes. She pointed out that this change in the law, effective since March, had delayed implementation in Franklin.

The meeting also addressed the right-to-farm ordinance, focusing on conditions under which a chicken coop can be classified as an egg building. Clarification was provided that for an egg building to qualify, it must be assessed as farmland, and the ordinance restricts construction in buffer zones established by deed, permitting only fences, walls, and drainage facilities. This topic of buffer zones was contentious, as a previous meeting suggested a chicken coop could be placed within these buffers. It was revealed that the chicken coop in question was positioned just outside the newly established 50-foot buffer, prompting a debate on the necessity and enforcement of such restrictions.

Discussions also touched on exceptions to buffer requirements, particularly concerning adjacent wooded farmland. There was disagreement over whether the specific adjacent land qualified for an exemption under a forestry management plan. The board acknowledged the need for due diligence in future applications to determine the status of adjacent woodlands.