RQ Iron Work LLC’s application for a certification of pre-existing non-conforming use emerged as a prominent point of contention. The company had been operating in its current location before changes to the zoning ordinance potentially affected its status. The attorney representing the applicant, Steve Grenberg, petitioned the board to acknowledge the situation as a pre-existing non-conforming use, allowing the metalworking business to continue its operations under the previous zoning conditions.

The board’s deliberation centered on the sufficiency of the documentation provided by RQ Iron Work LLC, with specific attention to the company’s compliance with regulations and permits. The board scrutinized the relevance of safety concerns raised by the fire official and discussed the necessity of additional testimony from fire, police, and construction officials. The application’s completeness was contingent upon the timely submission of required documents, including tax payment certification and ownership disclosure.

In parallel, the board engaged in an extensive review of the planning board checklist, which serves as a guiding framework for applications. The discussion encompassed the inclusion of items such as sign plans, certificates of non-conforming use, appeals to the zoning officer, and the submission of supporting documentation. The board debated the merits of a narrative explanation for requested relief and discussed the necessity of a certification from the building department regarding water and sewer charges.

The board also tackled the broader implications of its checklist on property owners, weighing the thoroughness of the application process against the potential burden on individuals. Debates arose over the necessity of historic information and resolutions, the involvement of attorneys in certain applications, and the jurisdiction of outside agencies.

Further, the board members debated the integration of environmental concerns into the application process. They deliberated over the inclusion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in the checklist, questioning whether it should be a standard requirement or left to the discretion of the approving authority. Discussions on environmental documentation extended to the need for Wetland reports and delineation, the hiring of professionals for Wetland determination, and the potential for changing language to require proof of the absence of Wetlands.

Additionally, the board pondered the use of electronic submissions and the layout of the checklist document. The requirement of site photographs for major subdivisions and site plans, the necessity of traffic impact statements, and the appropriateness of rendering for plans were also topics of thorough scrutiny.

Finally, the board touched upon notice and review procedures for minor subdivisions and variances, the need for a 200-foot notice list for zoning appeals, and the importance of timely agency reviews within the mandated 45-day period. The board emphasized the importance of cleaning up the language in the checklist and being explicit about including easements and proposed restrictions.