Franklin Planning Board Approves Pole Barn Amid Zoning Debates

The Franklin Planning Board’s recent meeting saw the approval of a minor site plan for a pole barn on a commercial property following discussions on zoning regulations, storage use distinctions, and buffering requirements.

0:00Central to the meeting was the application PB 241, concerning the proposal by Ryan Morris to construct a pole barn on his commercial property. The application raised debate over the barn’s intended use and its compliance with zoning laws. Morris and his attorney sought conditional approval, contingent upon submitting revised plans that showed the barn’s new location to avoid the need for a variance.

The primary concern revolved around whether the barn would be used for personal storage or as part of Morris’s business operations. The board scrutinized the nature of the items to be stored, debating whether the tools and equipment were personal property or business assets. Morris clarified that the storage would primarily include personal items and overflow tools from his work, not constituting a separate business operation.

Board members raised questions about the legal implications of the proposed use, emphasizing the need to ensure that the storage did not violate zoning regulations. The attorney for Morris maintained that the barn’s limited use would not impact traffic or density, helping to ease some of the board’s concerns. The board appeared receptive to the proposed changes, with the expectation of reviewing revised plans to confirm adherence to zoning requirements.

20:37Another topic was the buffering requirements associated with the proposed development. The engineer involved in the application discussed the existing and proposed plantings to meet buffering standards along the property lines. This requirement was particularly relevant given the concerns raised by residents about the removal of trees that had previously served as a buffer.

36:50During the public comment period, residents voiced their concerns about the buffering and the potential impact of the development on their properties. Andrew Kle, a resident, emphasized the importance of the 100-foot buffer and questioned the plans for replanting trees in the northeast section of the lot, adjacent to his residentially zoned property. Another resident, Joe Kido, presented visual evidence of the site condition changes.

0:00The board’s discussion also touched on a previous application for a lot line adjustment presented by Ryan Hoffman of Generations Enterprises LLC. The application was described as a straightforward adjustment intended to enhance the property’s future use without requiring variances. The properties in question were within wetlands, and any future construction would require appropriate approvals. The board approved this application without opposition.

Additionally, the meeting addressed technical issues that had postponed the discussion of the master plan to the September meeting. These issues involved problems with the municipal audio and recording equipment.

36:50The board considered the technical requirements for surface materials, discussing the potential for a variance concerning the type of surface proposed for the development. The comparison between crushed stone and asphalt was particularly notable, with asphalt being favored for its compliance with code standards and suitability for commercial properties.

The members expressed a desire to balance the needs of the property owner with the concerns of the community, striving to protect the residential quality of adjacent lots and the agricultural integrity of the area.

59:32As the meeting drew to a close, the board approved the application for the pole barn, including the proposal for a privacy screen along the back property line to address the concerns raised. The motions passed without dissent. The board also approved the minutes from a prior meeting unanimously.

Note: This meeting summary was generated by AI, which can occasionally misspell names, misattribute actions, and state inaccuracies. This summary is intended to be a starting point and you should review the meeting record linked above before acting on anything you read. If we got something wrong, let us know. We’re working every day to improve our process in pursuit of universal local government transparency.

Receive debriefs about local meetings in your inbox weekly:

Trending meetings
across the country: