A key element of the meeting was the debate over procedural concerns regarding the notice for the meeting, as raised by an objector’s representative, Michael Conry. Conry challenged the notice’s validity, suggesting that it failed to adequately specify the variances needed for the retail cannabis establishment, which could lead to jurisdictional issues and possible litigation. Despite these objections, the board proceeded with the application, addressing a checklist of items previously requested, including traffic and odor mitigation plans.

Various factors, such as pass-by trips and pedestrian traffic, were considered, and the parking requirements for the dispensary were scrutinized based on the number of spaces required and the impact of customer transaction times on parking turnover. Comparisons with nearby dispensaries were also made to contextualize parking demand.

Parking conditions were a topic of observation, with an individual noting the availability of vacant spaces at an offsite location and the absence of directional signage. The discussion also delved into the possibility of left turn restrictions at the site’s access points, focusing on traffic flow and safety. Changes to the operational plan were discussed, including the maximum number of employees and customers allowed at the facility at any given time and how an influx of customers beyond proposed limits would be managed.

Security concerns were addressed with the proposal to adjust the placement of a security camera to minimize exposure to neighboring properties and an examination of the security plan’s effectiveness. The board took a break during the meeting before discussing a resolution for the extension of an application.

The proposed facility’s plan to manage customer wait times involved an online waitlist connected to the ordering system, with estimates of visit durations and an emphasis on quick service for online orders. The odor mitigation plan included the installation of carbon filters and a regular cleaning schedule to minimize cannabis odor. Adjustments to lighting were made to avoid nuisance to neighbors, and a battery backup system was in place for security.

Qualifications of a witness testifying on odor mitigation and security measures were questioned, and the witness clarified plans to replace the existing HVAC system and manage smoking outside the premises. There was also debate about the relevance of reports on crimes and impact, with some members questioning their pertinence to the board’s decision-making.

The meeting also covered a proposal to change the use of a vacant building for a combined retail and food use, with associated parking deficiency concerns. Testimony was heard about the operations of the proposed uses, the impact on parking and noise regulations, and compliance with the Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendations.

Finally, the board discussed an application to increase lot coverage and obtain variance reliefs for a dining establishment, with a focus on the availability of public parking and adherence to HPC guidelines. Concerns about trash and recycling enclosures and ADA compliance were also addressed.