The board’s deliberation on a proposed ordinance to regulate cannabis businesses was a focal point. The ordinance would permit a maximum of two cannabis retailers within designated zones, with restrictions to prevent proximity to sensitive locations such as schools and parks. The board scrutinized the ordinance’s alignment with the master plan, expressing concerns over its consistency given that cannabis was not previously identified as a permissible business type. The implications of cannabis retail on public health and safety, financial benefits, and community sentiment were debated extensively.

A notable point of contention was whether the proposed ordinance should explicitly address public health and safety impacts, with some members suggesting amendments to include specific language regarding these concerns. Discussions highlighted the absence of cannabis in prior planning documents and the need to update the master plan to reflect the evolving legal landscape. The board grappled with whether the ordinance sufficiently demonstrated an “identified need” for cannabis retail, considering the potential economic benefits and increased tax revenue.

Representatives suggested that local sentiment towards cannabis retail might differ from state-level legalization outcomes, prompting calls for referendums or other means to gauge public opinion. The board underscored municipalities’ authority over cannabis regulations, with discussions about the possibility of prohibiting certain types of cannabis-related businesses if deemed necessary.

Parking concerns took center stage in the discussions related to an ongoing development project at the intersection of Route 517 and Route 181. The proposal involved converting a vacant retail space into a restaurant, increasing parking demand to a total of 29 spaces. Board members highlighted deficiencies in the parking plan, pointing out issues with aisle widths, handicap parking compliance, and the practicality of certain spaces. Safety concerns were raised about the proximity of parking spaces to utility meters and the need for a grease trap due to the change in use from retail to dining.

The board also addressed a subdivision application involving properties on Park Road. The proposal sought to transfer 0.275 acres between two lots, bringing one into compliance with impervious coverage regulations. Despite the benefits, a variance issue related to an existing garage’s side yard setback remained unresolved. The board stressed the importance of ensuring public safety through conditions such as a sight triangle easement at a nearby intersection, despite resistance from the property owner.

Further discussions focused on a proposed lot line adjustment intended to address nonconformity issues without intensifying existing conditions. The board sought clarity on the nature of the property and its implications for future developments, with a motion for approval incorporating conditions outlined in a previous engineer’s report.

Public participation was invited, with questions about existing licenses and parking plans taking precedence. Concerns about the adequacy of parking spaces and the impact of proposed changes on overall site safety were emphasized, leading to calls for additional documentation and revisions to the plans.