The primary focus of the meeting was the proposed ordinance related to the screening and parking of commercial vehicles in residential areas. A significant issue identified was the ambiguity in the ordinance’s language, particularly in letter H, which mandates screening of commercial vehicles with fencing or landscaping. Several council members expressed a need for greater specificity in the ordinance to clearly define what the screening should entail and how it should shield the vehicles from nearby residences.

Another concern was the apparent conflict between the proposed ordinance and the existing parking ordinance, referenced as 330-1 through 8. The proposed ordinance specifies vehicle size limits of 8 feet in width, 10 feet in height, and 23 feet in length. However, the current ordinance sets different maximum dimensions, including a height exceeding 8 feet, a length exceeding 18 feet, and a width exceeding 5 feet, along with restrictions on weight and wheel number. These discrepancies raised questions about the necessity of aligning the proposed ordinance with existing regulations to avoid enforcement complications.

Council members discussed potential solutions. It was noted that a review between the town’s attorney and Mr. Lien, the individual involved in drafting the ordinance, should have been conducted to address these inconsistencies. However, it appeared that such a review either did not occur or was inadequately communicated to the council.

The discussion further explored the process for introducing the ordinance, with some debate over whether it should be returned to the planning board for additional input or revised directly with Mr. Lien. It was emphasized that the council has the authority to decide on the ordinance’s introduction and that while planning board feedback is valued, it is not a prerequisite for proceeding.

Public comments during the meeting highlighted resident concerns about the enforcement of current regulations. A resident, Michael AGR, raised issues regarding the number of commercial vehicles allowed in residential driveways, citing a specific case on Ridgewood Road with multiple commercial vehicles and a large boat. The new draft ordinance aims to address these concerns by limiting the number of commercial vehicles allowed in residential zones. The council member noted that the police would investigate the enforcement of existing regulations, particularly concerning the visibility and impact of the large boat, which was described as an eyesore due to the absence of landscaping.

The meeting also revisited the topic of forming a master plan subcommittee. The mayor clarified that while the planning board does not have the authority to establish subcommittees, he can do so under state statute. This led to a discussion about the nature of the subcommittee, intended as a citizens advisory committee. There was consensus that the mayor’s authority to form such committees does not require council approval, though the subcommittee’s findings would be reported back to the council.

The meeting concluded with a discussion on public participation via Zoom, following an awkward situation involving virtual attendance. It was noted that while the council had stopped applicants from attending in person, the zoning board still permitted public comments via Zoom. The council underscored the importance of in-person attendance to avoid technical issues and suggested including a notice on application forms encouraging applicants to present their cases in person.