So we have all of those amendments coming along. In addition to that, the cannabis control commission when once it's established by the state is going to be promulgating regulations. We haven't seen those either. So the the purpose of the moratorum is to simply to put in a temporary hold on any any um current zoning that the town has to ensure that no marijuana facilities come in under the current zoning. Because for example, if you allow a store, a retail store in town right now, then theoretically a retail marijuana store could come in to the town just like any other retail store. If you can have a bookstore, you could have a marijuana store. So the idea is to is to make it clear that whatever your local zoning is right now it does not allow marijuana and that's the temporary moratorum and that's the one where hopefully by next year we'll be clearer as to whether or not we need to make any permanent amendments to the zoning bylaw to address whatever the final form of the marijuana of the mar state law uh ends up being.
So at the end of the moratorum period would would those outright bans have like a sunset provision and expire and we would reconsider our ban? I guess that's what I don't understand. Like I I I don't object to giving us time to consider until the law is finalized. But is the ban then going to be overturned or reconsidered? So the the bans will not necessarily be reconsidered. Again, we don't know what the final law is going to be from the state and it may be that when we come back next year, we may have to make adjustments to those uh or we may have to make amendments to them. It's hard for me to predict that because I don't know what all of these amendments that are pending right now are going to end up looking like. So, for right now, this is this addresses what's the current state law, but that state law is going to change between now and next year.
Okay. Thank you. Okay, we're going to return to Mr. Newman's amendment about removing um the phrase marijuana cultivators from A1. This is a it's been moved and seconded. This is a simple majority for passage. All those in favor, please say I. Those opposed say nay. Amendment fails. We'll return to the original motion. Is there any further discussion? If not, we'll go on. It's a bylaw, so it is not a zoning question. It was a simple majority for passage. All those in favor, please say I. I. Those opposed, nay. Mos motion passes. Madam moderator, Mr. Marl, I move that the town vote to amend A2, amend the zoning bylaw by adding a new section 4.8 as printed in the warrant. Second. It's been moved and seconded.
Is there any discussion? Uh, yes, Mr. Dances. This looks a lot like the one we just adopted. The reason for this is as town council said the law that was voted by the voters in question four is ambiguous. It could be that you need a general bylaw which we just adopted. It could be that you need a zoning bylaw, which is before us now, in order to accomplish everything that every conceivable interpretation of the statute that gets us to the result. We need to adopt all three of these things. It may look the same as the one you just adopted, but this is a zoning bylaw. The one that you just adopted is a general bylaw. Thank you. Um, John Higgley, is there a report from the planning board? John Higgley, 14 Saddle Brook Road, chairman of the planning board. Um, it's much as I uh intended to make it clear with the general by the zoning bylaw, the planning board held a hearing as it's required to and uh the zoning board voted in favor of this uh ban um um and stated uh at a minimum.
This article provides protection for the town until the state regulations are formulated. This article does not affect the medical marijuana bylaw, nor does it impact the medical marijuana bylaw, nor does it impact individual rights regarding non-medical marijuana. Thank you. Uh Mr. Newman, did you want to try again on your amendment? You okay? Because when you said gave it to me, you said in all locations. So, okay. Is there any further discussion about this? If not, we'll proceed to the vote. Um, because this is a zoning bylaw, this requires the two/3s for passage. All those in favor, please say I. I. Those opposed, nay. Motion passes. By two. By two/3. Madam moderator. Yes, Miss Relis. I move that the town vote to amend the town zoning bylaw by adding a new section 4.9 temporary moratorum on marijuana establishments as printed in the warrant and further to amend the table of contents to add section 4.9 temporary moratorum on marijuana establishments.
Second. It's been moved and seconded. John John Hgley, 14 Saddle Brook Road. Um, I'll just I could just repeat what I just said, but that's actually I I read the um the planning board held the hearing and on u on article 16B uh voted in favor of it um uh to provide protection for the town until the state regulations are formulated. Thank you. Any comment on this? If not, this also requires twothirds for passage. All those in favor, please say I. I. Those opposed, nay. Mot motion passes by twothirds. Moving on to article 17. Let me say we usually pause about this time at town meeting to see if we're going to get No, no, no, no, no, don't. Wait. Hear me out. hear me out to see whether we're going to make it to the end in one night. It's 10:24 and we have six more articles which I think we can probably get done tonight.
Agreed. Okay. Are you still unhappy? Okay. Article 17, small accessory structure exception. Madam moderator, Miss Aheronian, I move that the town vote to amend the zoning bylaw by adding a new section 4.1.1 as printed in the warrant. Second. It's been moved and seconded. John report from the planning board. Uh this is an amendment to uh the zoning bylaws. The planning board held a hearing and voted in favor of this article. Um the planning board sponsored the article in response to a request from a resident who wanted to put a shed uh closer to his lot line than the current um setback lines allow. um and discovered that um that this is done commonly and and uh only when there's a complaint is there a is there a um uh is the building inspector involved. Um that virtually all the communities around us have modified or have a different setback for ex a small storage shed or or accessory building.
um by placing a small storage shed 30 to 40 feet from a lot line can result in inconvenient locations that inhibit other uses uh of the side and rear yards. And this bylaw maintains protection of the abutters by still requiring half the normal setback distance um that would be appropriate for a house or garage. Uh half the normal setback distance uh that be maintained while providing some flexibility for the homeowner. other, as I said, other towns uh bylaws allow small sheds to be much closer. Um um um and then uh so the planning board voted in favor of this article um but with the recommendation um uh to replace the the word structure with shed. So I'll make a motion and I guess once there's discussion. Okay. Um you're where are you going to make a change? Uh replacing the word structure for shed uh in 4.1.1.
Correct. Okay. I'll explain the reason that the the discussion um as it was presented and in in a subsequent meeting with the planning board the word shed seemed to have a be much more specific than structure. Um um the a shed is a I have a definition. I do the shed is not defined in the uh bylaw structure is and um just a second I'll read it. Okay. Would John Yeah. I if I sort of state what I think your amendment is, would you like to repeat it and make a motion? I think what you want to do is every place the word structure is used, you want to strike that and substitute the word shed. Correct. Would would you like to move that as an amendment? I move that. I I move that um I move that the uh warrant article as it appears u um in the town warrant as an amendment to section 4.1.1 um uh the small accessory shed exception.
Um um and I can read each place Saturday just where you place the word structure for shed in the article as it's proposed. Okay. Do you have a second? Um yeah, you're going to need a after we get through this, you're going to need to write this down. Carol has a form for you. Oh, you're a sport now. But first before you leave the mic, you have to explain why you think this is a good amendment. Um this was discussed it uh with advis at the advisory meeting and um the planning board decided that shed was much more limiting for its use where a structure could include a swimming pool or a tennis court or a basketball court. A shed is a more specific limiting structure and that's what so shed seemed like a better thing than structure. Thank you.
Okay, I guess we're gonna Does anybody have any discussion about the amendment? Uh, there's somebody waving their hand in the back about the amendment. Nothing about the amendment here. Um, this person has something about the amendment, right? Uh, Rick Novak, 30, too close. Rick Novak, 36 Nason Hill Road. Uh I support the amendment because of the uh clarity of structure versus shed for exactly the reasons described by the planning board chair. Thank you. Uh there's one more comment about the amendment. Yes. Sarah Ragi, 464 Street. Oh, excuse me. We have two comments going at the same time. We we'll take the one back there and then we'll take you. Um Sarah Ragy, 464 Street. And I'm just curious if you're switching it from shed uh structure to shed what the point is of having a 1 and a half story shed. Um it's uh it's a good question.
the the one and a half stories is a height limitation and and the height of a of a building is defined as the average from the uh where the supporting wall meets the ground to the top of the building. So the one and a half story allows for a peaked roof. Just allows for a peaked roof. Yes, down here. Michael Newman, 16 Nason Hill Lane. Absent a definition of shed, I think we're opening up a whole area of trouble. You you you can uh make a claim one way or another. The idea of making it more specific is very reasonable, but if you aren't going to define what more specific means for real, then I think we should leave it alone. If there are no other comments about the amendment, this is a simple majority. All those in favor, please say I. Those opposed, nay.
Most motion passes. I'm having trouble with the word motion tonight. I'm sorry. Okay. Now, does anyone have anything to say about the amended main motion? I see two people standing in the back. Three people. Uh Mike Keptniss uh 85 Brush Hill Road and my questions are more for clarification purposes. Um why limit the size and who came up with 250 square feet? Um the other one is relating to the foundation. Does this mean that I have to have something on wheels or skids or something so I can move it at a moment's notice? And the last thing uh refers to storing automobiles and why would anybody regulate what I can put in my own property. Um let's the first is 250 square ft. that was considered a the a we wanted to specify a maximum size 250 square foot using using uh tools that are available online from various uh suppliers of sheds.
Um um that would include uh storage for a patio table, four chairs, two reclining chairs, a garden, potting bench, shelves, two storage bins, a lawn tractor with trailer, mower, snowb blower, fuel cans, generator, snowblower, grill, and hand tools. And if you have more stuff than that, you need that's a pretty big shed. So we figured that was a that's the largest size. So we wanted to put a maximum in square footage. Um with regard to garage we have uh those are larger buildings and we have already defined uh garage uh in our other in section 4.1 that defines the setback lines. So this is for small small uh uh use. It's not to be habited it inhabited. It's not for car storage. We already have those in our existing bylaws. Yes, in the rear, Rick Novak again, 36 Nason Hill Road. I'm also the very lucky chair of the ZBA.
Um, and we have to administer this and uh we we strongly support the planning board on this one. Uh the this is an exception to an otherwise prohibition. People like the gentleman here are frustrated because they want to get essentially garden sheds and put them within the setback area. Um, and under our zoning bylaw, we have to say no. We can't say, "Oh, heck, it's close enough. It's it's right or wrong, and it and it's out." And as the zoning inspector has pointed out, in many other communities around here, something like a garden shed can be in the setback area under circumstances just like are described here. Now, why does why can't it have a foundation? Because if it has a foundation, someone's going to build something big and say, "That's my garden shed. It's 40 by 20 and two stories high and I keep five cars in there, but it's my garden shed and that is exactly why these limits are in here.
Yes, there's someone else in the rear. Hi, thank you madam moderator Kevin Cole 19 Ivy Lane. I am the guy that was trying to build the shed. Uh so, uh I got a brief thing. Um, you know, I just want to thank the planning board for taking up the matter and actually, you know, listening to the residents and, uh, the selectman for supporting it as well as advisory. Um, so, uh, this basically just allows people to utilize their property in a in a sensible manner. You can place your shed outside of the middle of your yard. I mean, the the topography of my lot is such that the only flat spot I have other than inside the setback is dead center in the middle of my yard. and it's an accessory building, not a feature of your yard. And that's basically all I have to say.
Thank you. Yes, there's another comment in the rear. Uh Sarah Raggy, 46 Forest Street. And I do think it's a great idea to design a bylaw that addresses this. I agree with the gentleman that spoke just after me last time that it might need some tightening. When I read this, I thought, "Oh, that reminds me. It looks just it describes exactly the tiny house that I see in my neighborhood. And that may be fine, but tiny houses are effectively a story and a half and 250 square feet. John, did you have something you wanted to say? Um, it's a very tiny house, but it's um a um if it would help, we could we could add another amendment to specify the definition for shed. We have a language for accessory building um that's more general. Um but so we to address that concern there's a definition for shed a simple roof structure typically made of wood or metal used as a storage space or shelter for animals or a workshop.
Don't think it's necessary. Um it's not allowed to be um the the principal use of the building on the site. I think the language is okay the way it is. Okay. Are there any? If there are no other comments, we are going to vote on the amended main motion. This is a zoning bylaw, so it requires twothirds for passage. Um, all those in favor, please say I. I. Those opposed, nay. Motion passes unanimously. We'll move on to article 18, Nolrest Farm Lane. Madam moderator, Miss Kentoski, I move that the town vote to accept Nest Farm Lane as a public way as laid out by the board of selectmen and as shown on a plan or plans on file in the office of the town clerk and further to authorize the board of selectmen to acquire by gift purchase eminent domain or otherwise and to accept a deed or deeds to the town of an easement in said street and any associated drainage, utility, snow, slope, or other easements associated with said street.
Second the motion. It's been moved and seconded. Mr. Moral, uh, I just want to explain originally at our public hearing, we voted to recommend no action since at because at the time the planning board had not held their public hearing yet and the board of selectmen had not seen it. Since that time, uh, the planning board has held their public hearing. The board of selectmen have also held their public hearing and both supported. So, tonight before our meeting, we voted seven to one to one. Uh, no, I'm sorry. Um, to 7 to1 to support this article uh, as as the motion was read rather than recommending no action. So, we have a positive motion.
Is there any discussion? Uh there's somebody in the back and then we'll come up here. Uh Sarah Raggy, 464 Street. I just have a question as to why a development begins as a subdivision and then we're asked as a town to take over the maintenance of the road and why it doesn't start out as a road to begin with. I remember this conversation with Barcat Lane a few years back. I'm not opposed to doing it. I just don't understand the process. Um, and maybe a planning board question that something gets designed that way. Thank you, Mike. Which Yeah, I'll I'll address that. Okay. Yeah, that was a good idea. Thanks. Uh, this subdivision control law lets people develop subdivisions if they're approved by the planning board. And it's common practice once the subdivision is constructed to have a municipality accept the road and and bring it into essentially the town's road network.