2021-11-08-STM#1-min-as Amended June 2022

Browse Search

November 8,2021 Special Town Meeting#1(2021-1),cont. expertise. Evaluating the public health impact was problematic and would require a Health consultant,which could potentially increase costs and slow the process. 9:04 p.m. The Moderator called debate and questions open on Article 13. 9:04 p.m. Leonard Morse-Fortier,Pct.7,urged members to vote"no"and stated that it was akin to a"trojan horse"stripping accountability and removing the words"safe"and"safety". 9:06 p.m. Wendy Reasenburg,Pct. 8,asked whether the vote could be split into sections. The Moderator noted that she anticipated a motion to Amend by substitution,and recommend waiting until that took place. 9:07 p.m. Deborah Strod,Pct.6,asked whether Counsel felt that there was weakening in sections 2 and 3. Counsel Makarious stated that they had reviewed it closely and it was hard to say whether something was weakened or not because sections 2 and 3 include a list of criteria which created a balancing. He noted that in the current Section 2,one item read"social, economic,or community needs that are served by the proposal"and this section would now read"social,equity,diversity,public health or community needs and that change may highlight different equity or health impacts but took away"economic"and that would be up to the Zoning Board where those words fit in. He summarized that it was a different weighing of factors. Ms. Strod further asked for some guidance of factors and whether other items could be considered in that place. Counsel Makarious stated that if something had been removed and a project fell into that category,an applicant who had been denied a Special Permit on that grounds would have good reason to challenge,but with the list of criteria he did not anticipate too many things falling to the side.He further stated that the removal of a factor or the changing of language could be considered by a court when trying to consider its meaning if it found it ambiguous as it normally started with what the language said,and if they could not do that it would go with the language changed from to determine what the new language meant. 9:10 p.m. Ms. Strod asked why the Zoning Board found the language in section 2 more difficult to interpret than 3 as they were similar. 9:12 p.m. Jeanne Krieger,Zoning Board of Appeals Member,noted that they looked specifically at section 2 as they were the Special Permit granting authority for a number of types of applications. They did not consider review standards for Planning Board. They had not had issues in determining social and community needs,but some of the wording was vague and could make their decisions difficult. Ms. Strod asked Mr.Hornig to explain how 2 and 3 played out. Mr.Hornig stated that section 9.4.2 and section 9.5.5 actually served somewhat different purposes. He noted that 9.4.2 provided for general criteria that the Zoning Board of Appeals,and occasionally the Planning Board,were expected to use when granting or denying a Special Permit and were deliberately written"generally"because Special Permits covered a wide range of areas,while not being so specific that you didn't get the generalities. 9.5.5 was not a list of criteria but rather a list of areas in which the Planning Board was permitted to write criteria and 9.5.5 would be looked at when writing regulations. Ms. Strod pointed out that the first piece of applies widely to all of 135 and was in favor of sections 1 and 4. 9:16 p.m. Matt Daggett,Pct.2,made a Motion to Amend Article 13 as a substitute Motion,in order to support Diversity,Equity,and Inclusion(DEI)improvements, Site Plan Review guidelines,and offered changes as follows: