04/04/2019 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes

Home Browse Search

start until they receive a completed application and, if an application is considered incomplete or additional information is requested,the timeframe hasn't really begun. Chair Baumgaertel asked why they would want to limit themselves to 60 days, and it was agreed that board members and agents should have the right to review and determine when an application is complete. It was decided to remove the 60-day review period and leave it open ended. Mr. Harrington commented that, at the last meeting, the board deliberated whether three local inspections on top of the state inspections may be too much. Chair Baumgaertel recommended that, because this is a new type of business, the board start restrictive on the number of inspections and then possibly relax the requirement at some point. Mr. Harrington stated that three was more than they typically perform for other inspectional services, but two was reasonable and appropriate because it was in line with the food inspections. Ms. Langler asked if the board would receive a copy of the state inspection reports,and Mr. Harrington answered that there is no requirement for that, but the regulation states the Town has the right to review any state inspection reports at the facility. Chair Baumgaertel suggested the board require the facility to provide a copy of the state reports when they receive them, to ensure they are getting the three inspections. The board settled on two inspections by the Town, in addition to those required by the state. Mr. Harrington reviewed the changes requested by the board at the previous meeting relative to outdoor growing facilities, and the requirements for cultivation and manufacturing. In consideration of odor and noise, the board deliberated whether to ban open air cultivation facilities or to require a buffer. Chairman Baumgaertel suggested a 1000' undeveloped radius around these facilities, stating that the radius can be reduced at a later time, but not increased. Mr. Harrington reminded the board that it is always within their right to grant a variance if an applicant presents a valid argument. He further advised the board that a buffer requirement would not be challengeable due to it not being a prohibition. Board members were in agreement that it would be beneficial to do a site visit to the cultivation facility currently operating in the Town of Franklin. Chairman Baumgaertel asked if the board needed to hold a public hearing in order to adopt the regulation, and Mr. Harrington answered that a public hearing was already conducted and all applicants were invited to participate. He informed the board that the regulation would get a final review by Counsel, once it had been adopted, and would then need to be advertised and forwarded to the Central Register. He stressed that the board should adopt the regulation prior to the issuance of any retail permits. There being no further comments or discussion, Mallory Langler moved to approve the Recreational Marijuana Regulation as amended. Motion seconded by Laurel Almquist. VOTE: Unanimous(3-0). 2. Discussion of Draft Innovative/Alternative Septic Regulation. Mr. Harrington commented that there were no changes/updates to the I/A since the last meeting. Matt Costa introduced himself and asked for a brief summary of the proposed changes to the regulation,and Chair Baumgaertel answered that the board was proposing to remove/relax much of the inspection requirements previously required after installation. Mr. Harrington stated that the new regulation was also memorializing the requirements for monitoring of UV lights, effluent tee filters and pressure distribution, which Title V does not address. Ms. Langer recommended 5