When the Select Board sent the Planning Board a proposed one-sentence amendment to add entertainment to the bylaw that defines allowable agricultural uses four months ago, the Planning Board made it clear that it wanted more substance. But that substance has yet to materialize, and when Select Board members failed to attend the amendment’s continued hearing Jan. 9, their absence appeared to tax the patience of Planning Board members.
At the heart of the difference of opinion between the two boards is where entertainment conditions should be defined. The Planning Board would prefer to have what it calls “guardrails” —protections for neighboring properties such as time and noise limits—defined in the amendment. But Select Board liaison Erin McBee has repeatedly told the Planning Board that those safeguards can be built into each entity’s annual entertainment license. Those licenses would still be required even if the bylaw amendment were adopted at Town Meeting.
Prior to the Jan. 9 hearing, the Select Board had provided examples of license conditions, but neither McBee nor any other Select Board member came to the hearing to discuss the examples. Chair Richard Cabelus said conditions on licenses approved in the past were not that helpful because those conditions are not guaranteed to be approved in the future. In addition, at a previous meeting, Planning Board members expressed concern that applying conditions to individual licenses opens the possibility of inequitable treatment among farms seeking to have entertainment.
When Cabelus told his board that McBee had a scheduling conflict and wouldn’t be appearing at the hearing, members quickly decided they had nothing further to say on the issue until the Select Board offered new information. Cabelus said he hated to see people in town showing up for hearing after hearing (this was the fifth) with little sign of collaboration from the Select Board. Member Brian Cook agreed, saying, “It’s appalling that they haven’t done anything.”
The Press spoke with McBee following the Jan. 9 hearing, and she said the Select Board understands that the ball is in its court, and thought she had communicated that to Cabelus before the hearing. But she added that if the Planning Board wants guardrails built into the amendment, it typically would be responsible for writing that language. She said she will discuss holding a joint meeting of the two boards to break the current impasse, something that the Select Board has talked about doing for over a month.
Planning Board members briefly discussed ending the hearing with a vote of “take no action” on the amendment, but member Doug Thornton said he feared the Select Board might then put the one-sentence amendment on the warrant for Special Town Meeting in February. Cabelus agreed and said the hearing should be continued to give the Select Board one more chance. The Planning Board voted unanimously to continue the hearing to Jan. 23 at 8 p.m.
