The proposed overlay district was presented with the intent to meet legal requirements for multifamily housing, creating opportunities for increased housing options within the town. This proposal came with comprehensive zoning bylaw amendments, presented by Ian Burns from the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission. The amendments delineated specific districts within the town where multifamily housing would be permitted, specifying the dimensional and density requirements for development in these areas. Notably, the proposal included provisions that 10% of units in developments of 10 or more must be affordable, adhering to specific income thresholds.

During the public hearing, the proposed overlay district sparked a debate. Community members took the opportunity to engage in discourse with the board, some expressing support for the increased housing options the overlay would provide. Others voiced their concerns about the potential shift in the town’s character that could result from increased density. Jack Riki, in the public comment period, pointed out the troubling nature of the by-right component of the proposal. Leslie Matthews emphasized the importance of updating the zoning bylaws to facilitate future town development.

Aside from the proposed MBTA overlay district, the meeting also addressed a redlined version of the overlay bylaw, highlighting changes since its initial presentation. These changes were a result of discussions with the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission and input from Town Council, aiming to enhance the range of housing units and provide for various age groups, household compositions, and income levels. The board considered the language changes, including the addition of site plan review requirements and the removal of the term “waiver” from a definition within the bylaw. These amendments emphasized the continued role of site plan review, ensuring that, despite the by-right nature of the development, any applications would still undergo thorough scrutiny by the planning board.

Furthermore, the board discussed the dimensional standards for the proposed A and B subdistricts, including density caps and the strategic placement of affordable housing. The Town Council’s amendments to the affordability language were notably significant, requiring the recording of affordable housing restrictions at the Essex County registry of deeds before the issuance of a building permit. The discussion also delved into the site plan review process and updated design standards for site design, landscaping, and architecture, with a provision for the planning board to waive certain standards if they substantially furthered the purposes of the section.

The debate over the establishment of various locations for building affordable housing was another point of contention. Some members raised concerns about the timing of the plan’s inclusion on the town warrant before the planning board had reached a final decision. The potential benefits of the plan, such as protecting parcels from unrestricted development, were highlighted by one member, while another pointed out that the plan might not protect certain parcels as intended. Despite the concerns, the board motioned to close the public hearing and recommended approval of the bylaw as printed in the town warrant.

Additionally, the board grappled with a proposed amendment to the Wireless Communications Tower District involving three parcels. A procedural error had occurred; the public hearing notice had not been published as required by statute. Moreover, the school district wished to withdraw two parcels from consideration; however, this was not possible due to the already posted town warrant. The board considered several options and ultimately recommended no action on the article at the upcoming town meeting.

Another agenda item included a continued public hearing for a special permit application for a common driveway on seven Bittersweet Lane. The board faced issues concerning ownership and the lack of documentation for the driveway’s use rights. Consequently, the hearing was continued until the next meeting on April 17th, to allow time for resolving these matters.