The board’s conversation on housing development regulations was a notable item of discussion., as they discussed the requirements for attainable and affordable units in the West Chatham Neighborhood Center. The proposed bylaw changes aim to ensure that housing developments include a percentage of units that are affordable for qualified households, with an emphasis on year-round occupancy. The board examined the language used by the Department of Housing and Community Development to ensure consistency and clarity. They also considered the implications of deed restrictions and the necessity for legal monitoring by a nonprofit or government agency to oversee compliance.

The term “comparable” came under scrutiny, with the board debating whether to specify that quality should be “equal” in the new units created. The need for clear definitions of “qualified households” was also a topic of discussion, as it has implications for the regulation of short-term rentals. The board expressed concerns about market rate units being rented out on a short-term basis without limitations, and the impact this could have on the availability of year-round housing.

One of the more controversial topics was the potential for short-term rental restrictions. The board members had differing views on the legality and practicality of such limitations. They agreed to seek further advice from the Town Council and the Cape Cod Commission to clarify their authority in this area. The possibility of requiring a special permit for residential units to limit short-term rentals was also discussed.

The receipt of a DLTA grant through the Cape Cod Commission was acknowledged, which will aid in updating the buildout analysis for the West Chatham Neighborhood Center. This analysis will play a role in shaping future development and zoning changes in the area. The board plans to hold additional meetings to discuss the feedback on this matter.

Building regulations were another key topic, with suggestions to increase the maximum height to two and a half stories for properties that include an affordable housing element. The rationale behind maximum building footprints per zone and the application of form-based code were debated to understand the implications for the town’s landscape and development potential.

Parking regulations also came under review, specifically for hotels and lodging. The board questioned whether the current number of parking spaces required was sufficient and discussed the reservation of parking spaces. The possibility of not allowing reserved parking spaces, except as permitted by planning, was considered.

The discussion of zoning definitions and the impact of lot division on zoning was another point of interest. Clarification was sought on what would happen to areas away from Route 28 if a lot were divided.

Sidewalks in new subdivision roads were brought up, with the idea of mandating sidewalks through the subdivision control law to enhance pedestrian safety and encourage a pedestrian-friendly environment in the district.

Transparency rules for commercial establishments, particularly concerning the amount of glass in building facades, were also discussed. The board contemplated whether to introduce a maximum transparency requirement to complement the existing minimum percentage, tying into broader design guidelines for the historic business district.

As the meeting progressed, the board deliberated on the role of site plan review in enforcing regulations related to building height, parking, and pedestrian access.