A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to Article 6 of the warrant, discussing the proposal to purchase an interest in the Masonic Lodge to potentially create a community or senior center. Although the task force recommended approval of Article 6, concerns were raised regarding the vagueness of the article and the lack of specific parameters. The potential expansion and renovation of the building were also debated, along with a fundraising campaign to raise funds exceeding $200,000 for the project.

The task force also tackled Article 15, which proposed the swap of an easement at Newport Park to provide parking for access to Powder House Hill. The necessity for additional parking at the trailhead led to discussions on the impact of existing parking spots and the environmental implications of constructing new spaces, such as the felling of trees.

Discussions on zoning parameters for the U actual districts were also central to the meeting. The Pine Street District was split into two subdistricts, with Pine Street District 1 allowing three to four family units, with a maximum of five units per parcel. The minimum lot size was set at 6,000 square feet, with height restrictions of 2 and a half stories. The district’s zoning parameters were designed to mirror existing zoning in the area. The task force also scrutinized the potential impact of the proposed zoning changes on existing neighborhoods, particularly in terms of setbacks and buffer zones.

The debate extended to District 2, which includes Beach Street to Valentine, and considered similar parameters to Pine Street, focusing on allowing multiple dwellings per parcel, with a minimum lot size and height restrictions tailored to the district. The task force also discussed the potential creation of a subdistrict for the C and SE Street side of Summer Street but faced technical limitations that prevented the establishment of a sixth district. Moreover, there were discussions about the possibility of building townhouses, the feasibility of a 20% affordable housing requirement, and the impact of non-conforming lots and potential developments.

Public comment raised concerns about building heights and their impact on the town’s visual and residential character. The task force considered the trade-offs between building height, available land, neighborhood aesthetics, and the needs of future residents.

The meeting also addressed the crafting of design guidelines and the importance of their alignment with the planning board’s objectives. Concerns were voiced about the inclusion of zoning language in the draft guidelines and the need for professional guidance to ensure adherence to objective standards.

As the meeting progressed, the task force decided to move forward with reviewing architects’ work and incorporating elements from other towns to refine the town’s zoning guidelines. The adoption of regulations and guidelines through zoning was also debated, with discussions on the enforceability of guidelines and clarity on whether subjective design elements should be included in zoning.