A key topic that dominated the meeting was the revision of zoning language, specifically the consideration to rename the “multifamily overlay district” to “community housing district” and the subsequent updating of the zoning parameter chart. The conversation extended to the purposes section of the zoning bylaws, where the task force discussed at length whether to strictly comply with the state statute or to incorporate additional goals like housing production and town character preservation. This led to a divide among members, with some expressing concerns that adding too many goals could lead to complications and increased opposition.

The task force also grappled with the decision of whether to establish a single 37-acre non-contiguous overlay district or create four distinct overlay districts with their respective sub-districts. This structural consideration raised concerns about potential confusion and the necessity for clarity in the zoning regulations. The deliberation on the naming and organization of districts was a careful process, as members proposed and refined various options.

Further, the task force scrutinized the implications of permitting specific non-residential uses, such as swimming pools and parking garages, and their suitability within different districts.

A notable debate arose around the inclusion of mixed uses in various districts, focusing on the General District and the possibility of referencing specific districts within it to permit mixed-use developments. The task force also addressed the allowance of accessory units and uses, including small family daycare, and the potential inclusion of sports courts and swimming pools as accessory uses. This prompted debate over the potential for overbuilding and the necessity of imposing restrictions to maintain control over the development landscape.

The task force delved into the table of dimensional standards, analyzing lot areas, frontage, height, setbacks, and building coverages. Specific numbers and discrepancies, such as the lot area for a district on Beaver Dam Road and the cap on units per building, were scrutinized to ensure consistency and accuracy in the model’s calculations.

Another focal point was the discussion on the maximum number of units allowed per building and per lot. Task force members voiced concerns about maintaining the small-scale character of the area and the practicality of implementing size restrictions. These discussions also highlighted the various perspectives on the impact of such regulations on the housing market.

The feasibility of proposed off-street parking regulations was similarly contested, with task force members expressing differing views on the necessity and potential impact on both the town’s character and the housing market. The conversation extended to the requirements for bicycle parking in larger developments, debating whether to specify a percentage requirement and its applicability to multifamily units.

They reviewed existing zoning requirements applicable to multifamily housing, including performance requirements for industrial uses, parking, landscaping, and affordability requirements. The task force also considered the need for Earth removal, flood control, and water resource criteria to be part of the site plan review process or to require a special permit.

Moreover, the task force addressed the intricacies of the definitions within the zoning sections, such as “applicant” and “property owner,” and the clarity needed to reconcile these terms. They also discussed the potential confusion surrounding articles during town meetings and the importance of clear determinations before public hearings.

This decision underscored the task force’s dedication to careful planning and community involvement.