One of the most discussions centered around parking requirements, particularly for senior housing. Members debated whether the parking requirement could be as low as one space per unit. Concerns were raised about the adequacy of one parking space per unit, especially for senior housing, as seniors might own multiple vehicles. A proposal was made to increase the percentage by which the planning board could reduce parking requirements for senior housing developments, but this required clarification of the “senior housing” definition.

The participants discussed the potential reduction in parking spaces, with some expressing discomfort with the uncertainty surrounding parking regulations. Eventually, there was an agreement to permit a 20% reduction in parking spaces specifically for senior housing, at the discretion of the planning board. However, the lack of a clear definition for what constitutes senior housing remained a concern.

Another point of discussion was the economic feasibility analysis concerning affordability and the 20% affordability requirement. RKG had been contracted for a fiscal impact study, with a tentative completion date of November 1. The task force expressed a preference for RKG to undertake the analysis due to cost and timing concerns. The importance of understanding the impact of full development was highlighted as crucial for voters.

The task force also debated the implications of removing Newport Park from consideration. Concerns were raised about whether the three acres of land would be eligible for development. Alternatives for compensating for the loss of units if Newport Park were excluded were discussed, including adding properties along Pine Street to maintain district size and meet requirements. Modifications could result in a net increase of up to 12 units, but there were disagreements regarding this approach.

Discussions shifted to the potential housing development on Bennett Street and its implications on the town’s character, particularly historic houses. Site plan reviews for properties within the water resource protection zone were debated, with members questioning whether certain developments should require special permits. Concerns about garages and their environmental risks were also raised.

Community engagement efforts were a significant topic, with members discussing the importance of effective communication strategies. Suggestions were made for a direct mail piece with a QR code and a direct link to a dedicated website for more information. Public forums were planned for the fall, including an event on September 21 and a virtual forum on October 2. The effectiveness of smaller, grassroots conversations in addressing residents’ concerns was also highlighted.

The need for clearer communication through the town’s website was emphasized, with suggestions for creating a concise brochure and simplifying the website. The idea of adding videos to explain zoning districts was discussed, with emphasis on making concepts easy to grasp for residents. Direct mail outreach, including a postcard campaign featuring maps and key data on zoning changes, was proposed to increase awareness.

Anticipated turnout at the upcoming town meeting was projected to be higher than usual. The task force acknowledged the presence of organized opposition to changes and recognized the need to effectively communicate the benefits of the proposed zoning to counteract misinformation and fears circulating within the community.

The discussion also addressed the implications of state requirements for local zoning changes. The task force emphasized that while the state mandates certain zoning adjustments, the responsibility for specifics remains with the local task force. The importance of minimizing changes to the town’s character and throttling growth was highlighted.

Public comments included concerns about the proposed addition of four-story buildings and the associated increase in traffic. Transparency in communication from the task force was emphasized, with requests for visual representations of the changes to help the community better grasp the outcomes of the proposed developments. Responses acknowledged the validity of public apprehensions and noted that four-story buildings would be permitted only in a few designated areas, situated away from residential neighborhoods.

The need for clear communication regarding affordability in zoning adjustments was also discussed. Concerns were raised about existing developments not resulting in increased affordable housing stock and the challenges posed by high construction costs. The task force was urged to communicate that they had been advocating for affordability in their proposals.