The meeting’s most pressing agenda item concerned the proposed site plan for zero Scully Road, specifically the approval of several waivers. The applicant sought four waivers, including those for the vehicular traffic circulation and parking traffic impact statement, bicycle parking, a photometrics plan for outdoor lighting, and stormwater management regulations. The board approved all waivers unanimously. For the traffic impact statement waiver, the applicant argued that the limited expected traffic generated by the proposed business made it unnecessary, and the board concurred. The applicant also stated that customer presence on-site was not anticipated, justifying the bicycle parking waiver. The lighting waiver was approved based on the applicant’s plan to use wall-mounted fixtures with automatic shut-off. The stormwater management waiver was discussed extensively, with the board agreeing that the applicant would acquire a stormwater permit to ensure annual compliance checks.

Following this, the board moved to discussions on affordable housing amendments, focusing on the new threshold that triggers inclusionary housing requirements. The threshold of five or more dwelling units would activate these regulations for any residential or mixed-use project. The board clarified that this includes contiguous parcels owned by the same entity.

The affordable housing requirements stipulate that at least 10% of dwelling units in applicable developments must be affordable. For developments of 20 or more units, affordable units must be constructed on-site. Projects with fewer than 19 units are not required to provide on-site affordable units, although affordable rental units must be included if rental units are part of the development. The board debated the language of these requirements, particularly the term “on-site,” emphasizing the need for clear communication to avoid misinterpretation.

The board also engaged in a analysis of density bonuses, which allow developers to receive approvals for additional market-rate units if they provide more affordable units than required. For instance, a development requiring one affordable unit could add three additional market-rate units for each extra affordable unit provided, up to a 75% density bonus. A concern was the clarity of the language in the bylaw, as members noted potential ambiguities that could mislead developers regarding the number of affordable units required versus the market-rate units granted.

Further complicating the discussion were the dimensional requirements and the impact on site plans and parking. The board acknowledged that while some zones had strict requirements, others did not, necessitating careful consideration of each project’s specifics. The need for clear and precise language in the bylaws was underscored, particularly regarding the special permit process for density bonuses.

The meeting also highlighted the role of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) in the approval process for affordable housing. The board discussed whether to remove references to the ZBA from the document, except where it pertains to special permits or variances, to streamline the process and clarify roles and responsibilities.

The board then reviewed proposed zoning amendments related to the MBTA multifamily overlay district. This district aims to facilitate multifamily housing and mixed-use development in compliance with Massachusetts General Laws. The overlay district allows development to proceed under specific requirements, minimizing the need for special permits, which can complicate the approval process.

Additionally, the board addressed concerns over surface parking structures within the overlay district, focusing on the restriction of parking near the rear of buildings. The board debated whether to amend the language to include an escape clause for parking requirements to avoid being overly restrictive.

Lastly, the board discussed procedural aspects of the modification development approval process, including timelines and review authority. A motion was made to continue the public hearing on the proposed zoning amendments to the next meeting, and a subsequent motion to adjourn the meeting was approved.