The primary topic of discussion was the adaptation of the town’s zoning map in relation to the MBTA Communities framework. The committee reviewed the original proposal, which was rejected at the May town meeting. This proposal included The Preserve property and adjacent parcels, as well as a downtown district. The original plan had a unit capacity of 814 units with a density of 17.2 units per acre across 58.4 acres, but it fell short by one unit from meeting the required minimum capacity of 750 units. The committee considered modifying the density parameters to achieve compliance.

John Guch, a staff member, presented two new proposals alongside the original. The second proposal included the Indian Brook condos on Elm Street and an expanded downtown area. This plan met the required density but did not reach the necessary unit count. Adjusting the maximum density for Indian Brook from 15 to 16 units per acre could result in a total capacity of 782 units, while increasing the downtown density to 18 units per acre could yield 771 units.

The third proposal involved the Walcott Cedar Street downtown expansion, excluding The Preserve and incorporating adjacent parcels. This plan achieved a unit capacity of 754 units with a density of 19 units per acre over 51.7 acres. Questions arose about the reliability of the model used to calculate these figures, with some members expressing concern about meeting state scrutiny.

The committee also discussed the implications of local conservation restrictions versus state requirements and clarified that conservation and zoning laws are separate. They emphasized the importance of public transportation in relation to new developments. There was interest in aligning developments with public transportation options, such as extending the MWRTA bus service to the Southborough train station.

The debate also touched on the different perspectives regarding the potential development of Indian Brook compared to Walcott Valley. Indian Brook presented challenges due to its lack of MBTA connections and existing traffic conditions, whereas Walcott Valley was seen as more accessible and potentially more suitable for development. Property prices were also discussed, with Indian Brook units priced higher than those in Walcott Valley. This pricing dynamic could influence developer interest and the pace of development.

Committee members expressed varying preferences for the different plans. Some favored the original plan, while others leaned toward the Walcott Valley plan due to its potential for easier approval and alignment with community interests. The importance of providing the planning board with multiple options was highlighted, though the practicality of presenting three options at the town meeting was questioned.

A motion was proposed to recommend the planning board consider the three plans: the original, the Walcott Valley version, and the Indian Brook version. The roll call vote reflected five members in favor, one against, and one abstaining, thus passing the motion. It was noted that a committee member might attend the planning board meeting to address any questions.