One notable issue discussed was the compliance with new state regulations regarding accessory dwelling units. The Planning Board examined how these changes, including the removal of owner occupancy requirements and the increase in maximum ADU size from 800 to 900 square feet, would impact local bylaws. Concerns were raised about how the board would manage ADU applications submitted before the bylaw updates at the annual town meeting. A suggestion was made for the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) to waive non-compliant provisions during this interim period. The board focused on drafting necessary changes to align with the state law while retaining existing provisions where they did not conflict.

As part of the discussion on zoning changes, the conversation also covered potential adjustments to parking requirements and the inclusion of tiny homes as accessory units. The board acknowledged the need for clear regulations to prevent misunderstandings, as evidenced by a participant’s anecdote about ambiguous rules in neighboring South Deerfield. The concept of expanding the distance requirement between primary and accessory dwellings was considered to facilitate more opportunities for tiny homes, which could offer affordable housing solutions.

The discussion on ADUs also opened a broader conversation on the inclusion of tiny homes within local regulations. The board referenced Appendix Q of the International Code, which Massachusetts has adopted, as a framework for tiny house regulations. Members debated whether Shutesbury needed to explicitly mention tiny homes in its bylaws and considered clarifying parking requirements for ADUs to ensure at least one designated space per unit. The board explored the possibility of allowing mobile homes as ADUs, provided they met specific criteria, such as being on a foundation.

In addition to zoning matters, the meeting addressed a special permit application for constructing a garage by an applicant named Russ. The Planning Board expressed general support for the project, noting the isolation of Russ’s property and the minimal impact on neighboring residences. However, concerns were raised about setting a precedent for future cases. The board resolved to issue no comment on the application, thereby fulfilling its obligation to respond to the Zoning Board of Appeals without endorsing or opposing the permit.

The board also touched upon operational updates, including the appointment of a new land use clerk and an administrative secretary, as well as the resignation of the Highway Superintendent, reflecting ongoing administrative transitions. The missed deadline for the fall newsletter was mentioned, with plans to engage in community outreach through the spring newsletter to inform residents about zoning changes.

Finally, the meeting concluded with a motion to enter executive session to discuss litigation strategy regarding a complaint from Kohl’s about the Shutesbury bylaw. The board members confirmed their privacy before pausing the meeting recording to proceed with the private session. The next Planning Board meeting was scheduled for the first Monday of November, taking into account the conflict with Election Day.