A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the concerns about zoning in the Kate’s Corner area, where current configurations juxtapose various zoning classifications such as Residential B, Commercial A, Commercial B, and Limited Industrial. Residents were particularly vocal about the potential commercialization of their neighborhood, fearing it would lead to increased traffic and environmental degradation. One resident highlighted their unease with commercial activities bordering residential zones. The board acknowledged these concerns, emphasizing the need for public input to ensure any zoning changes align with community desires and maintain the area’s character.

The debate over zoning classifications included discussions about the potential elimination of the IIA designation, which was seen as inconsistent with the neighborhood’s residential nature. A proposal to rezone town-owned parcels near the beach to a public designation was considered to reflect their current use. Residents like Maria and Richard Bam urged the board to prioritize preserving local character and resisting further commercialization, emphasizing the historical significance and charm of South Chelmsford. Concerns about traffic and environmental impact were echoed by other residents, who cited the importance of maintaining the health of local ponds and the watershed.

The board also discussed the proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) bylaw, which aims to increase housing stock by allowing ADUs by right in zones where single-family homes are permitted. The proposed changes would permit ADUs with a maximum size of 900 square feet or 50% of the principal dwelling, requiring one off-street parking space unless within half a mile of a transit station. This law aims to create 8,000 to 10,000 new ADUs over the next five years, and the board sought to align local bylaws with these state requirements while addressing community concerns about potential impacts on neighborhood character and existing structures.

The board heard from residents who raised questions about the procedural aspects of implementing the ADU bylaw, particularly concerning variances for non-conforming structures. The conversation also touched on the relationship between Local Landmark Areas (LLAs) and ADUs, with suggestions to include a mechanism for transitioning LLAs to ADUs under the new regulations. There was acknowledgment that while most existing ADUs would likely comply with the new definitions, clarity in enforcement and application was necessary.

Beyond zoning and ADUs, the meeting addressed development plans impacting local landscaping and traffic management, particularly concerning a property on P Drive. A revised parking layout was presented, featuring changes to accommodate emergency vehicle access and manage stormwater runoff. Residents voiced concerns about tree removal and the loss of green spaces, seeking assurances that the development would comply with conservation regulations and maintain environmental standards. The board and developers discussed strategies to mitigate these impacts, including redesigning parking to reduce disturbances and preserve tree health.