A primary focus of the meeting was the proposal to amend the zoning bylaw regarding accessory apartments. The proposed changes involve replacing the existing section on accessory apartments with a new one that complies with state legislation, allowing ADUs by right. This aligns with the state’s efforts to streamline and encourage the construction of ADUs by eliminating the need for special permits. The proposed amendments would permit homeowners to construct ADUs up to 900 square feet with a straightforward building permit process, previously hindered by the requirement for special permits.

The board discussed the necessity of maintaining oversight through site plan reviews. These reviews are intended to address concerns about detached and attached buildings and maintain community standards. A member of the board clarified that the intention was to simplify the process for homeowners creating ADUs while ensuring the revisions were not more than the regulations for single-family homes.

During the public hearing, written responses were considered, with questions about whether the site plan review process meets the “as of right” standard set by the state. The board acknowledged that while they could not guarantee complete compliance certainty, the proposed approach aligns with state intentions. A concern was raised about the stringency of drawing requirements for site plan reviews. It was clarified that the requirements match those needed for building permits, thus not placing additional burdens on applicants.

The board also discussed the implications of the proposed ADU bylaw on various types of residential structures, stipulating that only one ADU per primary residence would be allowed. A participant pointed out that the state law requires towns to permit at least one ADU by right, with the option for additional units through special permits. Townsend has chosen to allow just one, though other communities might permit multiple units.

In addition to ADUs, the meeting addressed potential changes to the age-restricted development bylaw, particularly reducing the required acreage for such developments from two acres to one. The board discussed the intent to increase housing options for older citizens by facilitating these developments. Concerns were raised regarding the adequacy of one-acre parcels for septic systems and whether it would meet Title V requirements. Some participants worried that reducing the minimum lot size could affect environmental sustainability and the town’s character.

The conversation highlighted a broader debate over housing density and its implications for Townsend’s character. Some feared that allowing higher density could transform the town into a “mini City,” losing its charm. The board members emphasized the need for development plans that preserve environmental integrity and community standards.

In terms of procedural matters, the board addressed a problematic reference in the accessory dwelling units and residential districts bylaw, specifically in paragraph C4, which incorrectly mentioned a non-existent section. A motion to remove this erroneous reference was proposed and unanimously supported.

The influence of MBTA compliance and state mandates on local control was noted, reflecting ongoing concerns about balancing development needs with local authority.