19:29The primary focus of the meeting revolved around the proposed changes to regulations concerning ADUs. The board prioritized the review of the accessory dwelling unit bylaw, emphasizing the importance of consistent terminology. A point of discussion was the requirement for retaining the appearance of a single-family home when creating an accessory apartment. Initially, the language mandated that any addition of an accessory apartment must not alter the existing structure’s appearance, and no increase to the height or footprint of the building was allowed unless authorized by site plan review. However, concerns were raised about the practicality of enforcing such a rule across the board. It was noted that imposing a strict requirement could be problematic in certain situations, particularly where the entrance to the new apartment might need to be on the front facade, potentially giving the appearance of a two-family home. The board considered shifting the requirement from a blanket rule to a decision made during site plan review, allowing for discretion in cases where maintaining the single-family appearance might not be feasible.

Parking requirements for ADUs were another contentious topic. State law stipulates that only one parking space may be mandated per ADU, with exemptions if the unit is within a certain distance from transportation services. However, Townsend lacks a flag-down bus service, raising applicability concerns regarding state guidance. The board debated whether to retain the requirement for at least one parking space for accessory apartments, understanding potential complications if the language implied that more than one space could be required at the board’s discretion. The discussion included considerations for unique situations, such as when the accessory apartment is intended for an elderly family member who may not own a vehicle. There was a suggestion that existing parking spaces on the property could be factored into meeting parking requirements, acknowledging that the specifics of each property ultimately determine feasibility.

37:18The board also examined the necessity of maintaining an affordable accessory apartment program within the regulatory framework. With the state allowing ADUs by right, concerns were raised about whether homeowners would prefer the simpler route of obtaining a building permit rather than engaging with the affordable housing program, which involves additional restrictions. This skepticism led to a broader critique of the program’s practicality under the current regulations.

1:30:49In addition to ADU regulations, the board discussed the site plan approval process and the potential need for a traffic assessment for certain projects. The conversation highlighted the complexities of conditioning site plan approvals without critical information, acknowledging the risk of denial leading to appeals that might result in court interventions. The board expressed concern about the legal framework’s demands, emphasizing the necessity of applicants providing adequate information to avoid litigation.

56:12There was a focus on simplifying the site plan approval process, particularly concerning exemptions for ADUs. The board considered transitioning from a special permit system to a minor site plan review process. Discussion centered on the distinction between major and minor site plan reviews.

1:30:49The meeting included administrative updates, such as the announcement of an application for a definitive subdivision plan for Greenville Road, set to be discussed in the upcoming January meeting. Additionally, a special permit was granted to a gas station operator on Main Street, situated in a residential area and within an aquifer protection district. The board also acknowledged amendments to the town charter and reviewed recommendations from the attorney general regarding ADU bylaw changes.