The most debated topic of the meeting was the proposal by Brierwood Construction Corp to modify the approved subdivision plan for Greystone Village by adding an additional lot. This proposal aimed to adjust the development to comply with affordable housing requirements, which were misunderstood due to a communication breakdown between the developer and the town. Originally planned with 22 market-rate homes and two affordable units, the subdivision was found to require three affordable units according to state regulations. This necessitated the addition of a lot to accommodate the extra affordable home.

The board’s discussion highlighted the complexities of the situation, with town planner Valerie Mard explaining that the misunderstanding arose from a lack of communication, particularly with a change in building commissioners. The developer had believed, based on legal advice, that the existing plan met the requirements. However, state regulations mandated rounding up the number of affordable units, thus necessitating the additional lot. The proposed lot was to be located on the northeastern side of Charles Drive, with construction contingent on the lifting of a water moratorium.

Public comments during the hearing included significant opposition from residents, who expressed concerns about the potential impact on property values and neighborhood aesthetics. A resident of Charles Drive voiced strong opposition, arguing that the introduction of affordable housing would devalue their properties and alter the character of the neighborhood. Others questioned the necessity of altering the approved plan solely to meet affordable housing requirements, noting the absence of specific requirements for lot sizes in the zoning regulations.

Despite the developer’s assurances that new homes would match the existing neighborhood style, the proposal was ultimately rejected. A motion to approve the modification failed, with the board voting against it.

Following this, the board turned its attention to discussions about accessory dwelling units (ADUs), a topic of growing interest due to recent compliance notifications with state zoning regulations. The board anticipated a public hearing to consider proposed changes to ADU regulations, which would define a “protected ADU” and set standards such as minimum sizes and occupancy requirements. The discussion included concerns about absentee landlords potentially neglecting management responsibilities, with suggestions for imposing deed restrictions to ensure owner occupancy of at least one unit.

The meeting also addressed zoning bylaw amendments, focusing on correcting errors from a previous recodification that inadvertently removed certain service uses from the General Commercial category. Additionally, proposed changes to the Mixed Use Redevelopment Overlay District at the mall were considered, including the potential addition of fuel station usage, provided environmental protections were maintained.

Infrastructure improvements were another key topic, with updates on the redesign of the Tarland intersection. The board engaged with local business owners to gather input on proposed designs, emphasizing the importance of public outreach to inform and involve the community in the decision-making process. An informational meeting was scheduled to present the plans and receive feedback from residents and stakeholders.

Lastly, the board discussed ongoing efforts to resolve issues related to business signage, with members recounting difficulties in communicating with companies like Lowe’s. The board considered involving Town Counsel to address these issues more effectively and emphasized the need for signage that accurately represents cooperating businesses.