During the meeting, the board engaged in an in-depth examination of the regulatory framework for Accessory Dwelling Units. The conversation began by contemplating the necessity of maintaining both local and protected use ADUs. Members debated simplifying the bylaw by allowing only one type, potentially streamlining the permitting process. The dialogue highlighted the potential for confusion and complexity with the current dual-ADU system, especially concerning owner occupancy requirements and the impact on existing non-conforming ADUs. The board pointed out that existing ADUs exceeding proposed size limits could be rendered non-conforming, raising concerns about their future compliance and expansion rights.

Furthermore, the board debated whether to set a maximum size for protected use ADUs at 900 or 1,000 square feet. While some argued for a larger size to accommodate design needs and accessibility, others worried about increased occupancy leading to overcrowding. The conversation also touched on the economic implications, with concerns that larger ADUs might attract more renters, such as students, rather than families, contradicting the original intention of the regulations. The board recognized the need to balance housing availability for families with potential for rentals.

The discussion extended to the regulation of ADUs for short-term rentals, noting that while current regulations do not specifically address this, Massachusetts General Law permits the prohibition of short-term rental use for ADUs. Some members expressed hesitation about delving into short-term rental regulation complexities, referencing the town’s existing voluntary rental registration program as an effective management tool.

Another topic during the meeting was the proposed amendment to the zoning bylaw concerning inclusionary zoning. The amendment seeks to allow project-specific determinations for fees in lieu of providing affordable housing units. The proposed fee structure is calculated as a multiple of the median family income (MFI), ranging from four to ten times the current $120,000 MFI, which could result in significant payments. The amendment aims to provide developers the flexibility to opt-out of including affordable units by obtaining a special permit, a process requiring applicants to justify their development costs. The board discussed challenges in setting a fair payment structure that balances developer interests with community affordable housing needs, emphasizing flexibility and suggesting the board could demand more detailed calculations or adjust the fee structure in the future.

Additionally, the board examined the calculation methodology for these fees, focusing on the multiplier applied to the MFI. While the MFI is deemed a reliable figure by HUD, it does not directly reflect construction costs, leading to discussions about the need to clarify factors like “cost of delays” in the criteria for determining payment amounts. The ambiguity surrounding “cost of delays” was addressed, with suggestions to simplify the language for clarity in communication among planning staff and applicants.

Board members considered the role of the housing trust in determining appropriate payment amounts. The conversation underscored the importance of clear definitions, particularly regarding terms like “soft costs,” which refer to non-construction expenses, to enhance understanding and application of the bylaw.

The Planning Board also addressed the potential impacts of these legislative changes on local property owners and the broader community. The need for clearer definitions and guidelines in the bylaw was emphasized to ensure stakeholders fully understand the implications of the proposed changes, specifically concerning affordable housing and ADU regulations.

The meeting concluded with a brief discussion of committee and liaison reports. Notably, a representative for the Community Preservation Act Committee (CPAC) was nominated, filling a previous gap in representation. The board also discussed the process of signing decisions, opting for a single signature from the chair to expedite the process. The board acknowledged ongoing efforts to refine proposals for housing overlays and recognized the need for further deliberation on infrastructure concerns raised by public safety officials.