The meeting began with a unanimous decision to authorize a $3 million settlement payment from the town’s liability insurance fund to resolve claims involving a minor victim of sexual abuse. This financial decision was structured with an initial $1.5 million payment, followed by equal installments over five years. The committee’s approval came after clarifying certain motion details, resulting in a 26 to 0 vote, with one abstention.

Following the financial discussion, the meeting shifted to the highly debated Clark Road zoning proposal. This proposal aimed to convert a former school building into multifamily housing through a new overlay district, encompassing two zones: CRM 1 and CRM 2. The committee dedicated substantial time to the CRM 1 zoning, adjusting parking regulations and integrating public benefits like pedestrian paths and playground access. The proposal’s parking plan was reduced to existing indoor parking and nine outdoor spaces, aligning with community concerns about traffic and street parking.

The committee’s discourse around CRM 2 revealed complexities, as initial plans lacked specificity in building types and dimensional requirements. The subcommittee recommended extending the scrutiny applied to CRM 1 to CRM 2 due to its potential neighborhood impact. After extensive deliberation, including over 10 hours of subcommittee meetings, the proposal was refined to balance housing availability with preserving open spaces and mature trees. The revised zoning required a minimum of 25% usable open space on the parcel, equivalent to 10,000 square feet.

Community feedback influenced the project’s development, especially concerning workforce housing. The developer initially considered luxury condominiums but pivoted to workforce housing based on community needs, offering smaller units with moderate and affordable rents. The project aimed to attract town employees and essential workers, although questions about the financial viability and actual affordability of the units persisted. The developer committed to maintaining pedestrian pathways and replacing playground structures, addressing neighborhood concerns.

The Advisory Committee’s discussions also touched upon the potential tax revenue from the development and the implications for the town’s finances. Concerns about increased costs associated with additional housing, particularly for families with children, were raised. The project was projected to generate significant tax revenue once operational, potentially doubling the current $135,000 annual tax from the vacant building.

A notable point of contention during the meeting was the concept of “workforce housing,” with some members questioning its applicability and the lack of deed restrictions to ensure compliance with Massachusetts law. This aspect sparked debate over the project’s rental prices and the target demographic, with calls for greater transparency and clarity on proposed rents.

The committee also discussed the procedural aspects of zoning changes, highlighting concerns over a developer-driven proposal presented at town meeting, traditionally the planning board’s domain. Some members expressed unease about the process and suggested postponing the vote until more detailed financial information was provided.

Despite these challenges, the committee ultimately voted in favor of the amended version of Warrant Article 7, with 25 votes for, one against, and one abstention.