A primary topic was the vegetative screening cash surety for Robinson Road, proposed by Nexam Inc. The board revisited this matter due to a previous mix-up necessitating a re-vote. The cash surety was set at $50,000, with conditions that it be held for five years to ensure the maintenance of the vegetative screening. Concerns were voiced about the total estimated project costs, which were around $91,000. However, it was suggested that such a high amount might be unnecessary because the likelihood of all plants dying was slim. The board also discussed the maintenance issues related to solar farms in the area, indicating that if maintenance was not performed, the cash surety could fund necessary actions.

The meeting transitioned into an informal discussion about improvements on Hartley Street, tied to a property associated with applicant Ben Reese and represented by John Romanelli from Zenith Land Surveys LLC. Romanelli proposed creating a roadway improvement to a private way established back in 1922. The plan included a 20-foot-wide gravel right-of-way with a paved apron at the intersection of N Lane and a hammerhead turnaround for emergency vehicles. The aim was to generate sufficient frontage for zoning compliance.

Questions arose regarding the current state of Hartley Street, described as overgrown and difficult to access. The street, a paper street, exists on maps but is not fully constructed. Romanelli clarified that no other houses are serviced by that road. However, concerns were raised about potential implications for neighboring properties, especially regarding shared access and usage of the private way. Legal confirmation of rights related to the use of the paper street was deemed necessary, with suggestions that the applicant might require documentation from a lawyer to proceed.

Abutters, including residents from Oak Street, expressed fears about increased flooding due to wetlands in the area. They cited existing wetland issues and historical flooding problems, emphasizing their worries about the implications of new construction on their properties. Romanelli assured that if conservation flagged the wetlands and determined the upland area was sufficient for building, the project could move forward, though any impacts on neighboring properties would be carefully considered. The board reiterated that should the applicant pursue the form C subdivision application to formalize the project, all abutters within 300 feet would be notified for further public input and plansning discussions.

Another major topic was the upcoming legislative changes regarding accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The town planner provided updates, noting that new legislation would allow accessory apartments by right in all single-family residential districts, effective February 2, 2025. This prompted discussions about amending local bylaws to align with state law while adding any desired restrictions. The board recognized the necessity of public hearings to gather resident feedback on any proposed changes.

The creation of a lot for a house could potentially lead to a lot for a two-family dwelling, following existing guidelines, including setbacks and lot size requirements. The new definition of an ADU allows for half the gross floor area of the principal dwelling or a maximum of 900 square feet, whichever is smaller. This change could permit single-family homes to be converted into two-family homes or allow separate structures like garages to be transformed into dwellings.

Concerns were raised about the lack of detailed guidelines from the state, with references to a sparse document from KP Law. The need for the town to establish its own guidelines before the February deadline was emphasized to avoid being left without local regulations. Insufficient local regulations could lead to a “free-for-all” situation, particularly regarding parking requirements for ADUs. The new regulations stipulate that only one parking space is required if an ADU is within half a mile of a train station or bus stop, promoting public transportation.

The discussion also included the upcoming changes regarding the merging and unmerging of lots. Properties previously merged would automatically become unmerged after eight years of common ownership, allowing for more flexible development options. However, there were doubts about the implications of this change, including potential increased tax liabilities for homeowners if two lots are treated separately for tax purposes. Existing challenges within the town, particularly regarding septic system capacities, could limit the number of bedrooms added to properties, thus influencing the number of ADUs permitted.