The most substantial part of the meeting revolved around the proposed amendments to the inclusionary zoning bylaw, particularly Article 15, Section 15.171. The proposed changes, introduced by the Municipal Affordable Housing Trust, suggested allowing developers to pay a fee instead of providing affordable housing units. This amendment aimed to update a stagnant fee structure.

A member noted that excluding single-person households and those with unrelated roommates could skew median income figures, potentially affecting the proposal’s outcomes. The need for annual updates to median income data was also discussed, as it could complicate implementation.

Additionally, the committee explored whether the inclusionary zoning bylaw should only apply if the town meets the state-mandated 10% affordable housing threshold. Concerns were voiced about developers bypassing affordable housing obligations through financial payments, especially if the town was under the threshold. Suggestions emerged to allocate fees towards larger affordable housing projects instead of allowing developers to opt-out easily.

Throughout these discussions, members highlighted the necessity of aligning the proposed amendments with broader affordable housing strategies, recognizing the urgency of addressing housing issues effectively while ensuring the amendment is clear and actionable.

The committee also dedicated time to refining the charge of the Transportation and Parking Commission (TPC). They debated the commission’s composition and responsibilities, particularly its mandate to promote a safe and sustainable multimodal transportation system. Members discussed potential language changes to clarify who could submit requests related to public ways and the commission’s authority to handle them. There was a consensus on the need for flexibility in language to accommodate individuals with relevant expertise, expanding beyond pre-defined categories.

Concerns arose around the TPC potentially overburdening town staff. Members emphasized the importance of establishing clear protocols for staff interactions, referencing the Board of License Commissioners as a model. There was agreement on the need for the TPC to submit annual and interim reports to the town council, with discussions about potential charter changes to formalize these obligations.

The meeting also addressed vacancies on the finance and charter review committees. Members acknowledged a lapse in filling a finance committee vacancy and discussed improving oversight of committee memberships and term expirations. They debated whether to fill a vacant charter commission seat, weighing the benefits of additional manpower against the potential for disruption and a lack of diversity among candidates.

In the latter part of the meeting, the committee discussed the town manager evaluation process. Members explored how to assess the town manager’s performance in relation to unmet goals due to external circumstances. There was a push for simplifying the evaluation process, considering alternatives to the current extensive self-evaluation form. The idea of eliminating numerical ratings in favor of qualitative descriptions was proposed.

The committee recognized the need for a structured approach to gather and present feedback on the town manager’s performance, with an emphasis on ensuring fairness and accuracy. Members called for additional meetings to address these issues, highlighting the urgency of finalizing the evaluation process before the submission deadline.