A primary focus of the meeting was the proposal to reduce the square footage requirement for certain housing types, such as townhouses and apartments, from 6,000 to 4,000 square feet in RG districts. This change is intended to increase housing density but has sparked debate among board members and meeting participants. Concerns were raised about the potential impact on the character of residential neighborhoods, particularly in areas dominated by single-family homes. The proposal could result in densities of nine to ten units per acre, prompting discussions about whether such changes would align with community goals.

Some participants questioned whether the existing language in the bylaws adequately addresses new construction nuances and whether the proposed changes could inadvertently create nonconformities within the town’s existing landscape. There was a consensus that the current zoning bylaw does not effectively accommodate middle-density developments, often pushing developers toward larger apartment buildings that may not fit neighborhood character. The lack of provisions for “accessible housing,” including middle-density options like cottage-style developments, was another concern.

Several options were considered to address these challenges. One suggestion was to change footnote M from 4,000 to 6,000 square feet, maintaining the status quo while acknowledging the need for broader changes. Alternatively, some proposed removing references to the apartment section of the bylaw from footnote M to allow more flexible applications across various apartment configurations.

The conversation also touched on the impact of cottage-style developments, particularly their tendency to cater to students over long-term residents. The implications of such housing options on the town’s year-round population were a concern, especially in the context of recent town projects like the construction of a new elementary school and library. Participants emphasized the importance of zoning regulations that support families and long-term residents rather than primarily serving student housing needs.

Further complicating the discussion was the impact of state regulations on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The board considered modifications to existing bylaws to allow larger ADUs while maintaining owner occupancy requirements. The potential for increased density through ADUs raised concerns about maintaining neighborhood character and the challenges of enforcing occupancy rules under new state guidelines. Participants debated the feasibility of defending current tenant limits and the implications for property owners, who might set their own terms for occupancy despite state regulations.

A specific property on Amity Street was highlighted as a potential site for affordable units in collaboration with a community land trust, but existing zoning restrictions were seen as a barrier to achieving optimal development outcomes.