The most pressing topic involved the adjustment of the inclusionary housing requirement to 20% of new units, with discussions highlighting the necessity of defining “inclusionary housing” to encompass both affordable and attainable housing. This change was accompanied by a proposed mechanism for developers to satisfy fractional unit requirements through payments in lieu of construction. However, apprehensions were raised about the adequacy of these payments compared to actual construction costs. Concerns were also addressed about the potential legal implications if the bylaws did not explicitly allow for such payments, emphasizing the need for clear language to prevent misunderstandings.

In addition to housing requirements, the board grappled with the implications of short-term rentals on community stability. A public comment advocating a complete prohibition of short-term rentals sparked considerable debate. The board discussed the possibility of permitting short-term rentals for up to two months per calendar year, with restrictions against daily or weekly leases. The consensus leaned towards banning short-term rentals within the West Chatham Neighborhood Center zoning district, though allowing rentals exceeding 31 days. The uniformity of residency requirements was also scrutinized, with some members suggesting a 10-month occupancy requirement for property owners to align with tax code definitions for principal residences.

Another subject was the density bonus structure, intended to incentivize developers to include affordable units by offering increased density allowances. The board considered whether the 20% base requirement should remain or be adjusted to 25% under a density bonus. Discussions included concerns about the practicality of applying these percentages, given the existing cap of ten units per acre, and the potential for developers to pursue 40B developments. The board agreed on the importance of maintaining reasonable guidelines that balance affordable housing needs with developer constraints.

Further discussions focused on technical aspects of the bylaws, such as parking regulations and site plan approval processes. The board debated the prohibition of parking in front yards across all zones to maintain a cohesive streetscape and prevent a strip mall aesthetic. Members reviewed specific site plans, emphasizing the necessity of strict regulations and clear criteria to ensure compliance with design intentions.

The session also included a review of document formatting and terminology, with attention to consistency in labeling and language. Proposed revisions targeted areas such as the inclusion of green spaces and the clarification of terms like “professional engineer.” The board considered feedback from community surveys, highlighting discrepancies between board decisions and public preferences, particularly concerning building heights and architectural styles.