The board scrutinized the definition of “qualified household,” which stipulates that at least one member must live in the household for a minimum of 10 months per year. The concern was that the wording could allow for subletting, potentially diluting the goal of fostering year-round residency. The board also discussed the need for market-rate units to subsidize affordable and year-round units and contemplated the definition of “principal residence” concerning residency and voting rights. State laws’ role in defining residency and the concern over unrelated individuals leasing properties were also examined.

During the discussion on residency requirements, the board considered extending the current six-month occupancy requirement to seven or eight months to encourage year-round living. The importance of clear language in the bylaw was emphasized to avoid confusion over the occupancy duration. Moreover, the board expressed the need to reconcile the definitions of short-term rentals in the zoning bylaw with those in the Board of Health regulations to maintain consistency and clarity for citizens.

The board engaged in a thorough debate about the number of units allowed per acre, suggesting that the reference to an acre should be clarified as 40,000 square feet. They also discussed the density bonus and whether developers should be incentivized to build more affordable units by allowing additional market-rate units on a lot.

Another topic was the special conditions required for converting dwellings into multifamily dwellings and the various uses allowed by special permit and special condition. The board considered the impact of density bonuses on affordable housing development and the disincentives for developers to seek such bonuses. It was noted that deed restrictions for year-round occupancy were not legally enforceable. The implications of zoning regulations on affordable housing and incentives for developers to use 40B regulations, which allow developments to bypass local zoning laws if a certain percentage of units are affordable, were also a point of focus.

The discussion on density bonuses continued with the board deliberating whether to require 25% of units in a development to be affordable, as opposed to the current 20% baseline. Concerns were raised that a higher affordability requirement might inadvertently encourage 40B developments, which could circumvent other zoning regulations. The board considered the enforcement of bylaw restrictions, such as the number of unrelated people living in a unit and parking impacts. There were also questions about the definition of attainable housing and the perpetuity of deed restrictions, with clarification that such restrictions can be released by the town through legislative action if necessary.

In addition to these discussions, the board endorsed an Approval Not Required (ANR) plan for properties on Barnhill Road, involving an uneven land swap resulting in two lots with sufficient frontage. They also conducted a site plan review for the Chatham Dog Club, which proposed allowing overnight stays for dogs and the addition of an outdoor run. Concerns about the potential impact on the septic system, waste management, and the need for plans for the outdoor run and van accessible parking were raised.