The central issue facing the board was the synchronization of the town’s zoning regulations with state-mandated housing capacity requirements. The board considered amending the development agreement for the West Campus to remove limits on unit capacity and to address affordability restrictions. A key point of contention was the legal implications of the agreement potentially conflicting with the MBTA statute and how it might affect private property rights. The discussions were intensified by the need for clarity from the state on whether the development agreement complied with zoning regulations.

Members expressed differing opinions on whether to proceed with modifying the development agreement before securing approval for the MBTA zoning overlay from the town meeting. The concerns were amplified by the impact of any delays on the approval process and on affordable and senior housing restrictions. The board pondered over the level of trust from town meeting representatives, debating whether modifications would be supported without state agreements in place. The possibility of waiting until regulatory agreements were finalized was considered, as concerns were voiced regarding the controversial nature of the decision.

Traffic and safety issues also featured prominently in the meeting. Residents raised the alarm about speeding on Subway Ave and the potential disaster from the town not purchasing a particular property. The board clarified that traffic and speeding fall under the select board’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the meeting delved into discussions about the placement of a large infiltration bed near East Hord water which led to a split vote on submitting the issue for a peer review.

An extensive debate unfolded over the addition of 77 housing units into another district without altering the development agreement. The board pondered over the economic feasibility of such an action, which was not yet analyzed due to funding shortages. The potential elimination of age and affordability restrictions on a specific project was another focal point, with possible adjustments to the density in different subdistricts to meet required capacity being considered.

The meeting also included public input on several development projects. A resident expressed concerns about the impact of a proposed car wash on the town’s sewage capacity and traffic, while another highlighted the need for weekend traffic data to assess the accuracy of traffic assessments. Concerns were raised by board members and the public over the proliferation of car washes and the potential environmental impact near the Westlands neighborhood.

The board’s discussion was not limited to current projects; they also engaged in a debate about the state’s proposed legislation on accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Members expressed opposition to aspects of the proposed law, particularly the removal of the owner-occupancy requirement and the allowance for detached ADUs. The board was divided over how to prioritize their opposition to the bill, which was seen as bypassing local community input.