The board’s most significant deliberation revolved around conforming to state law on ADUs, which aims to simplify the process of adding these units to address housing needs in Massachusetts. With the Affordable Homes Act enforcing these changes, the board focused on how to implement reasonable regulations while maintaining some degree of local oversight. The new law, effective February 2nd, eliminates owner occupancy requirements for either the main residence or the ADU, allowing non-residents to own properties with ADUs. This shift sparked concerns about how these changes might affect the town’s character and the potential loss of local control over zoning decisions. One board member noted the frustration with state mandates overriding local prerogatives, referencing past requirements for solar farms and other residential uses.

Throughout the discussion, the board examined various sections of the proposed bylaw amendments. Section A, which outlines the bylaw’s purpose, was critiqued for its language, with suggestions to simplify it to align with state provisions. The board moved on to Section B, defining ADU-related terms, and Section C, which addresses the bylaw’s applicability. Here, the board clarified that ADUs would be allowed by right in specific residential zones, limited to half the gross floor area of the primary dwelling or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller. The board also emphasized that mobile homes and temporary structures would not qualify as ADUs.

Further discussion centered on procedural matters, such as the requirement of a site plan review for ADUs, and the necessary approvals for detached units, which included separate water and sewer connections. The board debated the impact of ADUs on neighborhood aesthetics, particularly concerning parking and visibility of external staircases. They also considered provisions for disabled accessibility, which could allow deviations from dimensional requirements without needing variances.

The board was tasked with balancing the need for housing diversity with the community’s desire to preserve neighborhood character. Public comments reflected concerns that ADUs might overshadow other housing initiatives, like the Center Town District review, aimed at increasing housing options without altering established neighborhoods significantly. Discussions also touched on financial challenges associated with constructing detached ADUs and the limited demand for such units despite their potential benefits.

In addition to the ADU bylaw, the board reviewed other issues. The timing and procedural integrity of the Mixed Use Village bylaw public hearing were discussed, with plans to continue the hearing in January. The board also considered reconstituting the Design Review Committee, which would handle non-residential proposals and provide recommendations before site plan reviews. The committee would be comprised of five members with expertise in architecture or landscape design, along with business community representatives.

The meeting concluded with updates on zoning amendments, including commercial lending and drone bylaws, which are awaiting further input, particularly concerning privacy issues. The board noted pushback from the Town Council on proposed property upkeep rules, which faced opposition over perceived restrictions. The council’s decision to not recommend the proposal for a public hearing left room for future revisions.