The presentation of the zoning diagnostic report was the centerpiece of the meeting, with Barrett outlining various technical issues found within the existing bylaws. A concern was the poor organization and usability of the bylaw text, which often led to overlapping content and confusion among users. Barrett emphasized that these structural inconsistencies could result in key provisions being overlooked, potentially causing delays in the permitting process and portraying an impression of inconsistency from town boards.

An example highlighted during the discussion was a 166-word sentence within the bylaw. This prompted a debate on whether maintaining the legal language was beneficial or if simplifying the text could improve clarity without losing intended meaning. Barrett argued for breaking down complex sentences into simpler structures to enhance readability while preserving essential legal meanings.

The meeting also addressed the challenges associated with non-conforming uses and structures. The council recognized the recurrent confusion stemming from the state statute governing these issues, which has been reflected in numerous court cases. The bylaws’ current language was deemed vague and sometimes contrary to state statutes, particularly around accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Participants acknowledged the need to update these sections to align with recent court decisions and state laws.

Another point of discussion was the lack of clarity and consistency in the definitions section of the zoning bylaws. Inconsistencies and contradictions within these definitions often led to confusion among residents and boards. It was noted that consolidating these definitions and including purpose statements for zoning districts could provide essential context for special permit granting authorities and aid in judicial reviews, should disputes arise.

The conversation also touched on the mixed-use village district, described as a “paper zone” due to its absence from the town map. This lack of mapping was identified as a compliance issue with Chapter 48, which mandates that all districts be represented on a map. Without this, the provisions of the zone are unenforceable, leading to a recommendation to remove it from the bylaw until a formal zone change request could be made.

While technical amendments were necessary, it was agreed that policy issues required thoughtful consideration and input from the community. There was a proposal for a joint meeting with the council and the planning board to discuss potential policy considerations, with a condensed list of policy issues suggested for review.

Participants also expressed concern over the current bylaws’ restrictions that could hinder business opportunities, such as the prohibition of outdoor seating. The need to clean up the zoning bylaws to eliminate inconsistencies and contradictions was a recurring theme, with an acknowledgment of the necessity for ongoing revisions and drafts.

To foster community engagement, there was a proposal for public outreach efforts, including meetings with community members to inform and gather feedback on land uses and development impacts. This engagement is considered crucial for aligning the zoning process with community understanding and concerns.