The central focus of the meeting was on redefining and simplifying the regulations surrounding ADUs. A key proposal suggested referencing state definitions instead of listing them directly within the town’s bylaw. This approach aims to maintain alignment with state law and avoid the need for frequent updates at town meetings whenever state definitions change. However, this proposal sparked debate, with some members expressing concern that reliance solely on state regulations could lead to confusion among residents. A compromise was suggested to include definitions in the local bylaw with a footnote indicating their alignment with state regulations.

Another point of discussion was the allowance of a “protected use” ADU on lots with pre-existing non-conforming structures. The board clarified that such units could still be constructed under these conditions, provided they adhere to state law stipulations, such as not exceeding a gross floor area of 900 square feet or 50% of the principal dwelling’s size.

Parking requirements for protected use ADUs located within half a mile of a transit station also formed a part of the dialogue. The board clarified that no off-street parking would be necessary in these cases, though parking on public streets remains prohibited.

The meeting also addressed the intricacies of the bylaw language, particularly concerning the calculation of gross floor area for ADUs. Members highlighted the need for precise language to differentiate between habitable and non-habitable spaces, emphasizing that basements, attics, and similar areas must be included in the gross floor area calculation. This sparked a debate over the practicality of limiting ADUs to not having full basements, with concerns about the impact on living conditions and design feasibility.

The conversation extended to procedural aspects, where the board emphasized the necessity of closing the public hearing on the ADU amendments to meet the submission deadline for the select board’s upcoming meeting.

Beyond ADU regulations, the board discussed a proposed “friendly 40B” project on Sandwich Road, which includes 36 rental apartments, 13 of which are designated as affordable housing. The planning department highlighted ongoing discussions with the developer to ensure the project aligns with community needs and zoning expectations. Topics such as bus stop locations, tree clearing limitations, and parking provisions were addressed.

The meeting also touched on the implications of short-term rentals in the area, drawing insights from Provincetown’s experience with regulating these rentals. The board noted that while short-term rental regulations had not yet increased long-term rental housing, they provided a framework for managing short-term rentals to balance tourism interests with resident needs.

Lastly, the board was briefed on an upcoming Cape Cod Commission hearing regarding a proposed solar array at the Cape Cod Country Club. The proposal has raised concerns about the loss of green space due to the removal of part of the golf course to accommodate over 43,000 solar panels. The board noted the importance of considering the visual impact on surrounding scenic roads and the appropriateness of locations for such installations.