The board’s primary focus was on addressing the ambiguity introduced by the state’s updated definitions for ADUs. These new guidelines stipulate that ADUs are permissible “by right” in single-family residential zones, prompting confusion over their applicability to multi-use or duplex zones. The lack of clarity in the state guidelines has led to differing interpretations from legal advisors, leaving Freetown officials to question how best to implement these changes without disrupting existing zoning structures.

Discussions pointed to potential friction between the state’s push for ADU development and local resistance. Concerns were raised about the impact on property values and neighborhood character, as well as the potential for unchecked short-term rentals. The absence of a requirement for owner occupancy of ADUs further complicated the issue, as this could lead to properties being rented out without the owner’s active involvement. With state enforcement expected to begin in February, there is pressure on the town to establish clear and effective bylaws in time to avoid a chaotic implementation.

The board also considered the implications of ADU construction on local infrastructure, particularly septic systems, given that many properties in Freetown rely on them. The need for compliance with Title 5 regulations would add another layer of complexity to the approval process for ADU developments. The board recognized that without specific bylaws, short-term rentals could become widespread, exacerbating concerns about noise, parking, and neighborhood disruption.

In addition to ADUs, the board addressed the issue of larger accessory structures, such as garages, and their impact on residential zones. A contentious permit application for a building on Roundville Drive, categorized as a warehouse by the applicant but considered a garage by the town, led to discussions about the size and proximity of such structures to residential properties. The board debated potential amendments to setback requirements, with proposals to increase the side setback for accessory structures over 500 square feet from 10 to 20 feet. This change aims to mitigate the impact of large structures on neighboring properties, though it also raised concerns about limiting options for homeowners with smaller lots.

The conversation on accessory structures dovetailed with a broader discussion about the registration of vacant buildings. A proposed amendment to introduce a graduated fee structure for vacant building registration fees was considered, aimed at incentivizing property owners to maintain or sell neglected properties. The current fee of $100 could increase to $500 in subsequent years to encourage action from owners.

Lastly, the status of the town’s master plan was reviewed, with concerns about delays and the looming expiration of grant money. A preliminary draft had been received, but further action was needed to finalize the plan. The board emphasized the importance of the master plan for future grants and initiatives, advocating for a community-driven approach to ensure the plan reflects local needs and priorities. A collaborative effort with the master plan committee was proposed to expedite the process and secure the town’s future planning capabilities.