A major focus of the meeting was the exploration of hybrid meetings, which combine in-person and virtual participation. Board members shared varied perspectives on the concept, with a notable preference for in-person meetings. Concerns centered around potential technical difficulties that could arise from hybrid formats, such as time delays leading to participants talking over one another. One member suggested that hybrid meetings could result in confusion, arguing that physical presence is especially vital during public hearings on controversial topics. There was consensus that in-person attendance enhances communication and decision-making. However, the board recognized the need for flexibility to accommodate scheduling conflicts, suggesting hybrid meetings might be employed as needed, particularly when full board attendance is not possible.

The discussion extended to managing public participation in virtual settings, with some members worried about the system being overwhelmed by numerous public questions. The board acknowledged that while in-person meetings are preferred, hybrid formats could serve as a practical solution to ensure applicants do not face delays, especially when not all board members can be physically present.

Logistical challenges of virtual meetings were also highlighted, including concerns about “Zoom bombing” and disruptions. The necessity for effective document management during these meetings was underscored, with suggestions to present electronic files alongside paper copies. The board recognized that having physical documents, such as plans, is advantageous during discussions, especially for intricate site plan reviews.

Another topic was the procedural expectations for applicants submitting Approval Not Required (ANR) applications. The board emphasized the importance of pre-meeting submissions and compliance with deadlines to prevent constructive approvals resulting from inaction within 21 days. The use of virtual signatures was dismissed, with acknowledgment of state law mandating in-person approvals.

The meeting also delved into the development of rules and regulations, including a fee schedule and application processes. The board considered examining practices in other communities to inform their policies.

Zoning bylaw changes and affordable housing were also discussed. The board considered the implications of potential inclusionary zoning regulations, which would require a percentage of new units to be designated as affordable. This would necessitate adjustments in the zoning bylaw. The comprehensive permit process under 40B legislation, which can bypass local zoning controls, was referenced as a limiting factor in the town’s authority over housing developments.

The board discussed the possibility of pursuing a zoning grant to facilitate necessary changes to the town’s zoning laws, particularly concerning an eight-year-old master plan. While recognizing that they may not oversee the entire planning process, the board acknowledged their potential role in committees focused on housing production and zoning updates.

A site plan approval decision for a project on Amor Street was also on the agenda. The board debated the necessity for review before the chair could sign the decision, emphasizing the importance of accurately reflecting all discussed content in the final document.

Furthermore, compliance issues concerning the MS4 permit related to stormwater management were addressed, highlighting the need for the town to update its zoning bylaw to align with new guidelines. The board planned to coordinate with the select board to ensure timely public hearings and proposed amendments to the zoning bylaw.