A central focus of the meeting was the consideration of amendments to the zoning ordinances related to the central commercial district and ADUs. Public and council members alike expressed strong reservations about the implications of the proposed changes. One of the key points of contention was the draft ordinance allowing medical clinics by right in certain areas, which drew opposition from local residents who demanded clarity in council discussions and the return of a previously voted resolution for further examination.

Joan Marie Jackson voiced her concerns over the city’s approach to ADU regulations, particularly given the absence of finalized state guidelines. She, among others, urged the council to delay any decisions until the state of Massachusetts publishes its final version of ADU regulations. She highlighted testimony from a Conway land use consultant who stressed the need for zoning regulations that accommodate a variety of residential types, arguing against the restriction of ADUs to single-family homes or lots.

The council’s discussion illuminated broader issues related to zoning, such as safety, lighting, parking, and sound in the central commercial district. One council member articulated the potential benefits of mixed-use buildings. However, the member also emphasized the necessity for further refinement and collaboration with the planning board to address these concerns adequately.

In a move, the council voted unanimously against order number FY 25-024, which aimed to amend existing zoning ordinances. This rejection was framed as a commitment to ensuring that future proposals better align with community needs and values. The council also deliberated on order number FY 25-025, which involved proposed zoning changes for the central commercial district. Procedural questions arose regarding the potential consequences of not advancing the order from the table, with implications for its future reconsideration.

The legal landscape of ADU regulations featured prominently in the discussions. This revelation prompted a member to assert that the discussion on this order was moot, as passing it would contravene state law. The council emphasized the need to comply with new regulations by the upcoming deadline and planned to introduce a compliant ordinance after the state’s finalization.

As the council moved on from the ADU ordinance, they addressed another contentious issue: a proposal to regulate the keeping of chickens and roosters in residential zones. Concerns about compliance with the Right to Farm law emerged, with some council members expressing doubts about the proposal’s legality. The conversation evolved to encompass broader issues related to noise disturbances, such as those caused by roosters and “Jake brakes” from large trucks, highlighting the need for a comprehensive noise ordinance.

Both council members and residents underscored the necessity of a cautious, informed approach to zoning amendments, particularly in the face of evolving state regulations.