The committee engaged in a detailed examination of the current ADU regulations. Under new state laws, ADUs are permitted by right up to 900 square feet or half the principal dwelling’s area, with separate access requirements. The town has seen a marked reduction in ADU applications since these laws were enacted, with only three applications received recently compared to the historical average of two per year. The conversation centered around whether allowing larger ADUs via special permits could stimulate more interest in these units.

One member suggested revising the bylaws to allow ADUs up to 1,200 square feet or 75% of the main house’s floor area through special permits, acknowledging that changes would need to align with existing zoning regulations. They emphasized that additional criteria would be essential for issuing such permits, considering setbacks, septic systems, and neighborhood impacts. Concerns were raised about ADUs’ dual role as affordable housing and rental properties, with implications for parking and school populations.

The committee also debated the potential for ADUs to generate tax revenue, as seen with past developments like Legacy Farms. However, the absence of specific data linking ADU size to school population impacts complicated the discussion. Members noted the need to collect more data and consider how larger ADUs might affect community resources.

Alongside ADU discussions, the committee explored expanding the MBTA zoning district. A proposal to include parcels adjacent to the town office was considered. Committee members weighed the benefits of such an expansion against potential environmental concerns, such as wetlands and tree coverage, which could impede development.

The conversation highlighted the more permissive nature of downtown business district zoning compared to MBTA community requirements. Members discussed the feasibility of moving parcels within the business zone into the MBTA community, considering the existing infrastructure and community sentiment.

Residents’ concerns about overdevelopment and increased traffic were also addressed. Sarah Broofphy, a Claflin Street resident, voiced apprehensions about potential density increases in her neighborhood, citing recent multifamily developments. She underscored the community’s resistance to past proposals involving the Carbones property, reflecting broader concerns about maintaining neighborhood character.

The committee recognized the need for a comprehensive approach when proposing zoning changes, considering both state mandates and resident input. They planned to refine their proposals and consult the Planning Board, understanding that MBTA community requirements would likely take precedence in future meetings.