25:42A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to discussions about modifying the site plan review process, particularly in light of recently approved ADU regulations. The board debated the necessity of maintaining specific professional requirements on submitted site plans, such as involving both a registered professional engineer and surveyor. There was consensus that these requirements should be limited to what was strictly necessary, leading to a proposal to consult with town counsel for further clarification.

The board also explored simplifying the application process for ADUs, referencing other towns’ practices that focus on obtaining only essential information. This approach was seen as a way to make the process more accessible while retaining comprehensiveness. An external review of the town’s current ADU bylaws by the advisory group Serpentid was considered, highlighting the board’s intention to ensure that their regulations align with yet-to-be-approved state standards.

52:54The conversation on ADUs also touched on potential financial impacts. The board discussed regulations to prevent ADUs from being used as short-term rentals, such as through platforms like Airbnb, and the potential for these rentals to generate revenue streams via taxation. This discussion extended to the necessity of annual inspections to ensure compliance with health and safety standards, with suggestions for the health and building departments to oversee these inspections.

37:39Turning to construction inspections, the board discussed the adequacy of current practices, particularly regarding erosion control and drainage installations. Concerns had been raised about insufficient oversight in previous projects, prompting a review of proposals from consulting firms Bills and Thomas, and Apex. Bills and Thomas recommended several site visits covering various stages of construction, while Apex’s less detailed proposal raised concerns about cost efficiency. A consensus emerged around establishing a baseline of required inspections to balance thoroughness with cost management.

The board also addressed procedural amendments to the site plan review application, focusing on clarifying inspection expectations and associated costs. This included the suggestion to include specific language about these inspections in the application to prevent future misunderstandings.

55:34Additional items discussed included a corrective amendment to a site plan review for a property on Harding Street, prompted by previous documentation errors. The board agreed on the need for a vote to approve the corrective amendment, which passed without further discussion. Meanwhile, an administrative update noted positive feedback from the zoning enforcement officer regarding residential zone signage, and a discussion on integrating driveway lantern requirements into existing guidelines rather than a standalone covenant was noted.