The compliance model’s estimation of unit capacity and density was a significant topic. The model, integral to development planning, uses geographic information databases and zoning criteria to determine potential development capacity. Concerns were raised about the accuracy of the model, particularly regarding land exclusions and setback calculations. A parcel designated for 80 units was discussed, clarifying that this figure was for state analysis rather than actual development plans. The board also delved into the minimum land area, contiguous district size, and the 10% affordability guideline, prompting requests for clarification on these calculations and guidelines.

Zoning bylaw amendments, particularly those related to affordable housing, sparked debate. Clarification was sought on whether the percentage of affordable units should be based on the total number of units or specific acreage, with the emphasis on clear language to avoid confusion at the town meeting. The board considered conducting a dry run of the presentation with residents to ensure clarity and understanding. Questions about design guidelines and the process for granting waivers were raised, as some members expressed concerns about the clarity of the waiver purpose and potential misuse.

The discussion also encompassed the flexibility of development standards and the use of waivers. The planning board supported the incorporation of flexibility to navigate complex situations and achieve better project outcomes. However, it was noted that this flexibility would not extend to dimensional standards like height restrictions, with the variance application process remaining in place.

An informal presentation regarding the future of 245 Foster Street introduced industrial redevelopment as a viable option, targeting energy and climate change companies. The industrial sector’s robust market, especially for warehousing and advanced technology manufacturing facilities, was highlighted. However, challenges such as the need for tall buildings with significant power supply and infrastructure were noted, along with the difficulty of retrofitting existing structures to meet these requirements. The involvement of Jacobs Engineering and David Stubblebine in the project was mentioned.

Senior living development was another focal point, with proposals for a 100% senior living development and an intergenerational campus. Concerns about affordable housing for the younger workforce and the impact of development on the local employment landscape were discussed. The feasibility of the proposed development options in relation to zoning requirements and the demand for various types of housing was debated, with plans to continue these discussions at a later date.

Earlier in the meeting, a letter from the planning board was read, expressing offense at remarks made during the previous meeting and requesting an apology. This issue caused contention among board members, with disagreements over the accusations and the necessity of an apology.