The conversation about sheds was a focal point of the meeting. Board members debated the practicality of the current regulations, which some felt were insufficient for the needs of residents. There was a proposal to amend the regulations so that sheds over 200 square feet would require construction permits in addition to zoning permits. Members also discussed the possibility of allowing smaller setbacks for sheds in certain zones, acknowledging that the 10-foot setback requirement could be impractical depending on the topography of the property. The concept of allowing multiple small utility sheds was considered, with the consensus leaning toward maintaining existing impervious coverage calculations. However, some members showed interest in discussing the potential for two smaller sheds, provided they did not exceed a specific total square footage.

Generators as accessory structures also sparked debate. Concerns were raised about current regulations categorizing generators as accessory structures, which members deemed inappropriate. A suggestion was made to simplify the permitting process for generators, particularly given the rise in applications since the pandemic. The board considered allowing generators on smaller concrete pads without distance requirements from principal buildings. There were calls to update the ordinance language to better clarify regulations, as current interpretations were seen as overly restrictive.

The board also tackled the issue of undersized lots, a persistent topic of discussion. It was noted that many undersized lots are in the downtown Sterling area, prone to flooding, which deters investment. The board acknowledged that older homes often exceed impervious coverage limits due to historical building practices, complicating renovations or additions. There was a consensus that zoning adjustments should reflect the realities of these neighborhoods, allowing for tailored regulations that accommodate existing structures and historical contexts. The complexities surrounding runoff issues were also highlighted, with an understanding that not all modifications involve increasing impervious coverage.

Corner lots presented another challenge, with the current lack of a clear ordinance leading to confusion and inconsistency. The board discussed the approach of other municipalities, which designate one side of a corner lot as the front yard based on the street address. The idea of establishing prevailing setbacks, where the average of neighboring properties’ setbacks dictates requirements for new constructions or modifications, was considered as a potential solution. This approach could provide flexibility without imposing rigid distances that might not reflect neighborhood conditions.

Housing regulations, particularly concerning illegal rentals and Airbnb practices, were another major topic. Concerns were voiced about illegal rental practices, such as basement apartments lacking kitchens. The proliferation of Airbnb rentals and their negative impacts on neighborhoods were discussed, with board members emphasizing the need for oversight and regulation. The potential for the state to standardize rental regulations across municipalities was raised, with board members expressing concerns over local governance and autonomy.

The financial burden of zoning application fees was a recurring theme. Members discussed the potential for a tiered system for escrow deposits based on the type of application, acknowledging that current escrow amounts were insufficient. The idea of implementing waivers for certain situations was also proposed, allowing homeowners to replace existing structures without extensive requirements when no expansion beyond the existing footprint is involved. The board grappled with balancing regulatory standards with facilitating easier access for homeowners to improve their properties, especially for older homes not conforming to modern standards.