One notable issues addressed was the lack of height restrictions for accessory structures in certain drafts of the zoning document, which could potentially allow structures to reach 20 stories. This concern was raised alongside the debate on whether to merge sections of the zoning regulations that classify accessory structures to provide clarity. The differentiation between accessory uses and structures was also discussed, examining whether to allow them by special permit or through the site plan review process.

The task force considered the implications of allowing accessory structures in the context of multifamily buildings and the potential impact of setbacks on site design, especially in the Beaver Dam Area. The possibility of imposing a larger setback to protect wetlands and conservation land was debated, as was the impact of such regulations on building design and the site layout.

Height limitations for buildings in different zoning districts were also a significant topic of debate. Members questioned the rationale behind varying height limitations and their impact on density and visual aesthetics. The need to maintain a minimum density across districts and the constraints imposed by lot sizes on the number of allowable dwelling units were considered, especially in areas with existing large developments.

The task force grappled with the issue of open space requirements, with members advocating for their inclusion in the zoning regulations while others raised practical concerns. The challenges of defining and implementing open space requirements, particularly for small lot development, were discussed, as well as the need to address violations related to non-permeable surfaces in the town.

The potential for changing driveways to pavers instead of asphalt to address flooding issues was debated, along with the need to differentiate between open space and impervious surfaces. A suggestion was made to include specific language regarding structures and impervious surfaces in the zoning regulations to ensure compliance and address existing violations.

Parking regulations were another focal point of the meeting, with discussions on the height restrictions for structured parking and the minimum and maximum number of parking spaces required for residential units. Members considered the need for flexibility in parking requirements to accommodate various housing choices and lifestyles while addressing concerns about the impacts on downtown parking and the town’s historic character.

The task force also discussed allowing utility condensers on building facades and structured parking garages in certain districts. The feasibility of fitting the proposed parking spaces into the available land, the potential impact on the surrounding environment, and the site plan review process for parking size dimensions and requirements were all topics of consideration.

Concerning the site plan review process, the task force debated the validity period of a project’s unbuilt phase and the language used in the submission requirements. The process for appealing administrative decisions and the applicability of development standards to multifamily development within a certain district were also debated.

In the area of aesthetic and environmental considerations, the task force discussed the use of natural materials, architectural and landscaping elements, and the prohibition of certain types of fencing and gates. The specifics of site lighting, the inclusion of dark sky compliance, and the integration of nature, sustainability, and resilience in the guidelines were addressed. Street tree spacing was also considered, with suggestions for a closer distance between trees to improve canopy coverage and shade.

The discussion extended to stormwater bio retention areas and the language used to encourage their use. The task force considered changing the wording from “may be used” to “are strongly encouraged,” emphasizing the need to implement these changes during the design review stage.

Finally, the task force touched on various administrative and procedural issues, such as the voting process for the proposed changes, the order of the document, and the next steps in the planning board’s involvement. The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn and approval of meeting minutes, as well as a question about the task force’s involvement in community engagement activities.