The meeting’s primary focus was the ongoing deliberation over accessory dwelling units (ADUs), with board members examining various amendments designed to refine the existing regulations. A central point of discussion was the appropriate maximum size for these units. A suggestion from a community member proposed allowing larger ADUs, with a maximum size of 1,500 square feet, to be permitted in all residential districts. This sparked a debate among the board members about whether such a size would effectively transform ADUs into second homes, potentially altering the residential character of neighborhoods.

Some board members expressed concerns that larger ADUs could lead to increased neighborhood congestion, traffic, and disturbances, as they might attract more occupants. Board members considered historical precedents, noting that many towns have traditionally capped ADU sizes at around 900 square feet, a limit that aligns with the requirement for the owner to occupy the primary residence. Ultimately, the board was tasked with deciding between options for the maximum size, with suggestions ranging from 1,200 to 1,500 square feet.

The board also explored the implications of allowing larger units across various districts. Some members advocated for inclusivity. This approach was seen as a way to provide flexibility while reserving the option to amend specific district permissions as needed.

Alongside size considerations, the meeting addressed the minimum rental period for ADUs. Initially, a six-month minimum was proposed, but concerns arose over potential conflicts with state definitions that specify a 31-day minimum for short-term rentals. The board acknowledged the need to revise existing regulations to avoid discrepancies and provide clear guidance. This led to discussions about integrating a clear definition of short-term rentals, with a particular focus on avoiding ambiguity.

The conversation also delved into the enforcement challenges associated with existing requirements, such as the owner occupancy mandate. Some members described this as “impossible to regulate,” highlighting the practical difficulties in ensuring compliance. Additional logistical aspects, like public water and sewer service provisions for lots with large ADUs, were also examined, with an emphasis on maintaining a single service per lot.

As part of a broader effort to refine zoning bylaws, the board considered the elimination of the “introduction to zoning” section. A member suggested using strikethrough text to clarify deletions in documentation, a proposal that was noted as practical. The board unanimously passed the motion to recommend this deletion.

Floodplain regulations were another key topic. The board reviewed state-mandated bylaws related to flood insurance maps, considering whether these should be included as general bylaws rather than zoning ordinances. This discussion touched on enforcement responsibilities, with the building inspector identified as the likely enforcer, consistent with typical practices.

Public comment further enriched the meeting, as a resident raised concerns about distinguishing accessory dwelling units from multifamily dwellings within zoning definitions. The resident advocated for clearer distinctions to prevent confusion, especially concerning recent discussions on adding ADUs to multifamily properties.