The discussion on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) was a significant focal point, particularly concerning the limitations imposed on the size and placement of these units. A discussion unfolded about the proposed maximum size for ADUs, with a cap suggested at 900 square feet. Some participants argued for smaller limits, citing examples of living comfortably in spaces between 400 and 800 square feet. Concerns were raised about allowing larger existing structures, such as garages or basements, to be converted into ADUs under special circumstances, potentially exceeding the proposed size limit. The conversation also touched on owner occupancy requirements for larger ADUs, questioning the feasibility of enforcement and the potential impact on neighborhood character. Proposals were made to incorporate language addressing temporary absences, allowing homeowners to rent out their ADUs while ensuring compliance with community standards.

The board also tackled the restriction on ADUs for two-family or multifamily properties, prompting questions about the rationale behind this limitation and its potential effects on current housing structures. This discussion was intertwined with broader considerations about ensuring that the regulations align with state requirements while also reflecting the unique needs of the Manchester-By-The-Sea community.

In parallel, the board debated proposed changes to driveway bylaws, particularly the minimum and maximum width requirements. The fire chief’s recommendations to increase the minimum width from eight to ten feet to accommodate emergency vehicles sparked discussion about the implications for community aesthetics and environmental goals. Concerns were expressed about the possibility of wider driveways not aligning with the town’s visual and ecological aspirations. The board considered the appropriate integration of these requirements into the existing bylaws, with some members advocating for a comprehensive approach to ensure all changes are cohesive and well-coordinated.

The conversation extended to enforcement mechanisms for driveway regulations, highlighting the need for clear penalties for violations. A proposal for a $300 fine for driveway infractions was discussed, yet concerns were raised about the clarity and comprehensiveness of the enforcement framework. Suggestions were made to consolidate all penalties into a single document for better clarity and effectiveness.

The Planning Board also touched upon the necessity of special permits for multiple driveway entrances, debating whether this could lead to an increase in driveway cuts that may not align with the original intent of the bylaws. Opinions diverged on maintaining a single curb cut per residential lot for consistency and adherence to community standards, with some members open to special permits to address unique circumstances.

In addition to the primary topics, the board provided updates on the Downtown Improvement Committee’s activities, noting their engagement in enhancing public amenities and retail environments. The housing development application for Powderhouse Lane was mentioned.