The debate over ADUs was particularly charged, as board members and participants scrutinized the implications of recent state housing law changes that introduced provisions for “protected use” ADUs. These units, either 900 square feet or half the size of the primary dwelling, have sparked widespread discussion. One member pointed out that the Executive Office of Housing and Community Development’s draft regulations, which had been open for comment, could affect the town’s approach to ADUs. The primary concerns revolved around whether ADUs could be included in duplex or multifamily residences and how the town should navigate these uncertainties.

A key issue was the potential for a moratorium on ADU development, which some participants saw as necessary to refine the bylaw before a looming deadline. While some advocated for a swift enactment of regulations due to public support, others cautioned against rushing the process without thorough consideration. The board debated various aspects, such as setbacks, the size limits of ADUs, parking requirements, and the prohibition of their sale as separate entities.

There was also considerable discussion about zoning changes aimed at preserving commercial space on the first floor of downtown buildings. The board’s goal was to avoid creating gaps in the commercial district and ensure a continuous core area. Members discussed geographical boundaries and specific properties, such as Seven Central Street, where residential units might be added without eliminating commercial space. The conversation also touched on the potential closure of Sovereign Bank and its implications for commercial versus residential use.

The board grappled with the idea of enforcing commercial space requirements, weighing concerns about vacant commercial spaces against the benefits of mixed-use development. The need for community input was stressed, with several members advocating for a more comprehensive planning approach rather than piecemeal zoning changes. A suggestion was made to develop a master plan incorporating various downtown elements to avoid unintended consequences.

The meeting also addressed the controversial proposal to introduce associate members to the Planning Board. This idea, revisited after past discussions, aimed to allow associate members to step in during special permit reviews. The concept received mixed reactions, as concerns about fairness and the integrity of the board were juxtaposed against the potential benefits of increased capacity and involvement.

Public comments included a resident’s concerns about high commercial rents and the impact of residential units on business viability. They highlighted the approval of zoning for 559 units and ongoing challenges with ADUs, traffic, and parking.

In the context of zoning, the Planning Board discussed the potential elimination of the D2 zoning district, criticized for poor enforcement and complexity. The recommendation to merge D1 and D2 districts was considered, given that the MBTA zoning effectively creates multifamily districts. The board debated how to remove D2 from regulations effectively, with a focus on rezoning areas rather than differentiating zoning by specific road distances.

The meeting also touched on the enforcement of driveways and curb cuts, with discussions about clarifying processes and roles. An open meeting law complaint submitted by Mary Foley concerning unposted site visits further highlighted issues of transparency and communication within the board’s operations.