An intensive examination of the site plan approval bylaw revealed a concerted effort to integrate sustainability into the town’s development framework. Board members discussed the inclusion of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the site plan review process, deliberating the removal of “attached single-family residences” from the applicability section to avoid ambiguity. The members debated whether to explicitly mention sustainability and climate change within the bylaw’s purpose section, ultimately suggesting terms like “sustainable practices” to encapsulate their intent to prioritize these factors in future reviews.

The board scrutinized language concerning interior work and its potential impact on site plan approval. The discussion distinguished between lower-impact commercial uses, such as dental offices, and higher-impact establishments like restaurants or bars. A previous draft suggested that all interior changes might require site plan approval, a notion the members hesitated to endorse. Instead, they clarified that site plan approval should generally exclude interior work, except for high-intensity uses.

Procedures for pre-application conferences were revisited, with an emphasis on documenting waiver requests in public meetings to ensure transparency. The members assessed the phrasing around pre-application conferences versus formal applications, reviewing submission requirements and the process for applicants to present proposals to the board.

The board also delved into the ADU bylaw, addressing definitions and regulations to reconcile discrepancies between printed and electronic document versions. The absence of a clear definition for “accessory structure” was flagged for future clarification. Members debated square footage requirements for ADUs, considering whether to specify “gross” or “net” square feet. The consensus was to include both terms to prevent confusion when applicants approach the building department.

Discussions on detached units led to a proposal that new constructions should adhere to the same setbacks as principal structures, adjusted to a ten-foot requirement. The necessity of distinguishing between different dwelling types, particularly in new construction versus remodels, was emphasized. The board considered the potential for overcrowding in single-family neighborhoods if multiple ADUs were permitted on larger parcels.

The conversation also covered special permits for ADUs, with members recognizing the statute’s ambiguity on who would issue these permits. The suggestion to include a placeholder for this in the regulations was made, allowing for future adjustments based on guidance from Town Council or state law changes. The topic of non-conforming accessory buildings and their conversion into ADUs was also discussed, stressing the importance of compliance with current zoning laws while considering historical significance.

The meeting further addressed occupancy limits for ADUs. Disagreement arose over a proposed limit of three occupants, with concerns about privacy infringement and enforcement feasibility. This highlighted the need for regulatory consistency and addressing community concerns amid state housing mandates.

The board acknowledged the complexities of housing needs and zoning regulations, particularly in defining and requiring ADUs. Building codes stipulate that a bedroom must have a window and access to air and light, leading to concerns about families in inadequate spaces. The proposed limit of two bedrooms for ADUs aligned with industry standards of no more than two occupants per bedroom.

Attention briefly shifted to landscaping requirements for parking areas, with a discussion on including shade trees and shrubs within a five-foot buffer. Concerns about prescriptive requirements led to the agreement to add “as is reasonable” for flexibility, accommodating different site conditions and plant availability.

In public comments, a resident named Brian suggested allowing additional units in existing two-family areas to accommodate demand where there is already higher density. He advocated for flexibility in the bylaw to include innovative solutions such as tiny homes, cautioning against the burdens of relocating existing structures or overlooking historic buildings for potential ADUs.

The board moved to submit the ADU article for the February special town meeting. Further, a zoning map amendment for the Milton Village and Central Avenue overlay districts was proposed, with a motion to include both the Milton Village planned unit development and the Brook Road overlay district in the amendment, which was unanimously approved.