The board’s examination included a map review that highlighted the areas under consideration for zoning adjustments, including the removal of the MBTA rail line right-of-way from the district, which altered the acreage and was expected to aid in recalibrating density calculations. Discussions around the Ice House site revealed divergent opinions on its viability as a standalone parcel, with some suggesting it might not meet state requirements due to insufficient physical barriers compared to other sites. The necessity of achieving a minimum of five acres for development was underscored, with suggestions to consolidate the Ice House site with adjacent parcels to meet this requirement.

There was considerable debate regarding the proposed densities for various sites. One participant suggested that the 120 units being considered for Randall Fa might be excessive and recommended dialing back the number for further analysis. This sentiment was echoed in the broader discussion about the implications of a 15 units per acre minimum density and whether this could be exceeded without running afoul of statutory requirements. The conversation acknowledged that achieving 15 units per acre should be feasible even with dimensional constraints, as demonstrated by typical triple-decker homes.

The board also scrutinized the zoning parameters for the Elliot Street Corridor, 7-Eleven Randolph A, and the paper mill site. The proposed strategy aimed to establish controls for the Elliot Street Corridor, including limiting the number of units or increasing the minimum lot size for smaller tiers.

The paper mill site was introduced as a potential development area, with suggestions to increase its density to attract developers. The current Brownfield zoning allowed for only 90 units, which had not led to any projects. The discussion acknowledged the challenges posed by site constraints such as floodplain considerations and parking requirements, with developers typically seeking 1.5 parking spaces per unit for rental properties.

Beyond zoning discussions, the meeting also addressed the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) article, where a notable amendment was introduced to prohibit the use of ADUs as short-term rentals or for commercial purposes. This clarification was prompted by inquiries from the warrant committee and aimed to refine the article’s language. The board unanimously approved the amended ADU article.

Additionally, the board deliberated on the site plan approval process, incorporating two minor amendments. One amendment allowed for an extension beyond the standard 120-day review period under specific circumstances, and the other clarified the appeals process, specifying that appeals could be made within 20 days of the board’s decision filing. Both amendments were unanimously approved and forwarded to the warrant committee.

The meeting also featured a presentation regarding a statute-based plan with updated calculations for a hypothetical adjacent community scenario. This presentation focused on zoning for 15 units per acre in the commuter rail station area, aligning with a target of 563 units. However, there was no definitive definition of “reasonable size” for a district, leading to discussions about the maximum number of units that could realistically be accommodated given the developable land.

Lastly, the meeting touched upon the ongoing collaboration between the Friends of Blue Hills, the planning board, and the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). The Friends of Blue Hills presented their buffer study, highlighting the significance of collaboration in planning processes to ensure responsible development and suggest mitigative measures such as buffer zones to protect the Blue Hills Reservation’s visual aesthetics and environmental integrity.