The discussion on inclusionary zoning was a central element of the meeting, highlighting its importance in providing affordable housing options in Newbury. The initiative arises from the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) communities’ zoning process. It addresses concerns about residents being priced out and the difficulties younger generations face in returning to their hometown. The meeting emphasized Newbury’s low representation of affordable units compared to other towns in the Merrimack Valley region.

Inclusionary zoning in Newbury focuses on developments of four or more units, where developers may receive density bonuses. These bonuses allow additional market-rate units in exchange for providing affordable units. “Affordable units” are defined as those affordable to households earning 80% or less of the area median income, calculated based on the Greater Boston area. The policy targets various households, including low-income residents, new graduates, town employees, teachers, and first responders.

A significant aspect of the proposed bylaw is the deed restriction on affordable housing. Developers providing units at 60% of the area median income could gain additional density bonuses, incentivizing lower-income housing options. However, concerns were expressed about the feasibility of inclusionary zoning, given the high construction and land costs in Newbury. The board discussed the necessity for an incentive-based approach to encourage developers to include affordable units without deterring overall development.

The board appreciated the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission’s technical assistance in refining the inclusionary zoning framework to suit Newbury’s development landscape. The community’s support for this initiative was deemed critical for its success, with the hope that it would enhance community well-being. Following the presentation on inclusionary zoning, a public comment period was opened, although no immediate public input was received.

Another portion of the meeting covered the proposed updates to the zoning bylaws to ensure clarity and compliance with recent regulations. These updates include changes to the MBTA community’s multifamily overlay district, clarifications regarding special permit procedures, and adjustments to align with the recently adopted Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) bylaw. The board proposed transferring special permit authority in the adult entertainment overlay district from the Select Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).

The creation of a new clean energy facilities bylaw was introduced. This new article addresses small and large wind energy, solar installations, and battery energy storage systems, aligning with the Massachusetts 2024 climate act. The structure of the solar bylaw was revised to categorize installations based on production capacity, simplifying the permitting process while ensuring public health and safety.

Discussions surrounding battery energy storage systems (BESS) included design and safety requirements, such as setbacks, noise restrictions, and visual screening, with a focus on state regulations to mitigate potential safety concerns, particularly fire risks. The board emphasized the need for comprehensive regulation of BESS to balance public health protection with growing energy storage demands.

The meeting also addressed amendments concerning zoning regulations related to BESS, with discussions about installation requirements, emergency operations plans, and environmental protections. A pre-application meeting and detailed site plan submissions were required, along with liability insurance and a decommissioning plan with financial security equal to 125% of estimated removal costs. The special permit associated with installations would transfer with property ownership, requiring notification to the building commissioner upon ownership change.

Finally, the board reviewed a site plan application for alterations at 2-8 Old Point Road, engaging in discussions about compliance with dark sky standards for exterior lighting and conditions of approval. The board emphasized that planning board approval does not equate to approvals from other boards and reiterated the need for appropriate notifications before construction. Concerns about parking availability and the use of restaurant spaces for non-restaurant purposes were debated.