A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to reviewing comprehensive changes to the bylaw on accessory dwelling units. The Planning Director led the discussion, presenting a revised document that proposes replacing the existing bylaw language entirely. A notable recommendation from Town Council was to eliminate the term “protected use ADU” due to its absence in other bylaw sections. This change aims to prevent confusion and simplify understanding. The new definition intends to encompass both attached and detached units, thereby providing a clearer framework for property owners and developers.

The board also focused on amendments to the floodplain bylaw, deliberating over the relevance of certain definitions. One term, “alter,” sparked debate, as it was primarily derived from the wetlands protection context and seldom used in the floodplain regulations. The consensus was to exclude this definition to maintain the bylaw’s clarity and relevance.

Another topic of considerable discussion was the revision of zoning bylaw Article One’s title. Initially labeled “Purpose and Intent,” it was changed to “Purpose and Authority” based on a suggestion from the Town Council. This title adjustment aims to better reflect the article’s content, which encompasses the zoning bylaw’s authority and purpose. Additionally, the inclusion of historical context for “increasing amenities” was debated. The existing bylaw’s phrasing was updated to separate “preserve historic and agricultural” from “increase amenities,” aligning with industry standards and practices seen in other towns.

The board also examined language changes in the open space residential development (OSRD) regulations, which now accommodate subdivisions resulting in “three or more lots.” This modification is intended to promote development opportunities by simplifying submission procedures for developers. A minor correction was made to the ADU regulations, specifying “existing and proposed number of bedrooms” rather than buildings.

Despite general agreement on the proposed amendments, some board members expressed concerns about the omission of explicit references to housing in the new bylaw. One member argued that housing should be identified as a primary purpose, as it is central to the planning board’s responsibilities. However, the prevailing opinion was to adopt a broader perspective, encompassing housing within the overarching goals of the town’s planning documents.