The board evaluated two contrasting district boundary scenarios: the “Steve scenario,” which would accommodate 2,870 units and include diverse parcels such as the PGA parcel and a 40B housing complex, and the “PGA scenario,” accommodating just under 1,500 units across three parcels. Both options met the state’s requirements, but the board grappled with the potential introduction of initial restrictions and “what if” scenarios to determine their impact on the compliance model.

Initial restrictions under the compliance model were debated, with the board considering changes to setbacks, lot sizes, and the possibility of offering density bonuses for certain building heights or public amenities. The members agreed that these discussions were essential before presenting the options to stakeholders. In a technical demonstration, the board examined how modifying parameters like building height or lot size affected the model’s calculations. They acknowledged the need to align the model with the goal of actually producing units. The members also considered the potential fiscal benefits of smaller lot sizes in terms of property taxes and the aesthetic appeal of smaller buildings.

The discourse then shifted to the possibility of reducing the district size to increase approval chances. The impact of boundaries on existing residential areas and parcel development potential was discussed, with varying preferences among the members. The debate continued regarding building height, with some members favoring a four-story limit while others suggested three stories with incentives for higher buildings. Additionally, the board explored the implementation of a density bonus related to affordability targets, deliberating on the financial implications and feasibility of different affordability thresholds.

Affordable housing density bonuses were a focal point of the meeting. The board considered requiring a baseline of 10% affordable housing or providing incentives for higher percentages. There was consensus on offering density bonuses for 15% and 20% affordable housing, with the goal of promoting gradual progression to avoid discouraging developers. Furthermore, the inclusion of a density bonus for ground floor commercial space was discussed, alongside the potential capping of the bonus at six stories and the implications for building height and compliance.

Parking requirements were scrutinized, with the board contemplating parking standards based on the number of bedrooms and reductions for affordable or mixed-use buildings. Opinions varied from advocating for lower parking standards to exploring the consequences of reducing parking on different development types. The possibility of incentivizing parking garages over lots was also debated, as was setting a minimum lot size and frontage to encourage smaller buildings, with a divergence of opinion on the appropriate dimensions for these regulations.

The compliance model was reconsidered with a focus on lot coverage and the introduction of a green space requirement. There was a debate over whether to include parking in the lot coverage calculation and whether to have a distinct open space requirement. Recognizing the state’s compliance deadline and the risk of losing funding, the board discussed the need for an open space requirement for multi-family dwellings, especially for smaller lots.

The urgency of the situation prompted discussions on community engagement and strategies for outreach, including the possibility of public meetings and digital campaigns. The board aimed to have the final draft of the language ready a month before the town meeting on October 21st, emphasizing the importance of public awareness and participation in the process. The timeline for submitting placeholder language for the town meeting warrant was also a point of contention, with the board debating whether to schedule additional meetings before the August deadline or to consider a special town meeting for more time.