The board’s principal focus was the ordinance regarding boarding houses, specifically in the context of CSLRs. The urgency of this matter was underscored by a council member who shared experiences from another municipality where similar housing conversions had sparked debate. In that instance, a property was sold for $2.5 million with intentions of converting it into a CSLR. This prompted the board to consider the importance of restricting such facilities in residential zones to prevent potential community disruptions.

The ordinance discussion emphasized the need for precise language. Members addressed concerns about the current wording’s vagueness and debated whether terms such as “transitional living arrangements,” “halfway houses,” “recovery residences,” and “similar uses” should be explicitly prohibited in residential districts. This was vital to ensure that these residences would not be misclassified as single-family dwellings, thereby circumventing local zoning regulations.

Further debate revolved around the definition of “transitional living.” One member expressed unfamiliarity with the term and suggested consulting a definition resource to ensure clarity. A definition was eventually provided, describing transitional living as temporary supportive housing for individuals moving from crisis situations to independent living. However, the board acknowledged the term’s potential vagueness and considered the approach of some municipalities, which simply prohibited boarding houses without further classification.

The board ultimately voted to recommend the ordinance to the mayor and council. The plan aims to protect residential neighborhoods from being affected by potentially disruptive uses.

The meeting also addressed the broader context of community awareness surrounding the ordinance. One member noted that a local family had raised significant funds related to the topic. However, caution was advised regarding detailed public discussions, as the matter could come before the board again in the future. This underscored the importance of transparency and careful communication with the community.

In addition to the ordinance, the board briefly discussed the Environmental Commission report, noting that no meeting had been held in December. Future planning meetings were confirmed to continue on the second Wednesday of each month at 7 PM. A motion to open the meeting to public comments was unremarkable, as no comments were received.

The discussion of the master plan revisions, due in 2026, was another significant topic. The board acknowledged challenges, particularly following the retirement of their planner, John, three months prior. This had left the board without clear direction on affordable housing initiatives, which were increasingly critical amidst local government pressures.

The board considered engaging with planning firm Burgess for guidance on future planning. There was speculation about the status of affordable housing strategies and previous discussions on redesigning the downtown area. Members agreed on the need for an update on the master plan and affordable housing matters in the next meeting, expressing frustration with the lack of progress and clarity in recent months.

In closing, the board contemplated whether an additional meeting to focus on the master plan was necessary. The importance of oversight, particularly regarding the complexities surrounding housing, was stressed. A motion to adjourn the meeting was made, with members exchanging holiday greetings.