34:23A primary focus of the meeting was the approval of a special permit application by Peter Geese for a utility road and driveway on Highland Drive. The driveway is intended to improve access for service vehicles and enhance the reliability of electrical service by facilitating tree trimming and maintenance. The board members, having reviewed the proposal, expressed support, recognizing the utility road’s necessity for maintaining reliable service in the area, which is prone to service disruptions caused by falling trees. Concerns about setbacks and zoning bylaw deviations were addressed, with the applicant seeking approval for a reduced side lot setback to prevent future disputes over property lines.

After closing the public hearing, the board members discussed the criteria necessary for the permit’s approval, focusing on alignment with the town’s zoning bylaw, public health and safety, and consistency with the town’s master plan.

1:16:32A subsequent topic of discussion was the regulation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and tiny homes, reflecting broader trends in affordable housing and community planning. The board deliberated on how to update ADU bylaws to comply with state law, considering the balance between legal requirements and community needs. A draft amendment to the zoning bylaw was discussed. The board considered proposals to allow ADUs by right in all districts where single-family homes are permitted, aligning with state law and emphasizing the importance of not imposing stricter regulations on ADUs than those for single-family dwellings.

1:56:30The board also explored the classification and regulation of tiny homes, a topic that has gained traction due to recent changes in the state building code. The distinction between tiny homes and recreational vehicles (RVs) was a focal point, with board members emphasizing the need for bylaws to clearly define acceptable living structures. There was a consensus that clarity in definitions would prevent the approval of structures like mobile homes or improperly constructed tiny homes, which could conflict with community standards. The board recognized that while tiny homes must comply with state building codes, local bylaws could offer more accessible information for residents unfamiliar with state regulations.

A notable aspect of the tiny homes discussion was the potential for these structures to serve as either primary or accessory dwellings. Board members acknowledged the complexities of this classification, particularly regarding compliance with local regulations for primary dwellings. The conversation revealed a desire to ensure that bylaws were both comprehensive and user-friendly, avoiding the pitfalls of overly technical state codes. The board agreed on the necessity of public forums to gather input on these zoning changes, emphasizing the importance of engaging the community in the decision-making process.