Richard Harris, the board consultant, initiated a discussion on proposed changes to the town’s zoning bylaws in response to recent amendments to the Housing Act by the legislature. The new regulations define ADUs as exempt uses that require only reasonable local regulations. Harris outlined that an ADU must be a self-contained unit with cooking facilities, which can be either attached or detached from the principal dwelling. The state definition stipulates that the ADU cannot exceed 50% of the principal dwelling’s size or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller, and that no special permit would be required for these units.

Harris recommended aligning local bylaws with the state definition to ensure consistency. He emphasized that while a building permit is mandatory for renovations or new constructions, many residents might not realize that even interior work requires such a permit. The discussion also addressed the importance of retaining existing provisions regarding accessory structures, adding a purpose clause to clarify alignment with Massachusetts General Law 48 Section 3.

The board scrutinized the zoning language related to the location and design of ADUs. A vague statement about maintaining the single-family character of neighborhoods was examined, prompting Harris to propose clearer stipulations. He specified that ADUs must have a separate entrance and meet state building code requirements. Adjustments to parking requirements were also discussed, necessitating at least one off-street parking space for each ADU, integrated into the primary parking area to minimize impervious surface expansion.

Questions arose about the need for comprehensive policies and procedures before any town meeting approval to facilitate swift implementation. Concerns were raised about pre-existing non-conforming lots and how they would fit within the new regulations. Harris confirmed that zoning rules do not negate Board of Health requirements, emphasizing that any construction must comply with health and safety standards. The conversation also touched on the Board of Health’s authority concerning septic systems, particularly in groundwater protection zones.

A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the potential impact of the new legislation on the merger doctrine, raising questions about previously merged lots that may no longer qualify under the new regulations. Harris noted the need for further investigation into this aspect, emphasizing the relationship between zoning and Board of Health regulations in determining permissible constructions.

Additionally, the board discussed the implications of new ADU regulations for non-conforming lots and the importance of preparing for these changes through public hearings and meetings. The urgency of these changes was highlighted, especially with an upcoming special town meeting potentially taking place in the winter. Participants discussed the importance of notifying applicants that they are applying “at their risk” before the state attorney general’s approval of new bylaws.

The conversation then shifted to short-term rentals, particularly Airbnb, amid concerns about properties not being inspected by health or fire departments before being listed. A suggestion was made to incorporate a bylaw requiring special permits for these rentals, thereby mandating inspections. There was an emphasis on the need for a management plan requiring monthly inspections by the Board of Health and the Fire Department. The potential for capping the acreage for such operations was also debated.

Site plan review processes were another topic. The board reviewed updates to the zoning bylaw that pertain to site plan reviews. Proposed amendments included introducing a minor site plan review phase for certain projects and ensuring that any construction, alteration, or expansion involving residential buildings of two or more units requires a site plan review.

The meeting also addressed the procedural details related to public hearings, notifications, voting requirements, and site plan reviews. There was an emphasis on creating clear guidelines to protect community interests and ensure thorough evaluations of proposed developments. The need for accurate abutter lists and the implications of tree removal for expanding parking areas were discussed, revealing a shared concern about maintaining local vegetation and zoning laws.

Another notable topic was the feasibility study conducted by Ty and Bond, focusing on leveraging sewer investments to attract development. The need to secure a developer to access Mass Works and Mass Housing funding was underscored, with concerns about the lack of commitment from developers, particularly in relation to sewer access. The discussion also addressed the potential for a 40R overlay district and the challenges it presents in Southampton, as well as the concept of a “friendly 40B” project for building affordable housing.