The meeting’s most pressing topic was the proposed zoning revisions concerning accessory dwelling units. Richard Harris, a consultant involved in drafting the amendments, highlighted the impact of a new state law effective from February 2nd, which mandates that ADUs meeting specific definitions are allowed by right. This means that local standards cannot impose overly restrictive conditions unless local bylaws are amended accordingly. A notable aspect of the revisions is the alignment of local definitions with state law, which eliminates the need for a principal residence to be owner-occupied when establishing an ADU. The amendments propose that only one parking space may be required for each qualifying ADU, with a cap on the unit size at 900 square feet or half the size of the principal dwelling, whichever is smaller.

One point of contention arose from the broadened definition of a “bus station,” which now includes any location along a bus route where a bus stops for passenger embarkation or disembarkation. This broadened definition implies that properties within half a mile of a bus route cannot be required to provide additional parking for an ADU. The ramifications of this interpretation sparked concerns about its potential impact on local zoning, especially in densely populated areas.

The board also discussed the possibility of constructing ADUs on pre-existing non-conforming lots, provided they meet Board of Health regulations. This sparked a debate on the implications for small lots in town, particularly those connected to town water, which may facilitate larger developments than previously anticipated. Furthermore, the amendments propose allowing ADUs in any zoning district where single-family homes are permitted, either by right or through special permits, which theoretically opens the possibility for ADUs in all districts under current zoning laws.

The board then turned its attention to solar energy facilities, aiming to simplify the permitting process for solar generating facilities, particularly those serving residential or agricultural purposes. The proposed amendments expand the definitions of small solar facilities to include installations up to 100 kilowatts, allowing these projects by right across all zoning districts. Medium-scale facilities, defined as having a collective area of solar panels greater than 2,000 square feet but less than 250 kilowatts, are proposed to be permitted by special permit in specific residential districts. The conversation highlighted the necessity of ensuring that solar installations do not detract from agricultural uses, advocating for dual-use solar technology that supports agricultural production underneath solar panels.

A substantial focus was placed on ensuring compliance with existing zoning bylaws and environmental regulations, particularly concerning land clearing and tree removal for solar projects. The board discussed a provision requiring that no less than 50% of a land parcel utilized for solar remain forested, a move intended to preserve environmental protections. The specifics of tree replacement requirements also came under scrutiny, with the board considering whether to quantify replacement by caliper size or by the number of trees.

Procedurally, the amendments propose streamlined processes for site plan reviews, emphasizing the importance of timely decisions and clear documentation requirements for interconnection with utilities. The board also deliberated on the classification of solar facilities, seeking to eliminate the misleading distinction between site plan review and site plan approval.

Additional discussions covered the town’s water supply protection article, which remains in progress, and the board’s efforts to conduct further Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis to determine the impact of overlay district boundaries on property owners. This analysis aims to better understand how many parcels would be affected by the water supply protection district.

The meeting concluded with administrative updates, including the approval of a legal notice publication in the Daily Hampshire Gazette, despite frustrations over the associated costs. Suggestions were made to explore cheaper alternatives for future notices. The board also acknowledged the appointment of a new planning board member, which was seen positively, although there was some confusion about the appointment process.