One notable issue discussed was the recommendation of new overlay districts intended to increase the availability of multifamily housing in Townsend. The board engaged in a comprehensive debate over the details, focusing on access points, density, and development standards for these potential districts. One point was the consideration of two meaningful access points to any sizable multifamily housing development to address public safety and transportation concerns. The preference for district 1.2a emerged, which supports a higher density of 15 units per acre and includes a 100-foot strip for compliance with current zoning regulations.

The deliberation extended to the implications of the Multifamily Housing Overlay District on the town’s fabric. The board discussed the importance of retaining site plan approval over these projects to maintain control over development without the need for a special permit process. Furthermore, development standards such as frontage, lot size, setback, and density requirements for multifamily and two-family dwellings came under scrutiny as the board considered necessary adjustments to align with the proposed changes.

In parallel, the board tackled the issue of zoning boundaries for District One and District Three. The debate centered on how to delineate these areas, taking into account factors like access, frontage, and economic development opportunities. A proposed East-West line across District One would divide it into multifamily overlay in the north and commercial zoning in the south. The conversation also touched upon the appropriate levels of density to balance residential development with the preservation of commercial land, a topic that brought forth differing opinions among board members.

Further, the board examined the potential splitting of parcels, the availability of town water, the feasibility of tiny home construction, and the impact on schools and transportation. The idea of offering an alternative set of dimensional requirements for single and two-family homes, as opposed to multifamily development, was also discussed. The board agreed on the need for more analysis and local expertise to make informed decisions reflective of the community’s priorities.

Changes to zoning bylaws were also a topic of discussion, with the board considering adjustments to setbacks for freestanding accessory buildings and parking standards for multifamily dwellings. The board concluded that a 5-foot setback from all lot lines would be more fitting for small lot single and two-family homes. Additionally, the board debated the merits of reducing the parking requirement for multifamily dwellings to 1.5 spaces per unit and adjusting the fair market value area for affordable housing units.

The meeting’s administrative aspects included the welcoming of a new member, Lance McN, and the motion to appoint Patrick Kwachic as an associate member, pending approval at a joint meeting. The board’s efforts in establishing a bylaw were acknowledged in a letter from Representative Sky Dale, and the progress of the Safety Action Plan by the Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission and Montachusett Regional Transit Authority was noted.

Importantly, the board grappled with the challenges of implementing state-mandated requirements, particularly concerning MBTA affiliation and its impact on local affordable housing. Announcements were made regarding the Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness Plan, signaling future discussions on the implementation of these plans.