A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussing changes in the approval process for accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The board debated the merits of allowing ADUs to bypass the cumbersome special permit process, opting instead for a streamlined site plan review. This change would mean ADUs could be approved by right, provided they comply with specific zoning requirements. The board members considered whether to apply this site plan review process to ADUs created within existing single-family homes or only to new ADUs. There was a consensus that ADUs entirely within existing homes might not need formal site plan reviews, as compliance could be verified by the zoning enforcement officer.

Joseph Bole, a guest at the meeting, explained the proposed bylaw modifications, emphasizing the need to introduce a standalone site plan approval section and amend existing ADU regulations to conform with state laws. These changes are crucial as the town seeks compliance with upcoming state regulations by February 2025. The dialogue also covered procedural questions, particularly regarding the notification of abutters within the MBTA overlay district in the event of zoning changes. Although towns may notify abutters, it is not statutorily required, leading to discussions about the financial and logistical implications of such notifications.

Turning to affordable housing, the board examined the existing inclusionary housing requirements, notably Section 145-40, and recent amendments approved by the Housing Trust. These amendments, which had not been thoroughly reviewed by the planning board, aim to make housing more accessible to low- and moderate-income individuals. There were concerns about the effectiveness of the existing bylaws, specifically the term “affordable,” its legal significance, and the practicality of its application under the proposed changes. The board discussed the proposed reduction in the required number of affordable units from 30% to 10% under certain conditions, which might not align with state standards for subsidized housing inventory.

Additionally, the meeting explored the challenges developers face under current affordable housing frameworks, which could dissuade smaller projects due to the high costs of marketing and lottery plans for affordable units. A suggestion was made to allow developers to make payments in lieu of providing affordable units, with these funds supporting the town’s affordable housing trust. This proposal aims to ease the burden on developers while still contributing to the town’s affordable housing goals.

Another point of consideration was the age-restricted development bylaw, particularly the proposal to reduce the required acreage from two acres to one. This change aims to incentivize development on underutilized properties for single-family or two-family residences. However, concerns about overdevelopment and the potential impact on local infrastructure were noted. The board discussed the need for accurate data on vacant properties to ensure informed decision-making and successful town meeting processes.

The board also touched on the possibility of incorporating waiver provisions into zoning bylaws, which would allow for reductions in dimensional standards such as frontage, setbacks, and minimum lot acreage requirements. This idea raised concerns about the potential for excessive authority being granted to the Planning Board. The board emphasized the importance of checks and balances and suggested collaborating with other departments like the building inspector and conservation officials to mitigate community concerns.

The meeting concluded with discussions on the timing of public hearings and the necessity of finalizing bylaw changes well ahead of the town meeting to avoid complications. The board recognized the need for further discussions and considered rescheduling meetings to allow more time for preparation and community input.