A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the presentation by Katie Paid, a floodplain management specialist from the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation. Paid provided a detailed update on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the new flood insurance rate maps set to impact Townsend next year. She explained that the NFIP requires communities to adopt minimum regulations specified by FEMA in exchange for access to flood insurance for residents. Townsend has participated in this program since 1982, and the upcoming changes to the flood maps necessitate adjustments to local bylaws to maintain compliance with NFIP requirements.

Paid emphasized the importance of local regulations aligning with FEMA’s 1% chance flood areas, noting that the new flood maps would be effective following a “letter of final determination” expected in December. The Planning Board must adopt the new effective date to ensure the town’s regulations are updated before the maps take effect. During the discussion, a board member inquired whether the floodplain areas had changed over the years. Paid responded that it varies based on new studies and development within the watershed, with technology advancements leading to more precise delineations of flood areas.

The meeting also focused on adopting a state model bylaw related to floodplain management, approved by the Attorney General’s office. This bylaw requires communities to designate a floodplain administrator to handle inquiries related to floodplain management, typically a role assumed by an existing staff member. The model bylaw includes specific definitions that must align with FEMA standards and mandates reporting any changes in floodplain areas to FEMA within six months. Failure to comply could jeopardize the community’s standing with FEMA, crucial for residents seeking flood insurance.

A question arose about the local authority’s ability to modify the bylaws. It was confirmed that while communities can impose additional standards, they cannot be more restrictive than state building codes or less so than FEMA requirements. The procedural requirements for these changes were discussed, indicating that a public hearing would likely be necessary, with a view toward presenting the changes at the upcoming Spring Town Meeting.

Another discussion involved the compliance issues on Scales Lane. The board addressed complications regarding the submission of an “as-built” plan, which had been electronically submitted but required a paper copy for proper record-keeping. Despite frustrations over the lack of physical documentation, staff confirmed that all required compliance work had been completed. After some deliberation and attempts to locate the necessary documents in the portal, a motion was made to approve the certificate of completion, which passed with four votes in favor and one abstention.

The meeting also included correspondence from neighboring towns, such as Ashby’s public hearing on a variance and Shirley’s zoning board of appeals decision on a maximum front yard setback. A memo regarding the MBTA District 3 revealed that the planning board decided to locate the multi-overlay district on Fitzburg Road. Concerns were raised about potential appeals if only half of the site were developed, prompting the suggestion to adopt a maximum number of units rather than physically shrinking the district. This approach aims to be more efficient and cost-effective while allowing developers options for construction.

The discussion of setbacks for multifamily buildings was another focal point. The board debated maintaining a minimum setback of 25 feet from the road, with some advocating for larger setbacks for multi-story buildings to reduce visual impact and noise. A participant noted that Pittsburg Road can resemble a “speedway” on certain days, raising concerns about safety and noise for residents. The board considered the implications of these adjustments, recognizing that while a side yard setback of 10 feet could facilitate construction, more extensive consideration is needed for multi-family structures exceeding two stories.

The board also discussed buffers for multi-family structures adjacent to residential districts. It was proposed that the tallest buildings should have a buffer of 35 or 40 feet from the district boundary to ensure they do not infringe upon the residential character of the surrounding area. Specific regulatory adjustments were presented, including capping the maximum allowed residential units in the Multi-Family district at 180 units and restructuring the site plan approval process.

Attention turned to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and their classification as accessory structures. The board debated whether the 5-foot buffer applies to ADUs, with concerns that it could hinder the viability of placing such units on smaller lots. The necessity for clear definitions and regulations to avoid conflicts in future developments was emphasized, with a consensus that any amendments would need to be reviewed by the Town Council for legal interpretation.