39:17Members questioned the rationale behind applying such mandates to rural towns, arguing that efforts might be better directed toward urban centers with distressed communities and vacant housing stock. Despite these concerns, the law requires Townsend to plan for a 5% increase in housing capacity, part of a broader strategy to address Massachusetts’s housing shortfall. The board acknowledged that while compliance with the law is necessary, it presents unique challenges for a rural community, including the absence of public water and sewer systems, which developers must independently address.

The conversation highlighted the rising housing prices in Massachusetts, with an 84% increase in Townsend since 2016, compared to a 73% statewide increase. The slow pace of housing production was identified as a key factor driving these increases, affecting both transit-adjacent and rural areas. Board members expressed a need to educate the community about the benefits of compliance, such as eligibility for grant funds, and the importance of providing housing options for various demographics, including local workers who struggle to find affordable housing.

1:44:51A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the board’s ongoing efforts to revise the town’s inclusionary zoning bylaw. The current bylaw has not been utilized effectively, prompting a re-evaluation to ensure it meets the community’s needs for affordable housing. The proposed amendments include mandatory provisions requiring developers to include affordable units in projects exceeding a specified number of units. This approach aims to address the stagnant inventory of affordable housing and counter the anticipated loss of units from the subsidized housing inventory.

The board discussed the potential financial implications for developers and the necessity of redefining “affordable” to align with local needs while avoiding unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. The distinction between “big A” and “little a” affordable housing was highlighted.

2:23:24Further, the meeting addressed concerns about the definition and enforcement of age-restricted housing. There was consensus on the need to clarify what constitutes age-restricted living, particularly regarding the age threshold. Current bylaws lack explicit definitions, causing confusion that could allow younger individuals to reside in these developments, contrary to the intent of creating senior communities. Suggestions were made to revise the bylaws to clearly state age restrictions.

2:42:04The board also considered the implications of conservation restrictions on age-restricted developments. Public comments highlighted the potential negative effects of removing these restrictions, which could undermine the design integrity of developments and affect ecological balance. The board debated a more nuanced approach, proposing that conservation restrictions remain in place for larger parcels while allowing for flexibility in smaller developments.

1:29:12Engaging with planners from nearby communities that have successfully implemented similar measures and leveraging outside expertise for public presentations were suggested as strategies to manage community pushback.