Planning Board authorizes feasibility study to clarify 3A inclusionary thresholds and rounding rules

The Planning Board voted unanimously to authorize town staff to hire a consultant to complete a targeted Economic Feasibility Analysis (EFA) focused on whether inclusionary housing requirements in 3A can be extended below 15 units and what rounding rule (rounding-up, rounding-to-nearest, or truncation) is appropriate. The motion, amended during debate to specify that the scope should identify the lowest economically feasible unit threshold, instructs staff to proceed with a purchase order or consultant agreement, aiming to keep the cost under municipal procurement thresholds (board members suggested an estimate under $10,000).

Board discussion reviewed prior analysis that the town had commissioned: the earlier EFA modeled thresholds down to 15 units and supported inclusionary requirements at or above that size; members and outside speakers argued the town needs a narrower, lower-scale analysis (6–15 units) so the 3A inclusionary rules (which currently round decimals down in certain passages) can be clarified and—if feasible—revised. John Serier from the Housing Partnership explained the practical policy trade-offs: lower thresholds can yield more affordable units but also can drive developers to propose one unit fewer if thresholds increase costs.

Members amended the motion to explicitly ask the consultant to identify the lowest unit count at which inclusionary requirements are economically reasonable and to return findings to the board; the amended motion passed unanimously. Taylor Herman was authorized to solicit the analysis and issue a PO or contract if a suitable consultant is available. Several members said they would seek to use available planning funds before the fiscal-year deadline. The board emphasized that any bylaw text changes would come back to the board and town meeting for deliberation and that legal review would precede any recommended amendments.