Town planner outlines overhaul of Section 4.9 to expand local affordable‑housing options, flags water‑supply and parking tradeoffs

Paul, the town’s current and long‑range planner, presented a comprehensive revision of Section 4.9 on Jan. 12 that staff says will clarify affordable‑housing pathways, create local performance and design standards, introduce a locally administered alternative to state SHI/40B procedures, and set thresholds for parking and traffic review.

Paul said the revised bylaw reorganizes the section to make it more readable, adds definitions and performance standards for water conservation and landscaping, and proposes an experimental locally affordable option that would allow developers to provide a portion of units at 60% area median income (AMI) without the full state lottery process. "We're saying you can do 10% SHI if you'll do another 50% locally affordable... it's kind of experimental," Paul said, describing the intent to reduce state paperwork and cost burdens on small projects while preserving a portion of units for the state SHI.

Paul flagged a near‑term constraint: the town operates under a DEP pumping permit that allows 1,189,000,000 gallons per year. He said the town has exceeded that limit once (in 2020) and came close again this year, and that continued approvals of apartments and ADUs will push pumping toward that cap. "We're gonna have to impose in the next couple years probably higher water costs as well as some water conservation measures because we're getting up to that limit," Paul warned, urging performance standards such as native landscaping, greywater, cisterns, and other water‑conserving measures for new developments.

The presentation also covered other practical items: staff proposed raising the traffic‑study trigger to 25 units but recommended explicit language allowing the planning board discretion to require a study at lower thresholds at sensitive intersections; the board discussed parking reductions (up to 50%) as an incentive for affordable units; and staff outlined mapping work to identify where locally affordable incentives should apply (e.g., within a quarter mile of commercial districts and transit/serving corridors).

Paul said staff will provide maps and revised language ahead of future public discussion and that the Affordable Housing Trust and other stakeholders are engaged in shaping the local preference lists and ready‑renter process. "We're gonna get into that a little bit... but we're trying to fix that," Paul said of the state process and costs.

Next steps: staff will post the revised Section 4.9 language and maps, follow up with the Affordable Housing Trust and town counsel as needed, and return to the board for detailed review and eventual public hearing. Board members endorsed the approach in principle and asked staff to fine‑tune thresholds and performance standards before the next packet.