By Geena Monahan—For the North Star Reporter
The Bylaw Subcommittee spent more than an hour digging into a proposed multi-use overlay bylaw, particularly how much flexibility to grant developers, and what guardrails to build in.
The review, done at the subcommittee’s Feb. 18 meeting, followed a presentation earlier this month of the finished draft by the town planner and Planning Board chair.
With a potential Town Council vote anticipated in April, Town Manager Michael Borg encouraged members to focus on refining language and what may need to be clarified.
Prohibited uses and zoning clarity
Section 6 outlines prohibited uses within the overlay district. Bylaw Subcommittee Chair Dan Donovan suggested including language that would exclude uses already prohibited by state or federal law, citing potential gaps.
“Things are going to change, there are uses that are going to come up at a later date,” said Donovan. “If you start saying ‘These things are prohibited,’ by implication you’re saying ‘Everything else is not.’”
Other members disagreed — Ryan Benharris said adding language would be “redundant.”
“If it’s prohibited by state or federal law, it’s inherent that it’s not allowed,” he said.
As drafted, the prohibited uses include new and used vehicle dealerships, self-storage facilities, mobile homes, boarding homes, dry cleaners, salvage yards and outdoor vehicle storage. Member John Simmons cautioned against making the list too expansive.
“The more you list, the more likely you are to say ‘This list is so comprehensive, that if it isn’t on the list, they obviously didn’t mean it,’” said Simmons. “A smaller list is actually better.”
Members also questioned whether retail marijuana or adult entertainment businesses could be inadvertently permitted within mixed-use developments. Borg clarified that existing licensing requirements would still apply even if zoning allowed the use.
“You would not be relieved of the license requirement even if zoning supported it,” he said.
The subcommittee agreed to ask the board to explicitly exclude adult entertainment establishments, specifying adult bookstores, cabarets, motion picture theaters and video shops.
Design standards and subjective language
Section 13, governing development and design standards, prompted concerns about subjective wording.
Donovan questioned phrases such as “high quality” and “subtle change in architectural expression,” arguing they could lead to inconsistent interpretations by the Planning Board.
“I read that and it’s kind of a word salad,” said Donovan. “I prefer clarity.”
Benharris noted the flexibility is intentional, ensuring buildings reflect mixed uses rather than appearing uniform, while giving builders an opportunity to do what they want. Borg added that the goal is to avoid flat, monolithic development.
“You don’t want a brick square,” said Borg. “You want to have some character.”
Simmons agreed aesthetics matter, but questioned bans on materials such as chain-link fencing or vinyl siding.
“I would prefer them to say ‘we prefer’ or ‘we encourage,’” he said. “But I’m almost never a fan of outright prohibitions.”
How much discretion is too much?
Section 15, which allows the Planning Board to waive certain requirements through the special permit process, drew extended debate.
Because waiver requests are not required at the concept stage, Donovan warned a developer could seek significant changes late in the process, when the town may feel pressured to approve them. He offered a hypothetical example of a hotel project capped at six stories under the bylaw returning later to request 10 stories due to financial concerns.
“We’ve seen similar things happen before,” said Donovan, “and I think if it were clear that building height couldn’t be waived, that wouldn’t be an option.”
Subcommittee member Laura Wagner argued that rigid restrictions could block reasonable adjustments in response to market realities.
“What if it was in an area in town where an additional story wouldn’t make that much of a difference?” she said. “That’s why I like that flexibility, because we can’t foresee every situation.”
Simmons said he remains cautious about granting broad discretion but acknowledged some flexibility is necessary.
“I like rules,” he said, suggesting that if waivers remain, the Planning Board should be required to articulate its reasoning when granting them.
Borg suggested establishing non-waiverable “core requirements” while allowing flexibility elsewhere, a concept members supported.
Affordable housing questions
The subcommittee also reviewed Section 14, which requires developments within the overlay to meet affordable housing percentages established under Chapter 40B.
Donovan questioned whether the town can require affordability standards without developers receiving the protections that accompany the state’s 40B process.
Borg said affordability thresholds can be set through zoning but suggested tying them to specific triggers, such as a minimum number of units, and the town’s safe harbor status under the state’s 10% benchmark.
Wagner suggested setting a threshold — such as 20 units— before the affordability requirements activate. Simmons agreed mandates should not undermine project viability.
“If you’re going to change it, there has to be some number of units where this has to apply,” said Simmons.
Borg said he would bring the concerns back to the Planning Board chair and town planner to explore potential language adjustments.
“I like encouraging affordable housing,” said Donovan. “I think if we could find a way to do it without referencing 40B, that would satisfy me.”
Once revisions are finalized, the subcommittee will vote a before sending the proposal to the Town Council for a public hearing.
“I don’t think we changed a whole lot,” said Donovan. “We tweaked a little bit. I think we’re doing great work on this.”