Good evening and welcome to the >> reporting in progress. >> Good evening and welcome to the February 18th, 2026 Yarmouth Planning Board meeting. I am Joan Crowley, chair. Public is welcome to attend in person this evening or via alternative public
access provided on the notice of meeting available on the town of Yarmouth website. I'd like to begin by taking roll call. Susan Brida >> present. >> Deedra Hagguin >> here. >> Tom Pendleton >> here. >> Will Rubenstein >> Katy Slovak. >> Ken Smith
>> here. >> Joanne Crowley present. Seeing that we have a quorum present, I'll call the meeting to order. And I would ask that you join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for it stands. nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. The first item on our agenda this evening is the seasonal community designation.
Kathy has provided um in our packets several documents related to this legislation and the recent final regulations associated with it. Kathy's going to walk through part of the uh PowerPoint presentation that was given and her memo and she's also provided us
with some additional information on our existing non-conforming merged laws. So, I'll turn it over to you, Cat. I by no means am an expert on this, but I have gone to a couple um seminars at this particular point. So, um this was a
presentation that was given for the Cape Cod seasonal communities info session that was done on on February 2. Um, and it was done like two days before the reg final regulations were actually issued. So, pretty close. This gives a contents of what they're looking at. The designation overview, the benefits, all
of the requirements, uh, the regulation update, which we already kind of know because we have the regulations, next steps, and resources and questions. So, I think we all know that Caesar community designation came out of the Affordable Homes Act. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this. uh we were
not automatically designated as a seasonal community. Um we didn't quite meet all of the thresholds with regard to that, although we do have high rates of short-term rentals and relatively high seasonal uh housing numbers. So these are the the actual communities
that were initially offered seasonal community designation and the ones that are in bold are the ones that have actually gone ahead and accepted seasonal designation and this was all prior to the new regulations coming out. Um, so Cadam, East, Orleans, Promise Town, Truro, and Welley in Cape Cod have
already accepted the designation. >> Has has Haritch said no, or they just haven't voted yet. Do you know, K? >> I don't know. Yeah, I don't know whether any of these others like Brewster, Dennis, and Harwitch, and anybody else on the who've been given designation as of December 2025 are planning on having
anything on their annual town meeting. As of right now, it's my understanding that the town the select board are going to be talking about seasonal communities at their meeting next Tuesday. So, when we're going to be there for short-term rentals, it' be interesting to listen in on on seasonal communities. And I believe that they have at least uh
looked at drafting an article for um accepting the designation for the annual town meeting. These are all the different communities that were offered that designation opportunity uh in December. And obviously, Yarmouth and the rest of Cape Cod was included on those designations
>> as as a lot of municipalities um in Berkshire County and a couple in Franklin. So the benefits I think we all can understand that the the benefits associated with it get right into what kind of what they are. Year-round housing trust funds. Right now we have
um affordable housing trust trust that that um basically helps create affordable housing. This would create something that's a yearround housing trust and it doesn't necessarily have to be affordable. It could be that's more like an attainable uh which is considered to
be up to 250% of area median income rather than the affordable which is the 80% of area median income. It would seem a similar process as our affordable housing trust. It could even be the same members but I think it might need to be two separate entities um to to do that.
So that's an opportunity uh to to look at and that's something we'd have certainly plenty of time. this is all do we want to take advantage of this benefit. Um year- round occupancy restrictions um it allows us to ha acquire year-round housing occupancy restrictions. We obviously do that for affordable but this allows us to do it
for other things. Um and it it's obviously what they're trying to do is ensure that this is someone's principal residence and that they're using it uh year round. essential public employee preference. And I know this is something that kind of came out a little bit from the Madaki utilization committee and the land and
the housing land use team. They're very interested in having some type of preference for uh public employees. This is a mechanism that I think would allow you to do that. Uh or at least that's what they're indicating. Um and and who's included in that can be public works employees, first responders, uh
town administrators, and really any town employee or municipal employee that you are considered. um vital to operations. I think it also includes county and and state uh employees as well. And you don't necessarily have to be full-time. You could be part-time, intermittent, or
volunteer like some communities maybe out in Western Mass have volunteer fire departments. So, they wanted to make sure that they would be eligible for that. The other type of housing, you can restrict it for artist housing. Uh I think as we mentioned when we were looking at the draft, the definition is pretty loose in my opinion as to who
would be considered an artist. Uh but it's really someone who produces or supports artistic and literary activities and basically leaves it up to the communities to decide how flexible they want to be with that. The res residential property tax exemption, Yarmouth doesn't have that
right now. Um but non-seasonal communities can go up to 35% of the um med of the average assessed value. This would allow us to go up to 50%. So essentially $600,000 home, which is kind of the median, you would take off 50% of that and you would only be taxed on the
>> first 300,000. >> Wow. >> First, did you say >> 300,000? >> That's what I So basically it, you know, if you have a really expensive house, I don't know whether it's helping that much, but um this is to help people who live here year round and kind of kick
some of the burden of taxes, property taxes under people who are the seasonal. So I think this is something we had in the local comprehensive plan of looking at this and this is something that the finance committee was interested in looking at. So they're trying to make it a little bit easier with the seasonal communities and allowing you to go a little bit higher if you feel that's
right for your community. And of course they always come with some money. I don't think it's a particularly large pot of money in my opinion. U it's $4 million but it's two million for FY26 and two million for FY27. So eligible communities that have
actually accepted the designation can get between 50 and 175,000. I think 50 is the minimum. If you have a larger population, it kind of goes up from there to up to $175,000. And certain activities, obviously making zoning amendment changes related to seasonal communities would be allowed.
Um and looking at housing needs assessment. Um and then also I thought was interesting is um horizontal infrastructure projects to leverage housing development which makes me kind of think of madakis and you know maybe pre-esign and that type of thing but this isn't this kind of money isn't
going to go very far. So I hope if they continue with this they'll be putting a lot more money into the these buckets for seasonal >> did they discuss the fact they could run out if it's only $2 million a year and you've got more communities applying could what happens if they run out of money?
>> Yeah. I I don't I don't think they have enough money. No. >> And I think that they might have decided on this two million per year before they gave the designation to all these other communities. >> It's going to take a little while for people to, you know, take on the design. >> So there's no guarantee you'd get any money. >> I thought I don't know how many
communities there are total at 50,000 how much that would be. But >> so it be minimum >> I that was the impression I was giving to divided. >> Yeah. It might become though minimum at a first come first- serve basis until you reach the two million because that's all they have allocated and appropriated.
And then of course this is the designation requirements. I'll go over it very briefly here and then we can kind of get into a little bit more details of of my memo. Um basically the municipalities need to adopt and we don't need to we need to do this within 24 months of accepting the designation.
So deep breath we don't have to make a change immediately. We got some time to think about it. But I'm bringing this kind of to the planning board's attention because if it's going to be an article on annual town meeting, I would expect the questions to arise. What what do these requirements with zoning actually mean? And what does the
planning board think about it? >> Are they contemplating this April town meeting or the one in the fall? >> That's my no >> this major change. What are they going to do about informing the public about it? >> Well, I haven't I haven't heard anything
directly coming out of the town administrator's office. I just know that they have been asking and looking at articles from other communities with the idea of of considering it. I don't believe it's been discussed at the select board. It's on their agenda or at least it was on the future agenda items for being on next Tuesday.
>> So, I think that would be a matter of discussion. Um then maybe some of the select board members like no no it's just too fast. We need a little bit more time to think about >> or um people will say oh no we really think these benefits are are important. Well, the benefits are not quite they're
several hour losery as we just identified. You may not even get any money. But this is a sea change in it could be a sea change in in how our term is. I think we need to think about >> we need to ask more questions and we'll
kind of get into some of what I think the questions we might need to ask but there's a lot of unknowns and I think the biggest question is related to the um the movable tiny houses um tiny houses or tiny houses fine but the movable tiny house and how it's defined
is is of concern. So >> not not only that but the regulation would require the town to give up its ability to reject them. That's one of the biggest >> that's that's the question. >> Yeah, I think that's one of the biggest. >> Can we ban them outright if we don't want them? If we have communities,
>> we live in a I mean this is doesn't seem wise given the whole scenario that we're dealing with in the town about you know um all the capital projects that we have to pay for the you know the the the burden on the residential communities
that we would give up a right to reject something that could negatively affect the value of of everyone's lot. I I just don't think that's a I think that's something that really needs to be seriously considered before you rush this to term. >> I thought they were talking about the the fall town meeting. So that would
give us plenty of time to have public hearings and >> they may decide that that's the more public input's needed and that that's what they decide to do. I don't believe it's been on the select board agenda before, >> but you think it's going to be discussed next Tuesday? >> I think that's what it was on the future agendas for the 24th that had seasonal
communities listed there. Sometimes things move around, but the way the way it was. Um, so two things, undersized lots, um, limits limits as of right requirements to year-round attainable housing units,
um, and basically prohibits it from being rented for less than six months. We'll talk a little bit more. I don't think this tells you the whole story. Um, and same thing with tiny homes, limits as of right requirements to year round housing units, requires tiny homes to comply with state building code, which is very interesting as well. Um,
and then um meeting applicable water and sewer blah blah blah. We'll talk in detail about what the requirements are. Um the regulation update, I think this is kind of I think they did actually implement all of these changes and you have the redline version of the changes. Don't take that as gospel. That was me
doing that's why I say unofficial copy because I'm sure something might have gotten done not correctly. Um but they provided more flexibility to year round occupancy restrictions and how they can do it. They listed a bunch of other legal documents versus just a deed
restriction. Um, they tried to clarify the the tiny home and ADU overlap. And the way they did that was saying that tiny homes had to be the principal dwelling, which again didn't make a lot of sense to me as to what they're trying to get at. To me, the tiny home always made sense is they were pushing this is
an more of an affordable way of getting accessory dwelling unit and kind of combining all of the things in the affordable homes act. Um, undersized lots. I think people concerned that they were going to be creating new undersized lots. So, they clarified that that it's only existing lots. Um they clarified
the lot size of being at least 10,000 square feet or 25% of the district's minimum lot size. For us, it's always going to be the 10,000 because it's whichever is greater. So, 10,000. Um and then this is new is they added in setbacks. They had nothing with regard to setbacks in there before and it was
basically uh one foot per thousand square foot. So, 10 foot for a um 10,000 square foot lot, but No, and no case can it be more than 15 feet and of course you need to have 20 feet of frontage. So that's kind of their their overview
and they done that. But maybe we can kind of get a little bit into what some of the concerns are. The devil's always in the definitions with the state regulations. It's it's it's always there. Um
the key thing that they didn't put in their summary that was a change was in the original that we looked at when we we had talked about those draft regulations. We hadn't been offered designation at the time. Um, but they at that time said that we could allow further regulate or prohibit movable
tiny houses, which was my main concern. So, I'm kind of like, okay, not a big deal. But they actually changed it to just say provisions that may allow or further regulate movable tiny houses. So, when they say further regulate, they don't mean prohibit. They typically mean you can put some guard rails on there.
You can make a special permit, but I don't think you can specifically prohibit. And then what the >> unless unless it specifically says you can prohibit this. >> That's my question that I put into the state because >> you cannot regulate prohibi prohibition. That's the whole point. I think by
saying you can further regulate, you can stop it. You cannot regulate prohibition. You have to specifically say it is prohibited. >> That's what I think this and so that's my big concern. That was kind of >> that's how I interpret it the same exact way, Susan. >> And I do too. >> Unless you specifically say it's
prohibited, it is allowed. Yeah. So, you've got >> some fashion. >> Yes. Fashion. >> And and they they soften it by saying you can further regulate. But >> they didn't talk about this in any of the presentations I've been to. They didn't include it as documented in their
summary of changes. I think this is the biggest and most significant change and the thing that I have the biggest concern about. And right now the town at least this term has got the term the the the right and the authority to prohibit this would remove that right from this term which I
>> I think so and obviously there's questions to the state there could be questions to legal counsel to kind of clarify all >> you're going to get all that before the town meeting I mean these are huge significant >> I don't know um the the Cape planners are having a meeting next in March um
and it's going to be having someone from Livable um housing livable communities coming and answering our specific questions. So, I think one of the key things that we can start thinking about and I've started thinking about is what are some of the questions that we want asked and clarified for us. >> And actually, it should be the state
that that that defines whether that can be prohibited or not. This is a state regulation. >> The email I sent was to um the person who gave the presentation from the housing >> and a definitive, clear, unambiguous, non-neuanced >> Yeah. >> statement. It's interesting because I
put in the chat I said, "Can we prohibit and regulate?" And the response was, "You can regulate." >> Yeah. Well, you there's your answer. >> They didn't answer part of the question. >> Yeah, they did answer it. The answer is no. Yeah, the answer is no. You can't prohibit. You can regulate, but you cannot prohibit. >> It's a subtle change, but it's a huge change.
>> Well, it's massive. It's massive, >> especially when you start looking at what a um a tiny a move a movable tiny home definition is. And it's very a tiny house that is house trailer. auto home as defined by chapter 90, >> right?
>> This is a chapter 90. That's chapter 90 doesn't do deal with dwelling units at all. It's about, >> you know, RMV and vehicles and roads and that type of thing. So, >> it's a trailer, >> right? >> So, the fact that that's where they went for their definition was disturbing.
>> Right. Um, so auto home obviously is a motor vehicle originally designed or permanently altered and equipped for human habitation which is not used to transport property other than that property used for human habitation or camping purposes. That's an RV. >> Yeah, that's what it is. >> Oh, definitely. >> That's an RV. And
>> can I ask Mark question related to this? >> Mark, just a quick question on tiny homes and >> Mark Grills our building uh commissioner. >> Madam Chair, members of the board, Mark Grill's building commissioner. Hey Mark, just a question on this. On tiny homes, can you regulate the energy
code on this? Is there anything? >> Yes, they are. Well, on these movable trailer, auto, whatever they're calling them, those are trailers and they're not regulated by the building code. I can't issue a building permit for it for no reason. It's a trailer. The the tiny
homes are required to meet the standard. They need a hers rating. They need all the same things as a regular house. >> Had to meet her rating. and they need to have a a uh um a continuous footing around the perimeter of it. If it's under 400 square feet, it doesn't have to have a 4ft frost protected
foundation. It just has to have a a continuous footing which can be uh the minimum is 12 in. >> Okay. >> I was curious if you could regulate from the HERS standpoint. >> Yeah, they allowed it in the building code. It's in appendix AQ >> in the IRC,
>> but that's for a tiny home, not a not a not a movable. >> No, that's a trailer. They can only put some fancy name on it. It's a trailer. >> It's a trailer. Trailer or mobile home, >> right? >> Can you regulate either one of them? >> No. Manufacturable
is not regulated. Okay. Thank you. >> I'm going to go get my stuff and then sit back up here. A nice table. There's just something in here that yeah, it just says the requirement that tiny houses shall comply with. Doesn't say and movable tiny houses. So, it's
all tricky dicky. So, house trailers kind of the same thing. You're just trailing it behind. It's could be a camper. Um, so I have I have some inquiries into like I say this the state. Um, and then I also any questions that you guys think you'd like to get
answered on tiny homes, definitely get it to me and I can get it to the state. >> I have multiple questions. >> Yeah, that would be great. Um, and then I guess unders undersized lots is the other requirement with regard to zoning. I don't think that this one is
as significant simply because we already allow a lot of uh undersized non grandfathered non-conforming lots. 90 I not 90 may be high but 75% are probably some in some way not conforming with current zoning standards.
>> Um so what I did and I sent it out in email and I also gave you guys a hard copy just to kind of give you a brief overview of what's already included. Mark and I had a great meeting today and I finally got some understanding of what's allowed because that's normally something I don't deal with and that's Mark's Mark's office deals with that.
Um, but essentially, you know, you can do a single lot. Uh, it conformed at the time that it was recorded, but can be as small as 5,000 square feet u with 50 feet of frontage. The key is it cannot have been held in common ownership with other contiguous lots either at the time of or since the effective date of the
increased requirement. So, if you have an old lot, you just bought it and it's been sitting there for a long time and you're the only one to own it and you haven't owned anything next to it. I don't think there's very many of these lots left, but there's probably a few. Um, and then there's also with regard to two or three uh adjoining lots. It has
to be on a duly recorded and endorsed plan. So, it can't just it's to be something that we can can look at. Uh, recorded means it might have been before you guys existed and it just went to the registry of deeds and endorsed obviously comes something from from the planning board and not apply to more than three
contiguous lots held in common ownership. So, if you have three lots held in common ownership, you might be applicable to this of having separate lots, lots containing a minimum of 7,500 square feet with 75 ft of frontage or a minimum of 15,000 square feet with 50 feet of frontage. Um, if approved in
what I refer to as a flag lot, you know, you have the the narrow smaller frontage as long as you can create the flag lot in the back. This is all paraphrasing, so Mark knows it's not Nobody in the public can say Kathy said it's going to
be what Mark says. Um, and then the next section is other non-conforming residential lots. And this gets a little bit more specific. This is something that has to have been approved or endorsed by the planning board on or before June 3rd, 1996. Um, and obviously recorded and then not
held in common ownership with more than two abiding lots. So again, getting to those three uh as of June 3rd, 1996. So the lot needs to be a minimum of 10,000 square feet. This is the first time we say of nonwetland lot area nor all the other ones don't say anything about wetlands. Uh and either 75 feet of
frontage or 50 feet of frontage if you have that minimum front frontage reduction and you can put a 75 foot by 75 foot square. So that's a flag lot but they really decrease the um the size of the square that you need to do. minimum front yard setbacks equal to the uh
dimensional requirements table and note I uh which basically says you can doesn't need to be more than 30% of the depth uh of the lot and you can also and does can't be more than the average setback of the building on each side. So if everyone else is close to the road you can be close to the road and nobody
expects you if you have a fairly narrow to be more than 30% back on that minimum rear yard um again it's 203.5 so the dimensional but not more than the average rear setbacks or buildings on abudding properties but not less than 12
ft and maximum building coverage and that's as section which is 25% is 203.5 uh and then we also have in section 412.5 >> I just ask one question on the so is is it my understanding between Mark and
Kathy if the tiny lot not the yes the movable homes or whatever the setback requirement for that that that would supersede anything on this table because they have new setback requirements for >> depends on what part of the zoning bylaw
somebody wants to apply to. So, I've just given you three options of someone with a particular lot that they might want to they might be able to meet one of these things and build. These have the least amount of restrictions. Doesn't tell you what size lot or what size building you need to build or how
many bedrooms you need to have. If you could qualify, I would think under one of these, you'd want to qualify under one of these because It's probably >> So these are just the setback requirements. >> They're area and setback. >> So how does this how does this mesh with
the intended >> setbacks won't matter for for a trailer? >> That's what I thought >> because I don't issue a building permit for it. I'll never see it. I'll I'll get a um in the health department. I'll get a septic plan, you know, I'll get a septic permit and there'll be a water, you know, a plumbing permit. There'll be
an electrical permit. There won't be a building permit issue. So the setbacks would not the the the edge of the trailer could be three feet from the boundary line. >> That's right. Well, yeah. I don't I'm not sure. I'm not 100% certain, but yes, that's how I >> That's how I was reading it. These would
be waved >> for the new >> setbacks refer to structures and trailers are not structures. >> Structures. That's what I thought. Okay. >> Can I ask you Mark? Sure. So, I have a I have a trailer a pool behind that I I have we travel with. If I had a lot in town of 5,000 or more square feet, I
could just park it there and I could live in it. >> Not today. >> Okay, that's my question. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Not that I want to. >> You'd be surprised. >> Yeah. >> Well, it's just going to open up so many
people coming to Mark asking >> these questions >> to say nothing of the again the >> the angry neighbors that don't like it. I mean, it's like it's like another assault on residential neighborhoods, you know, chipping away at the character
of a residential neighborhood. So, so the other one is affordable lots. This is basically in our inclusionary zoning section. So, we have some lots out there um recorded as of January 1, 2009 and they're located in a residential zoning district and currently vacant of
any residential dwelling. Um, but also it can't be one of those unbuildable lots like you're supposed to be a park or an open space designation within a subdivision. But that's up to 10,000 square foot minimum with 20 ft of frontage or they even allow for a recorded access easement of at least 20
feet. Uh, assuming that you can ensure that you have adequate access. So, it's not like one of these crazy things. Um, no part of the access there's some other weird things like no part of the access drive shall be within 20 ft of a principal dwelling on an adjoining lot. Uh, just kind of give a little bit of
privacy for people. Um, minimum sideyard setbacks again are equal to 203.5 the dimensional standards or an average setback of structures on adjacent lots with a minimum of only a 10 foot um sideyard setback but also a minimum of 12 feet to other dwelling units.
Uh, affordable structures shall be a minimum of 80 feet to an existing principal structure if a flag lot. So, if you have a lot behind someone, they want to give you enough room that you have 80 feet between the buildings uh in that particular circumstance. Uh ZBA uh can also issue a special permit if you have a lot that's less than 10,000
square feet. It's a lot similar in size or shape to adjacent lots and meets all other criteria. And of course, you need to meet um health regulations and concom regulations. I don't think I know that nothing in my time I don't think has ever in your time has done an affordable
law. didn't know that section existed until today. >> Okay. >> Again, I think most people this requires an affordable housing restriction on >> the deed. So if you can do what you want to do in another way with less restrictions, I think most people are
going to try and find that way. >> Um so back in 2024, the Affordable Homes Act had a section on merged lots that changed chapter 4A section six. um and just basically talks about adjacent lots under common ownership. They don't specify how many shall not be treated as
a single lot. So they not be considered merged for local zoning purposes purposes if at the time of the recording or endorsement the lots conform to the existing requirements of the area frontage width and yard or depth um where that where such lot was done and
less than and the lot shall not be less than 10,000 square feet of area and 75 ft of frontage. So I think we have a lot of them. The existing bylaw allows for a lot of this already. U but the the key difference here is it doesn't say three
three uh common ownership. It could be six common ownership. I I I don't think it says um and then any okay it needs to be located in a zoning district that allows for single family residential use. And then this is the requirement again where you have have to
uh construct uh residential structure constructed on said lot shall not exceed 1,850 ft. So it's limiting the size of your um structure. Um but it also says shall contain not less than three bedrooms and shall not be used as a seasonal home or
short-term rental. So this can be an issue like if you're in the zone two if you're on a 10,000 square foot lot you can't possibly have granted sewers coming may change some of those those things in in the future. Um but my questions were are there any limitations on the number of lots in common
ownership going to be 10 and still 10 lots which would have been considered merged before this was incorporated into 4A. Um, and can we require minimum setbacks and other dimensional requirements because it doesn't say anything about setbacks in here. So, can can we regulate that in any way? Um, and
then getting back to what we've been talking about tonight was what are they trying to do um with seasonal communities and it's allowing by what they refer to as attainable housing on undersized lots. So what they consider uh attainable housing to be is that year- round housing which includes an
affordable housing restriction and it can be up to 250% AMI. >> How is the attainable housing what different from um affordable housing? Is it the percentage of income? >> Yeah, that's what >> affordable is typically 80%. >> Yeah. So this is higher.
>> Yes. >> I mean it's actually lower but it's higher. >> But yeah, the affordable would go on the shy the subsidized housing inventory. these parcels would not or these built structures would not be able to be on there. It needs to be in a single family residential zoning district and same
thing with the um the protected ADUs that they call that any district where single family residential dwellings are allowed either by right or special permit. So it' be allowed everywhere in the town of arms except for the adult entertainment district in the B3 zoning district. >> Kathy, do we know what uh the arm of
area medium income is? >> I want to say 87. 86. Yeah, I know it's the lowest. >> You don't know. >> Last I saw it was 86. >> I was going to say 87. So we're we're
under 70. I knew it was by by several. Yeah, it's about 86. >> So, you know, even at 250, you know, you gota got to get a mortgage and all that stuff and how much it costs. So, it's it's still still attainable. You can change that percentage. I think you can,
but right now it says 250 a.m. um the minimum 10,000 foot lot. They talk about the 25% minimum lot size, but it's going to be for us it's always going to be 10,000 minimum with a um with 20 ft of frontage. The setbacks, this is again, as I mentioned, is a change that they
added to the regulations is one per thousand. So it'll be 10 foot for a 10,000 square foot lot, but it can't be more than 15 feet. can require adherence to any applicable floor to area ratio requirements. We don't have any of those. It doesn't reference any other dimensional
requirements um like setbacks or anything like that. It just or I'm sorry, not setbacks, but um like height or uh building coverage. It just instance um which you can kind of get to with floor to area ratio, but that's something that we don't have in our bylaw right now. Um need to comply
with federal, state, regional, and municipal laws. uh as long as the regional and municipal aren't u stricter or you've given a really darn good reason why you want to do it related to public health, safety, and welfare. Uh and attainable housing on undersized lots shall be subject to that year-
round occupancy restriction, which is that legally binding recorded document. It needs to be your primary residence and you need to live there minimum of 10 months in a 12-month period. So my questions were related to can you set other dimensional requirements like building height and lot coverage or is
it just the um Florida ratio and then I don't understand how is the sale price for attainable housing unit calculated. What's how's the rent calculated? You're having some type of restriction on it. Um and how do you qualify owners or renters determined and selected? I hope
it's not the same way it is is for affordable housing because that's very convoluted and very costly. So I don't there it's not I couldn't find anything in here that explained that uh very well. So, those are some of my ideas and
questions that I have of things I'd like to clarify, but obviously, as we've discussed, the biggest one is related to movable tiny houses. It's a non-starter in my mind if if that's something that we're required to do. >> Say that again. >> In in my mind, it's accepting the
designation is a non-starter if you have to have a movable tiny houses. I'm concerned about what Yarmouth would look like in 10 years. I think we'd all would be. We worked really hard to and balance a lot of different needs and with the character of our community. And this is
something that's uh you know diametrically opposed to where our vision for the town of Yarmouth in many ways. And I'm kind of surprised that they included it simply because we are the tourist destinations. Do you want people driving through our community and seeing pe you know a lot
of people living in RVs and trailers and Yeah. with boats packed in the driveway with with all with all with all respect for those of you that do own boats. >> Kathy, can I gohead? >> No, go ahead. >> I have one question on page two.
Property tax exemption. Is that income based? >> So, it just says 50% of the average assessed on page two. >> That's the resial property tax. >> Yeah. Is that income based? No, it's
your assessment homebody >> automatic. If we adopted it, >> that's how they would calculate the tax rate. >> Yeah. >> And you can't opt out of that. >> If we adopt it, it it >> no the exemp
>> if we accept seasonal designation. It does not. >> No, this is a this is an opportunity that's presented that you have to go through the regular process of adopting resial test. >> Okay. So Kathy if >> question >> two years ago we did not did not meet
whatever the criteria was for our designation at the time because our percentage I think it was 35% of the households had to be I forget what the percentage >> but we and then that changed >> and there was a blanket designation basically given to towns on the Cape
>> um >> so that the does the state confer the designation to us or do we have to we actually have to accept I'm sorry. We actually have to accept the majority vote. >> That's what I thought. We have to accept it. And if we did accept it that So these towns on page three of the
handout, I was a little concerned on that that the the the chart that has all the color codes. >> What what's the difference between the color coding number one and the percentages? Percentage of seasonal units. Are those the percentage available or the percentages that are actually rented? >> What is which?
>> This that this chart the one. Yeah, that's one the one that starts with Booster and Cadam on the lefth hand side. >> It's the how does a community become a seasonal community with a question mark. >> These are all the people who had over 35% seasonal units and were automatically offered the designation >> the blue ones.
>> Everybody on this entire page. >> So what's what's the difference between the blue the yellow? What's the difference between the yellow? What's the difference between the colors? >> Different counties that they're in. You have Barnesville County, Berkshire County. >> Oh, I see what you mean. Okay. All right. Got it. And the bold is people who have accepted the designation at
>> so they've accepted it and now they have >> got a majority vote at whatever their town meeting. Yeah. >> Okay. >> I don't know if any of these have city council >> and then this is everybody else and they not only looked at seasonal percent seasonal units but they also looked at
your percent shortterm rentals and see that I think they were looking at you over three and a half% they kind of was looking at giving you the designation. So there's a criteria that they were kind of looking at in addition to the seasons. >> So if I'm reading this table right,
Kathy, the the ones that are in bold, so Chattam has accepted the seasonal designation. >> According to this chart that >> you think that's accurate, >> I do think it's accurate. I'd be shocked if you have to submit it to them within 60 days of accepting. I mean, they they
need to know. because they didn't meet the criteria last time, >> Chadam. >> No, they 35% of their homes were not whatever the percentage was. They did not meet the threshold. >> Yeah, they did. >> But during the first round,
>> they did. They did. They met the criteria. >> Everybody on this one met the criteria in the first round in Chad. >> Yep. So, it's a good dialogue, >> good conversation. >> Do you want us to submit because I have a I have a whole host of questions. Do
you want me Do we just send them to you? Do you want us to send them to you? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And I would ask any other members uh to do the same. Again, um for this meeting, we we're we're not expecting to take any
action. Kathy's uh warning uh to us uh is that should this move to town meeting in April andor November um all of these zoning questions are going to be addressed to us and
um and we just need to be prepared and get as smart as we can on this because this is very complicated. >> I'm shocked that they want to do this in April. It's really astonishing. And plus the fact that a lot of our uh interested parties, the seasonal people at now down in Florida that are coming back aren't
even aware of this, right? >> This is really shocking that this I mean this is a as Kathy said, this would change the the the DNA of our town and a lot of a third of our residents are not even here to know about it or understand it. It is complicated. >> If we don't understand it, somebody
who's never even seen it before is never going to understand it. >> Right. You know, there's a lot to it. I I'm just to jump in there. You know, I have a lot of questions too like Susan, but the number one is to me it's a deal breaker if it movable homes. It just
totally changed what we're trying to do here. and and I recall our discussion with the select board when we were um putting together our zoning amendments for the fall on the boats and >> and if I recall the chair uh remembered
why we had that restriction in the first place and it w it was mostly um around recreational vehicles and the fear way back in the 90s whenever that was promulgated by us um that we needed to
restrict the visibility of them. Uh, and that's why we did it. And we're the we're the only town on the Cape that has that. Um, as far as we can tell on the restrictions, you know, behind the front line of the house. I my my search I
couldn't find anything. And you drive around and you can see in in you can drive around now in Yarmouth and you can see, you know, the air streams parked in the front in the front of the house. Um anyway yeah that's that is that is the that is the really key key piece I
think for us >> and also I think um absent in this discussion is any kind of analysis about um the tax impact remember they're going to be giving a break to to a certain
category of of resident that is not going to be available to everyone else so I think there's sort of an equal protection under the laws issue% >> residential >> yeah the resial break. You know, they're going to give them a reduction in the taxes. >> That's that's not that's not definite. >> No, but I was going to say that's not definite and and that's not even um
that's a whole separate process that would need to be gone through. The only thing that this is saying is instead of maxing out at 35% if you're a seasonal community, you're maxed out at 50%. You still have a whole process >> but in order if in if I were on the side of the table to try to incentivize people to vote for this,
>> I would go to the 50% and say you can get a 50% tax break. Um and that's that that would be enticing to a lot of people. On the other side of the table, you then have to figure out where am I going to make up those taxes? >> You're going to put the burden on the business community. >> Seasonal housing,
>> non-residents, >> right? >> That I mean, >> totally changes the character too in the other direction. >> Exactly. And you're taking that vote when those people are not even here to participate in the discussion. >> I mean, I I just don't see the transparency in all of that.
>> This this vote's not happening anytime soon. This is to that's totally a completely separate process that would happen. >> It's all part of the same discussion. The the seasonal community drives the rest of that discussion. >> I think this was a discussion before seasonal communities. If we never
adopted seasonal communities, I think we would still be looking at residential tax exemptions. It's actually one of the action items in the LCP and it came out of a lot of discussions with the finance committee. >> So, we would be looking at that anyway. This just allows the percentage to change. That's all.
>> Well, and that becomes an incentive, right? I But again, as it's just a major major change. It's a significant change in the way the town would look and do business and represent its citizens. And it I think requires a lot more discussion than and we probably would be
able to have would we even have a public hearing on it on this designation before the >> I don't think that you're required to have a public hearing. Public hearing would kind of be town meeting. >> Yeah. And how do you explain to people at town meeting this? >> As Ken said, I mean, >> how do we do this?
>> I mean, we know we know what some of these words mean. >> A lot of people do. >> I speak for myself, >> but not all of them. >> Not all of them. No. >> Um, so, you know, you get in front of Mary Smith, uh, with all due respect, and she's not going to have any idea.
>> No. Exactly. Exactly. And then they're going to say, "Why didn't Joanne Crowley bring?" >> And then Kathy will get up and try to tell them what a setback is. >> And how this changes setbacks. Lady that puts a nice garden in the backyard. All of a sudden, oh my god, I'm going to have a blah blah right up against my
beautiful garden. So it's it does. You're right. It changes the DNA of the town. >> I'd like it not to be a zoning discussion at annual town meeting because I don't think we'll be prepared. >> No. and zoning. No one understands zoning. >> The key is is that you have you're you
the public are going to get another bite at this and you will have public hearings when we start talking about zoning changes. Uh and then obviously you get another bite at the town meeting to vote whether you want to vote. >> What is the vote actually going to say at the what are we actually voting on at the town meeting to accept the designation?
>> That's my understanding, but I believe they're going to have that's all it is. >> If you accept the designation, does do the requirements flow from that? Do we have to do the zoning? Do we have to Okay, so the quick if we are going to get a second bite at this apple then the
the we should either you know not be supporting this at the April meeting for more further discussion um because people aren't educated enough about it and and you we're sitting here as the planning board. It's a huge impact on what we do a long range all the time we
spent on a long range plan the comprehensive plan and the use of real estate and how we wanted to incor you know um change not change but enhance and and and increase the value of of this
totally undercuts that. >> Yeah. I mean I I think madam chair that as you pointed out our first step needs to get our questions to Kathy. >> After that first step is done the next step after the questions are answered is do we truly support this or don't we? And then I think that's where the
planning board needs to step in and send their letter to the select board and whether we support it or we don't support it. >> I think that has to be the natural process here. >> Definitely. >> And at that point, if we support it, so be it. If we don't, so be it. And let the select board know it. >> Yeah. Would this would the letter have
to be to the select board by next Tuesday? Did you see? >> No. >> All right. So, but even though they're going to discuss it on Tuesday, it's just a discussion. There's no >> I know what you know. Uh I saw it on the agenda and I like I say I do know that there have been some
articles from the previous communities that have accepted designation going around u for compiling. The first draft of the warrant will also be reviewed on Tuesday. So look stay tuned for the packet because that'll just it'll tell you a lot of things about whether it's on a separate agenda item and whether
there's an actual warrant article in the draft warrant. You'll have a lot more information, Kathy, after your planners meeting next month. So that you can present back because right now we don't know what we don't know, you know. So >> yeah, little sneaky there on the removal of the word
prohibited in. >> Okay, thank you for thank you for your comments. Um, next up is the short-term rental study again in preparation for the February 24th select board meeting. Do members have any other further
comments on the short-term rental study conducted by UMass Amherst Donahghue Institute and sponsored by the Yarmouth Affordable Housing Trust? I thought Kathy captured our sentiments rather well in the minutes, but if there are additional comments, we should we should
put them out now. >> Yeah, I'm following up on your um the suggestion that we should look at smaller areas within the town. Uh I did go into the U CS data and pulled up the
seasonal percentage for the six census tracks as well as uh I think it's 12 block groups within the census tracks and um I don't think that came up in the discussion of the
idea of setting attack on smaller areas which I don't think any of us think is a good idea but looking at it I found it interesting. So I made some copies >> but basically it's just it just sort of
uh shows the same distribution as the short-term rental study showed on the air DNA picture. But I thought it was quite interesting which is why I gave you all copies because I thought you might be interested. This is the percent seasonal percent seasonal and it's not exactly
what is here. Thank you. It's not exactly the same seasonal that the seasonal communities calculated. I think they're taking it from American Community Survey but I don't know what their base was and all that. So I came
up with for Yarmouth like about on the latest one 29% seasonal and they were saying 32 or 33. So I'm a little off on whatever base they used. I didn't >> I think there was 2022 data was it?
>> I think so. >> The percent short-term rentals isn't right either. Yeah, the this is from the newest that just came out, the 2024 5year ACS data. And what I did was take the percent vacant
for seasonal use as a proportion of the total housing units in the area. >> And that's what this percentage represent. >> That's what this percentage represents. And I just thought it would it, you know, it shows it's what you'd expect that the heaviest use is down on the
sound side. But uh and those zeros are kind of weird. One of them literally every housing unit mentioned was occupied. So there were no there were no seasonal units. >> The other one said that there were like
>> I mean it's that that zero that's right there over by White's Path. You know there are not >> very many residential units in there but they said there were 150 and they were all for rent. So I figure something must have been being built or something like
that. So these are, you know, they are certainly like any of the um estimates for such small units that we have. They're they have huge margins of error and so you have to take them with a lot of grains of salt, but I still think
it's an interesting picture of of the distribution of the different types of residential areas in the town. So, >> well, thank you for this. >> Yes, amazing work. Thank you. >> I think that's the m my major comment on the short-term rentals,
even though it's >> so the the the column the the columns that create the percentages here are column number one and the uh the fourth column over for seasonal recreational. That's right. Okay,
>> great. Yeah, I see the I see the two zeros. >> Yeah. >> Oh, interesting. Okay. Thank you. Um, any other comments on uh the short-term rentals? I haven't seen a final version. I know
that we had had that last meeting with the affordable housing trust. I do know that they met Tuesday. I didn't go to the meeting, but it was like an old business item. It wasn't like mass mass was going to be there or anything, but I haven't seen any edits. Uh whether they included, like I said, they were going
to supposed to include something with regard to the community impact fee, right? And then you had talked about maybe not being quite so definitive. I haven't seen anything. So, we may not we may see it when we when it goes to the board. I can ask Mary if she has a final version.
>> Yeah. Okay. Uh can I just ask what are the next steps on this Kathy >> on this whole seasonal thing? Do they what who's going to make the decision about whether we should be looking at a new bylaw or our existing bylaw is
sufficient? How does that all play out? >> I think it gets back to do we have a clear understanding of what the problem is, >> right? Is there a problem to it? But I do think based on the last meeting there was a general consensus that maybe we want to do something with regard to
corporate or completely commercial investment >> with within there but that right now I don't think other than that maybe some things about quality of life and that type of thing there's a lot of changes that actually need to be made. I
think it would be interesting if we could have the affordable housing trust like look at these numbers every annually but every two years or something so that we can let's start tracking this much more closely >> using the same data points so that we can at least I don't know how expensive
that would be but it would be interesting to see and track it over time so that we know if we're hitting a tipping point and we know it before it's an obvious problem. >> So right now other than the corporate piece there's no overwhelming drive to to change our existing bylaw.
>> We I think we need to hear from the select board. The only select board member we've heard from is marked with uh his participation in affordable housing trust. So, and he keeps keeps asking the question, is this a clearly defined problem? >> He's kind of echoing a lot of things that you guys also said at the last
meeting, those points that you just made, but I was when I was looking at this, I was also reviewing the zoning code as written currently. And I think that aside from the the corporate and some of the complaints about uh
monitoring the the renters, uh I think that the way it is, we should just extend it really. Well, I think if we're going to if we want to if we think we're done analyzing, then let's just remove it. If we think we're good or or if we don't have time
to add something with regard to corporate in, then we can extend There's no downside to status quo. In other words, at this point, >> I think at some point the attorney general is going to say at some point they could be at some point there could be the status quo. I feel strongly on
the corporate side, very strongly the only that's the only regulated hotels. >> Right. Right. >> Definitely. >> If we don't step in and do something on the corporate side, but I also feel strongly too that if you overregulate short-term rentals, all you're going to do is drive people underground. And
that's not a direction that I feel that we want to go. >> No, you're right. Look at how hard it was to get data because a lot of that data and that was done by the private sector. They they don't have to give it to us. >> Right. >> But if we don't extend it, my understanding is that >> expires in November. So we have to
>> it really would mean that we had no right. >> Didn't the court order say that that means it's not allowed at all? That's correct. So we have >> that you'd like to have another extended >> either extend it, eliminate it or modify it, >> right? >> The only in favor of modify
>> for the corporate piece for the corporate piece. Yeah, that makes >> that makes sense. >> Sense. Absolutely. >> Getting the wording right. Make sure that we hitting what we really want to be hitting. It's always everybody can always find a loophole. That's >> you're not going to be able to write
something for everything, but >> at least Corporation is legally defined. That would help. That does help. >> Oh, yeah. >> That does help. >> Yeah, >> the word corporation is legally defined. So, >> owner never uses it. >> You know, it's not accessory to
anything. >> Uh, okay. Moving on to uh Madaki's update. Um, Kathy and I were at the select board meeting a couple weeks ago, a week ago, lost track of time. uh and the mock presented to the select board, fairly detailed
presentation um and uh there's an upcoming public one uh next week, right? >> Yeah, it's it's next Wednesday here in the hearing room and via remote access at at 6 pm. We're going to give a a brief presentation kind of to let everybody know how we kind of got to
where we are because it was a very detailed planning process and a lot of good information and people may not be uh fully aware of what process has occurred. So they just see these these concept designs and they're like how'd you get there? We want to kind of bring them along and say we went we did a lot of work and talked to a lot of different
people to come up with these particular ideas. Uh and then we'll also talk about the mass development grant. So it's going to be a little bit more of the stuff um that happened earlier and then adding on at the end what happened at the SL. So we really hope a lot of
people come and kind of talk about it and get that dialogue going. I just want to be clear that nothing is definitive. Nothing is defined. This is oh these seem like good ideas. Let's vet them some more. That's kind of where we are. >> Just something anecdotal.
Tom will appreciate this because we're both on the library uh construct. Um people are now confusing not all people but in general conversation with so they can my neighbors are confusing the library project with
Madakis for example some of them are saying why isn't the library going over at Madakis why aren't we doing a more of a civic center in Madakis um if you're going to have because they're aware of some of the things they talked about in the madakis and all of a sudden they're saying gee how come the library is not going over there because
there's so many commonalities in use of space you know meeting space, instruction space, classroom space. Um, so we have to and of course our library project is moving up in front of the the the citizens in April also. So we we uh there's a lot going on. There's a lot
going on. The citizens are like being bombarded with a lot of uh and they're getting confused. They don't have time to spend like not that we have all that much time, but they don't have time to go through all the puts and calls associated with how how did you
get there? How come this wasn't you considered? It's getting it's getting um confusing. >> I think the key is and that's why we kind of have to go back a couple steps with the presentation on Wednesday is that they did the building analysis and it's not worth saving. It wasn't worth
saving 17 years ago and it's just been deteriorating ever since and it's not worth saving now. So there's never going to be, you know, kind of like a municipal center there using that existing building. It's just not >> the use of the existing building should have been clearly unequivocally rejected
>> and it wasn't it was ultimately Yeah. But earlier on there was let's take a look and see. That gave people hope that gee maybe we could save the auditorium, we could save the gym, we could >> these are bulldozers what it means. >> It's over and done with it. >> You needed a dialogue to pull everybody
along so everybody understood in this scenario >> and it's hard to do uh you know with a with a diverse it's just hard to do to educate people just don't have they pay attention just before they have to do something about it whe they're going to vote on it or you know testify then they
pay attention. Uh, and but they, you know, they're living their lives. They're living their lives, and they expect people at town hall to sort of move the stuff along for them and keep them well informed, and it's hard to do. >> Okay. Uh, moving along. Uh, meeting
minutes. May I have a motion to approve the meeting minutes of September 3rd, 2025? >> So moved. Second. >> Any discussion? All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. May I have a motion to approve the minutes of February 4th, 2026?
>> So move. >> Second. >> Discussion. All in favor? >> I committee updates. Anybody got a committee update? >> None. >> None. >> Library building didn't have a meeting
last week. Uh any board member updates? Um I did attend uh by Zoom the uh zoning board of appeals meeting um last week on
blue sky cellular monopole. Um and uh it's as if the original one that we looked at they just threw it out the window. >> That's what the court mandated I understand. >> And so they've shortened the poll. It's
down to We think 96 feet. >> Yeah. They pushed it back off further off of 28, right, Cath? >> Yeah. >> And moved around a couple of the utilities. I think the power generator, the there were there were a couple
minor adjustments. Uh, and the zoning board of appeal laid out some conditions about landscaping, which was good. And that was my comment because that was one of our one of our concerns. But it's it's it's essentially done, right?
>> It's the best we could have negotiated without them actually going to a different site. So, it's pushed back. So, a lot of the larger trees along Route 28 in the parking lot there can be retained. >> We're still talking about the church, right? >> Yes.
>> The highway. But now that they're not leaves on the trees, I mean, you can really there's a lot of, but in the summertime that's fully fully screened. In the winter, it's really a lot. >> When they did the DRRi, they the
commission asked them to do it the balloon test at the 120 and the 90 and then they did the renderings and it makes a big difference at least in the rendering. So, I really think them going obviously we had gotten from 120 down to 110, but those extra 20 feet I think are
going to be significant. You're going to see it for less. It's going to be more. Don't look. Just keep >> It's less It's less threatening if it doesn't like jump up in front of you. >> Hopefully, you don't hit a red light at Forest Road and you don't have to look at it because my understanding is they never did have an alternative site. That
was always the site they needed >> because they they just were hard. They just couldn't find any other site. So, very hard. >> They didn't, but that's the site they wanted because it was easy for them. Look at the look at the topography. It's easy for them to site coverage for cell towers.
>> Yeah. Yeah, definitely. >> It needed to be somewhere in that particular area. >> Okay. Um Kath, correspondents and any staff updates? >> Um let's see. I was going to talk about Blue Sky check. Um, I sent out the
public hearing notice for the March 5th Cape Cod Commission LCP public hearing at three o'clock. It's uh in person and remote. I'm going to be in person, I'm assuming. Are you going to be in person as well, Julian? >> Uh, March >> March 5th. It's a Thursday.
>> It's our victory lab. >> Yeah, good. >> We should all be proud. And then on the Monday, next Monday is the the classes for the open >> Oh, the open meeting law. Yes. >> Three o'clock and seven o'clock. Correct. >> Yeah. I think she only had two people who signed up for the 7 o'clock. So, if
she doesn't get more, she may cancel. >> Okay. >> Yeah, they had like 24 people signed up total. So, 22 in the afternoon and the other two. >> It's always good. There's there new open meeting laws, so it's helpful to um get up to speed. And then I think they're
going to do a little bit of the ethics stuff as well. Uh Anna reports are due. I gave a draft to to Joanne today. I was late on that. Um but we have a lot to be proud of with uh this past year. So we had two new members. So it's all been a
very exciting 2025 for the town uh county planning board. Um, and then just to let you know on May 2nd between 10 and three, um, we're going to have the Parker River Landing grand opening >> and it's also going to be combined with the resiliency fair. So, we're going to
try and have a bit of a to-do uh, at the site uh, that day. It's a Saturday after town meeting. >> What's that? >> I said it's a Saturday after town meeting. >> Relax after meeting the boardwalk.
>> Uh our upcoming meetings, Kath, you want to run through those with us? >> Yeah. So, um obviously February 24th. I'm going to I guess who's coming to the meeting on February 24th with the select board for the short-term >> Tuesday? >> Tuesday.
>> Tuesday. >> Oh, I'll go. >> I may I may go. So, I'm going to post it, I guess, is my point. I'll post the meeting, >> Kathy. And if I go, and I probably will go because I think I might use as a citizen, I think I'll use the
opportunity during that first 15 to to talk about um the concerns about rushing this uh seasonal thing. Use that as and I won't speak as a planning member. I'll speak as a as a citizen. >> You have a right as a public member to to to talk about it. I don't know
whether they're going to ask any questions of us if we're there. They usually don't ask questions during that process. >> Not not during that. I'm saying when they're talking. >> Oh, I see. Okay. Yeah. But I >> if they see staff in the back or they see a planning sometimes have you come. >> Yeah. But I'll be there and in addition and then I'll flop into the member of
the planning board designation. >> Um so our next meeting on March 4th is going to be the public hearing on the very minor zoning amendment article. I'm not going to advertise it very aggressively because I I don't think it's a particularly um significant change. Uh
and then we'll discuss hopefully and maybe make some recommendations and a possible vote directly after the public hearing. Uh, and then assuming everything goes well and there's been no appeal to the um 63 Thatcher Shore Road um subdivision, we will um I put that on
the agenda and you got to sign the actual >> Okay. >> So, very simple. Um unfortunately, we have a very heavy uh agenda item for March 18th. I tried to put people on the
fourth, but nobody wanted the fourth. Everybody wanted the 18th and you can let me know if it's going to be too much. But um we're going to have a public hearing uh for a use special permit for Becker's u liquors where they want to put essentially is a duplex two
units uh on the second floor of a very nice uh redevelopment uh project that they have. This is a use special permit. It's not >> liquor. Yeah. >> Are they will they take down the neon sun? >> I don't think so. It's kind of classic.
Is it a classic? It's classic. Um, they're doing a nice job and they did a nice job with the architecture and they really improved that whole parking lot. They're going to be combining. They own actually own three lots there and they're going to be combining that. So, they have double the minimum lot size for a duplex, but
>> for some reason the Lucas store is that it is >> in the back. Yep. >> Um, and then we have two village center overlay district projects that have kind of um they were submitted in 2025. One of them is for 645 Route 28 and that's
the mixed use one that has the 11 dwelling units and then two uh small thousand square foot each uh commercial that uh has gone through design review and site plan review. >> What's that property now Kathy? >> Oh, it's the old
>> dilapitated old Chinese restaurant. >> Chinese restaurant. >> Chinese kind of opposite. That applies to way too many properties. >> Yeah. Near the >> at least three >> near uh near the Sons of Aaron. Near the Sons of >> Aaron. >> With the roof like this. >> Yes. >> Saddle. They took something out.
>> What was the other one, Kathy? >> And then the other one is for 703 Route 28, which is the Gardener Tile property. Um that's right along Parker's River on the south side. >> Six condos. >> It's gonna be six. Yeah. And that's in
three duplexes. Uh again, they've done a really nice job with the architecture. They've done a good job with the site design. Um and that also has gone through site design review committee as well as site plan review team. And it's kind of they're just making some tweaks based on the comments, which I appreciate. And then they're going to be
submitting that. Um I think the 645 is the one that kind of um instigated the zoning amendment. >> You're right. I think they've talked about they're going to um ask for a
variance if we haven't gone through already. Um >> variance or special needs >> for for for us it's just site plan review for BCOD. Um, but because they're going to be beyond the maximum front yard setback because they want to take into consideration that 11 foot the mass
DOT is looking at taking uh I don't think they want to necessarily wait through the whole zoning process and they might just ask for a variance which I think they have a very good um chance of getting but also I think will help to say well we're going to be talking about it. We have an article on on annual town meeting justify uh help that moving
along. 703 didn't really need it. They were able to push the building back a little bit because has a certain criteria that says you need to be at least 30 feet back from um Route 28 if you're within 100 feet of the intersection of Parker's River and Route 28 just so you can keep up that
viewcape of the river. So, so that one actually ended up working out okay. So, that there's a lot of stuff going on on March 18th. So, it' be good if everybody could be here. It's very interesting. Everyone's done a good job. So, it's it'll be a success to to see
everything. Um and then the um the select board, we are on the March 10th agenda for the zoning. >> Be happy to know that we will be before the public hearing on the budget and >> capital. >> Good planning. >> I said I'm not doing it if you're
putting us at the end. I'll do it on the 24th. But but they Bob was kind enough. She said, "No, put them first and you guys can just go real quick." >> Yeah. >> The the um the zoning amendment I noticed today I moved 20. In fact, I've noticed all week, you know, they're doing they're starting to to join the
two parks along 28. They're um that zoning amendment covers Does it cover that part of 28? It does. It covers all of the >> No, it's in the VC this the zoning amendment that's happening at annual town meetings just for the VCOD that has a maximum front yard set. >> Okay. So, do you think that's going to
impact the I didn't think so. >> No, I I looked I don't recall. I haven't looked at it in a while, but I remember looking at it originally going, "Oh, that's not too bad." >> Yeah. Um there's no structures there or anything. It just be >> No, there's no structure. Although there is that condo right off that condo unit right opposite Jodino. It's got
>> it's going to impact them that >> that's what I thought. It's too bad because they have beautiful frontage. >> They did a great job with the burn. >> Yeah. Beautiful. Um >> so they're I just feel it's just so frustrating because they're putting all this work into that during the packs. And isn't that all going to be
disruptive when they do the route 28 upgrade? Isn't all what the work there now is that is all gonna is that all going to be disrupted? >> No, I don't think so. But it's worth talking to Britney about. >> Okay. >> And Nate >> I know
>> I know Nate knows >> because it looks spectacular. You can really see the water now. They've taken down. It's really going to be lovely. >> Yeah, it looks well looks gummy now, but you can clearly see the water. Uh it's it's going to make a big difference on that stretch of 28. Once you get in
there, you you're surprised that you kind of really feel isolated from Route 28, especially when they're going to have that. >> And it's also very it's also very quiet once you get further up. It's going to be lovely. >> It kind of goes down a little bit, too. So, yeah, >> I agree.
>> That's all I had for meeting. >> Okay. >> Uh so, may I have a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Nobody else is going to do it. I will. >> All in favor? >> I