Right. April >> and we didn't deliver it. >> I was gonna say what you just you just >> declarative sentence declarative sentences. >> Right. Nobody >> Good evening. >> Recording in progress. >> Good evening and welcome to the August
20th, 2025 Yarmouth Planning Board meeting. I am Joanne Crowley, chair. The public is welcome to attend our meeting in person or via alternative public access provided on the town of Yarmmouth website. Our meetings are generally held on the first and third Wednesdays of the
month, but additional meetings are added when needed. I'll begin by taking roll call. Susan Brida >> here. >> Dearra Gquin >> here. >> Will Rubenstein >> here. >> Jim Sabin. Peter Slovak >> here. >> Ken Smith >> here. >> Joanne Crowley present. Seeing we have a
quorum, I'll now call the meeting to order. And I would ask you join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance >> to the flag of the United States of America >> to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all. >> Kathy and I spent some time on the phone this afternoon as we usually do. Um the first item on our uh agenda this evening is zoning amendments. In our packets for review this evening are several pieces
of correspondence that Kathy has provided to us. One um is the uh summary of the select board. You okay? Should we wait? >> Nope. Keep going. >> Okay. Um the summary of the meeting we
had um at the select board on August 12th last week. Uh Susan and Deedra uh joined me and Kathy at that meeting. Um the the additionally we have in our packet draft number four of the fish shellfish retail
sales amendment and the draft number two the same one we had last meeting on boat storage. Um and which has not changed. Um and Kathy's going to run us through uh a couple of things and review with us
um the meeting with the select board. >> Sure. >> Probably do it like amendment by amendment. Um I'm sure some of you probably watched the select board meeting where Joanne and I presented the zoning articles at their August 12th
meeting. Um I just wanted to summarize for everyone. Joyce was definitely more open to allowing allowing um oh she asked the question about whether lobster sales was to facilitate the passage or whether it was some type of issues with the type of seafood. I think that's something that we can talk a little bit
more when I get into the marine fisheries conversation that I had. Um Mark Forest he he thought that he had discussed with the mass division of marine fisheries previously that it would be really hard to sell other types of
uh shellfish. There's kind of like two kind two kinds. So shellfish includes um crustaceans and and mollisks. Mollisks are all those things, the clams, muscles, oysters, scallops, and cohogs. And crustaceians are really just lobsters, crabs, uh and shrimp. And that there are some specific criteria with
regard to sale of mollisks and ask that we look into that a little bit more. Um Liz Argo thought that maybe with the upcoming town meeting, it might make some sense to limit it to lobster sales and investigate further expansion if we need to. uh depending on our research. Um Tracy asked some questions about the
health department and that they would need to be doing some type of of an inspection, but she had some com comments with regard to the signage. She was concerned that it might be neon or illuminated and maybe we needed to put some additional um guard rails on on that particular thing. And then she also expressed some caution about sculpting
zoning that would apply to one person um and wanted more information from the marine fisheries. Then she did ask one question was that um her last question was about the retail sales was being shown as being allowed by special permit in other
districts besides the residential zoning district. Um so that's something that we had made some edits to. Um so I'm sorry I don't have that inserted here but the marine fisheries the sale of mollisks can only be sold by the harvester to a wholesaler. So they can't
sell it directly to retail. The exception is if it's an aquaculture where the grower, harvester, and wholesaler are one in the same person. But currently, Yarmouth doesn't have any wholesalers. Um, live lobsters and crab sales are more likely as there's fewer regulations associated with that. Uh,
and we also have no native shrimp. So, it really would just be um live lobsters and crabs. Other types of fish like tuna, bluefish, and mackerel, um they're much more restricted because they are what are called histamine producing species and they require very specific
handling so that they don't get toxins in there and cause some serious illnesses and that's the reason why you can't sell tuna u directly from your from your boat. There's also the sale of other types of fin fish such as black sea bass and flounder are allowed via a limited entry system which means they're
managed access and there's only so many permits you can't get a new permit. you might be able to um get something that is transferred. Um and then he just discussed the three diff or the various different types of retail options that they would permit. One would be a retail boat at the dock side. That means
literally in your boat at the dock. Um a retail truck where people could sell it out of their truck. Kind of basically what Mr. Tally is doing exactly right now. Then there's also a farmers market retail sales. And then there's the retail stores. We only have three retail stores in town. stop and shop Shaws and I think it's Andrea's market, fish
market at the at the lobster boat. Um, so he was very helpful to get some additional information out there and he'd be more than happy to answer any questions that get derived tonight from you guys. But taking kind of all of that into consideration, the proposal that is is before you here is the draft 4.
Again, the yeses are all highlighted because I took that note out of there. Town council requested that it be a completely separate note and not part of note 7. He thought it would be cleaner in order to do that. So, it's note 55. >> Up to 55.
>> We can laugh at that. Yes. Um and he also did provide some guidance on if we were going to be allowing lobster sales only. Um and the stuff that's highlighted in red and and crossed out is is the direct edits from our last version. So, it would be just except that retail sales in the residential
zoning district shall require a special permit from a zoning board of appeals and shall be limited to lobster sales only. Uh, in addition, other applicable special permit requirements. Individuals selling legally harvested or caught lobsters shall be in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations may only sell what has been
personally caught or harvested by the resident of the property. And the lobsters must be sold whole and not prepared or processed. Special permits for retail lobster sales shall expire upon transfer of the property. That was something that was discussed at our last meeting. And then signage for retail sale of lobsters shall be limited to one
A-frame style sign not to exceed six square feet in area and to be located in the property during the hours of operation which may be further conditioned via the special permit. And that's the edits from town council on just if we wanted to go just lobsters. Um one of the things that I did talk to
Mark Grills about with regard to the signage things like um neon signs like those signs that you put in your windows, those are only allowed in the B2 zoning district anyway. So they wouldn't be allowed um anywhere else. LED lights obviously are very very limited in when we allow LED that's
basically gas station gas prices and our community information boards. So that wouldn't be a possibility but there is the possibility of them illuminating it. Some some sandwich boards I think I just was looking they actually have the illumination in it or somebody could put a little spotlight and have it illuminated as long as they're not
creating glare off the property. Um, so I think the discussion for you guys is whether um you want to specify that it's a non-illuminated A-frame or whether you guys don't care and you want to leave it and let it be illuminated and apply with the um with the signed bylaw. One thing
that I did get out of talking um with the state was there's a very big difference I think between selling something that's live like live lobsters and live crabs versus something that's dead like fish um which may be more prone to things like odors. Some of the
things that Joyce was talking about that might be of concern. So I think there is a very uh difference of what would be more impactful to the neighborhood and I think maybe live lobsters would be less impactful from the discussions that I've that we've had. Um, I also did go through and just left it as we
originally had it and added in these um, town council's additional comments that he had included when we were just doing it with with the lobsters, including that language with regard to expiring upon transfer of the property. So, you kind of have two options. One is to limit it to lobsters and maybe and we
could talk about signage and we might want to say must be sold live and not prepared or processed. That way, it's very clear. You don't want to eat or cook a dead lobster, people. Don't do not do it. Uh you'll get food poisoning from what I've been my re research has shown. So, um it's almost a double
positive um belt and suspender situation there because all of these things have to go through the health department and the state health department and you you're not allowed to sell a dead a dead lobster. So, so I guess I'm it's up to you guys on kind of how you want to proceed or if
you have any questions. Yeah, C Kathy and I discussed maybe the review for tonight. So, looks like there are on the on the basic language here. If we're comfortable with the basic language and we need to make a couple of adjustments,
we wanted to talk about the word live. I'm inserting that somewhere. >> Mhm. >> Um maybe in a couple of different places and then uh because that clarifies and and follows what the division of marine fisheries actually sent to us and
referring to live lobsters. Um so I think that's kind of a bit of a no-brainer. Uh I think uh we should probably follow their language. But the other piece was um the uh the sign which uh uh Tracy Post, our member of the
select board, uh did bring out about lighting. Um and maybe we have language in there that the sign is non-illuminated. So that's what I'd like to open up for discussion and kind of poll each of you
as to how you're feeling about it. I know I'm just presenting this now. Um, and I apologize for that, but Kathy and I were just meeting this afternoon and this kind of popped up. So, um, whoever would like to start. Um, it's it's really about the live and the uh,
non-elillumination. >> Madam Chair, I'll I'll jump in on that. And, um, >> I have no issues at all with the non-eluminated sign. I think it's appropriate, especially in a residential area. Um, you know, if we're going to restrict it to one A-frame sign, I think
it's more than appropriate to keep it as a non-eluminated sign, and I'm fine with the word live. I I do have a couple questions with some of the information that came up. And one of them I wanted just to get a clarification on the aquaculture. You know, the harvesting,
you know, currently we don't have any wholesalers currently in town. Does that fall under the agriculture category, I guess, is what I'm trying to get clarification on. This is from Stony Reed. because that's today. We don't have any wholesalers in town. What happens next week if somebody decides to
start raising oysters? So, I just wanted to get some clarification on that. I know it's not what we're talking about, but I'm just looking for an answer. And then I guess the some clarification question on one thing. Could we restrict a time time of sale within this or not? Saying if they're going to sell
residentially, it's only sale, you know, available from X to X. So somebody's not out there at 6:30 in the morning or at 9:30 at night. I think that takes away some of the concerns trying to think about the residential aspect of all this.
>> I think that's possible. The way it's written now is we kind of left >> the way it's written out. It's not in there. I'm asking the question, could it be in there? >> Well, it just says um to be located on the property during hours of operation which may be further conditioned via the special permit. Yeah. >> So, we can put we could try putting
something in or we can leave it like this and ask the public if they're interested in having specific hours if that's something that would make them feel better. I think Mr. Chie had very specific hours that he wanted to do it. I mean, and they weren't outrageous at >> and I respect what that but if we're
putting in there and opening up this box, then I think we better make sure that we have every base covered. And I just wanted to throw that out there for some clarification purposes. I just don't know what would be the appropriate times when I don't know when
somebody brings lobsters in. And so I that I just don't I didn't >> to me it's not to me it's not really about setting hours. I'm not trying to run a storefront but to me it's about the practice. If you're going to do it I don't want you doing it at 10:30 at night from your driveway.
>> Right. >> Because that's when your boat came in. >> Right. Because that's when your boat came in. Exactly. I'm trying to, you know, I'm trying to, you know, we're asking to do something that's out of the norm in a residential area and all I'm trying to do is respect people's neighborhoods and trying to set
some sort of parameter that we take that into consideration. >> Do you have a suggestion? >> You know, my feeling about it is not, you know, not available after sunset. I mean, that changes throughout the year, but you know, >> in the morning, how early in the morning? I hadn't really thought about
that to be honest with you. >> What are the hours now? 4 to 6:30. >> I think that's at the sign on >> 4:30 or 4. I can't remember what the sign say. >> 6:30ish. >> Something like that. I think it's 4:30 to 6:30 or 4 to 6:30. >> Sounds right. >> And it's one of those two.
>> Yeah. I mean, it's a understanding that Mr. Tolly's time frames are very restrictive and very narrow. Right now, today, there isn't anybody else doing it. But what happens tomorrow if I decide to start selling lobsters and I'm going to do it at 11:00 at night cuz that's when I'm available to do it. I think my neighbor would be really upset
with me. So >> I agree with you, Madam Chair. May I? >> Yes. >> But the last sentence of this does say that the property hours of operation which may be further conditioned. So doesn't that allow the zoning board which is to do this anyway? I mean, instead of writing particular hours at
our stop on the railroad, I'm actually totally fine with giving our friends at the zoning board, which I'm assuming they will gladly take the baton >> of establishing ours. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm just saying that if they're already going to be conditioning other things and it relates
to signs as well, I just want to throw that in. I feel I'm okay with the way it's written because I am very confident that our friends on the ZBA will establish hours when they condition when they when they write the special permit. That's the same way I feel about the signs. Ken, I hear what you're saying
and I am definitely sensitive as you are to the neighborhood, but um I would imagine that our friends at the ZBA would also be conditioning the signs as well. And for us to condition it before they do, again, not opposed to it. I just assume based on their track record
and the way that they operate that they're going to do a pretty good job of narrowing everything from here even further in the funnel. >> Yeah. Well, >> I'm saying the same thing. I >> Yeah, we we are Well, Madam Chair, I just wanted to rebut that just a second. We are conditioning it. We're saying you're going to have one A-frame sign on
your lot and and all I'm adding to that is not illuminated. I don't think that's conditioning any any further. So, >> yeah, that doesn't that certainly doesn't bother me. I hear where you're coming from. Peter, your thoughts? >> I I would agree with what Ken has what
stated. I mean, live I would prefer to see live and and not illuminated. So, >> okay. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> one last question before you go to Susan. Sorry, since we're going this direction, it seems like just to go back up one step based on what the gentleman from DMF wrote, we can't have
we can only go live lobster. We can't go we can't go for option two here. Right. But he uses he consistently used the word live lobsters. >> Right. But I meant in terms of the two things that are before us. The second one says including or caught seafood including but not limited to fish, shellfish, lobsters and
crabs. Well, it sounds like based on what the Mr. Case said, Mr. Reed, sorry. We have to limit it just to live lobsters. >> Yeah. No, the only they lobsters need to be sold live. But if you go with option two where you're having the fish, it just it's listed as being sold whole.
Because if you have a fish, it's not alive. Those can't because of what you learned today. >> Can't be sold anyway. >> Those can't be sold anyway, >> right? That's how I read it. >> That's how I read it. >> I think we're focusing Well, I think I was trying to focus on option one. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. I don't Is that So, let me ask it. Let me say it a different way. I'm in favor of option one versus option two. That's the information you're trying to get, Madam Chair, as we're pulling everybody. And yes, I'm in favor of option one. Yeah. >> And I do think the word live should be inserted before the word lobster
>> in in this draft where however you see fit. >> Yeah. Legally harvested and caught live. Obviously, they're catching them live. So, I don't know whether it becomes something where lobsters must be sold live and not prepared or processed.
Well, in that very in that very first sentence, right, Kathy, and shall be limited to live lobster sales only. >> And then at the very end, signage for retail sale of live lobsters. I would insert that as well. >> Ahead of me, people
>> limited to live lobster sales only. >> Maybe that's all you need to put it there. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> You don't need to put it everywhere. >> No, I don't think so. >> Okay. It's up to you to I don't >> limited to live lobster town. Can I make a comment? >> Yeah, certainly. If we use it in one place in front of lobster, we should use it in every place. That's consistent
with legal interpretation. Don't use it in one place and not use it because some lawyer is going to sit there and say it only pertains to sentence number one. Let's use it every place that lobster. I don't think it detracts. I don't think it detracts. And I think it really clarifies it's live lobster every time
we mention it's got to be live. >> So there's two other places we need to put it in. >> And I think it should say live lobster. Every time we say lobster, I think we should say live lobster. I don't think it detracts from anything. >> So, so we would say legally harvested, caught or caught live lobsters
>> and the live >> sale of live lobsters. And then >> so special permits for live, >> live retail lobster sales. >> Exactly. >> And then at the very end, signage for retail sale of live lobsters. >> Oh, >> guys are too fast. >> You said the word lobster is
>> special permit for retail >> sales of live lobsters. Is that where you're putting it? I think it also helps our friends at the zoning board of appeals as well. >> Yeah. >> Do you? >> Yes. I was just counting. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Sure.
>> Um I also like um the first option as opposed to the second. The more restrictions we have, the better, but I'm very aware of Ken's concerned about the hours. >> Um what I'm concerned about is the Let me
ask you a question. when when they apply I think when they apply for a permit they're going to have to indicate hours of operation on the permit correct Kathy if when they go to zoning to apply for a zone for they're going to have to say hours of operation >> typically they do and if they don't do
it they the ZBA always asks very particular >> so that that will give them an opportunity to sort of standardize 4 to 6:30 or 5 to 7 or whatever it is um so that what I don't want to see happen is one guy get a permit that's limited 4 to
6:30 and someone else comes in and says, "Oh, I got to have it 5 to 8." >> Mhm. >> And then you're going to have separate hour, same zoning but different hours and that raises hackles among, you know, the residents. So to the extent that we could signal to the zoning, whatever
they decide to do in terms of hours, it should be standard. Um there should be little opportunity to have like designer hours. Um because I don't think that's consistent with what we're doing here anyway. you know, we're we're introducing a commercial activity in a residential neighborhood. So, the more
restrictions we have or the more standardized in terms of practice, I think the better it would be. I don't think we should put it in here because I think it's too hard to determine. The zoning board should determine it because from the application, I think the application would say and then they can say, gee, you know, we just issued
permit last week 4 to 6:30. We want to be consistent and therefore we're going to limit you 4 to 6:30 even though your application says 5 to 8 or something like that. Um so I think they I think that that would be if we can signal to them or maybe they're just listening to this conversation tonight it would help
them but I don't know I don't think we can put it in here and make it reasonable because there may be some people that will want to do something longer than 4 to 6:30 with a reasonable explanation and zoning might be able to accommodate them. >> I just don't I think but I think it's an issue. I do think the hours are a
definite issue. That's number one. Number two, and I bring this up all the time. I brought it up with both storage and I'll bring it up again. What if there's an ADU on the property? Can they also sell lobsters? >> If they're meeting all the requirements, I would think that >> so you could have two you could have two
two activities on the same property >> is by the resident of the property, >> right? The resident. So So if there's a an ADU on the property, they also could apply for an op a permit to Okay. Um, and there's no restriction if the property is leased. >> The only way the owner could restrict it
would be to say in the lease, you cannot sell lobsters from the Okay. But so if even if it's leased, they can they can um apply for a permit. Even if there's an ADU on the property, they can apply for a permit. That's what we're authorizing. So, do you have a suggestion on language
as to how we would limit it to a single permit issued to this property? >> Yeah, >> I think that's how you limit it right there. >> Limit it to the address. >> Kathy, you're shaking your head. >> I just think we're getting we're really slicing the baloney really. >> Don't forget Kathy what we're doing. I mean, the residential neighborhoods are under assault. This we're now
>> likelihood of >> likelihood of two lot salesmen in the same neighborhood. But you know what they you I know you can't it's like trying to legislate you know >> harvested by the >> from the grave and you can't but this is a real life issue. ADUs are a real life issue. The state are pushing them very
very hard. Uh we're very proud of saying we're a voting community and uh if someone is got an ADU on the property and they want to do it um what's the town's position going to be? You know, I I think it states that it's
the resident of the property and then ZBA is going to decide the hours that are reasonable for that property and also maybe one ADU is on a different side street. I think ZBA is going to have to understand what you know what
they're tasked with doing when it comes to maybe multi- units on a property. >> So, you don't think the planning board should me mention at all the ADU issue? >> I think we would came up under the storage issue. >> I I I mean I I obviously would would
mention it because I'm very restrictive on stuff like that, but you know, it may not be >> the boat storage is not going for a special permit though. >> It doesn't matter. It's going to be activity on the private. I would But I'm just interested in how the board feels about whether we should address it at
all. I I think I agree with Peter uh in terms of that's why we have the ZBA for these kind of refinements, if you will. And certainly if someone came forward and wanted to have two permits issued on a
property and it just didn't seem right and there was enough public outcry, they would take care of it. >> Although, can I tell you, as a member of the zoning board, one of the major complaints, at least when I was there, was we got no guidance from planning. planning didn't say anything about this, you know, they left it sort of hanging.
So, I don't know whether we could >> I'm say it in a transmitt letter. I I don't know. I think it's an issue, though. And I think it is if it's an open issue, it will become an issue. And I don't know whether we should >> you could special permits for retail live lobster sales shall expire upon
transfer of the property. >> Do we do we limit it to the address? >> Special permit for retail shall be issued per >> address. I wouldn't say address. ADU has a separate address. >> You want to say per parcel? >> P per. >> I think it's per parcel.
>> Per parcel. Is that the the legal word? Parcel. I think it is, isn't it? >> Legal word for a piece of land is parcel. So, >> what if it's a condo? I'm just I'm just talking out loud now. So, right. I mean, we you know what's a
>> Exactly. >> one parcel ID. >> Yeah. Do you have small cottage colony. You don't want 12 people selling the lobsters. >> Right. Yeah. >> Right. >> Right. The competition is, you know, important to the free market. >> This is the danger when
>> Sorry, you led me there. I couldn't I couldn't just leave it alone. >> This is the danger when you start doing what I call designer zoning. When you're trying to solve one particular problem and you open up a can of worms, >> you could these like you say the unintended consequences. Um,
>> did dear have >> I don't I'm not sure where we landed on this in terms of >> Oh, I think we're going to add in um special permits after the special permit transfer property. Only one special permit may be issued per parcel. Only one special permit for live lobster sales. >> And Susan, it's fair to say that Kathy's
going to talk to town council again. And I assume that >> and and then we'll talk about this particular issue as well. And then I assume we'll hear something before the public hearing. >> Right, >> Deedra? Um I also think option one is the only way to go and uh that you know
adding live and um I have I think both have specifying non-illuminated and one per parcel sound like good ideas. I was curious about if the hours could be handled. I was
wondering why the last line change had been made from shall to May and maybe we should put it back to >> hours of operation shall be conditioned via the special permit. >> That's the way it was and that was changed by town council. I don't think he necess No. I don't think he
understood what we were trying to get at there which is we're really talking about conditioning the hours of operation. So, I can ask town council about that. And I think that the >> consistency that Susan mentioned might be problematic because what if somebody wants to sell them from 10:00 to 12:00
in the morning and somebody else from 5. I think they're really different. You know, people would have different uh schedules that's the lobsterman or woman uh might have two jobs. >> That's right. >> And could be a nurse, you know, at at
night or in the day. And so I I do have a suggestion on maybe saying during daylight hours. >> That makes sense. >> And then the constriction can happen at the zoning board of appeals. We we don't want it happening at night. >> Right. >> But I'd be kind of annoyed if they
started selling at 6:00 in the morning. >> Right. >> Yeah. That's Yeah. And but this is lobster season now. You're right. This is the the when when we have the most daylight. >> Sell them from a pier. That's really the answer to this. Um, >> so during so just so property during
daylight hours which may be further conditioned via the special permit. >> Yeah, makes sense. >> Or you could shall put it back to shall >> literally saying you got to define that further. >> I think if you limit it to that they shall be conditioned. I think we're
really splitting hairs now. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I really do. I think that if it says shall I think it covers let ZBA figure it out. And if you got a complaint that they're selling six in the morning, >> then you >> if they're not supposed to pick up the phone, then they'll be right. >> Right. >> So So no daylight hours.
>> That's what I'm That's what I'm one person. So >> that's all right. >> You started this K. >> I know I know. >> You come full circle. >> No, I what I'm saying and and Will's correct and everyone's correct actually. I think if you change it to SHA with conditions and the conditions are set by
ZBA. >> Exactly. I I think they're all hearing what we're having to say is that there should be some conditions and I agree with Dear and everyone that said it. I I would be upset if my neighbor was selling launches at 6:00 in the morning and I'd be upset if you saw it at 11:00 at night. So,
>> and it also helps what Susan said earlier. We are giving clear direction as the planning board. >> Yeah, >> we are by saying shall, not may. Dearra, I appreciate you catching that because that's a pretty big help. >> It's a very big help, >> I think, to the whole issue without having to say >> too much more.
Okay. So, strike daylight, I think. >> Okay, good. So, what I'll do is I probably will type this tippy tap up >> and then run it by you just to make sure that I think I I think I got it. I think it's pretty clear. Um,
and we'll go we'll use that. >> Can I can I just I have one last question about signage. We've said it's limited to, but then we say later that there's further conditions allowed. Right. >> Actually, the the the whole intent of that last line and I don't think town
council understood was that you're going to be conditioning the hours of operation via the special permit. >> Ah, so basically the sign issue is we're we have spoken. So one sign and well unelumin uneluminated right I think we're also adding in. But there's no because what I wrote here in my notes is
when I saw further conditioned I thought that meant could someone ask for more signs and that's what I wanted to make sure and I assume everybody agrees we're not willing to leave open a a gate to have people have more signs whether they're on their property or as was discussed earlier out on Route 28 which
is of course how we all got here. Um >> so I just wanted to make sure we weren't leaving that open and it was in fact closed. If actually if you put a comma after the word operation, I think that might get it. >> I'll defer to you and to town and to the town council. I don't know.
>> Read it that way that the sign >> that's what I wrote down. I wrote, "Does this mean I can have more signs?" Yes. And different kinds of signs. >> It does >> because I'm allowing ZBA to condition it. >> Y >> um and I guess the very last question I have, Madam Chair, is if we just imagine for a minute, and I know we're going to
have a public hearing in a couple of weeks. If we just imagine that we are Mr. Tal's neighbors and we've read this. How do we feel? I think that's sort of where my head has been the last couple of weeks because while I agree with Miss Britta that this is not necessarily the situation we want to be in, I think it's
fair to say where it's such a very very narrow um amendment that has to go to town meeting that essentially solves one problem for one person. That's not where we'd like to be. I guess the real question is even though we might not like to be here, are we
actually solving the problem that we're trying to solve? >> Yeah. >> And as a neighbor, I would think by giving the ZBA all the rights it already kind of has anyway and a little more direction based on some of the edits tonight, I would think that if I was Mr. Tal's neighbor, I would be happy for
him, but also know that there were some restrictions that seem entirely reasonable. That doesn't mean we will hear other things during our zoning hearing, Madam Chair, but it just feels like reasonable people trying to help a situation that
was sort of thrust upon us. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, but I'm I'm going back to what you just said before that should have been quiet. >> No, no, that's all right. I think the end of that sentence >> shall be further conditioned refers only to signage. >> Right. Right. >> That's what I want.
>> Or is it hours? So, it has signage for the sale of lobsters shall be limited to one A-frame >> not to exceed six square ft to be located on the property during the hours of operation. >> That all relates to the sign.
>> Uh the which shall So then the which shall we have to then bring >> the hours of which shall be governed because it's the hours. Okay. >> So there should be a period after the word operation. >> Separate sense separate. Yeah. Separate. >> There should be a period after operation. Period. Right. And we don't want to right because we don't want to
>> shall be further conditioned. Yep. >> And it was and it was unilluminated. Is that the right word? >> Non-illuminated. >> Non-eluminated. Sorry. >> So just during the hours of operation period and then say the hours of operation shall be conditioned via the special permit. >> Perfect. >> Yep.
>> There's lots. >> Hopefully town council. You're welcome. Hopefully town council will give us two big thumbs up. >> Okay. Uh we Okay. We're moving on. Okay. >> Good. Um, next item on our agenda is the amendment for boat storage. We have
draft number two, which did not change from our last meeting. Um, and we want to go through this again with the objective to reach some relative consensus on what we put forward to the
public that we are comfortable with having that public conversation about this. Um uh so I nothing has changed here. Um you did uh Kathy, you've got some comments from the select board on this. So you
want to remind us on those? Why don't we go through those? >> Sure. >> I think Joyce Flynn was really open to having allowing people do more things on their property and understanding the difficulty of trying to get the boats behind the house, especially if if you have a narrow side yard or or larger front yard. Um, but she didn't
understand that you really wanted to retain the on-site parking. Um, she thought she would be flexible with the boat location. Uh, she had no opinion on the seasonal seasonality of the boats in the driveway, but like the setting of a maximum length of the boat and limiting them to a single boat on a single
residential property to avoid it becoming a commercial endeavor. I think the thing that prevents it from becoming a commercial endeavor is they need to the boats need to be your boats. If you have more than if you have unregistered votes that are are registered boats to someone else, then Mark can come in and say you're running something funny here.
You got a commercial business in a residential zoning district. So that's that's just some something I wanted to put put out there. Um Liz confir she just wanted to confirm that again like what Susan was saying that the homeowners can limit the tenant boats via their lease uh and that the language
as written would allow for shrink wrap boats in the driveway. Um once that was all confirmed for her, she indicated she was okay with the draft language, but later after hearing Mr. Forest's comments, uh she said she would be okay with taking out the seasonality seasonal language. Uh Mark Forest was probably
the most positive and most four um changes. He did drive around town and saw a lot of recreational boats in areas where they wouldn't shouldn't be. But he also noted that in order to put it to the side of the boat uh side of the boat side of the house, you'd have to do a lot of ve of buffer vegetation removal, which he thought might be more intrusive
for people than having the boat in the front. He also noted that as a coastal boating community, there's a lot of people who would benefit beyond Mr. Childs with regard to these particular types of amendments. He was in favor of eliminating the seasonal clause kind of because of what Mark Grills had said
because we spent too much time already on boat enforcement. Um but he felt that we were on the right track. Um he did he did do some investigations on other Cape Cod communities to see whether they had anything on boats and he didn't he didn't find anything.
>> Did he say what that involved his his investigation? I think his investigation was talking to Mark who looked in the zoning bylaws for like four or five other communities. I don't know whether he did anything beyond that, but he I did have a conversation with Mark and he said he had looked up quite a few um and
he couldn't find anything on it. So, um but then that the original impetus for the 1970 bylaws he thought was more related to issues with campers and RVs. Um Tracy was not in support of it in 2019 and she is not in support of it today.
She continued to express concerns about the aesthetics of some of the boats um and that she didn't feel that this was really the vision for our community. She also thought it was a bit of a slippery slope um allowing for other things like campers in the front yards and then again concerns with people who would end up parking on the street if they had their boat in their driveway. She did
further state that including the seasonal requirement is better as something that might be a potential eyesore would not be located in the driveway all year round. So clear as mud. Um but as Joanne said, we because it was no
clear particular directive. What you're looking at today is what you looked at before and kind of seeing what what you wanted to talk about. I think the main thing that we're talking about really is the um seasonality of it or whether you
want to leave it as is to present to the public. >> Yeah, the the two issues I think we not issues but um provisions in this particular amendment um the boat length um and uh the seasonality uh were the
were the two. So, I'd like to get some sense of the board on those. Again, with the with the idea, we want to try to get something out um uh to the public. Uh that we'll have a public hearing and
we'll hear from the public on where they stand on this, but I'd like to get our best effort in terms of getting something out there that they can chew on. So, comments. Susan, Miss Bura, >> taking back on the on Ken's earlier
comments, um the more restrictions we can offer, I think the easier it's going to be to convince people that this is a legitimate use in a residential neighborhood. Um uh I think that seasonality should be considered. I think the length of the
vote should be considered and I think the number of votes on the site should be considered. That was all discussed I think at the at the selectment meeting. Um, the the the one thing that happened that I I think they misunderstood when they read the original language because I
spoke to both Mark and Tracy afterwards. They did not understand that the languages drafted would allow you to put two votes on the lot, one in back and one in the driveway. Um, and I said, "No, that's that's not our intent." Uh, it may be our intent, but that's that's
not fixed. That's just what we've written now. But there's been no universal agreement on that at all. >> Susan, can you talk into your mic? I can't even hear you. >> You can hear me. So, so I again I think because like we did with the lobster issue,
residential neighborhoods are under siege. I just wrote down six things right now that we allow in residential neighborhoods that are resident residential neighborhoods. people buy in a town in a residential neighborhood and they have reasonable expectation that
the town will protect their investment. Some of this is driven by the state. Some we have no control over. Uh but we are allowing uh boat storage at least some version of boat storage. Um we have limited we we're saying on that one at
least not um on the lobster at least we're limiting it to one one you know sale commercial sale but we're allowing commercial sales lobster sales and residences. Uh right now you can have a home business in a resident. You can have um childcare centers which we have
no control over. Once they apply they get the permit and they meet certain conditions but they get the permit. One of the conditions, by the way, is they're allowed to have channelling fences, which is, I think, the only place uh that they're allowed in in in residential neighborhoods in a childcare center. They're they're allowed to have
that. Um, and then I think Mark mentioned at meeting last week or two weeks ago that the state has just lifted all restrictions on elder care centers at homes so that people can run elder care. They had been restrictions similar to child care, but those restrictions
are all now gone. And that's that. So I think there was a restriction on certain packing hours, stuff like that. He said those have all been eliminated and he just found that out last week. And then of course the big one is ADUs. Um so residential neighborhoods and they are the backbone of our tax base. I mean as
everyone knows we have a skewed tax base. Residents pay more than businesses do. And I think the more we do to um and if you look at the the definition of zoning um that it says that zoning is supposed to be used to ensure
consistently consistency of land use and that generally is what it does. You know certain size homes, certain size lots as well as protect property value and neighborhood character. Um and every time we're considering something that detracts from that, I think we should
take it very seriously. and on boat storage. It is a huge issue. Um it's a very sensitive issue in my neighborhood because it is consistently violated. Uh and because everyone wants to be a good neighbor, no one calls Mac unless it's the the bad one that was halfway in the street. You couldn't even get down the
street and then Mark did and recalled and something happened. Um, so I think we have to take it I think we have to come up with something that is still protects the character of a neighborhood and property values while at the same
time recognize that there is a reasonable use for your property, but does that reasonable use conflict with the overall character of the neighborhood? And that's a tough thing to figure out. Um, but I do think the the you know the the more
restrictions we have the the better it will be from a an explanation point of view for people because some people consider boating a hobby and they don't want to see as as Tracy very clearly said she does not want to look out her front door and see boats and trailers across the street. That's not the
character of a residential neighborhood and a ton of people feel that way. Um, so if we limit it to, I don't know, size and seasonality and either in the driver or in the back, I think that sort of softens her her concerns. Um, but
we're considering two things tonight, the storage and the lobster that again detract from the residential neighborhood characteristics and property values. And so I am all for restricting as much as we can and and um uh the way this is
written I absolutely would not support it. It opens up parking everywhere. It opens up two boats on a piece of property. Parking in the street. There's no requirement. You can't park. So I just don't think that that's the right thing the way and I don't certainly don't
think that's what preserves property values or neighborhood character. Madam Chair, I'll I'll add quickly to that. You know, I I I appraise the last three or four, five, not there's not many subdivisions anymore, but the last few that I've appraised, all the
covenants or subdivisions don't allow boat parking anywhere, you know, outside of their garage or camper parking or anything. So people are looking for that, you know, that that they want to buy a lot in a subdivision with
consistency and, you know, without having to look at boats or campers or anything. >> Clothes lines, even some of them don't like allow clothes lines. >> So, >> Madam Chair, yes, >> I'll jump in and, >> you know, to echo a little bit of what
Susan's saying, um, on the amount and the length, 100% on board with that. I think we should take a look at restricting the amount of boats, the length of the boat that's on the property. I did a little informal survey with some of my friends that own boats and talked to them a little bit about
it. they are fortunate enough to be able to park either in a marina or beside their house at the moment, but they're coming back to me, which echoed to me is look, if you're looking to put it in the driveway, and this may not be the case in all, and I hear everybody, but if it, for example, the petitioner who brought
this in front of us in the beginning, he can't get it beside his house. >> So, what is he supposed to do? And I guess I would not have a pro, you know, where I'm going with it is if we put it with a restriction of April through November, what's he doing on November
2nd, park it in the street? He he has no place to put his boat. So I do think the seasonality I would if we kept the restrictions on the amount, the size, I wouldn't have an issue giving that up. The one thing I do and I feel strongly about though is I think this onsite or
what does on-site mean? Because onsite to me means if you put the boat in the driveway and now you have no place to park in your driveway. So I'm going to park my car on the lawn. So I think we got to take a hard look at how we restrict that adequate driveway parking
for the additional vehicles. It's the second to last the last sentence where it says adequate on-site parking remains for the property. Well, to me on site means anywhere on my property at that point. Onsite driveway parking.
>> I guess I'm asking for some help. >> Yeah. >> Refer to it as driveway, >> right? >> So, are you going to identify the surface of the driveway? Grass, gravel, pavement, asphalt. What I mean, are they going to put it shells, >> pavers? I mean, because they're just going to park it on the they're going to
park it on the other side of the house or in the other setback area. I mean, it's not going to solve the problem. It's going to put it 10 feet off of someone's house on the other side. So, you're going to have boats and cars in the front of the house,
>> right? >> We have a very small lot and a very small driveway. So, we put in one of those gravel parking pads so that people can park in front of our house. So, we don't have a boat and don't intend to get one, but conceivably we could park
it on that if uh if we said on It should be on your property, >> but it is our, you know, it's the the the first slip. >> Yeah. But that's probably an easement, so it's not really our property. >> Yeah. Everyone says there's a road layout, and the road layout goes beyond
the edge of the pavement. That's part of that layout. Yeah. >> If you're on a private road, it becomes a little bit more confusing as to who who owns that. all of your comments are are very very valid and that's kind of
it went away before because there's so many questions um and good question. I don't know how to write it that wouldn't be five pages long to cover everything that's being talked about. Maybe I'm exaggerating, but
>> Madam Chair, I'll finish. I think just without without a seasonal restriction, you are going to get at some point in some neighborhood people abandoning their boats in their driveway. >> Or Max said they go to Florida and he'll be chasing down.
>> The economy shifts and they can't afford to have the boat or it breaks down and it may not be a nice white shrink wrap. Might be a blue tarp from Job Lot, you know, with some concerned some string and >> Yeah. You're welcoming more problems,
possible problems. >> Mr. Rubenstein. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I think it was mentioned earlier this again, this was thrust back upon us. Wasn't something we were looking to uh get in the middle of >> and I was just trying to think about
what is the problem that was brought to us and that we were asked to solve >> that he could not get his boat beside the house. >> Right. So that's what I keep coming back to is >> in back of the house because he was going under the current zoning which said it had to be in back of the house. >> Front face of your property
>> face of the house. Susan >> Will's got Keep talking Will. You got a good idea going here. >> Well, no, I'm just I I I don't know if I do or not. So I think what what we've done though is what we've we've expanded, right? We've now gone from one boat to two.
>> Not necessarily. >> It says exception, right? So everything that isn't red. So, anything that's in black and white is what the existing zoning is, right? >> So, um Oh, actually, you're right. It doesn't say the number of votes. >> No.
>> Okay, my bad. >> I think if you want to solve the problem, and I I appreciate you keep bringing it back to solving the problem to me today. >> Why not allow it via special permit? If you cannot locate it behind the front face of your building and you have very
legitimate reasons that you can't do that, right, >> why not say >> you can go to the to the ZBA for an alternate location provided that all these things >> okay and then >> would be public notice >> and Mrs. Brida I think would also appreciate the public notice component
of that. I'm not debating the the merits. I'm just saying in general because I we've been consistently listening to your to your um concerns especially when we talked about ADUs >> that the public notification is then built in. And then our friends at the zoning board who live and breathe every
single lot in town to the extent that we don't because we fly a little higher off the ground. Not that they don't, but they get involved in individual lots in a way that we choose not to and don't. And that would allow them to literally do what they're good at doing, which is legislating individual lot concerns
based on broad zoning guidelines that aren't hopefully too broad. Um I, Madam Chair, would find that very attractive. Again, as long as um we are solving the problem that was at we were asked to solve. Well,
>> he'd have to go to the zoning board of appeals, show that he had no room on the side, >> which he would document based on his very particular site layout and site conditions >> and that's why >> are unique for him. >> That's why I'm intrigued by that idea because I think I said this at a
previous hearing. This is a zoning bylaw for the entire town of Yarmmouth. And our town is so varied from from from, you know, from front to back, Yarmouthport to South Yarmouth. There's so many different considerations. There's so many differentiz lots.
There's so many different neighborhoods where like for instance in my neighborhood, this just is not an issue at all. That doesn't mean it's it's not a real issue because it's a real issue in other neighborhoods in my own town. And so I'm just hesitant, again, I'm
just one person. I'm just hesitant to um to really put something out there that also I think we would all agree may not pass. >> And I think ultimately, and again, it's not the driving factor, but one of our considerations, I think, has to be what
was the problem we were asked to solve? and B, notwithstanding the recommendations of the select board members, and they've made themselves pretty clear, at least based on the initial draft, will it actually pass? Um, and it would be interesting to me if we did choose, Madam Chair, to to turn
this, sorry, pun intended, shift a little in a different direction and defer to the ZBA a little bit more and then have our public hearing and then hear what actually people have to say who are living and breathing this stuff. And as Miss Brida indicated in
particular neighborhoods and deerra as well where this might be attractive in the sense that it would go through a process with public notification and individual quirky considerations would get handled by the right uh by the right board as opposed to us trying to not
arbitrarily us trying to do our best to solve this problem ourselves. Thank you madam chair. I guess the only thing I would say is I think when when you and I were talking Joanne, I thought you meant like a special permit to allow anybody to get one in the front, but I think getting back to what Will was saying, let's limit it to solving the problem.
There's certain number of people out there who have boats that can't fit it to the side for very legitimate reasons. Give them the opportunity to go for a special permit. You may have people say, "Well, I could fit it there, but it's not convenient, and I want to get a
special permit." Sorry, we're not solving everyone's problem today. We're going to solve the the situ which I think probably is far I was concerned that there would be like every boater would want to go and get a special permit that would overload the ZBA. But if we're just doing it for people who have a legitimate reason they can't get it to the side. It gives them some
mechanism other than a variance to get relief because of a uniqueness of their site then I think that makes sense. >> Could we give some guidelines though, Madam Chair, like we just did with the lobster with the lobster amendment? Could we say and the ZBA should please consider the length of the boat, the
time of year, and the >> number of boats >> and the number of boats? Right? Like we could still give some guidance, right, Susan? Because as you said earlier, ZBA didn't like it when it was too broad, >> right? They like guidance from plans. >> So maybe there's a and we've I think we've sort of through this process come
to there's three or four main issues and then we just let the ZBA legislate as they are effective at doing an individual lot decisions. >> Yeah. and have our narrative with them reflect our concerns about seasonality, size, and number. >> And that would if somebody had >> those three.
>> And if there was a if somebody had a a 40 or 50 foot boat, obviously that's not going to fit besides many house, but that wouldn't be one to stick in a driveway either. >> Yeah. >> But that's what BZA would say. They would make that and especially when they notify the the residents around them, the neighbors would step forward
hopefully and say, "No, >> this is this is but this is seasonality on a trailer." Mhm. Right. >> We're not talking about storage, >> but but the word says storage, but it says packed or stored. >> Current current. >> So, you're you're saying you still want to include the seasonality. So, if
somebody can't never get it behind to the side, no one gets an exception all year round. >> Yeah. I I think that's inappropriate, Madam Chair. If I'm, you know, if somebody can't get it to the side for whatever that reason is, their lot isn't big enough and they're going for a
special permit through ZBA, then I think you have to grant them the right if they're going to ZBA to let ZBA do their work and make the decision to say, "Yes, Mr. Jones or Mrs. Jones, you can park your boat in your driveway as long as there's adequate parking for the cars. It's not in the street, etc., etc. It's
not a fire hazard." I think we spelled out everything we have we want just how we rewrite it, >> but it would include seasonality. >> It would not. And if it's under a special permit, >> this is this is where this is where I was going. >> Okay. I'm sorry, Madam Chair.
>> Sorry. That's okay. Um, and some of us are boat owners. Um, and when you buy a boat, um, you know, it's like standing in a shower and ripping up $100 bills. We all know that. Uh, you need to know where you can put it in the off season.
>> Sure. >> And you need to know if you've got to go to the new Milway Marina and pay whatever it is or you got to go to ship shops or you got to go to a friend's house who has room at the side of their garage. That's what you got to do. I I
think my my suggestion to Kathy was more about seasonality in the driveway so that they can use the boat. they can use it during their during, you know, April to November. But after that, if you can't fit it appropriately under our
zoning bylaw, find another parking space. >> So, it would be it would be what we have here and this would be subject to special permit. >> Correct. >> You'd only be eligible for the special permit if you were unable to because of the uniqueness of
>> Yeah. Yeah. You know, it's sorry I I'm I'm not sounding very nice, but you own a boat. >> You You have responsibilities to to take care of it and put it where you can, right? >> Um and if it doesn't fit next to your house, >> you know,
>> why buy it? >> That was the purpose. >> Exactly. >> That was the issue of the one. >> I don't think that's up to us to tell the person whether to buy it or not. Period. >> I I I I agree. But my my point is that there are there are things you need to take into consideration if if that's a
particular recreational vehicle you want to own um and use um in the town of Yarmouth. >> And would the the seasonality of it the way we would word it as a special permit? What about the people I do see neighbors
who keep it by the side of the house but bring it to the driveway in the summer and I know they aren't allowed to yet but I'm just saying that >> would this permit them to just say oh now I can keep it in the driveway all year and I don't have to move it back. We'd have to >> that's not what I'm suggesting.
>> Yeah. And we we have to make sure that we can write it that way. >> Their their their ability to properly store it behind the front line of the house. They're good to go on that. Yeah, >> but now they could apply for a special permit to actually have it in their
driveway on a registered trailer and use it during the season back and forth. >> And other people who simply have no way to put it beside or behind the house could apply for a special permit to have it out front all year. >> No,
only seasonal. But then they would have to put it >> somewhere and they would have to have adequate parking. They couldn't put it in front of the house and take away the parking that >> that's where the ZBA will pay attention to that. Where's your parking going to go? What do you do? >> Their specialty. >> Okay.
>> But so this would not this would not help the person who wants to pull it out in their driveway because it's easy access in and out during the voting season unless it happened to be one of those lots that got a special permit because they couldn't put it to the side or beyond the place. >> I don't know if this is all going to fly with town council, but it's a very
interesting conversation. And as Peter just said to me, if it's okay if I repeat it, I think this will also help Mr. drills that yes >> that you know in the cases where people are in violation and there is a special permit in place >> he can >> a certain which obviously some people
will just have to get then it'll be very simple for him to enforce >> and he will be notified with every application >> and and right and it won't right I don't know that feels that feels good too I mean obviously we don't know what the unintended consequences are going to be but it does feel like that could be a good positive one
>> the intended unintended consequences though if they do it with the restriction of seasonality is he's going to be s spending his winter months right >> running around citing people who have their boat parked their driveway >> they have a special permit they're going to they're going to know of limitations I mean right it's going to be they can still be in violation
>> and and um the other thing they could do is >> if they do violate it they can make special permit just for a year and you have to come back every year to get a special permit if you violate it you will not get one the second year >> so they could put a restriction they could put the special permit for a only
um kind of like we >> that would be a condition that >> so that >> with the seasonal motel right for some for our employers >> know if there were violations and that way the board can control >> oh sorry right >> oh okay >> never mind >> typically I I mean what they will do is
they'll take people come back for a one-year review >> I don't know what happens in that one-year review if they're not happy um but sometimes then they can get some additional compliance with that review >> the fact that it's a special permit with public notice is just a huge boost.
>> Y >> for local, you know, let the neighbors feel that they've got some control over their environment. >> Um and and the board, as you know, is very sensitive to that. They do listen to neighborhoods, neighbors issues and comments all the time.
>> So, Kath, do you have enough to >> I do, but I I could write something up. I'd want to run it by town council. I'm a little uncomfortable without you guys looking at it before I have to advertise it for
the public hearing because then technically it's kind of like out there and usually you like to give some description of what the >> Can you work backwards Kathy just for a second with us understand what you're saying and translate that into actual dates. >> Yeah. 17th of September is public
hearing. >> Oh boy that's soon. So by like the 29th of August, I'd need to >> send it to the Cape Cod Times >> for publication on the 2nd and the 9th, >> which means we really hope the town council is available in the next
>> that's a week from Friday, >> right? >> So I guess my point is is you guys need to look We've changed it completely. >> Yeah. >> So you guys need to look at it again. >> Okay. um you know and I'm wondering whether we just have a one agenda item
>> meeting on w next Wednesday and just kind of try and bang bang this out. >> Madam chair I'm out of town next week but that's fine. >> Okay. >> Can we send it around for public comment back to you >> prior to the meeting and it can be discussed at the meeting. >> You can provide me your written comments and then when we pres we'll just present
it at the at the meeting so everyone will know. >> Will everybody else be available? >> Uh let me just >> What is the date? That would be the 27th. I need four. >> Let me just double check, Madam Chair. Stand by, please. >> At 5:30. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yep.
>> First pitch 6:30. Kathy, aren't we essentially just taking what we have here and just adding shall be conditioned further by >> I don't think it's very complicated and I'm but I'm out tomorrow so I wouldn't be able to put the wording together until Friday and then I don't know exactly how quickly town council would look at it. So I wouldn't even probably
be I mean Monday would be the earliest I could get it out and that's assuming I get responses from town council and then we you know I'll run it by Mark. We'll probably have some good comments we haven't talked about. >> Are we taking what what's here? >> It's very similar. I don't think it's super super complicated. I could attend
via Zoom, but I'd be happy to attend. >> Yeah, I think Peter, I think it's this language, >> right? >> And it's just, you know, working in the language similar to the um uh the lobsters, we're subject to a special permit.
>> And just for a second, please >> just for a boat that can't be located behind the front. We're not getting into anything else. No, it's just both. The boats. >> And if we could just put on one other hat, Madam Chair, before we go march on, if we put on our I if we pretend like we're on the ZBA, right?
>> This doesn't feel like an overwhelming ask, right? For certain. Well, I'm just saying it doesn't feel that way. Let Let me separate the issues for the lobster. It's pretty clear it's one most likely one person is going to come to ZBA to get a special permit to sell live lobsters.
>> All right. >> That's how it feels. Yes, >> it's based on current information. >> Even he testified he's probably the only guy in town that does this. So, >> right. >> So, whereas this would definitely could well this could potentially in you know >> there could be a lot of people
>> going to ZBA. >> Yes. >> But at least it would go through the right channel just like other ways of making these kinds of decisions get made in our town. Right. We're not >> Right. >> Yeah. Okay. And and if we if we
>> as we said if we transmit to the ZBA the concerns we had all of them um they then have a framework and they um also have the ability to prioritize things that are important. We had a hard time doing that. >> Um whereas the ZBA clearly can't. And if
the residents all step forward and say the boat's too big then that's going to be the priority for that permit. So that gives them a little more ability to more leeway to come to a decision on each individual case. Um whereas we were trying to solve a collective
and couldn't prioritize all the important things >> and then that >> I'll try. >> You're good. >> I'll try. >> Okay. All right. Um I'm trying right now, but >> and you know you can will you try to get
it out fly by us um by Monday next week? It would have to be if we have the Wednesday meeting, right? >> I will definitely get to what I have and run run by Mark because I cannot get access to him. I may not get the final comments from town council till the meeting. Yeah.
>> But yeah, >> Mark is important though. He's as important as town council. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Yes, I'm always he's very insightful. It'll be interesting to see what he has to say. >> Hopefully, he'll agree with our definition of intended unintended consequences.
>> Okay. On to the global comprehensive plan. >> All right. Talk about the the other stuff first before we go into the comments about the format. >> Oh, yeah, sure. Um, well, we had the presentation to the board. um last week
um and I I thought it went I thought it went pretty well. There was some uh I think a little bit of a misunderstanding um with selectman forest with regard to what's required for the capital portion capital chapter.
Ken, I'm not sure if you had a chance to see the >> I saw parts of it, >> but he was he was very concerned that, you know, about the money and in our notes from Kathy, we've heard from Fincom, the chair of FinCom again, you know, where's all the money going to
come from? Um and so they ra they raised um that issue. Um but I thought overall it was a very a very positive positive meeting. Um the second thing um we wanted to talk about is the a
realignment of the chapters in the yes LCP. >> Um as we were going through it um the chapter on um uh action items um it it seemed disjointed. you know,
you we went through the whole chapter three of of of existing conditions, things the town is doing, and then we jumped to housing, and then we jumped to So, when Kathy and I were talking, we're thinking of realigning that chapter and
get it right up close next to in front of the housing chapter. Um uh and we're going to clear that with the consultants to see if they can >> Yeah, I did talk to Jeff today and that that type of moving around is Jeff Bag
>> is no big of an uh of an issue. Um and I actually did look at Brewster actually has it in that format >> which I thought was interesting. So they have the existing conditions, all that information in the next chapter brings you right to the targeted action items for all those things we've been talking about versus getting bogged down with
some of these other chapters before you get to the targeted action plan. >> Madam Chair, >> matrix would stay at the end. >> Can we talk about the table of contents for just a second or is it not the right time? >> That was the other table of contents needs to be significantly expanded. >> Okay. So all my So maybe after the
meeting I can give you all my thoughts. >> Yep. >> Well, we it needs to be much more detailed, >> right? Okay. because there's a pretty big jump between chapter 3 and chapter 4 and it's it's crying out for the natural built and community systems. >> No, that's exactly what we're all in the same. Sorry. And then also a couple of
appendices as well at the end >> because we have all these abbreviations but we don't call them out. I can do this after the meeting. Madam Chair, I don't want to I don't want to take up our time. >> Well, there's there's an abbreviation of funding services and there's an abbreviation for responsible partners. And I think I think those should be
listed as appendix A and appendix B. >> Oh. because some people are going to want to have the ability to just go to like what's all this what are all these acronyms. Jeff had talked about that in the last time we had live and he did say that was going to be added that there would be an appendix with a >> Okay, >> they're in there. They're just at the
very end of the implementation matrix and you're saying it might make sense. >> I would say just call them out and just call them what they are. >> Okay. >> Which is Yeah. And then and there were also I assume just because of formatting there's a bunch of page numbers in listed in the table of contents that are not accurate.
>> Oh yeah. >> And I assume that'll just get fixed. Yes. In post as they say. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Uh, so Kathy's going to run through um in in whatever speed you would like, Kathy.
>> Comments that she has received um and hopefully you've been able to >> catch up with a few of them. >> I'm going to let I'm going to let you run with it. >> Sure. We've gotten a few comments and between what was in the packet and then some supplemental stuff that I've sent
you. Um, I think it would help us if we can kind of go through those comments tonight and kind of get an idea of whether you guys think we should be incorporating it or maybe that's a great comment but not necessarily something we need to put into the local comprehensive plan then we can start we being BSC group and myself can start you know
redlining some stuff so that we're not waiting until the very end to move things around. Um so basically um getting back to the select board meeting, there's a summary here. Um Liz Argo is going to work on providing some statistical information on how much solar has saved us. She wanted to
emphasize that. Uh and then she's also going to provide some additional information for the existing condition sections on these new upcoming solar opportunities that are statewide incentives that are coming in December that I don't know anything about. She also had a good question about what would you know she was just thinking what does the town do in a particular
emergency and I do know that the fire department and is working on a comprehensive emergency management plan and I think that that's something that we should incorporate uh as an action item and coordinate with fire on that. Um it's probably something that we should also include in the hazard
mitigation plan uh as well. So if those three sound good we can work on incorporating those into the document. Um Liz noted that energy really wasn't in the capital plan, but I don't necessarily think we need to include that there.
>> We have action items elsewhere for that. Um and then she was also talking about sustainability requirements in the zoning bylaw. >> Um my concern is mandating them because we just had all of this mixeduse uh panel discussions with people about how
much everything is more costs more and more and more. We're already a stretch energy code community, so that already increases housing versus, you know, trying to add more requirements. I I think there's a lot of people who are going to be interested in doing some of these things, especially if there's
these particular incentives that Liz is talking about, but I'm I just didn't think we needed to mandate. >> Yeah, ma'am. Madam Chair, just to touch on that, the energy management plans are part of the modern day Bokeh plan, which is the federal plan for building. You don't we don't need to mandate it within the whole zoning article in this. So
there's there's plenty of stuff on it. >> That was my thinking as well. So um Joyce didn't really have any comments that modified the amendment. She just was appreciative of the work and then referenced the municipal energy manager who might be able to help with some of
the energy comments that Liz had. Uh Mark Boris, a lot of his comments, he was very positive about the whole the whole um LCP. He felt it was readable and digestible. He did have a lot of comments about uh the capital budget, but I think he talked to the commission.
They kind of talked him through what it's supposed to be and he's comfortable with the level of financials that we have uh in there. And then Tracy was just kind of emphasizing that she really wants to get the follow the Cape Cod Commission process and get certification. Um did send me uh an email that had a
couple other things in it besides the things that we already went over. um basically starts with the energy committee. She's right. I mean the 2021 is a while ago uh and they really haven't accomplished those. But um maybe I'll just modify it to say I know that they've reconstituted themselves and
they're working on their fiveyear. So maybe instead of referencing the 2020 one, we can say they're working on it in existing conditions if that makes looking to anyone to say. >> Um >> yes, >> she also wanted to be sure that where we're talking about EV chargers, we're talking about level three. We can
certainly add that in. Um, and then one of the things that she mentioned, and this came out of the study, I think it was the presentation that Amanda Lima, the town engineer, gave about the um, study that they're doing south of Route 28. Your your neighborhood's very involved in it with regard to sea level rise and egress and that type of thing.
But what came out of that was, you know, there's a lot of homes that are in the flood plane and then when they want to elevate themselves, uh, then they start running into the height restriction. But then if you get too high, then you have neighbors who used to be able to see something and now they can't. >> I don't I think it's something for us to
think about, but not necessarily something that needs to go into the into the LCP at this point. We we talked about it briefly at one point and had all those conversations about this was probably like four years ago uh about the concerns with um I think this is one
of those things Kathy where and there's going to be a few of these where you know the LCP is going to have adds and subtractions once it's approved um and so we just put this on our kind of tick list to remember to think about this in
year one or two Um, I'm not really sure what we don't talk about the grant for the town common or library in chapter 3. You just mentioned the fact that we got some funding to look at a feasibility study for the town common. So, I don't think we need to do anything. >> I thought we voted on a town meeting. We
actually got a grant as well. >> No, we got a library grant, but I don't know what >> I thought we voted at town meeting for money to study the >> $1,000. >> Is that what she's talking about? >> Okay, sorry. Moving on.
>> Sorry. And that was just our email. Um, we did get a nice uh email from Oops. >> Robert Harding. He's on the finance committee. And again, his concern, as Joanne said, how are we going to pay for all of this? And yeah, that that needs
to be a detailed analysis needs to go on uh in order to figure that all out and when our debt drop off happens and what we can insert there. I had a long conversation uh the email exchange rather with Mr. Zerbil. He lives in the Kingsway area and has really really bad
cell service. Um, and there's a lot of uh people in that Kathy neighborhood that are >> Zerbal. Zerbal. Yeah. >> It's right here. >> That's the >> who are older people. Maybe they have some medical alert type things and about
possibility of getting a a cell tower there. I think that's something I've had a lot more exchanges than this with him than what you see here. Um there's some possibilities of some some things to further discussion. I hesitate to put too much into the actual LCP because
we're we just had the whole blue sky tower where we had a lot of concerns about it >> and if we start saying things about you know putting in cell towers for coverage gap that may be something that people point to and say see you already have it in your LCP. So this might be a thing I
personally think that we can address outside of the LCP. >> Great. I don't think we should get too granular. It gets too finite. That's such a pointed. >> However, the issue is real. >> Oh, definitely. >> And I live not that I mean I live somewhat close to there. >> Definitely. >> And it is it is dead.
>> Very much so. >> A dead zone. Not to mention Forest Road, which is obviously in a different part of town also a dead zone as it relates to the Blue Sky Tower. Sorry. >> No, I agree with you. Um Jay Grandandy um he works for the town
obviously is the interim economic development project manager. He his one comment had to do with um when we're looking at a community development corporation maybe in addition to saying blighted or vacant properties we add in gray and brownfield land. >> No harm in adding it in. It's just an
expansion >> that's right >> of it. So I'm fine with adding that in. Um, please let me know. >> Yeah, that was Mary Wagan had also mentioned >> yes comments on that same thing >> and that yeah and I had commented on
action item eight on the housing specifically talks about that as well. So there's no harm in bringing it together. One's a economic redevelopment and one's more of a housing on those particular types of project properties. So that made some sense. Um, John Gullet, uh, he was really interested in
what we could do for undergrounding utilities. Um, and we had some conversations back and forth about the cost of that and implementing that. Um, and I don't know whether this is something that we might want to emphasize that maybe we look at this on a project by project basis of
potentially underground. Obviously, any new subdivisions like the Davenport, all of that's required to have underground utilities. anybody developing under our our uh special optional overlay districts. That's a criteria of undergrounding your utilities, but there's things like Route 6A that has
all all those utilities that mar so many different things. Uh and I know it was a discussion uh for the particular village center in 6A. Um, so I didn't know how you guys felt whether you wanted to try and I don't know whether it gets incorporated in roadway and transportation or where it gets
incorporated in um, >> but what would be say what would we be saying >> just a consideration of undergrounding utilities >> be a priority or >> consideration? I think roads would be the right spot for it. >> So So does that make some I mean I'm
going to redline it all and you get to look at I just wanted to know where to start with some stuff. Yep. >> Yeah. >> I mean, that's the least offensive. Instead of putting in something like housing, you get all sorts of, >> right? >> He also had some concerns about broadband. Um, I really, and I mentioned
the gateway fiber had come and I he actually watched the video of that. Um, but I really kind of feel like that's a private endeavor. We support it in the sense of we're helping you you want to underground something or if you need a a permit to do something. Um, I really kind of see that more as a private
endeavor. I'm not sure there's an action for the town to expand upon what we already have. >> Yeah. And it didn't um >> was it border selectman or was it I think it borders didn't someone appear several weeks ago provider >> fiber. They're going to be coming. So there'll be more competition.
>> Correct. >> Which will really help the situation. I think >> someone commented that person earlier you mentioned the email that they were very expensive. >> Yeah, he did comment on that. >> Although they accept that and they said they were going to be very competitive and that they would be affordable
is going to be there. >> Competition's always good. >> Yep. >> It always helps prices. That's why you don't want a monopoly. You kind of have a monopoly. >> Like I said earlier about the 12 members of the condo that want to sell lobsters. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Drive those lobster prices right down.
>> Giving them away. Well, >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. >> Um he was also interested in beuring that we were promoting solar and I think we have have that covered. Um, Mary Wagan did comment from the community. If >> I can just for one second, Kathy Gullet
also had some specific comments about um this was his August 5th note. Maybe it was the same note um about the town services the triple redundancy >> triple redundancy to ensure community.
I need to check and see whether we've already we've done I think the police department's already done that. >> Can I'm pretty sure it's in the emergency should be in the emergency plan as well. >> It's in it's an action item, but I think it's been completed. So, I need I sent an email to Kevin, but I haven't followed
that. >> Okie do. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, you're right. >> I don't have any problem with adding the community housing committee members as responsible parties for the eight action. Okay. >> Items that make sense to me. They want to do as much work as possible. Dear,
you go for it. Um, and then Mary Wagan had reviewed the targeted action items for me. This was before the final version. So, but I got them so late we couldn't really like have a conversation about whether we wanted to incorporate them. We did incorporate some of the ones specifically to housing, but she
had a bunch of other ones that I think we should talk about. Overall, she's like, "Wonderful. Congratulations." Um, and offered some comments. I also want to be uh clear. I feel like some of her comments are redundant in the sense that we have action items already and we've really worked really hard not to
duplicate action items even though they may apply in so many different locations. >> The first one >> I'm not Yeah, I'm not sure if you've had a chance to actually talk with her about these, but there's some of them. I don't know what she's I don't know what she's
referring to. Like the very first one >> under weight water resources. I don't know what a neutral a flow neutral flow allocation. I I don't think it belongs here. Um and we already have something in the economy section about
flow allocations because we have that 750,000 gallon per day um filled out analysis for wastewater. >> I would say even I don't I haven't seen it but it would be even I would assume Ken it's even bigger than that. >> That that's the new growth. Oh, sorry.
Based on the system coming up, >> based on the build out that we right. So, how does that get allocated? I see. Are we going to be emphasizing certain types of projects like say a certain amount of it is is allocated towards this or allocated towards that? I see. >> Um, and we have that is in action item
13 in the economy section. >> Um, so I don't think we and I don't think we need to add it here. Okay. >> Yeah. Any questions like that I might be able to answer. Um so that's just this particular one here. Um adding the rack in in the select board though as
responsible parties were good suggestions and we can certainly do that in the implementation matrix for that economy action item. Um this develop a staff development plan. Again this was before she had seen they've already done that. They've been
hiring people and training inhouse for water operators. So I think we've already got that covered. uh continue to educate and promote water conservation and protection to all water customers. It's up to you guys. Um
it's fine. But as I was reading it, um I'm learning that during the drought and people who are on town water can't water their lawns, but people on wellwater can. >> How many people are on well water in the town?
>> I'm surp I'm surprised there seems to be a lot. There's quite a few that for watering >> for watering. >> Watering irrigation. >> Not gray water. It's well watered. It's just well water. >> Okay. >> The same water you're drinking. It's just coming from a different pump. >> The same aquifer.
>> Yeah. You still It's You have to get a permit for that too. So >> So I was just thinking maybe it's not just water customers but residents. >> Oh, that's all. >> Sure. That makes sense. Um, prioritize open space acquisitions
with protect waters. We already have that comment. >> Yeah, that that was in. >> Yeah. So, water resources. Um, cons continue with the fertilizer education program and other educational
programs focused on reducing impacts from fertilizer and other products. >> Others? No. >> No. No. So just in other educational were you keeping part of it or >> I don't I think we were thrown in others unless you know what it is.
>> Yeah. It doesn't make it doesn't make it any more clear. >> So just not that edit seven. >> Oh jeez. >> It's been off the entire time. >> It has. Sorry. Well, I wanted to stop bothering you about it because it would distract you from your actual work.
>> I never look at it. Well, we just I don't know. >> You guys have to follow, >> but we're good. Um, >> what's an L? >> Yeah, I don't know what's going on with that. >> Um, I'll >> ask Kathy >> to develop and implement a low impact development program, which would, for
example, >> uh, introduce strengthen LI zoning requirements. >> What is >> low income? Yeah, low >> impact has things like a lot of times it's it's your particular storm water. Maybe you have a green roof. Maybe instead of treatment, you might have um
vegetated strips. You may have a rain garden or bio retention. Um you're like using porous materials versus pavement. You might be using porous pavement. Um you may be like going up to reduce your your footprint of your imperous coverage. Those types of things. I think
those are things that we can think about as we're redeveloping. I don't think we need to develop a whole another zoning requirement around this. >> Um personally, Especially since we don't the general population does not know what low impact development is. >> It's usually more of a rural thing
sometimes because you need land in order to do all of these low impact things. >> Yeah. We just don't want to, you know, create problems where none exists. >> I think it's a whole another effort level that I'm not ready to take. >> Um prioritizing open space acquisitions.
Again, we already have that kind of >> I appreciate her going through this and really looking at it and um Mash P, she's chair of their planning board are going through the local comprehensive and they're they started earlier than us, I think, and like they're way behind us. So, I think she was very impressed
with how far and the level of all of our information. So, she was very positive. Um, number three, yeah, again, we don't need to start doing all of that. Number six, I'm con I don't know that was something that was added because of uh a
comment Liz Argo had at our May. I don't know consider banning fertilizers. I I don't I don't know next to wetlands. I don't know who that would impact. Um maybe we say banning and regulate or regulating. I don't know. I don't even
know how much work is involved with this. No one particularly commented. >> I don't think that's part of this document personally at all. So, I'd leave it right out. >> I want to say Orleans. Sorry, Ken. I think Orleans had a full-on fertilizer ban if I'm not mistaken.
>> I'm just saying what I'm get what I'm getting at is the Cape is a beautiful mosaic of 15 towns. >> And I think and as you just indicated, Miss Wagan's also involved in another town in her other life. And I think we're, you know, we're just trying to see how some of these things can start
to spread. No pun intended. Maybe there was. um you know across the Cape. >> So were you thinking of not expanding it or to not having it in at all? >> To me not expanding it any right any
further. >> So just limited to wetlands to waterways I mean That was a >> You can think about it. I mean, we don't have to answer the question >> on every single one tonight. >> Well, why don't we why don't we hold that and see what the public has to say?
>> I mean, and other water resources. I mean, that's the whole town. >> Well, that that's why I say you're you're stepping on a very slippery slope here. I mean, as Peter just pointed out, the wa what is water resources? We we're in a single source aquifer here. So, do
you ban fertilizer in the whole town? >> I mean, again, it's it's happened in one town at least, or at least it passed one vote. I don't know if it got re considered, >> but that doesn't mean we have to >> That's where I'm going with it. >> Issue in this document, >> right?
>> That's exactly my point. >> It took us five years to do plastic bottles. >> So, why why don't we let it stand the way it is written in the document right now? Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um num number two, Britney had already
changed this um to evaluate invasive species management at parks and conservation areas. So that again this was a slightly earlier document that she was reviewing >> open space. So open yeah I don't know what and land steward program means
>> they exist but I don't know >> I don't know enough about I'm hesitant to put something in that if somebody asked me the question I couldn't explain >> that's a reasonable answer if you don't know what it is take >> doesn't mean we can't do it just doesn't you know doesn't necessarily be there um
she she added um under developing a list related to water resources and their buffers harm putting that in, >> right? >> Guess not. >> It's okay. >> It's all right. >> Took out the bottom one out.
Let's see. >> Community design. In the first one, she um aesthetics development aesthetics of commercial and we had largecale residential projects. should cross that out and then consider making them applicable to new development, raise and
replace and for redevelop sub. She she crossed out the substantial. The whole point of the substantial was I don't want every single person who wants to do a tiny little thing on their property have to comply. You need to be like a full raise and replace or you
know that type of thing. >> Well, then you have to define substantial, >> right? >> Okay. And that's what we need to do in the in the in the regulations. >> That's what it says. Too better define. >> Not here. I'm fine either way. >> Yeah. >> Yes. No. Maybe. So,
>> Madam Chair, what do you think? Um again um we don't want it to be interpreted as every project. >> Mhm. >> Again on action number one um under built systems community design. >> Okay. Got it. >> Um I I'm a fan of not using adjectives
if you don't need to. >> So substantial without >> so and large scale. >> So take to so take >> doesn't eliminate them. But uh >> right and and just it's just telling us we need to look at this and these are the kind of the areas we need to look
at. Um number two, um and other options to improve the likelihood of sewing state or federal >> securing I think it's securing >> securing this works. Okay. Depending on the final
use of the >> I don't think we need >> I appreciate the suggestion but I don't think >> it doesn't pertain to what that is. >> I think it's related to housing might have the potential
>> of generating more funding. I don't think it's needed. Um, >> now that I'm reading it again, a planned unit development. I'm not sure I know what that is. >> Where do you see that? >> It's a type of zoning overlay district in a sense
>> that we would be applying. >> It's generally what we planned unit development. >> It's called a planned unit development. It >> is. Okay. >> I should know that. We don't you don't do it. >> So why don't we put a period at the end there? >> Land unit development. There is a period there. >> There is. She's she was she made it a
coma. >> She made it a comma. >> Ah there wasn't a period. We'll definitely make sure there's a period there. >> Um >> provide local zoning and other incentives with architectural site design standard as an attractive alternative to aggressive chapter 40B
comprehensive permit development. I don't think we should be adding that. It's it's the same as number one essentially >> and it's it's it's we're already doing it in a sense. We have all these optional overlay districts. That's the reason why. >> I ask question. >> Kathy, what do we decide on number two? Are we dropping her suggestions?
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Just finishing. >> We're not going to do the optional piece. >> No. >> Good. Okay. >> Um >> it's the brown field. Oh, yeah. Gray field. >> We already have that in already in. So, I don't think we need to add it here.
Keep going. >> That's dumb. >> Um, I really feel like number nine is kind of covered under number five. >> Publicly funded projects that we went to
here climate mitigation. >> You know what you're trying to say, >> but I think either you can expand number five. I wouldn't add another item for it. So maybe you just add on to five to promote and support the climate
mitigation energy go. I Well, of course you're going to No, I I I would cancel the whole thing. >> Five says it very concisely. You don't need to. Of course, it's supporting the climate mitigation energy goals. That's
why it's on this page. >> Right. Okay. Moving on to waste management. Um, number eight. I'm hesitant to require that. I know that they do as many things as they
possibly can to provide hazardous waste days. Um, textiles. There's a there's there's those bins there that they don't need a special collection day for textiles. >> I have a suggestion though. I I do appreciate the the where this is coming
from. Instead of amplify and expand, you could always use the more general consider or you know I if if anyone else is passionate about this particular issue instead of declaring that the town must or should it would be more of a consideration. So you're calling out the
issue without requiring the town in the in its own LCP to actually execute on it. Does that make sense? If anyone else feels strongly about this issue, >> you know, consider the expansion of collection, >> right? Just like consider I would say
consider the expansion of collection days, >> right? But I >> would be a general if if at all, Madam Chair. >> Yeah, of course. But I think eight and n need to be combined. She just separates out organic materials. >> Organic materials. There's already a place there for all of your organics. So, it's done. If
>> you go to the transfer station, there's a place where like all your food waste can go, >> right? Yeah, >> they've expanded it, too. So, >> yeah. So, I think number nine is actually done. >> Okay. >> Um, and let me talk to Roby about number eight to see whether we want she may
know stuff because like textiles I don't think is a special collection day. >> Paper shredding maybe and hazardous materials, but >> hazardous materials that that's not very frequent. I know a quarterly I want to say >> but I think it's you know I don't know whether it's a cost thing like even like
things like um >> sharps containers they're finding that a lot more people are asking for the sharps containers and they give them out and they're very expensive so they're asking people really fill them up before you give them to us to get to get rid of. So there's a lot of additional costs to waste disposal that have been
encountered that may be impacting some of this. So let me just talk to Roby and see how what she might feel comfortable including. She may say yeah that's great. Let's put that in there. Seven. >> Can I ask a question before we get to number nine? >> Sure. >> I thought we did number seven.
>> Was the grist mill not restored? >> Where are we? >> Sorry. Under community system character. >> The grist mill has been done. >> Dam. >> Oh, the dam. You're right. >> Fish ladder was >> not the actual mill. >> The mill itself needs some some structural. >> Okay. Sorry. Then I was wrong.
>> It's this if I'm the historic building at the back mill. Yeah. Thank you. You're right. There's no marked parking lot, so nobody knows where to go to to >> We need to get have a sign for a little. >> It's a small parking lot, but it's like 50 yards away from the >> It's not not Well, >> it used to have a sign.
>> Mhm. >> It needs a new sign. >> Okay. >> Um, >> sorry about that. >> Number nine. >> Have a sign. I think that's already kind of covered in number one which is >> sorry I'm looking at >> related to development of historic yarm
at the initiatives to identify preserve and protect historic resources. You might want to if you're going to do anything maybe you want to expand the language of one versus putting in an entirely new action item. >> I think it's covered in one c
leave it as is. Yep. And >> all right, so let's look at >> the economy. There's 16 action items in the economy. Not inclined to anymore. Um the be the question becomes, are
these kind of covered in action item seven already? I'm moving it for you, but you can't even see it, which talks about incubator programs to help build industries in town. Maybe you could say and promote local products if you want to expand it.
I just don't want to add two more. >> They're good ideas. It's just I feel like we kind of have them covered. >> So I don't think we need 17, right? >> Um maybe just grab a couple of the key words there, Kathy, and throw them into
number seven. Increda programs to help build industries in town. element of incentive programs, >> for example, which could include, you know, lowcost office space, shared commercial kitchen. >> I just think we're getting too specific. >> I think so, too.
>> Yeah. >> I think it's too granular. >> I I guess I would say in seven incubator programs to help build industries in town, which is already there, and promote local products. >> Oh, okay. >> Promoting local products is a good idea. >> Yep. I think it's a good idea. and oh housing I think we incorpor the
the one thing that didn't get incorporated we had I think we didn't put in the 62 she wanted to reference the 62 affordable unit um housing production goal manually which we can add that into one um we had already addressed these we made those that change and we added number eight but we
did not add number nine with because we already felt it was um addressed elsewhere so that one's already kind of been done because it was related to housing >> so so eight is out right Chad >> eight is eight is actually in the in the >> in the new version. >> It's in there. It's in here.
>> Yeah, this version has it. I'm trying to follow along. >> Yeah, we use this to and we actually talked about this page. So, it got incorporated. >> Um, >> what about number nine? >> That's covered under actually two, >> right?
>> Affordable contingent. >> It actually is. It's it's item three because that has to do with workforce housing. >> So that's covered in three, I think. >> Yeah. So that's not necessary.
>> Yeah, it's in town services already. >> But it's it's number I she put number two, but it's really three. >> It's really what? >> It's three. Number three. investigate waste writing incentives. >> Oh, okay.
>> Ken, aren't we already doing number two? Didn't we develop a capital maintenance plan for municipal buildings? >> Yeah. Well, >> five of them. >> It's in the process of it. Yeah. >> All right. But I mean, so I do agree that capital is an important word to add in here, right? Not just not just the maintenance. It's the capital plan. Sure. Well,
>> yeah, I think that's fine. Um, she asked a question about number four for the >> answer. I I don't think we need to add anything, but it's more of a question. It's for Yes, >> that is why. In fact, I think they've actually expanded it. I think it's at
least one if not one and a half or two >> at the police department. >> Yeah, they're just saying that they're losing grant funding for that position. >> Retain. I'm sorry. I wasn't paying attention to the important word, the verb. >> Sorry. We just want to make sure emphasize that that's something important that we really want to continue even if it has to be budget.
Yes, it is and yes it is. >> Um she had a lot of different items with regard to the health section which I don't know anything about and if J we don't really have a health director right now. I could talk to Barry and
Mark but um I hesitate to I don't even know what a public health strategic plan would be. >> Again this is kind of granular. You know, they you talk about speakers. That's a little too detailed. I think >> we need we're doing a 10,000 foot fly,
>> right? >> To some degree. >> But I do appreciate the fact she went through this. She did >> with a She did a great job. >> She did a really good job. She really did. >> Um, number three, I don't think we need
to add in all those things. This this came directly from Diane Kaine that that's >> okay >> for that. Yeah, >> I mean you can add it if you want but I don't think it's all that necessary. >> Um evaluate addition of an exercise room with equipment at this and promote fitness programs. I don't have a problem
with that but it's up to you guys. >> Yeah, I think it's fine. >> It's fine. >> They do that. They have chair yoga and they have a bunch of stuff. >> Um they do a good job there. um amp amplify adult education programs
with the recreation library departments and with local institutions such as the cultural center of Cape Cod. >> I feel like we had something we did nonprofits and it was somewhere else. I didn't have a chance to find >> remember we originally had put in the cultural center of Cape Cod
>> but then we added a couple of other ones. It was the historical society of old, but I think we took out the specificity and left it. I can't remember where that was. >> Um, yeah. Um, but I think we're already, you
know, I think for the at least the South Amouth Library, we're already doing that. >> We are. >> It's just a part of their life. >> Um, >> I don't think we need to add it. It's happening now. >> Um, >> then when you say amplify, what does
that mean? Like you have 50 programs, so now you need 60 programs and then there's 70 >> or or make them louder. >> Make them what? >> Make them louder. >> Yeah. >> And then um >> just had a comment about and a possible
community center uh as a component of the reuse of the site. >> I don't think that >> I think that goes without saying. So >> that's redundant. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And that's it. >> Okay. >> Well, that's good input. And I'll try and start redlinining to get this going
so that when we go on the third, we'll have a red line items and then for at least some of them if not and if there's some obvious ones um that we receive before them that I can make some judgment calls on, I'll put those red lines into. >> Will there will Will Will there be
another one of these then before the public hearing? Okay. And will you be able to um it just says draft 2025. Will you put some sort of more definitive like September 2025 or something? So we just make sure we're using the right copy
>> two. >> Something like that. That would make more sense. >> Final draft. >> Final draft. >> Even better. >> It's even better, right? >> And ultimate because there'll be comments. >> Yeah. You know, if anybody has any good pictures that they think would fit
really nicely in the LCP, please send them to me. Um, I don't think I think we need more pictures. >> More pictures. >> Yeah, I got some from the um chamber
that I think we can insert in that. Some of them are already in here like of the different events and stuff, but >> you know, if you have some great pictures of something, send them to me and we can see where we can incorporate them in. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Thank you, Kathy. Um,
next on our agenda, Madak Utilization Committee. >> Oh, yeah. That's still going on. Um they they met on August 11th and reviewed three different bubble diagrams
um from the consultant. They we also got a request from the chamber to come and talk about a um event a large uh sports complex. So the the chair is trying to get them to come to the September 11th
to help guide some of those those bubble diagrams. They didn't really make any decisions on them. We also had a separate meeting with the housing people to make sure that we were on um John Bar and then um Myra. We met with them and and Bob Writtenower and the consultant
just to kind of make sure that we're on the right track. There was cons some concerns at the um workshop about the use of the word duplexes. So um I think that got all clarified and and they were relatively happy with that. So, we need to get a little bit more uh input from
the committee on the bubble diagrams before they try and move a little bit more into the conceptual um plans, which I think is going to be something that is going to be take longer than the end of the year. I think the the schedule's slipping a little bit, but I think it's slipping in order to get more
information that's important to know to make some of the important decisions on it. Sometimes faster isn't always better. So, so that's that. Oh, I'm sorry. The next meeting is September 11th. >> 11. Great day.
>> Um, next on our agenda is design review committee. >> Um, I I did I meant to make note a note of this at the beginning. Um, one of our members, Jim Sabin, has submitted his resignation. Um, and we're we're so sorry to lose
him. Maybe he'll come back. We'll see. That would be great if if you could, Jim. Um uh but he uh serves on an important committee that Kathy is staffed to, the design review committee. Um and I was wondering if anyone here wants to jump
on that opportunity. >> Madam Chair, I I'd throw my hat in the ring after I'm done with capital budget. I would like this I promised to get through capital budget this year >> post the capital budget run for this year. I would if at all possible I would
like to go on design review. >> Any anyone else? >> What? So could you please clarify when does the design is it as needed? >> Can I just get Yeah, maybe a little my concern right now is um with the passing of Charlie Adams. He was on the design review committee and the resignation of
Jim. I have three members and sometimes some of those members travel, sometimes they have medical issues of their own. Um, so I don't want to be in a situation where I can't get quorum for a meeting. >> How often do they meet, Kath? >> They meet as needed and I would say
maybe they meet six to eight times a year. >> Kathy, what's a quorum? Four. >> Three. >> Three. >> Is it typically at a certain time of day or day of the week? >> Yes, we've been trying to do we've been trying to hit Tuesdays at four.
Um, but it's there's no set there's no set time. So, sometimes if for some reason we can't get quorum and we have to meet on a Thursday, as long as everyone can do it, it's fine. Um, >> I'm just afraid that we're going to have some projects coming up and I may not be able to get >> quum. I'm Madam Chair, I'm sort of
without a committee at the moment. So, >> I can keep that seat warm for Ken. I was going to probably ask for reassignment at whatever time >> in the future anyway. I I I might have been a Well, I I I think it's probably
time to maybe do something different. >> Okay. All right. Well, that could be that could be an option because you'll be >> you'll be Well, let me see. Anyone else interested? Um, >> no. Um, >> I don't think I could do capital because
listening to the time commitment from Ken, I I know I probably couldn't do that. >> All right. So, we'll we'll focus on that in the fall. >> Yeah. As I said, >> when do when when yours wraps up? >> The first of the year, basically. I
mean, it goes until budget season's done. Okay. >> Um, so I'm committed. I said I would do it for this capital season and I'm all for it. they they do great work, but for many reasons, one of which Peter just touched on, it is a huge time commitment
and um you know, I will only do it for this year, but I'm put it on record that this will be my last year on capital budget. >> Madam Chair, it is not the first time someone in this committee has put it on record that two years of the capital budget committee is really got to be the max for anybody from the planning board,
unless of course they have a passion and and an availability for it. Thank you. Uh, so we have to go through the process of them accepting the resignation, right? We don't know. Do they have to >> I think they're going to accept his resignation on Tuesday.
>> Okay. >> I'm assuming I'd like to take a vote to put Peter in and then if for some reason, who knows, he could Jim keeps calling. He's that he's like he's probably watching us right now. >> Hey, Jim.
>> So, I don't know. I think I think I would like it if he might eventually come back. >> So, may I have a motion to um have Peter Slovac uh be our representative on the >> design review committee?
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Can be me. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I zero. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you, Peter. Thanks, Okay. Uh, >> meeting minutes.
>> Meeting minutes. Uh, may I have a motion to accept the minutes of August 6th, 2025? >> I have a copy of them. >> Oh, second. >> I'm sorry. Who the >> I moved it. >> And then me second.
>> All in favor? >> I >> committee updates. Any committee updates? >> Quiet. >> Quiet two weeks. I guess >> we did have a housing meeting. >> Oh, you did? Okay. Dearra, thank you. >> Um where uh Mary was delighted with the
comprehensive plan and talked about it a lot and um she we she presented a couple of applications for the community preservation funds. Um,
basically one was a pretty routine funding process and the other was a conversion of a buy down program changing it to um have the funding available for the
mixeduse projects on Route 28. >> Oh, nice. >> Because the buy down program apparently has been um totally unused because real estate's so expensive and So, so this is a um an application to convert the funds
from that one to the other. And in in discussing that, she also suggested that she would like to organize a gathering of the community housing and the affordable housing trust and the planning board to discuss to have a
presentation on the mixeduse project that we have been following. And I I'm really a little unclear of is it totally finished now? Um >> yeah. >> Yeah. So, I don't know if there's any I don't has Has Mary mentioned that to
you, that idea. Um, anyway, it's something that she just brought up and I'm I'd >> She was suggesting that we have a presentation to those when they have a joint committee meeting. >> Yeah. >> On the final report. >> Yeah. >> Any timeline on that?
>> No. No. was just a that it would be nice because everyone's so interested in the whole mixeduse concept and so I think that's something that >> she'll probably suggest it again and
I'll see if I can be more on top of >> the consultants are done. >> Yeah. So the presentation we'd have to >> have to be present. >> Yeah. >> Have they received the report? >> The final report. >> The funding came from them, right? >> Yeah.
>> Oh, it did not. Oh, this was a different grant. Sorry. I'm thinking of short-term rentals. >> Yeah. No, this is a community planning grant. Um, we can certainly do that. It's just >> I can't add one more thing. >> Yeah. Can Can we just send them Why don't we send them the report? Let's
send them the report and then Um, if you could be our our our conveyor when Kathy has time, we'd be more than glad to go through it. >> January 1st. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And I can also I mean the presentations were given by the consultant at our at our meetings,
>> the recordings and >> they could look at it. >> They could look at they and I can and I can give the links to that as well. >> Oh, that's a good idea, Kath. That's a great idea. Thanks. And then also as she somebody brought up the the point that was in the uh LCP
comments that they wanted to have the community housing committee mentioned as uh on that the responsible parties C category but that's >> the mayor. There you go. >> Madam Chair, can I ask you a question? >> Certainly.
>> Um I thought I heard it at one of the recent select board meetings. Has there been any discussion on the forest the forest road property? >> Uh, no. >> I heard a blur. I heard I heard somebody say something about it. Did anybody else catch that? >> It that it didn't get an any RF. >> It didn't get any it didn't get any
responses and they've they have not had any further action, but the day after the meeting that we had, >> they were supposed to meet again to try and decide what they want to do with it or just keep the discussion. >> Which entity? >> The um Housing Authority.
>> Housing Authority. Right. >> Joe Glenn said something about that. That's what he said. Yeah. >> Yeah. He said that he'd be more than happy to come to the select board, I thought, and give some updates >> that I do think it's something we our antenna should be well hasn't gone down,
>> but it feels like it's something that's just sort of out there, but it certainly has a very certainly has a lot of people's attention in terms of how where it goes from here. And I would just hope that between all of us, guys and gals, we could uh just try to keep each other educated on it.
>> It comes up at every housing meeting and Drew Krauss says, "No, we have nothing more to report." >> Well, obviously if something does, you'll tell us. >> I will. Okay. Sorry. And I wasn't I wasn't I wasn't thinking that you didn't. I just wanted to know if there was anything more. >> I was forgetting to mention it, you know. So,
>> thank you, Madam Chair. Barbara, I have an up I mean Barbara Joey and I have an update on the um library >> oh library >> library committee had the project committee had an sort of an open house open hearing last Wednesday two two hearings in one day one at one o'clock and then another one at 7 o'clock same
presentation um well attended the at least I could not go to the seven o'clock one but I came to the one o'clock one it was well attended um uh interested people a lot of it were just comments about this you know great idea keep going forward Um
and the the U architects did a very good job about not raising expectations. This we are at the very beginning. This is everything we're telling you now is up for grabs. We're going to talk about it. We have made no decisions. And that was because as you can imagine people got up
immediately and said, "What are you going to do about the ball field? We're not even at the ball field level yet." You know, kind of thing. But I thought it was well attended. I thought they did a very good job. I did not go to the one at night. So I didn't so I I was just too tired so I couldn't go. So, I assume it was as well attended as the noon time, but the the room was filled at the
one o'clock meeting. >> Good. >> Yeah, it was good. >> Yeah. >> Susan, just real quick, has anybody here been to the East Ham Library >> since it opened? >> Yeah, >> I have. I have. >> Yeah. >> And those are the same architects. >> Yes. >> So, we are in we are in a we're in good hands >> and I know that they have a different
kind of natural setting. When you see that where their library is, it is spectacular what they did. >> Well, we have some very positive natural >> No, agreed. I'm just saying that given what they did in East Ham in a very very interesting location >> um they made it feel very what I would
just say capy but also incredibly effective efficient and just a place you want to be >> a community place madam chair not just a library >> so I'm really excited to hear that >> this was in their presentation so if you watch >> and I missed it I will have try to watch >> yeah they include that as an example and
they kind of talk about how they laid >> if you have a reason to be in East Ham madam chair hopefully not with the boat >> but in your car. It is It is worth your time for 15 years situated on the site. >> It's amazing. It's amazing. >> It's a very well thought out, well-designed building >> and that gives me a lot of comfort given
all the interesting constituencies that are interested in the new location for our potential library about how they'll execute it. Thank you, Madam >> and we're meeting again next week. We'll be meeting next week. >> Okay. Um any other committee?
Uh, I have just one quick board member item, Kelly. The Cape Cod Commission has extended the deadline for RPP comments. Is it something that we should be officially responding to?
>> Would it be a good thing to do? >> I don't have any particular concerns with what they're doing. >> Um, because we're so heavy into our own local comprehensive plan. Um, >> even if we just wanted to say some be
responsive in some way as a planning board. >> Yep. >> Um, >> what what I saw the extension, but I didn't see how long it went to. >> I didn't bring it with me. >> Yeah, I didn't >> we can talk about it. We can talk about it later. >> Yeah. >> Um, you did send us the differences,
>> which was pretty mild. Um, and they did, I'm sure the PowerPoint is also on their their website that kind of talks about what their action items are and they all seemed very reasonable. They didn't there's nothing that caused me to alarm. What are you doing there and that type of thing? >> All right.
>> Okay. If you don't see if you don't see any >> with everything else we have going on, I don't see us having the time to delve into that y in any deep way, meaningful way. >> Y >> is are they addressing the threshold at all? Does it come >> that would be outside the RPP?
>> Okay. >> But they are talking about it >> for the GRI. You mean >> the the 99,999? >> Okay. Um correspondence and staff updates. Kath, anything? >> No. >> I just want to thank Kathy in her staff update about the update on the town's
app functionality. It seems like that's a 2026 project or early 2026. No, I'm That's okay. It feels like there's is it fair to say there's momentum Kathy? >> They're working on it and again they're working sounds like momentum.
>> They're working on the website too. So if you have any specific comments, send it to Paul Chaffy. I >> as an example today we got an alert on my I got a text alert about the hurricane and I gladly clicked on it on my mobile device >> and it was practically unreadable
>> from my phone. Literally practically unreadable. So it's again not a >> because it was so tiny. >> Yeah. because every time you use the town's website on a mobile device, which again, I appreciate there are many of us in this room that don't use our mobile
devices, you know, in that way. But there are a lot of people that do, and I'm just just staggered, as I've continue to be, Madam Chair, for the five years I've served on this board that we have not been able to mobiley optimize our own town website given the constituents of our town who are under
the age of 50. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Rubenstein. >> Welcome. Uh upcoming meetings uh we are going to meet next week. >> Yes. >> Uh the 27th. Uh then we will meet again on September 3rd. >> Right Kev? >> Yep. >> Yeah.
>> Our public hearing on the amendments will be the 17th. >> We also probably your rules and regulations say you're supposed to do the officers and committee assignments on the 17th. >> On the 17th. >> It's the second one. It's the second meeting in September. They said
>> were we allowed to defer that, Madam Chair? just given the nature of the 17th already and the crowds that will be here or do we just do it at the end of the meeting after the crowds? >> I would do it at the end of the meeting. The only reason I say that is then there's those um the dates for the subdivision control
signatures are certain time of the year and we don't want that to to lapse. Um, >> I don't think we're going to have anything that's going to need a signature, but um, we could probably do that at the end unless you think it's going to be a more long drawn out thing.
>> We don't have to do the committee assignments, but we should do the officers. >> Can I ask a question about the 17th, Madam Chair? >> You may. >> So, we're going to have, I would assume, a crowd on the 17th. Who knows, virtual or otherwise. Um and then based on that
we then close we then close the public hearing and then we do do we take a vote that night? >> You can deliberate >> in the timetable that we have in front of us for the special town meeting. >> You can deliberate um or you know if you still if there's some things that you think well I want to have some additional edits you know we can still
talk about it before we submit. We have more a little bit more time on that with regard to when we need to bring it to the to the select board. Um, >> but the next meeting is going to be the public hearing on the LCP, so that's going to be pretty busy. >> That's why I'm asking. So,
>> if you feel comfortable, you'd be prepared to try to resolve whatever we need to resolve in order to recommend the the the uh amendments to the select board on the night of the 17th >> if you can, depending on what happens at the meeting. But that would probably be the most ideal because then the only other time you would have would be um
probably the 15th of October >> because we're going before the select board on the 21st of >> there's a little cushion in case but not a ton. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to think out loud >> because where we are in the process. So October 15th is really the drop dead date.
You >> like it not to be then and we certainly don't want it at Well, could be it could be October 1st if we if we if we deliberate and we don't vote >> or maybe we vote on one but we can't decide on the other and there's a a
single amendment to decide on. >> Yeah. >> First >> I think it's going to be a lot to do in one night. I think we have to have the public hearing and then if we if we have to because I think it's going to be really I think we'll hear a lot as we always have on these two issues
>> and there may be some legitimate things that we're going to want to change and um sometimes it's easier to do when we're not sort of in the flush of public hearing and emotion. It might be easier to do it at a I mean our deliberations might be easier to do at another hearing
at another meeting. >> An additional meeting you're saying? >> Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to think it out loud, Madam Chair. I I certainly don't come to meetings to ask for more meetings >> because those Yeah, >> but I do understand where Miss Brit is coming from. No, I'm just saying because we we have a we have time. We only have
a certain amount of time. >> I know. And that meeting can be very long. That public hearing. >> No, I don't disagree with you. >> All right. >> I don't know how to get the word out to the voters. I know that that's one of the maybe it was an email comment about there's
there's a bunch of voters in town who don't know about this, but I also would like to think that most Boers would be in support of it because it it provides more options. It's not taking anything away from them. So, it's kind of like the rest >> let the chip shops and Milway and all
those guys know about it. They'll let their voters know about it. So, >> now would be the time to tell them about September 17th. Yes. It' be good to have like the notice that I could send. >> Okay. >> Do we do we allow non-residents to speak?
>> Yes, we do. I learned that this week. >> You have to get permission from the moderator. >> Meeting or in this room? No, in this room. >> No, in this room. Sorry. >> In this room, >> the public is anybody. >> Okay. Mary Mazlowski met with all of the
committee chairs on the open meeting law because there have been some minor adjustments to it. Um, and she walked through and I raised the question that exact question, Peter, when you were sitting next to me at our last meeting thinking that the person had to be a resident. No.
>> Do do they have to let them know that they're not a resident of the time? >> You can ask them where you can ask them for an address, but they don't necessarily have to answer. So when they come up to the microphone, >> but they have to identify identify themselves and give their address. You're saying they don't have to give their address. >> They don't necessarily have to give I
think you can ask people. >> We ask >> most people just give it because they have nothing to hide. >> That's correct. >> Okay. But any member of the public is any member of the public, >> but that's not the case at at town meeting. >> No, it's not a town meeting. >> Was there anything else that came out of that that was a surprise to you?
>> No, not other than uh we I did want to talk to you. Um Mary recommends that similar to the agendas for finance committee and CPC or maybe even zoning board of appeals.
There's um a standard piece about other matters not considered bloody bloody that we didn't think of in time. >> It's like so that we can legally talk about other stuff >> like other duties as a sign job description. So there's I know there's language in other
>> Yep. I know what you're talking about. >> So we she say anything about having a public comment period. I know that we've had discussions about that before. >> I was wondering that too. >> No. Okay. >> I don't believe >> like like the the select board have on their agenda. Public comments, right?
>> Oh um she that is at completely at the discretion of the chair. >> Okay. Um, and if if you know, again, she advises that to the degree that you want to have public comments, we could have that as for any one of our public
meetings, have that as a an opening. >> Um, but if you if you don't have it, then it would fall under that oops, I didn't think about it in advance, um, clause. >> And we could we could entertain. Um >> I think it's at the discretion of the
chair if under any agenda item if you want to take comment from the public. >> That's that was that that is my that is my understanding as well. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Good update. >> Well, that was a meeting a committee meeting I attended. Sorry about that.
Glad to tell you. Um anyway, uh we all we all good with dates, Kath. Okay. Um may I have a motion to adjurnn? >> So move. >> Second. >> All in favor? Hi. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> All right. Thanks very much everyone.
>> Recording stopped.