recording in progress. >> Thank you. Hey, Mark. >> Uh, good evening and welcome to the July 15, 2026 Yarmouth Planning Board meeting. I'm Joan Crowley, the chair of the planning board. The public is welcome to attend in person this evening
and I see we do have some members of the public here. Thank you for coming. Um or uh via alternative public access provided on the notice of meeting available on the town of Yarmmouth website.
Uh I'd like to uh have roll call. Susan Bruda >> present. >> Deer Gwen >> present. >> Tom Pendleton >> present. Will Rubenstein Peter Slovak Ken Smith >> present >> Joan Crowley present. Seeing that we
have a quorum, I'll now call the meeting to order and please join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> To the flag of the United States of America and to the stands one nation,
indivisibley andice for all. Thank you. First item on our agenda this evening is a lot release for subdivision plan 1648h.
Release of lot 7B at 63 Thatcher Shore Road in Yarmouthport. owner Brian Bassler uh from the covenant for definition definitive subdivision plan 1648H
1648HH modification number one and 1648H modification number two and I believe representative Mr. Ojala is here to help us through this. Um, and hopefully we'll
make uh all the appropriate actions so we can move this forward. This has been with us for a while. >> Yeah. Started out with the >> I feel like as long as I've been on the planning board, which is a long time of >> our file started in 2005. So, yeah. Um,
Dan Ojula from DownCape Engineering. I'm a surveyor and civil engineer. Uh, Brian Basway is in the audience. So, this is um has been a long project. It's uh basically just a you know, it's a glorified driveway to a home. Uh this was a lot that was uh a lot was cut off
the front many years ago and given to the Yarmouth Conservation Trust and a um uh the lot in the back didn't have sufficient frontage uh even with the panhandle rule or whatnot. So, we got some waivers and created a 20ft way that gave it the adequate frontage and then
asked for some reductions in waivers to uh reduce the road uh down to a more reasonable size uh for access to, you know, a single family house lot. Um it's a good size lot, 1.4 acres that's left over. Um we went down to a gravel road.
Uh we looked at reducing the drainage to uh country style drainage and just shoulder drainage um with a nice pvious surface. It's actually been installed for many years and it's working fine. Um the cuts and fills uh needed a couple little tweaks so we came back for a second modification. The slope was a
half a percent uh steep and so forth. Um and as you recall we did gave a good detailed asbuilt plan at that time and uh there's a condition that there's a water uh a fire suppression system for the home. The fire department had wanted that in order to wave uh you know a full
width road. So, there's a 2-in water line that goes all the way up and we'll uh put a residential sprinkler system in the building for for life safety. Um, but all that's in a way of saying that last time you approved the waiverss and and the plan was the road was already constructed. So, this is just a formal
request uh to release the lot uh from the construction covenants. And so, that's the last step of a subdivision process. It means that um he's uh the board has found that the road has been constructed in um in uh sufficient per
per the approved plans and u the security which you hold the lot until the road is built as as as a surity or a bond that the that the construction actually take place that that has indeed taken place and uh is ready for release
so that the home construction be can begin. So Brian has been patiently waiting. We're we're pleased to have this in front of you and I think it's a straightforward somewhat administrative matter at this point. Certainly Kathy can uh step in and add any um information she'd like, but it's a
requested that release of 7B from Covenant so that we can pull a building permit. Be glad to answer any questions if you have them. >> Thank you, Mr. Oja. >> I have no comments. I too would like to see this end this evening with a positive note of being released from the covenant. There's no issues. Any
questions from the from the board? Um, uh, the the I I just want to for the public I the the the next step here is, uh, for the property owner to actually be able to apply for a building permit.
>> We got to get over this to so the property owner can properly of, you know, uh, apply for a building permit. >> Yes. The only other way to do it would be to take put a big construction bond on the property. You guys would hold a monetary bond, but this is a cleaner way
of doing it. And then of course there's, you know, other permits like the health department and, you know, Old Kings Highway and things like that. But, uh, the building department uh, keeps a careful eye on all that. >> Oh, great. >> But, uh, yeah, this is this is very fundamental to being having a piece of property be able to be developed is to
have safe and adequate access. So, this is certifying that everything was done. >> Okay. Uh so may I have a motion uh to release lot 7B from covenants and agreements for definitive subdivision
plan 1648HH. 1648H modification number one and 1648HH modification number two to allow for the application of a building permit. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Any discussion? Everybody's good. >> Everybody's good. >> All in favor? >> I >> Thank you. >> There's a There's a little drama there. >> Well, we wanted to make it a little dramatic, you know. Why not? >> No drama. >> Why not?
>> Appreciate your time very much. >> Yeah. Thank you, Miss Ojala. Always good to see you. Uh the second item on our agenda this evening is our continuing discussion on short-term rentals. Uh uh we have a red
line draft number five dated July 20 uh 10th 2026. Um again uh the new text is highlighted. Uh Kathy maybe you want to run through uh some of the changes on draft 5. >> I think what I'd like to go through
first is we had met with staff. >> Oh yes. We we had talked about that today. I'm sorry. On July 13th, Kathy had his a staff meeting. Um I see building commissioner uh Mark Gills is here. Um and uh why don't you why don't you go in that direction, Kathy?
>> I was with Mark and the two housing inspectors and also Kevin Lennon um the police chief and myself and just kind of talked about some of the things are more admin related um not necessarily u changes to the zoning bylaw. So, one of the things we've been talking about was a complaint form, and Chief Lennon
mentioned that they have a com an online complaint form for traffic violations, and he recommended doing something similar for short-term rental complaints because it's easier to log uh keep it logged and also to send it to the right people in order to address them. So, that's something that we would have to
work with our IT department. It's not something I can I can work out. We'd have to figure out, you know, what are some of the list of the potential things people would want to um highlight in their complaint? And then there would always be an other so people could identify that in conversations with the chief. There is a non-emergency number
that you can call and we will document that as well. Um and then all you do is hit zero and it goes directly to dispatch. So I think the only thing the police chief was saying is you know if it's really a public safety issue with traffic or if it's a noise, you know, egregious noise, definitely call the
police. Um, but if it's something more minor, just send in the complaint form and then people can get to it and and figure it out uh at a later date. >> And the idea would be that it would be electronically submitted. >> Correct. Yes. It would be all online just like um if you go to the police
website, there's a complaint traffic complaint form. It would be very similar to that. >> Madam Chair, can I >> Yes, Mr. Chair. >> Does that form exist now or they're going to develop that form? they they have that form for traffic complaints and I think we would just embellish it and modify it a little bit to take into consideration, you know,
the uniqueness of short-term rentals. >> Um, and then one of the other things that we had talked about is maybe things being about education, people not fully understanding what what the requirements are. So when they go and actually do an inspection, they have to meet somebody
there. So maybe having a case where there is a one-page document that they fill in uh not only the occupancy load but also um the on-site parking and then get them to sign off on it. So there's no way people can't say that they didn't know and this is something that they would get and that would they would need
to um might be combined with that good neighbor policy and all on one form a little bit. Uh and then that's something that they would have and they would post at their rental unit as well as we would have so that we would know that they were receive this information. um they're very much in uh line with
wanting to have the rental certificates um listed on all different types of listing advertising or booking platforms. They thought that would help them in order to be able to quickly identify if it's brought to their attention that there's an issue. Um it's it's easier for them to identify the actual property and and see what it
really supposed to be. They did indicate that there is some difficulty with doing that crosschecking with the do and with the listings because they don't give specific addresses with the listings. So, they have tried to do that before, but it's been really hodgepodge and hit or miss as regard to the accuracy of
that information. Um, with regard to putting like the short-term rental lists on the website, we can do that, but they're going to be probably obsolete the next day because they're they're continually evolving. Um, they've been trying to get out the applications earlier, like in in the fall, to get
people to register for the following year and start scheduling some of those inspections early, but I think everyone seems to wait until the spring when they think about it. uh and then it gets really backlogged with them with doing doing their inspections. Um uh one of the things that they did know
is that a lot of times they fail their initial inspection and they have to go back for a second inspection. Um which considering the little things that they're actually looking at is a little disturbing because they're basic life safety things that you should have in any single family home. Um but starting to charge a reinspection fee for them.
We do that for if you fail a building uh inspection, you have to pay a reinspection fee. So doing that for um the rental. So, it's another disincentive to not have your place all set u when you when you call the inspections. Um they're saying that they have right now 826 short-term rentals
and only 27 of them are from LLC's and they don't see any like a lot of corporate I don't think they I don't even think Deb said she saw any corporate ownership. She does know of one owner who does own multiple um but they've owned them for like really long time and kind of been running it um for
for quite some time. So, that might be another um reason to allow for maybe some grandfathering. If you've been registered in 2025 and 2026, you're good. But moving forward, you can only have one or two, whatever number we end up deciding on. Um I think the
ownership, the number from an owner is going to be more important necessarily than the corporate ownership because I don't think they're really seeing corporations coming in and buying. Mhm. >> Um and then one of the other things was related to um when you appeal the revocation um it's really the rental
certificate that would get appealed to the um select board. If it's if they also um repeal their certificate of inspection, then they would go to the building code appeals board. So that might be something we might want to be a little bit clearer on. If you your
rental certificate, this is the route you go. if your certificate of inspection is pulled for safety issue or whatever um and you're not meeting the building code anymore, then that would be the building co code appeals board. So, it was it was a really good meeting and I think they um they really thought
about a lot of different things and they had actually watched uh Dev had watched the select board or the select board the planning board meeting to get an idea of what the concerns were uh in the neighborhood and and she had some other suggestions. So, there's a a couple things that she did suggest maybe related to the bylaw. Um,
one of them might be to specifically say the occupancy um is determined obviously we say that determined by the health department. Um, but it's it's regardless of the number of bedrooms, bunk beds, sofa beds, and just make it clear that we're not counting those those don't count. It's the occupancy based on on
your room. One thing that um she did say is that sometimes um occupancy isn't as clear-cut as two per bedroom. If you have a 70 foot bedroom, that's one occupant. If you have a hundred 100 to 149 square foot bedroom, that's two occupants. But it's when every 50 you go
above the hundred, which is the minimum for two, it's another occupant. So sometimes you might see that. I think that might be why they're seeing you have a five-bedroom home, but you have like a sevenbedroom septic because they have enough capacity in the size of their bedrooms to have more occupants in
them. So that was an interesting thing to hear about as well. So, I think they're willing to work with us in trying to get some sign offs and do some more education uh for people when they're doing their inspections as well as giving out um the rental certificates and whatever information we want to have
go out with that. >> Uh questions from the board. >> Yes, madame chair. I have um one in part well two actually. In 418.7, we talk about three three violations. Now, I know that's in one year.
But do we take or do we give any consideration to a rental year overyear where they may do two one year then they're constantly being called year after year. They never quite reach the three but there's persistent infringement here. Is there any way or
is to address that or is that just mood at that point once the year closes? It it just basically says three or more violations um in a six-month period because obviously most people are renting out during the summer period. >> Summer time.
>> Um so you could find that somebody's consistently having I guess two and two, but then that's where the fines could also come into come into play. >> It's harder with the fines um because you find somebody and then they take it to court and then they they say, "Oh, this is your first offense." And they throw it out and it's a lot of time and
effort on staff part because they have to participate in all of that. Um, that's where the the revocation um is a good hammer to to have. Um, >> but that might be something we might want to think about, you know, about if you're chronic, you have >> chronic, right? >> Habitual.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. If if there was some way to have a cumulative >> Yeah. There you go. >> number. Yeah. >> Tom, I think. Yeah. Um, over some period of time while they are the owner. >> Yeah. >> The same owner.
>> The same owner. I mean, Madam Chair, I understand I understand your thoughts, Tom, but it's a reertification every year. Yeah. And if you hung that over me as the owner of the property, >> I'd have a problem with it. I really would, just as a comment to it. I I hear where you're going with it,
>> but the process is that we ask them to do a reertification every year, which means a new license. you know, I mean, >> trust me, I I absolutely understand the some of the issues going on with short-term rentals and and take into
consideration the residency living around it that are year- round residents having a home. I think it's a matter of following the course that we're trying to set here, which is notifying, you know, Board of Health, building commission, and the police if there's problems and hanging something over
somebody's head saying if you have two this year and one next year, we ought to revoke their license. >> I think we need to make an, you know, we need to make an incumbent upon the owner to to realize that, you know, if you maybe I'll give you a hypothetical. this
owner rents to the same group of people year after year and that same group of people cause issues and you tell them hey next time you know you come for your license be aware if you keep running to these people you know it's going to cause an issue I mean it maybe they and
and maybe they they finally realize and they wake up and they don't do that but I kind of find that's where I see the problem >> yeah and I hear you I just that's incumbent on the owner >> to say hey you know Mr. and Mrs. Jones, you're not good customers. I'm not going to rent to you anymore, >> right?
>> And not put the onus on, you know, building department and etc. to take care of their problems. So, >> and the only other question I had is on the grandfathering thing. So, in other words, if some owner an LLC has two or three units or more and they
grandfathered in, when that property sells, that gr that goes away, right? That on the sale of the property. >> That's Yes, that's a good idea of putting it. Yeah. All I got. >> Anyone else? >> No.
>> Uh Kath, did you want to run through any of the quick um highlights and then uh I see members of the public here and I'd be more than glad to welcome your comments once Kathy is >> I just want people to know we were hoping to have town council here this evening. He wasn't able to make it, but
he's definitely on our agenda for the August 5th. He's already booked in there. So, a lot of the things that you're seeing here, um, and hopefully everyone's picked up a copy of the of it, are a lot of questions that came from the first round of comments that
the, uh, town council had, uh, and that need more discussions and conversations um, wi with town council to to kind of move us a little bit forward. Um, on the first page, we kept talking about we don't want corporations to be able to do it. Well, I think we should probably define what a corporation is. And I
think this is directly from um from Ptowns. >> Yeah. On the second page there, the thing that we still need to really figure out, I mean, we were trying to say dwelling ineligible units were dwelling units owned by CC corporation, S corporation, blah blah blah, um that are engaged primarily in short-term
rental investment activity. I think town council had some issues with that language about um ownership as well as how you would prove investment activity. I tried to provide maybe some different alternate language there. Um that was very similar. He had referenced Ptown.
It's very similar to Ptown about dwelling units owned by Ccorporations are not are ineligible, but short-term rentals are allowed in dwelling units owned by an LLC, a trust, or an S corporation only when every shareholder, partner, or member of the legal entity is a natural person. That was the
comment that town council made and maybe he can explain a little bit better to us what natural person is um as established by documentation provided by the applicant at the time of application. So, that's one question I didn't ask um at our meeting is what type of proof uh
maybe Mark knows what type of ownership proof is required as part of submissions for a rental certificate. >> Nothing. >> I don't know. I don't know what standard they use. So whether they, you know, what they're accepting now and whether they would
accept it at application. Um, and then the real thing that we're trying to get at is dwelling units solely as an investment property in residential zoning districts isn't something that we don't want. >> Right? >> So maybe we just state that and and again these are our ideals and this is
what we want and these are the rules that we're trying to put in place. Um, but enforcement, I'm just going to acknowledge, is going to be difficult because we're not going to always know when these people are doing these types of things. But when things are brought to our attention and we find out a particularly egregious situation, then we have the teeth here to say this is
it's not selective enforcement, but it's just it's realistic enforcement. Um, and then on I guess on the next page on page three,
um, on page two, page three. So, one of the things here, um, are we setting a maximum number of parking spaces? I think that kind of, this is a comment from town council. I think the
what Deb was saying is when they go out and they do the inspections, they can see, okay, you have enough parking spaces in your driveway for four cars, you're listed as four cars. So, the idea is making sure that that gets documented in in some way. The other question that I had and and this kind of came up as
the conversations were flowing with regard to the number of people. But in number four under occupancy, we we had talked about um having a limitation that at no other time during the use of the property as a short-term rental shall the number of the people on the property exceed twice the maximum overnight occupancy. But if you have a large
structure and you have like 14 overnight occupants, now we're saying you can have 28 people on your site. That's a party. Yeah. >> So, I I I almost I wonder whether we're encouraging it by setting up that maximum to two times and we should just let the restrictions with regard to the short-term rental types of rentals
saying no graduation, fraternity, sorority, bridal or bachelor parties and those types of things so people understand that they're not meant to be these large >> That's true. >> So, I think by trying to put that in there, we're trying to >> narrow things down, but I think we might actually be opening things up. >> Yeah. >> So, does that make sense? Maybe we want
to not have that in there. Um, >> so, so Kathy, that that last sentence under number four at no other time, starting with no at no other time. >> Yeah. >> Um, am I hearing the board say we'd like to strike that?
>> I'd be I'd be in favor of >> me, too. I think they act I think Kathy's idea of letting the activity govern >> the notion lodge crowds are not not to be tolerated. This, right, this does open it up to >> mathematical >> legally. They could refer to this and say,
>> "Yeah, I've got, you know, 28 people coming >> and I'm allowed >> and it's a it's a party." >> Yeah. >> Um >> I think it gives people a false sense of the number of people they can have. >> So if we're silent on it, Kathy, um then it it just limits it to the
>> activity, graduations, >> the activities, right? Our definition of activities. Okay. Um members of the board, are we >> okay with that? Mr. Pendleton. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, let's strike that sentence. >> Um, yeah. One of the other things that,
like I say, this might be a place where we would add in Deb's comment about um or somewhere in here about the occupancy set by the health department regardless of the number of >> sofa bed. Just to reiterate to people that we don't care how many beds you
have or how many people you can sleep in in some place. It's about the occup maximum occupant set by the health department, right? >> Okay. So, we can add that in. >> Yeah. >> Sleeping bags don't count. >> Sleeping bags and blowup matt I've actually saw blow up mattresses. It's just like no no.
>> Um >> you just had talked about some things about difficulty to enforce the specific vibration and glare. I think again that's it. That's to kind of give more teeth to people doing things that they're not supposed to be doing like having a large party that letting off
fireworks or whatever that they might be doing. Um, >> which provision are you on now, Kath? >> Sorry. >> Page four. >> Page four, top of top of >> Oh, the very top. Okay. Y >> um and then getting back down to uh suspensions and revocations, I think we
still need to figure out on two or three or whatever number that might be in in that time period. I think it also whether we want to add some type of um definer of what we consider to be violations getting to this level. I'm
I'm concerned that if somebody has one car parked in front of their house overnight at a short-term rental, somebody might say, "Well, that's a violation. You have to count that." I mean, there's there's egregious things and then there's there's might be some minor things. So I I don't know whether
we want to provide some type of caveat on what we can you know what type of of uh violations would uh make you eligible for revocation that again will also be hard to define would be. >> So it's it's it's very tricky but I want people to understand it's not going to
be every tiny little thing but if there's a chronic issue or a major issue then that's something that we can count as a violation and and start adding these up with regard to revocation. Um if we if we can Kath this is the provision Mr. Smith you're you you had
commented on before >> um and Mr. Pendleton had talked about it being uh kind of keep adding it up adding it up adding it up. So we need to think about this. We don't need to do it necessarily tonight, but um I I think
hearing from the public as to how they feel about um the number of violations and if it's chronic, as you had used the word, Kathy, um uh how we work that language in here, I don't know. But um
I'm just wondering if we if we leave this language the way it is right now for further consideration, we'll just leave it open for further deliberation. I think I think that might be the best way to keep it open for discussion because if we decide to change it, we're
not I think um we've got a few more shots at this is my my point. >> Yeah, we have a few more shots at this. >> Definitely. Um and then as we talked about the effective date, I do like your idea of voiding upon transfer of the
property. That's a great a great idea. So, still lots of things to think about. Still need lots of input from from town council on just the questions that we have now. Um, and as we move forward, I'm sure we'll I'm sure we'll have more. >> Thank you, Kathy. Uh, any members of the
public like to speak? >> Yes, please. Uh, your name and your address. Come to the podium, please. Uh Don Pallayia, 44 Webster Road. Um I applaud you guys on the on the move to uh what you've been doing and especially
this removing the maxipen occupancy where you could have twice that number during the day. That's great if you do that. It really is. And I agreed nitpicking for parking one car in a road isn't a big deal. But getting back to what Mr. Pendleton
was talking about perhaps instead of in a six-month period, you make it in a calendar year period. Most of the most of the trouble happens in the shoulder seasons. When you have weekend people coming in for a weekend party, it's not
grandma and grandpa with the kids. It's the weekenders in the shoulder seasons that are the biggest problems. So, April, May, all the way through June sometimes. Then you got September, October, November. Maybe you make that
three complaints in a calendar year. And then you're within that you're you're still in that constraint of the license of 12 months and you still gave him three breaks, >> but you're covering it because if something happened in April and then something happened in November,
that's outside the frame. So So maybe the calendar year is an option. Um, and then the other the only other thing I I wonder is how do you enforce any of this? I I come back I came down this today. I'm just totally disgusted.
My lawn looks like hell. I've spent thousands of dollars trying to get that right and it looks like hell because I'm obeying the ban. There's signs all over the place and everybody around me has got a beautiful green wand.
>> So there's no enforcement on anything. So, how how do you enforce anything? That's that's the my my biggest frustration. But I applaud what you're doing. I thank you so much. >> Well, thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Anyone else from the public like to
share some uh opinion, comments? >> Okay. Uh I think we're >> good. It's good to hear that where the problems really are because I think you're right. It's not like somebody renting for a week who's coming with their family.
>> The shoulder the shoulder that's that's interesting. >> That's a very good point. Thank you. That's a very good point. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Because those kids those kids aren't going to go to the beach if they miss a game. And when I was running hotels, Madam
Chair, I had more problems in the off season. I had an inse because it was the wedding parties, the graduation parties, all that stuff. In season, people are typically on a traditional vacation. So, >> I understand your point and thank you for bringing that up.
>> Well stated. Thank you. We appreciate it. Any other comments or questions from the board on this? Okay. All right. So, short-term rentals We're working on it. Uh thank you again for coming. We appreciate your um your
attention to this and and your your uh opinions and and comments. Next up, accessory dwelling units. Uh we're going to have a discussion on modifying the accessory apartment bylaw, which is what we call it now, to match
the mandated changes from the affordable homes act, which is section 8 of chapter 150 of the acts of 2024 and regulations 76 CMR 71000,
protected use accessory dwelling units. Kathy has provided us with a draft two dated July 9th. >> I think unless you guys want me to go through all of the edits, we can just concentrate on the yellow highlighted ones that have changed since the last
meeting. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Because a lot of like as as Joanne mentioned, this is just getting our bylaw to match with the state kind of dub down everyone's throat. >> This is what we have to do essentially. And if we don't do it with some with some exception,
>> if we don't do it, it's uninforceable anyway. That's >> right. >> So Mark would have to ignore the special permit requirement because that the it would be against state law. So >> um
so I think here um I just changed the short-term rental definition. Jay had referenced it above and short-term rentals is defined in Mass General Law Chapter 64G. So I just inserted that same one there. Um, we have >> So, it'll just be whatever the state law,
>> right? >> We should make sure that our short-term rental also matches that exactly in the short-term rental section. >> Um, we just want to make sure it matches. We did eliminate some of the definitions
based on input from town council. The um, prohibition prohibited regulation and use and occupancy restrictions and unreasonable regulations. Um and then the he did indicate very clearly that we cannot make these ineligible. We c um we
had a list of thing of types of properties and develops that were not eligible for an accessory dwelling. We can't do that anymore. So we've eliminated that entire section. >> Um so that's what you're seeing highlighted there. Um we tried to keep in as many things as we could. Even
though we couldn't do the minimum lot size, we can do the setbacks. Uh, one of the comments that, um, is it's kind of a weird thing in the in the ADU regulations is everything that we're doing for an ADU can't be more strict than what you would allow for a single family home.
>> Um, so as long as this, you know, this he had asked about is there more permissive requirements for residential structures in the bylaw. The only thing that we have with less is 150 square foot or less structure. Uh, I can't imagine putting in 150 square foot uh, ADU, but that is one of the other
questions I think Peter might have had it last time that we need to ask town council is can we set a minimum >> on that because obviously 150 is not >> it's not a livable space, >> right? >> But that that is a question for town council. >> Yes.
>> And again, I don't know whether it goes back to health regulations, whether there's a minimum for, you know, what you could live in a studio. I think there might be. So maybe that's the limit in the health regulations, not necessarily anything else, but that's certainly something we can look into.
Um, oh, uh, number four, in Falmouth, they had the footprint of a new detached ADU cannot exceed that of the principal dwelling. I was a little surprised that that got through the AGS and and Jay kind of said, well, I could think of reasons how it would be in conflict with
the statute, and I was like kind of agreed. I also don't see how it really helps you at all. Um, I don't see the benefit of having it in there. So, I' I've just eliminated it. Um, in talking with Jay later on the parking.
>> Well, this is exciting stuff. What are you talking about? >> Don't blame me one bit. >> Thank you. Um, one good thing is that Jay felt like um, although we can't have the two parking spaces per ADU, it has to be
limited to one or none if you're let if you're within a half mile of a transit station. U, but he thought that we could keep in the requirements of not parking and the green space in front and and whatever. So, we've kept that in which I think is is really nice. >> Um, the storm water runoff again um that I don't think that's something that we
specifically have any particular regulations in our zoning that says that for single family homes. Um, so it's been eliminated. Um, I'm very happy to hear that no condominiumization is not allowed. Just highlighting this for for for Susan's benefit um because you
weren't here at the last meeting. So that's good news that we don't have to worry about any of that. >> Um, and then number two here under on page five, I'm sorry, number seven on page five. Um, this is still up for deh for
questions with town council with regard to whether we can say 12 consecutive months. I know seasonal community says 10 months if we were to become a seasonal community. Um, and then making sure that there's no principal dwelling unit on a lot with an ADU who may be operated as a short-term rental. Those are still questions for town council
that we haven't really received any answers uh on. Um, and he didn't seem to think that there was any issues with keeping in the pro prohibition on commercial uses except for home offices and home occupations. So that was good. Um, when you get into the into the
registration, he was asking questions about this should be in a general bylaw. With regard to registration of ADUs, I just wanted to highlight that you had to had to get a rental certificate. So I referenced the same health um general bylaw chapter 108 occupancy of buildings
um for that and then things are determined based on the title five. Um I took out the recordkeeping because that's in the that's in the actual state regulations. it doesn't need to be in our zoning bylaw. >> Um, so I eliminated that. And then the only other change in 407.5 there is I
took out those definitions for prohibited regulation and unreasonable regulation. Um, so I just said as defined in that state regulation just to be clear and that's it. So few few questions with town council on ADUs. Um,
I'd like to think that this will not be a lot of back and forth. We'll come to we'll get some solid information from town council and and and move forward. It does sound like any place any residentials or any residential any zoning district that you allow a single
family home, you have to allow an ADU. Um so even like HOD1 and H mod 2, we allow single family home. So you have to allow an ADU. I can't imagine someone's going to develop under H mod for single family home. Um, but it may be a way of getting a little bonus density depending
on what you're you're doing. I did notice that in the VC1, VC2, all the village center overlay districts, we don't allow single family dwellings and we don't allow duplexes. Um, that might be something we want to think about a little bit in the future when we start looking at things because you might maybe you want a little cottage cute
little cottage colony. I've seen a lot of really good projects where people have been able to put together small single family homes in a very compact way. um that are very very quaint, you know, they kind of make that cottage colony type thing. So maybe those are
things as we start looking at zoning um on the more >> higher level here um something that we can we can think about. But I did notice it with when we were doing the um accessory apartments. So >> well not when you mention that Kathy, it's not unlike what Habitat is doing
across the street or nearby. I mean, they're >> we're not going to call we're not calling it cluster housing, but >> they're individual homes, small >> um and right on Route 28. >> The the the difference there is that
they are actually creating individual lots for sale. >> Cottage Colony would be you could you you would be condominiumizing. It does. It is a totally different financing, >> right, >> animal um and can be difficult for some people um to finance. But
>> but the look I'm I'm more referring to the look. >> Oh, yeah. >> I'm sorry. Yes, absolutely. Yeah. And even even smaller units. I mean, we we have a lot of use for for need for smaller units. the section down at 28, not to take up too much time, but opposite Gadarnos where the those homes
are right next to our new our new beautiful parks that are being developed, Mil Creek, you know, >> um >> those are those are really nice. >> Oh, the duplexes. Yeah. Yes. >> Those are really, really nice. >> Um and they've been there for a while.
>> Oh, yeah. You can't even see them anymore. The trees have grown up so much you can't even see them. >> Those are Those are really nice. >> Those are very nice. I don't even know when they came on board, but that, you know, 20 years ago, >> those kind of de that kind of development might be something we want to >> we want to be able to
>> make available. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But again, there's they're um an individual. They're actually a traditional subdivision. >> They are individual. >> Yes. Beatric Lane, it's across from >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Giardos. >> The Cape Farms and Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's that's actually a traditional subject. Dan did that one >> uh as well. Charles White. >> Um >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, yeah. And then and that because it's duplexes needed to have twice the minimum lot size. >> They had a lot of wetlands on the site,
so they didn't really didn't really matter because they were had fairly large lots in the back and everything, but yeah. >> Okay. It was interesting. >> All right. So, moving forward on accessory dwelling units. Um thank you Kathy for doing all this. Sure. It looks
like we're going to move from nine pages in the zoning bylaw to three. >> Maybe. >> That's always true. >> If we're lucky if we're lucky. >> Uh oh, >> I didn't mention that because they do have a um
just just for Susan's benefit is um if if you if you have something like now like a family related or an affordable, we can't have those restrictions do not apply any longer. So they do have a process with the ZBA that if an applicant wants to come and they just ask to have that uh taken out uh so that
they can register it at the registry of deeds so that it's when they sell the property it's not oh it has to be family related. Um there's a process for that. It's just at a regular meeting and then they provide something that could be recorded at the registry. It's no public there's no butter notification not a public hearing but then it cleans up the title when you're selling it. So they've
done it for three they did it for two affordable and one family so far. Mhm. >> So that's in that's kind of codified in that as well. >> Okay. Uh moving on. Any any further uh questions or comments?
>> All right. >> But we still have Kathy, you you want this on the fall agenda, correct? Okay. >> Seasonal communities designation. Uh Kathy's provided us with a draft. Yeah.
uh memo and uh Kath why don't you walk through you and I talked about this today there are a couple of ongoing discussions that are going to have be happening with uh deedram I know your committee is going to be looking at this the affordable housing trust is going to
be looking at this um so Kathy why don't you just bring us up to date on the timeline here and uh how we if we need to do anything tonight or we need to just pause and wait to see what the others are the the others are doing.
>> I think um as you know that we had written the letter last March to basically ask the select board not to have seasonal communities on the annual town meeting warrant because we were concerned basically about movable tiny homes. Um so we kind of have to bookend
that that alarm with our okay we're okay with it now. Um and whether they want to in in whatever they want to do with regard to seasonal communities. Um, but I do know that that if somebody needs to kind of pro be providing the select board with some general information on
this. So, um, I think we were hoping that staff was going to maybe see if the community housing committee had an opinion on it and if the affordable housing trust, they just met on Monday. Maybe deer can give a little bit of an overview of that and then the affordable housing trust is meeting on Tuesday. So, we'll kind of find out where they stand
and get a little bit of an idea. Uh and then maybe this goes with some other uh memos from some other committees or something to the select board to kind of give a general view on it. >> Kathy, is the question that being asked or the information is it the general question is this a good thing for Yamoth?
>> Should we be considering this? Okay. >> Yeah. Because I don't want the assumption to be we're going to do it and let's just justify it. The question is still open. Is this a good thing for >> I think so. >> Okay. >> I think so. >> I think that I think the select board is looking to educate themselves on it a little bit more. right
>> to determine whether they think it's worthy of putting on the warrant. >> Okay. >> So, I don't know, dear to how things went. >> Yeah. Basically, the discussion was pretty general about whether it's a good thing, but really I
think that the housing committee is pretty much in favor of it in general because of the additional housing opportunities it might provide. But >> opt in options >> we yeah >> okay
>> um really there was no more detailed >> that I remember of >> Mary had Mary Wagan had mentioned maybe that the community housing committee kind of had their hands full with a lot of things going on right now so um they
may may not be as inclined to dive into that >> all of those things right away anyway because you don't have the >> that's is that true >> yeah definitely >> yeah And I I had one very trivial question that came up that has to do with movable tiny houses. I just
happened to notice that in the new federal bill, the new federal housing bill, >> there's a change to the construction of uh mobile homes that takes away the requirement to have a chassis and does
that make it no longer movable? And does that impact us? I really don't know if it does, but I thought it's worth pursuing. >> Yeah, >> that legislation that was passed just this week, the federal housing, >> doesn't that just become a prefab house at that point when it's not on a
chassis? >> Well, I don't know because they're still calling it manufactured housing, which is what they call the mobile units that are in the trailer parks or whatever you want to call them. >> Do you maybe Marquez, do you have anything?
Madam Chair, members of the board, Mark Grills, building commissioner. Um, what she's talking about with chassis, removing the chassis, the the structure would have to sit on a on a frost protected foundation. So therefore, it would be a a modular home and Massachusetts does regulate those
through they have a program for manufactured homes that the state actually has to approve the plan before we even receive it. So >> Okay, >> great. That takes care. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Mark. Excellent. >> I think that it's the it's all the terminology that's changed a little bit,
you know, with modular >> modular versus manufactured and all that kind of stuff. >> Agreed. >> Just to confuse things even more, >> right? >> I think we don't have enough problems. Um so so I I guess um you know stay
tuned you know with regard to you know what the affordable housing trust and then the community housing committee because obviously we we've done our work I think and we feel relatively comfortable with the requirements so what might be considered the negatives or the things that we would have to do.
Um but then everything else is opt in. >> Yes. >> You know everything else is opt in >> and I think everybody's very concerned about the how how much are you committing to and the fact that even if we do accept it we have 24 months to
back out again. So I think that's you know one of the discussions that keeps coming up. >> Kathy is what is the timeline on this? Does the board want to get this in front of the town meeting in the fall? I'm just assuming that they want to have the discussions to decide if they want to
put it on. >> Is the state imposed any kind of timeline on towns to accept or reject? No. So we So if we don't do anything in the fall, that's still okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. And I did. >> Do you want comments on the memo?
>> We could take them now if you want. Sure. If you've got comments. >> I just I thank you for the um for the email from Daring. Um uh his response to Bob was yes it's my it's our understanding that prohibiting movable tiny houses is allowed within the
definition of further regulation. Um I as you know I don't agree with that. I don't think you can prohibit by regulation. Um is there my recommendation would be at the end of the paragraph will you mention his memo it says per the attached March 30th 2026
email from daring bubble. I would add the sentence pl and I'm assuming but this is I'm just dropping this suggestion planning board recommends requesting an official declaration >> from the what is it the housing what do they call themselves the housing and
livable communities board regarding the issue of prohibition through regulation. I think Daring's email is just too weak to to make any kind of legal I just think it's a weak weak answer. Every answer you get from them is weak.
>> But if we ask if we ask for if >> I'm just saying it's been asked and asked and asked and asked and this is the most straightforward that went to Bob Written, our town administrator. >> Yeah, I still think we should as the planning board since we've talked about it before. I think is a we may recommend to the board of selectmen board you
should be requesting an official declaration from the housing >> because if we are going to move forward with this as you know the big thing is giving up some zoning uh rights that we the town currently has that we give them up and if we do that they're saying well
you still have some authority to prohibit uh >> we would just prohibit them and then the AG would deny us and then we wouldn't we would be immediately revoked right from the seasonal communities. >> But I I still think as the board it may be worthwhile just to add something
about we we got the information but you board may want something more official. That's just an email from Phil and it said it says his name Phil. Um it is our understanding that is not a legal answer >> but
>> I don't even know who our is. It is our understanding that prohibiting move >> I want to see that in writing. I want to see a legal I want to say a lawyer says yes you will be able to do this and I think that should be part of the record. Um so that >> Susan I think you can ask it. I think
the likelihood of getting that out of the state office is slim to none. >> It's slim to none, right? They're not going to regardless. I >> I agree with you. I think there's no reason not to ask it. I absolutely think we should ask it because we're going to be the people giving up the right that we have currently and if we're going to do it and we're going to do it because
we says oh well Phil says we can do it and some lawyer they're drooling over this some lawyer say well not really Phil was worrying about that you really can't do it and so I think maybe it might be worthwhile for us as a board the board of selectments say no we're not going to do it but I think we should
we've we've followed this issue we've been zoned in on it we might as well close the loop and say, "Okay, Phil says, but I want an official declaration from that group that says, in fact, we can't we will be able to prohibit through regulation." Because I've never heard of that. >> Could our council ask their council for
>> Yeah. Something like that. >> You know, >> legal opinion >> a legal opinion >> because I've never heard of >> that. That's an that's that's an avenue. >> Yeah. >> Our council asks >> their council >> for a legal opinion on Phil's it's our understanding sentence. Yeah.
>> And maybe the board of selectman can make that request or we could say to the board of selectmen, we think our council should ask >> as a as a recommendation that we recommend town council >> request from the council of housing and livable communities.
>> A legal opinion >> a legal opinion on particular issue. Yeah. >> Let's see what they say. >> A fair way to go. And that that takes a selectment right out of it too. >> It does. >> Yeah. That's that's a very good point. keeps it at our level which is good. >> Say I'm sorry I missed something. Then
>> it would take the board. >> We recommend that our town council >> ask a legal >> from the town council from their legal counsel. >> What is the name of that? housing and housing and livable communities >> his council regarding the issue of
prohibition through regulation which I don't think is >> possible but >> you know the other thing is and people keep saying it let other towns go first. >> Yeah, >> we'll see what happens. Mhm.
>> You know, it'll come out in in the bathwater at some point because I can't believe any other Cape community is interested in having RVs and camper trailers for people to live in. >> Well, how many other towns have accepted seasonal community at this point? >> Seven, I believe. I think I believe it's
seven times. >> What do they say in their regulations? They haven't. >> I don't know. >> They don't have the regulations yet. They just accepted. >> They just accepted. So, they don't have anything. born. >> Okay. >> Has has accepted and then >> opted out >> and opted out. >> Right. >> Once they realized once they realized
>> I think was born Kathy if I'm not >> I don't there was one for sure that opted in right away >> and then back >> and then backed up. >> And didn't some accept Kathy without really knowing what the what the uh requirements were going to be? I thought
>> Oh, I think some of them accepted it before the regulations came out. >> Before the regulations came out, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And those were a little bit different too. Even from the draft, I remember we com we commented on those. Right. >> I also think they were interested in that money. >> I don't think we did because it was we
weren't even on the potential of being a seasonal community. >> That's right. We weren't we weren't eligible. Right. >> Right. Right. >> That's right. Initial >> first time we did not meet the threshold. That's right. We didn't >> At first we didn't do it because we didn't meet threshold. >> Right. And then the second year they modified the law and said everyone is regardless of the threshold. Right.
>> That's how we got here. I think we can word something in there and just basically say based on the attached he you know this senior policy analyst believes we can prohibit them but we would recommend that we get a determination from town. >> That sounds good for me. Yeah, that
sounds good. From there, we go. >> That's good. >> These these zoning requirements, won't they require us to develop zoning changes >> and so in the process of submitting those zoning changes for approval
>> if we include tiny movable tiny houses are prohibited. >> That would answer the question. I guess my only concern is sometimes they approve the whole thing and then they act X out something saying except for this line right because it's it violates
such and such statute. So your point's well taken >> um because we don't want to get you know caught in a corner. We never want to allow this even for a short period of time. you know, even though there's all sorts of out opportunities and stuff like that, I think it's always good
going into the discussion to have full understanding of what these words mean and the implications. And I've always wondered about that one. >> And you know, it is our understanding that doesn't cut it for me.
Okay, that's a good point. And again, I'll I'll I'll speak for Mr. Slovak who's not here. His concern, continuing concern is about water, not necessarily sewer. >> I do have something on that.
>> Not necessarily sewer, but water. >> Um, and we've been in a drought condition for a couple of years now. and um supporting this kind of lodging, if you will, uh calling it that. Uh where's
the water going to come from? It isn't it isn't even about the sewer. It's about initially the the water. Uh, and I I I am not going to be as eloquent as Peter was at our last meeting, but he has real concerns about water um and
water conservation and um going forward in terms of development and where's the water going to come from >> to support this kind of development. >> I I did have a conversation with Jeff Colby about that. Um, and Jeff was because the the way I talked to Lori
Rzala, who's the water and wastewater superintendent when we're putting together the local comprehensive plan, I specifically asked her, "Do we have enough water capacity to meet our sewer capacity buildout?" And she said yes, based on the current rate of withdrawal
that mass D allows us today. But if they were to lower that, that could be a potential problem. So when I was talking to Jeff, he reiterated that and he's like, "We're fine right now." And I said, "Well, what about all these droughts and you know, not being able to water your lawns?" He goes, "That's all mass D. It's not because we're really
concerned that we're drawing down too much water. We're not like sucking sand at the bottom of any of our wells or even close to that. It's that when you get to the certain drought level, all of these mandates that the state has come into effect. Not necessarily because we're we're really concerned that we're we're getting really low on our water.
So I think the bigger concern isn't do we have enough what's mass D going to become in the future. That's the big and they they they messed this up with the effluent discharge and maybe they'll mess us up and then you have the state saying but we want housing housing housing housing housing.
The left is not talking to the right. And >> yeah, they're all happy that we're doing the sewer, but if we can't >> I mean, again, we've said this before, uh we're one of the more dense uh communities on the Cape. >> Um
second or third easily. And >> uh it's, you know, at some point you wonder where where is the housing going to go? You know, there's plenty of room. There's plenty of room. other places on the Cape, but here in Yarmouth, I think we're we're pretty maxed out.
>> We're pretty maxed out. >> Um so anyway, >> can I just also >> any other >> just Peter's comment um on the email where he said on the 10,000 square foot, you know, the setback issue, he said, you know, be good for developers but not good for butterers. >> Oh yeah. >> Is there any way we can work that in
here? Because I thought that was a great >> Kathy and I talked about it. It was not well written, >> but the concept is great. >> Yeah. Well, the reduction in setbacks would be considered an advantage for a property owner, but would result or could result in homes being closer to
the street or would result in homes being closer to the street and to each other. So highlighting that the only the whole point I guess I was trying to make is that the only advantage for someone or the only reason somebody would want to use this with an attainable and a and a year round restrictions on it is if
you had a had an unbuildable lot because you didn't have enough frontage. You had less than 50 feet. This would now maybe let you do it. >> Um or if for some reason you wanted to get closer setbacks to a sideyard or something along those lines. Maybe you had a little bit of wetlands or
something on your property and you want to be a little bit closer because these are definitely less um especially like the front. There's no 30 foot anymore. This be 15t maximum. Um so that that would be but that would then result in homes being closer to the street into
each other. >> Okay. >> So I don't know if that >> Yeah, that sounds good. Kathy, if I can suggest um why don't we um for our next meeting >> um just highlight the changes to the memo and we'll take into consideration
what we hear from the affordable housing trust >> um and maybe we can take a minute take a look at the minutes of the community housing uh committee uh and and see uh
how their deliberations wound up. Yeah, I I'm drawing a blank on because we spent so much time on other issues like >> I tried to listen to it, but the um audio was very garbled. >> It wasn't you guys. It was just crackly and I don't know.
>> It was on YouTube. I don't know if that had anything to do with it. >> Um >> yeah, stay tuned. I mean, like and >> Yeah. Yeah, we can. >> And you know, there's no I don't know what the rush is either, like you say. I mean, we can take our time. We can find out what other communities do. we can find out what zoning gets changed and
what the AG says, >> what works and what doesn't. >> Works and what doesn't. >> Um, you know, it all gets back to would we be losing? What money would we be losing? >> Um, you know, they only have the the two million >> and did did they even fund it for 27?
>> They did. 26 and 27 had 2 million each >> each year. >> Yes. But they they um Phil said that it's all part of the appropriation. They're not going to start looking at that again till the fall. It's not guaranteed every year. They would have to fund it again and again and again. Um, and right now there's no preferences
given to any of the grants, but I I can see just from how they've been doing it with the environmental um grants and that type of thing that you probably in some future date you will be given some extra bonus points for being a seasonal community. U but right now
that right now Phil was saying there's nothing. >> So you're what are you missing out on? >> Not much. 507 $75,000 in planning money. >> That's assuming we get it. >> Maybe >> that's assuming it's there for us to get >> and if we do it this fall, I don't even know you know what money's left and
>> and that type of thing. So, >> so maybe that's an answer to. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Kathy. >> Thank you on that, Kathy. So, next up, um Madaki's utilization project now known as
>> Yes. No updates. >> They're still working on the contracts. I don't know. >> Um, we have meeting minutes um that we reviewed. May I have a motion to approve the July 1st, 2026 meeting minutes? >> So moved.
>> Second. >> Any discussion? All in favor? >> I uh Kathy, you've sent us um the zoning board uh most recent. And I see that um
>> Mr. Child's got his special permit. >> Um any any other committee updates? >> No. the the uh community housing as I said we talked about a lot of different things and the Habitat for Humanity was
the main discussion that uh I imagine you know everybody's aware of the zoning board of appeals meeting which was very long and detailed and there are there are a lot of discussions but everyone was very friendly and uh agreeable about
things that there were a few uh comments from abutterss who had requests that were reasonable but not doable it seems you know like >> on wood on wood road like yeah it would be wonderful to have a sidewalk on wood
road but that's not within anyone's purview that's involved in >> street put it on the list >> put exactly I was telling them about the complete streets and everything but uh and um there there's some discussion about the placement of the houses and
there there are a long list of um questions and answers. Did you send this to us? I had the two meetings this week and I got confused, but did you send the zoning board of appeals minutes to us or did Mary?
>> Oh, Mary. I did not. >> Yeah. So, I can send this to you all. >> That would be great. Thank you. >> But it was a lot of it it really was a lot of discussion because a lot of whether They should be required to have
uh homeowners association to take care of snow plowing and irrigation and all those kind of things. >> Aren't they normally >> I thought I thought the document said they were I thought we had they were going to have one. >> I think so. And anyway, >> certain they said >> me too. I'm almost positive.
>> They said there was going to be homeless association. >> Yeah. >> So, it's already it was already in there. And so this is a list of all the things that were discussed and they're coming back in August for um a final review and but it you know it looks like
it's going to be a great project. And the other thing that was really interesting is the Yarmmouth Housing Authority about the Forest Road property which keeps coming back. >> Bad Penny, right? >> Just just never goes away. So, they have
issued another RFP and they I think were expecting answers by today. I think today was the deadline. >> I didn't know it was that quick. >> And they are the changes, the basic changes, it's 19 acres total. and they're requiring that about half of
that will be left and put into conservation trust that they would look to have a development with about 90 bedrooms, but that's not sure about exactly how those are distributed and what type of units.
And um they are also going to be required to have one of those super brand new filtration septic systems >> because they're not going to be getting sewer right away. >> So it'll be interesting to see if maybe
they'll get some bids this time, but >> that's not for sure. Um, those are the basic things that we discussed at the housing meeting and I will try and re I'll go back and figure out what we talked about seasonal communities. I think it was mainly me
telling them what we talked about. >> Sure. >> Peter, was there any discussion about which which nine acres they would conserve? >> No, >> just generally. >> Just generally they have to be contiguous. >> I don't know. No, no, >> you know, as a state agency, you know,
the Yarmouth Housing Authority is a state agency >> and >> I don't know, sometimes the transparency isn't quite there. >> It's not quite there. >> Did Did you see the RFP? >> No. >> Was this just Drew? Just Drew.
>> Drew. I'm just probably misinterpreting something. You know, it's secondhand information, but that's basically what he said. The RFP is posted. >> I don't think so, but it must be. >> Has to be. >> It must be. I just have not looked at it >> on the town website. >> It would be at least on the state on the
state. >> It must be on the state somewhere. >> I'll see if I can. >> Oh, well. >> Okay. Um, thank you, dear. Any other committee? >> Just on wastewater. There was, >> madam chair, there wasn't a meeting um this month, but excuse me. I did get an
update uh by email earlier this week on you know where things are at. They're working on the high-pressure main on I always get the name of that road Higgins scroll um to tie it back into Joshua Baker. So that works ongoing as you can
as everybody knows are off of Route 28 but work is continuing on the treatment plant. There still is not a date for a tour set because the state wants to be there. Um, and they are working on the uh pump
station at the Riverwalk Park as I think everyone has seen that ongoing work there with the crane. >> And they're starting site work and starting to do work at the pump station at um I'm dating myself, but I still call it the Shayenor property. Whatever
address that is. >> No, it's not there. There's no pump station at Shayen. >> They're calling it West Y. >> Yeah. Well, it's right by West Yarmouth there. I thought they brittle place, >> right? I thought it was right there. No, I guess I'm wrong with that then. I thought that was a pump station there. >> There's lots of pipes there. They're doing something there.
>> No, Digot is using it for storage staging area. >> Staging area pump station there. >> I thought there was, but I guess I'm wrong. >> Well, there's going to be one. >> It had been back in the day. They had talked about it. >> There'll be one further on up toward there is one further up. I just thought there was one there with all that piping
going there. Um, but anyways, work is progressing. The big news is that they're, you know, really far along coming out of the ground on the treatment plant, which is exciting. So, I'm looking I'm looking forward to seeing it when they eventually set up the tour. >> Oh, that's great news.
>> Also, just the two parks along 28 >> that's coming along very well. Nice, very nicely, too. >> Uh, that's really going to be spectacular. >> Oh, yeah. We should buy the jump, you know, that that bouncy place. You should buy that place and do a restaurant because the view of the water will be
unbelievable. >> Or the tile place. >> Or the child. >> Although the tile place that's that's an ongoing they're very successful there. >> Oh, I know. I know. >> But the bouncy place is empty. >> Yeah. >> I will say I don't know if anyone's gone to the Riverwalk Park. I went there two
weekends ago with one of my daughters. >> Spectacular. >> And it is amazing. And the parking lot was full on a Sunday afternoon which was great to see. >> Good deal. So, we thank you again, Kathy, for bringing that park to us. >> I'm just glad it's not Memorial Park.
>> I made it. >> Kathy Williams Memorial Park. >> She gave it her all. >> She gave it her all right to the end. >> That's right. >> Uh any other uh committee updates? Uh okay. Uh any staff updates, Kath, from you?
>> Yes. Um the state has been added again and they did pro we had talked briefly a memo of I don't know how many meetings back about the changes that they're making to 48 through the through the budget through and then through the uh e economic bond bill. The budget has
passed and they have all those 48 changes in it. I'm not going to go over it a lot today with you guys. It's very similar to what we had talked about before when those outside sections in the in the budget. We did get a um an
advisory from our town council on it. A lot of I've talked briefly with Mark about it. Um the the biggest change is really about the changing in the variance language. >> What language? the variance, >> making it easier um basically to get a
variance >> um and and maybe not being able to do that condition, putting conditions on a variance any longer. >> And that's in the budget bill. >> That's in the budget. >> Yeah. Still to come is all of those changes with regard to site plan review that are part of the economic bond bill,
which I'm sure will be passed in next few weeks or something. >> But the environmental bond bill >> that didn't have any changes to 48. just had a preference in the and I don't know where that L ended up either. >> I I thought that passed though. >> Did it?
>> I thought the environmental bond bill did I'm not I'm not sure but >> because that had the preference for um the grants if you didn't have stricter environmental regulations than the state with regard to wetlands and wastewater. And I think we do have stricter
regulations. So that impacts again the points you get on certain environmental grants such as the state revolving fund. >> So that was the reason that um was it the um Capen Islands protective
what was that group? >> I know you're talking about I know who you're talking >> they wrote they wrote in a um a letter expressing concerns about >> concerns on the Senate floor. It was a modification on the Senate floor. >> Right. Um, and just like you know, we're Cape Cod. Of course, we have these extra
regulations. We need to protect our environment. >> So, so there's that. Um, the RFP has been delayed for the design standards and the changes, the getting a consultant to help us with that because Fetlana, um, she's very busy. She has
lots of other procurement that she's doing and then the end of year stuff kind of screws you up. You have to get everything all wrapped up from last year and then prepped for this year. Um the LCP podcast is up. It talks mostly about
um the LCP in a general fashion and then also about the Parker's River. >> Who's in the podcast? >> Me. >> It was great. >> I forgot to say I thought that was wonderful. >> I talked a lot more about the the intricacies of the LCP about like what's
in it and the implementation that didn't make it into into that podcast. We talked about a lot of different things and I thought it flowed beautifully really but it's not an in-depth what's what's in the in the B I don't talk about built systems and you know I do
there's it's in the it's on the cutting room floor but they might you know and they're very busy with a lot of other podcasts but I did say I talked to Lori go you know if you have a chance it's already in the can if you want to have oh we're gonna have a little more in-depth conversation with town planner Kathy Williams you know
>> and then just literally it would be like a fiveminute podcast because that's all it would be. I think it would explain everything. It would talk about the implementation matrix. It would talk about the annual reviews. >> I think it's kind of important. So, I don't want to stress anybody out because everybody's so busy, but um maybe Liam's
hearing us and he can do something about it because he was there with the recording. He puts them all together. Um it was just a question that we asked at the end that I think would have been um it can be its own separate little one. >> Yeah. You know, >> how often do you do it, Kath? >> I once.
Is it is it intended to be like once a month or once a week? >> Oh, the podcast they're doing bunch of different people. I think they have like >> they're working on two now and I think they have three scheduled one on a comprehensive no different. >> I'm sorry. I'm thinking
Kathy Williams. >> Right. Right. So >> I just happened upon it and then I started looking for how to find all those podcasts because there are a lot of them but I thought it was wonderful. >> Yeah. If you go to the Yarmouth TV on the website, there's a podcast little
blurb there. So, yeah, it it was good. It it you know, takes a lot of effort to make something look effortless. You know, Lori did a great job. You know, she got the questions together. I had the answers together and then it all actually flowed extremely well and I was kind of surprised how well I flowed together. So, yeah, lots of good
information, lots of good things happening in town. >> Yeah. >> Um, so that's it. One last thing. Um, special town meeting has tentatively been thrown out a date of November 16th. It's a Monday. It works for the town clerk. It needs to be vetted with the select board before it's finalized.
>> Monday the 16th. >> Yep. >> November. >> Special. >> Special. Yep. >> On a Monday. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think Mary had something going on. Mary Mazowski on Tuesday. >> It was It was Monday last year, too. >> Okay.
>> Maybe we'll start a new trend. Mondays for special town meeting. I know. So that that's good. It's a little later. It's not earlier. So it gives us a little bit more time to vet some things. So I was glad to hear that. >> Uh our upcoming meetings, Kath, we've
got uh two in August the 5th and 19th. >> Any um regulatory things coming up for us? >> No. >> Okay. >> Which is good. Thank you. Thank you. >> Development community. >> We're going to keep focusing on these to get them ready to get them prepped.
>> Okay. Um Anything else from members? Okay. So, may I have a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Yeah. All in favor? >> I >> All right. Thank you.