Recording in progress. >> Recording stopped. Recording in progress. >> Good evening and welcome to the May 20th 26 Yarmouth Planning Board meeting. I am Joan Crowley, chair. The public is welcome to attend in person this evening or via alternative public access
provided on the notice of meeting available on the town of Yarmouth website. I'd like to have roll call. Susan Brida >> present. >> Deed Gwen >> here. >> Tom Pendleton >> here. >> Will Rubenstein. >> Peter Slovak >> here. >> Ken Smith >> here.
>> And myself Joanne Crowley present. >> Seeing that we have a quorum present, I'll now call the meeting to order. And I would ask you to join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. >> The first item on our agenda this evening is uh an ANR approval not required ANR plan number 2371M.
The trustees of the Kingsway Condominium Trust property located on the north side of Nottingham Drive, Yarmouth Port, Mass. Assessor Map 142, parcel 17, zoning district R40. This ANR creates a
non-build buildable lot for conveyance purposes. It includes modifications to ANR plan 2371L to meet certain land court filing requirements that we just learned of. Um, Mr. Michael Kenik. >> Yes.
>> Uh, is here representing Kingsway Trust. Welcome. >> Oh, how you doing? >> All good. >> Uh, if you'd like to walk us through, um, what the land court uh, advised and then we'll go through Kathy's planner memo. >> Uh, yes. So, um, you may remember I was
here in January and we actually ended up getting an endorsement back then, uh, because we were so tight time to try to get this thing closed in time for the, uh, for the June 1st grant deadline. Um, I spoke with the land court and they said, you know what, you can go through
the local process uh, and then, you know, provide us with the plan. Um John Vitali uh at the land court had a couple of changes to the plan. Nothing at all regarding the actual parcel or the the
um dimensions of of the land to be sold. Uh just a few tweaks um some changes in the language to some of the notes. Uh the land court can be very particular. Um the ma the monuments I think weren't shown in the correct direction. So, uh
just very minor details um that they needed us to uh um change. Uh the good thing is, uh we got the process done with the land court in time to to get here for May 20th and uh I'm hoping to
close next week. I think ready to go. >> Thank you very much. >> It's been a it's been a lot of work. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Kathy, you want to just run through maybe a couple of notes on your >> Yeah. I I don't really have any issues. Obviously, the town's interested in purchasing the property, and we do have the grant that we don't want to risk
losing. Um, they did get a special permit in order to be able to carve off this parcel, and we had originally asked them to put the book and page number on it. It's not on this one. I wouldn't worry about it at this point. They got the permissions. It's being sold to the town. It's not like it's going to go to a developer or something like that. So,
I'm fine with um endorsing it. >> Okay. Any comments or questions for board members? >> Okay. Um, I learned a little bit about how detailed the land court can be that concrete boundary markers need to be perpendicular
>> to the line. And so I'm looking at the I'm looking at the at the drawing. I'm like, >> that looks pretty perpendicular. >> Um, but I suppose that's good. >> They have a manual that uh and it's very long and detailed. >> Well, there's there's no excuse for
paying attention to details. So, um, I appreciate you coming in this evening. Thank you, Mr. >> We're very excited about this. >> Is it public information what the what the town is paying for the lot? I'm just curious. >> It's $600,000. >> They had sure how much is the grant for
>> I'm not sure what the grant uh the amount was. >> He didn't talk. Bob didn't talk about it this morning at at select board meeting, but he did mention there was a grant that they needed to close by the end of the month >> to get the grant, but he did say sale of property was 600 grand, >> right? And there was CPA money involved.
I thought >> I think the other 300,000 CPAP and then the rest is this grant. Uh, so may I may I have a motion to endorse ANR plan 2371M prepared by Merrill Engineers and Land
Surveyors dated and stamped May 8th, 2026. >> So move second. >> Any discussion? All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Thank you for coming. Appreciate Mr. Kenn. Do I need to sign something now? >> Thear's right there. And I think you
have a pen. I do. While Joanne is doing that, Michael, I know that Britney Denzo, the conservation administrator, has been trying to reach you and >> Yeah, I sent her an email um this afternoon. >> Okay, perfect. Because she was going to come to the meeting to talk to you and I just wanted to be sure. >> I I sent her an email. I was I just told
her I've been just flat out I had a hearing. We're trying to discover another case that I'm handling still exist. >> Well, I'm glad you guys connected and so excellent. >> Okay. So, they're just >> all updated Kath today.
>> Yep. >> Exactly. >> And then I have two hard copies. We can sign at the end of the meeting. >> I can sign it afterwards. Okay. >> Mr. KC, do you need to take this with you? >> Yes. >> Awesome.
Land court's a bear. It's a totally different thing. >> Thank you. >> Uh second item on our agenda uh this evening is uh short-term rentals, a discussion of potential amendments to zoning bylaw
section 418. short-term rentals based on the UMass Donahghue Sgr study and input from our select board. In our packets for this evening, town planner Kathy Williams has provided a draft number one as well as the most recently adopted new
bylaw for the town of Falmouth for our discussion tonight. She's outlined a few points to guide our deliberations. uh what my expectations are that we'll have enough information to give Kathy uh uh comments and and uh recommended
adjustments so she can draft number two. Um but in her in her planner memo, she recaped the Donnu study. Um she covered um some the the the issues about complaints and enforcement, some simple zoning changes, uh limiting investment
properties, um a potential review with town council on zoning versus uh general bylaw, and then recent correspondence from a resident, Mr. Don Pa. Uh so Kathy, I'm going to turn it over to you at this point.
>> Sure. Um I think we had a really good meeting with Mumes Donahghue um with the select board on Mar March 3rd. It wasn't that long ago um about the report and I think I tried to take some of the takeaways based on the report and actually what happened at that particular meeting. Uh really the whole
purpose of the study was to look at how short-term rentals may be affecting year-round housing. But it also looked a little bit at motel and also uh did some stakeholder interviews and talked about quality of life for our residents. That was another important component of it. Um, so it really doesn't appear as though um, short-term rentals are having
a significant impact on year- round housing uh, in our housing market. Uh, most short-term rental properties are actually second homeowners who are utilizing the property for part of the time. Uh, and they're not really not interested in renting it out year round. Um, available data on on the investor
ownership was a was a little limited. Um, but they were kind of indicating that doesn't appear to be a major issue of concern at this time. Um although um we have been increased I think another statistic that was important is that although we've been increasing our overall housing units the percentage of housing that's seasonal has really been
staying steady for the last few decades. Um so you may be say changing a little bit of within that 30% of whether it's short-term rentals or or not but that percentage of seasonal seems to be fairly steady um throughout the community. Um the percentage of the short-term rentals overall housing stock
is really not excessively high. Okay, it's 5 to 8% depending on the number of short-term rentals data points that you're picking, whether it's department of revenue or or our health department. And this is really much lower than a lot of other communities who had to take some aggressive um regulations to
restrict short-term rentals. Um we did also look at the short-term um rental excise tax. Uh we all know that 75% of that goes towards our wastewater initiative. So, it's very important uh that that we have th that particular funding. And I I updated the um table
that was in the UMass Don Huegh report by adding FY25 where it had looked like for some time from FY21 to 25 to 24 that traditional lodging was going down a little bit and short-term rentals uh excise tax was increasing but FY25 it
looked like that was changing a little bit and going a little bit in the other in the other direction. Um, and I know that our our hotels have really worked very hard to kind of reinvent themselves in order to um stay uh uh retain that market value and market share. Quality
of life issues, I think we all kind of know what they are. Um, there's concerns about traffic, noise, overcrowding, people parking where they shouldn't be parking, um concerns about loss of community, uh, and then also fear of that investor proliferation. Um, and then also who who do you contact at the town? What do you who do you talk to if
you have a particular complaint and how do you go about doing that? So the the select board had kind of heard all of the information in the UMass Donahghue and they really were emphasizing implementing strategies that incentivized and preserved year-round housing versus looking at stricter
regulations. So their strategies might be things like um lease to local programs. You know, maybe we're subsidizing or purchasing year-round deed restrictions or implementing a residential tax exemption to make it less desirable to have a a second home. And then all maybe also offering some assistance for new landlords because uh
it's really hard to be a landlord and there's a lot to know about it. So maybe some assistance uh to people would be beneficial. So some of the things um that we talked for potential discussion uh was talking about how we go about complaints and enforcement. Um just to be clear the building and health don't receive a
significant number of complaints. They really don't. when they do, they're like egregious. But every single time they've been able to contact the owner and it's been remedied very quickly. Even this particular one, um, recently it was the guy was horrified. He go, I don't want that happening at my property either.
And he's implementing a bunch of different strategies in order to to not let that happen again. So, I think people are trying to be responsible. It's a it's an asset to them. They certainly don't want it to be to be an issue. Um, but looking at ways we can provide a clear outline of how this how you would process if you had a
complaint, who you would be talking to. Um, also, uh, making sure that we can try and compile that annual list of registered short-term rentals with that 24-hour contact information, make that available on the town website. We should be able to do that with open gov. All that information uh, is being collected,
so we can certainly run a report on that. Um, it won't always be 100% up to date if somebody puts in a last minute short-term rental, but it'll give a lot of information for people. Um but a lot because a lot of these issues with short-term rentals are really happening outside normal business hours when the health department and building department are closed. Uh we really need
to coordinate with the police department um to ensure that they are letting us know about issues with short-term rentals and actually asking the questions and making sure that they realize that it's not just the resident that's making this noise. This is a short-term rental and this is a slightly different bear that needs to um be
documented and sent to the building and health department for enforcement. So I did take a look as Joanne mentioned um and and did a re very very simple modification. We can go through um that in in a little bit. Um
and then also I didn't do anything just to be clear with regard to limiting investment properties. I kind of wanted to talk to you guys about it a little bit and see what you were interested in doing um before I looked into that any further. I did talk to town council and we were smart enough to put in our
sunset clause saying that um we're allowing the use but all your loose uh um the use ends when the sunset clause ends meaning there's no grandfathering of anybody who's done a short-term rental. So now is our time to put things into place because once we get rid of that sunset clause and if it's in a
zoning bylaw then you're setting grandfathering precedent. So if you change it make it stricter later you've already let some of the horses out of the barn. uh and it's it makes it more difficult to keep track of. Um and that's why um sometimes and especially Felmouth they did it through um a general bylaw which has less issues with
regard to grandfathering. Um you can't really gr you can change a general bylaw without resulting in grandfathering but with zoning it's 4A and grandfathering applies. You still have to do the land use component of it within the um the zoning bylaw. just saying allowing it as
subject to and whatever general law chapter that we come up with would would be it would looks very similar to what we have, but it would just be a general bylaw instead. So, we're still talking that through. >> Oh, yes. Go ahead, >> Kathy. The on the grandfathering piece,
is the only way to remedy that is to address it through a general bylaw or could we actually prohibit grandfathering? Is there any way to chapter 48? I don't I don't think you can do that. But, you know, an example would be is if we limit someone to say you can only have you can't have
more than three short-term rentals, which is what they ended up doing in Falmouth, and then later you wanted to change it back down to two. If it's in the zoning bylaw that way, then those people are grandfathered. >> Yeah. >> Um I still have more conversations I'd like to have with town council about that. >> Yeah. >> Um
>> because grandfathering, you know, cuts both ways. It can be a hindrance for progress. It can also, you know, preserve something that's that's decent. >> People have invested in it under certain rules. They should be able to continue with those rules because they were
playing by the by the rules when they was passed, right? >> Yeah. We can't we can't pull the rug out from underneath people. So, that's why the grandfathering otherwise we would have all these non-conforming lots wouldn't be developable anymore. So, that's why want to make sure they're preserving people's property rights. >> Madam Chair.
>> Yes, Mr. Smith. >> Kathy, just just a question on the sunset clause. Excuse me. What's the harm of keeping it in there? Maybe lengthen the time of it. Say it five years out or whatever. My only thought to it is
I ran hotels for many years as I think you know. And 10 years ago, if you would ask me about short-term rentals, I would said, "Yeah, what are you talking about? We have cottages to rent right here at one of the hotels I ran." The industry
is changing and who knows where it's going to be with AI and everything else. five years from now or pick a number. I I just rather than writing something into a grandfather clause, no grandfather clause, all this stuff. I think the sunset clause if we put a
period of time and I don't think a year or two, I'm talking maybe five years out or whatever can give us a chance to, you know, maybe take a take a breath and say, is this still the right thing for Yarmouth or whatever the case may be. I think that's a question for town council
because typically the they sunset clause is meant to allow you enough time to maybe do some additional investigations. It's not really something >> uh that goes on and on and on unless Yeah. >> in all due respect to town council, there's no attorney that's going to
predict the lodging industry where it's going in five years, you know. Wouldn't >> would there any be anything to prevent us from making changes in five years without a sunset clause? But we instead of having to do it, we could choose to do it.
>> Would that be the grandfathering of things? That's >> my question would be if we to Ken's point, if we had a sunset clause that went out five or 10, whatever it might be, and we realize two years from now that things are really changing, can we pull back from or is that sunset clause
set and we can't move it? Can we bring it back before the period expiration >> and what can we do within the sunset? What can we do between let's say we push this out five years? So we kept the exact language and we said November 30th 2031 in that fiveyear period can we make
changes or is it prohibited for are we read to this or can we as Ken say go back in during that fiveyear period if we find a problem and make a change during that fiveyear period. I think you can, but that's getting into the weeds enough where I think I would want to talk to town council. I don't think
that's the the intent of I just remember the last time when we extended it, there was some conversation of they're not going to let you extend it indefinitely. Also, >> who's the they attorney general's office, >> right? >> Andrea Campbell, >> whoever we the state state attorney
state attorney general. >> Okay. And Kathy, just so you understand where my point of view is coming, I'm trying to leave us, God forbid we need it, but leave us an offramp. >> Yes. >> And you know, I I I can't predict where short-term renters are going. >> And I don't think no, no offense, but I
don't think anyone of us up here can either. >> Okay. >> And you know, the industry is changing so rapidly, the lodging industry, that I'm just was looking at it as a some sort of protection. That's all. >> It's a good question to ask for sure. And if there is a sentiment on the from
the planning board to maybe do an extension, um, are we prohibited? Is Campbell going to say you absolutely cannot do it? And what would she base her prohibition on? >> I want to ask town council. I think there's a precedent with regard. >> We want to consider and actually and during a public hearing if we have one,
discuss that. Um, and if if it's not prohibited and it provides us with an off-ramp with enough time to consider changes in the in the um the industry and what's happening, >> unless we're prohibited, that might be something we would want to consider. >> Definitely.
>> I think a lot of a lot of what came out of the study is inconclusive, too. I mean, there's still >> we we we could use some more time to understand where they, you know, they're saying there there's uncertainty with a lot of these points and takeways.
There's uncertainties with the revenue stream too. You see the up and down a bit. We're still coming out of CO where motel are still finding their stabilized level of revenues now after after the COVID bump and postco bump and what's the the new new normal for some of these properties.
>> Yeah. And the part that you know revenue is one thing that doesn't take into consideration at all how many room nights were sold. you know, the price comparison of two 2025 against 2021 right after COVID, I'm sure the price points are completely different.
>> I guess from a from a view point of view, we'd like to leave the board with as much flexibility as possible, >> right? um to to consider all alternatives, not just and one of them, of course, would be to stretch this out as much as we can so that we can
consider all possibilities and review not only what's in the report, but new information that's going to come online >> because I do think Ken's right. I mean, the industry is changing. I just noticed there was a in front of zoning another application
to convert one of the motel to student to to summer, you know, employment >> workforce housing. And when that when when we were um looked at that several years ago when they came in front of the planning you know we were we were concerned at least I was concerned that
Yamoth not become the summer employment capital of the Cape >> and of course it is becoming the s and not and that's not necessarily a bad thing because the rooms are occupied. My concern is the kids are not spending money the way a a regular you know
family would spend money. They sometimes they're eating they're in fact the first time we did it I think the the red jacket agreed to feed them so they're not even running to you know Captain Parkers and grabbing a hamburger they're getting so their impact on the economy is negligible that's contract
>> especially in the summer months when we want it to be up >> contractually they had to that was part of yes exactly >> part of the contract with the agency that they used >> yeah and short term that's great because it you know the kids are not running across the street midnight and all that kind of stuff downside is we need money.
We need a commercial corridor to be particularly during the summer months and that had a negative impact on my concern. >> But they still have to pay they still have to pay the tax. >> Oh, they do. They do. But they're not but the kids aren't spending money like they they're not going out to eat. They're not they're not buying clothes.
They're not spending money the way a family would. They're not going to I think like um what's the what's the the miniature golf place? The two of them. >> Pirates Cove and Nick's Nick Can. They're not doing that. >> Can I make one small point? I think that
right, they're probably not spending money like because they want to send that money home. That's >> right. Or they're saving for tuition or whatever. >> I get that. But two, I think one thing is we have enough seasonal help then restaurants and other places don't have to close, right? >> So you're going to get revenue from
those places being open. and it may not, you know, bring back what you what they might spend, but at least those places aren't closing and they're staying open and generating. >> Yes, that's the kind of thing the chamber should be monitoring. Exactly what Tom just said.
>> Restaurants aren't closing. What generally is the increase in revenue for those extra hours versus what the gift shop is not getting because the kids aren't spending money, >> right? >> And I think the re I think the chamber might be interested in this. That's a very hard study, but it is
>> I don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole, but I will just make one comment. >> I think, you know, the property owners >> that are doing this, looking at their properties as workforce housing, I think it's, >> you know, behooves them in the standpoint that there's guaranteed income to them and I understand why
they're doing it. My concern with it is when they take that threshold into doing that, the reinvestments back into the property because they don't they're not attracting customers. They're making it a dormatory. Basically, the reinvestment back physically into the property is the
long-term detriment, I believe, to the properties on Route 28. That's our prime corridor, and I have a serious concern with that. You know, how are these properties going to look five years from now? Whatever. >> They look like a dome. >> Some of those properties are rented to employers outside of town.
>> Sure. >> Chattam bars in rents, you know, 20 rooms at one of them. Those employees are probably not working at C Parkers. maybe the second job or something, but you know, so they are out of town workforce housing too. >> Well, technically the way it's written is you need to work in the town of Varmouth for
>> That's not happening completely, Kathy. Just so you know, >> we don't want it to. >> We we don't it's it should be um but I know that like 452 Route 28, I think those people are working in the county because the places that they're working are inflatable.
know the property that Peter's talking about and there's people there that do not work in this town. So >> they're also >> second jobs in this town. Maybe that's how they get away with it. But >> and 452 is 100%. >> That's right. >> They're also running across 28 in at
midnight and at some point one of them is going to get hit. I mean, I've asked repeatedly to have either the police department or the chamber either give them a guideline or keep reinforcing these kids cannot be running across the street uh at night and they
do it all the time because the dollar store is right across the street. Um, trying to organize. >> We went off over here. >> So, she can get our thoughts together. Um,
>> so what I'd like to do is um, uh, Kathy, you okay with what you've covered in your memo? >> Did you want me to go through the red line edits or >> Yeah, I'd like to do that next. just do that next as a as a baseline, right? I I consider this a baseline.
>> Yes. These were just things that needed to kind of be a little bit corrected. I mean, we don't allow short-term rentals in accessory apartments. We want to be sure that we're talking about accessory dwelling units and those protected use accessory dwelling units. Um, we also might want to consider adding in something that's that identifies I mean,
this was the intent of these bylaws was to develop yearround housing through the VCOD, the road, and the HM mod overlay districts. um and making those those um units that are developed, they can't be short-term rentals. >> The only place where I think it might be
of a concern, and Joanne and I talked this afternoon and she listed a bunch of them, was the 703 Route 28, those three um right next to Parker's River. >> Yeah. >> Um whether that might be end up being short-term rental, but maybe we don't
want that there either. I mean, maybe or maybe we want people renting for a longer period of time versus a short-term rental because that was the concern that we had with regard to the parking. We all know that there are concerns with parking, but there's no alternative location to park there other than in that in those garages.
>> Yeah. When when Kathy and I talked about that particular red line that she added, um, think about the activity at JMart now. I mean, the the the apartments, the four apartments are, you know, the studs are up, the walls are up, the windows
are in. Um, they would not be allowed to have any short-term rentals in there. Um, which is a good thing because we want it to be year- round housing. Um, and, uh, when we talked about it again, um, up across
from Parker's River, which Kathy just mentioned, um, and then Hunan I call it Hunan across from Captain Parker's they too um would be restricted. Uh would they I think Kathy right? >> Yeah. I don't think they would they
would care per se because they have four of the 11 units need to be um affordable anyway. I think the whole intent was that to be year round rental housing >> and then then we have Beckers. >> Beckers was not BCOD or road. That was just the underlying zoning bylaw. So it wouldn't apply. They could technically
do short-term rentals. I don't think they're interested in doing it either because they're looking but that would be really odd. >> A great vacation >> those Holy Cross kids there. >> Right. There you go. >> Place a mini. >> Sorry I interrupted Kath. Go ahead. um you know that's something we might
want to talk a little bit more about uh and maybe talk um you know I don't know whether since they already have their VCOD decisions whether they are in a sense grandfathered from any changes that we make here with regard to that. So that's something to to think about. um in
registration and inspections. Um the latest version of the Massachusetts building code requires short-term rentals to be um inspected by building personnel or by or in accordance with the building code. So, not only are you going to get a rental certificate, but you're also going to get a certificate
um certificate of inspection from the building department. So, you end up you're going to end up having two uh certificates um shown there on the next. >> Okay. Can I ask a quick question? the inspection and the registration. Do we charge Do we charge for that?
>> Do we charge a fee for either one of those? >> Oh, we definitely charge a fee for the certificates. >> What about the inspection? Is that a >> part of the certificate? >> I think it is because part of the certificate cost the people in the the um >> the housing people in the health
department have been trained to look for all the things that they would need to look for with regard to the building. So, they're going one there's not two people going to do to do an inspection. So I don't think so just a matter of having another piece of paper that says certificate >> of inspection has the reason I ask is
one of the suggestions that the gentleman on Webster had was um creating some sort of pool of money that could be used during the summertime to pay like an intern or a summer employee to do some of this administrative inspection work. So if they were I just want to make sure there are fees associated with
that. So that that >> there are fees. Okay. I'm assuming Kathy that they must fall under the same rental inspection that a you know for example a property like mine that we have to have every apartment inspeed. It's board of health, it's building and
fire. That's an inspection. It's not just a it's not just a health agent. And I I would see why they wouldn't fall under that because they come in inspect smoke detectors, means of egress. >> I don't think the fire is looking that for that in short-term rentals.
I think it's done through and I'm I'm not positive. I think it's being done through that. >> I'd be curious on that one because in my book they should. >> Yeah, >> I agree. I I I was going to ask about fire. You know, it >> they may and I can check on that. >> Another source of revenue.
>> It cost plenty, let me tell you. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, it does. I think they raised it. >> They did raise it >> quite a bit. Like like more than doubled it. >> I'm not going to go there, but yes. >> 185 or so. >> Yeah. So,
>> times 212. >> Yeah. Per unit. >> So, I think one of the other things is making sure that um that these certificates are shown not just in a prominent location, but they're also readily visible from the exterior of the dwelling. That would be helpful for
police department to see, oh, wait a minute. This is a short-term rental certificate there. Um, and again, we want to be including that 24-hour contact information. Um, and then eliminating the sunset clause, although that's an interesting idea of whether
possibly extending that, whether we can make edits like this while extending that. Um, I think just maybe there's a couple other things Joan and I had kind of gone through, see that when I um gone through the um article 17 that Felmouth had recently uh approved at their town
meeting. They did a lot of work >> and I know that they looked at everything and they they they had a whole separate committee and they were working uh on this for for quite some time and I think but part of that Kathy was they didn't have any provisions right in their
>> I don't know exactly what they had. >> Yeah. >> And they do not have a lot of motel rooms. In fact, believe it or not they have very few motel rooms compared to us. So, I think some of the things that we have been talking about um was really about um Oh, here I got a copy. I think
there's some things in here that we might want to consider looking at and Joan and I had kind of talked about that this afternoon. I also think there's a lot of information in here that might be a bit much um even for a general bylaw. I think generals have a tendency to be a bit more voluminous. Um, but I do think
they talk about the purpose and intent. If we're going to start adding things uh into the bylaw that are going to be, you know, preventing commercialization, we should include that uh in the purpose as well as uh the purpose of reducing um
or not impacting the year- round housing housing units. Um there's a bunch of definitions we might want to consider um adding some more definitions to to our section. Uh, one of the things that was highlighted here, uh, underneath um, operator is that they m they must the
contact must live within 20 miles from the short-term rental property. So, I don't know whether that's something we want. Okay. >> Yeah. I mean, I number one, I don't know how it's enforceable. >> Thank you. >> I don't know how it's legal. >> It's a little bit concerning because the more and more things that we add in here, the harder it is to keep track of
and people say, "Why aren't you keeping track of that?" Because we don't have enough people to do that. It does help to a certain extent if you have a problem property and then you can point to certain things that are helpful and and say you're not doing this so you need to do that. But I wasn't >> I don't think that was as important.
>> So this was an article 17 at their most recent annual town meeting and this hasn't been approved yet by the attorney general. >> No it has not. >> Which is to your point Ken >> that something like that might not >> I mean I understand why they did it. I think they did it to try and discourage corporate ownership. you know, how can
you live within 20 miles? Some of the I know some of the corporations that >> you could be have an operator like an operator. You could hire Delmare and they would they would always be available and that would be your solution to that. Um, one of the other things that keeps coming up has to do with parking and not
having enough parking and they're requiring under requirements to they actually are doing it through a licensing versus registration, but they want a parking plan showing where you're going to be parking at least one parking space per bedroom. Um, a lot of the things that we have is we do have a lot of short-term rentals that have a large
number of bedrooms, you know, five to seven. So the occupancy might be, you know, 14 people, two times each bedroom, but they don't have enough parking for that. So what is the going to be the deciding factor, your septic system or your parking capacity?
>> Um, so that's something else to to think about whether you need to find out where you're going to be parking all of these people. So it's not going to be >> I know in Chris Gley's neighborhood that's a major problem. >> Uh, the packing. >> Yeah. >> She said they're packing all over the street all the time. Um, and that's, as
you know, totally residential neighborhood >> and sometimes you can barely get down the street because on both sides of the street. >> Yeah. Well, the only thing that we have now is I mean on street parking is allowed >> most everywhere except for in front of fire hydrants and inter you know
intersections within certain distance and that type of thing >> but not overnight >> and not overnight. >> Not overnight but not overnight. So I don't know whether that's a case um or or anytime when it's a safety or traffic hazard. I mean that's also in there as well. Um I guess I didn't save my
highlights. Um one of the other things is about you know there this I think is the key one. Number five on the on the third page. Um >> ownership >> talking Yeah. ownership of short-term rentals. This is kind of where they're starting to restrict things a little
bit. Um, but the definition of an owner could just be me and they're saying, you know, an owner shall be entitled to receive um, no owner shall be entitled to receive more than three licenses to operate a short-term rental. If I have three licenses to operate a short-term
rental, I'm doing that's my business. I'm not living there. >> So, I was a little surprised that they went with three. >> That's the same number that Promise Town used on their restriction certificate. It was three. >> So, I don't know.
>> And if you And if you owned the property with your two sisters, >> right? >> Yeah. >> It would be nine. >> That's right. >> I think >> each one's entitled. >> They're an owner. >> You're >> there are three owners.
>> Be one. You Oh, well, >> I'm I'm guessing. >> Yeah, that's an >> Yeah, I mean that could happen. >> Have an LLC and you could have three each, right? You can split the profits however you want. >> And that's the that's the next one. No limited liability company shall be used to register more than three. >> Right.
>> Yeah. >> So you can just have different names on an LLC. >> So I don't >> I just don't know what how >> I know what their intent was, but I'm not sure how helpful it is. But they're also banning obviously the fractional ownership and the time shares. And then they're also banning ownerships of
Ccorporations or S corporations, which I don't think are the problem. >> That's not our problem. >> I don't think it's our problem. So this this I mean we had talked about potentially limiting the number and trying to be sure that it kind of stays more towards this is my second home and
I'm going to use it for a little while but then I'm going to rent it out in the summer and get some income to pay for it until I retire and move here permanently which seems to be a big model uh for people. But if you can own three of those that's not >> it's not that model. And you know the the the report one of the things we
questioned in the report was of course the the impact of this in Yamoth and the basic takeaway we got from the report was this really doesn't impact the the short-term rental program doesn't have that much of an impact in Yamoth. So I think
considering limiting something is overboard for a problem that doesn't exist but but at least it doesn't exist in in extremists in Yamoth. Why would we be limiting something that >> it's selfim it's self-limiting. It's not
it's not a problem. >> It's not a problem. >> It doesn't solve anything because even the report we questioned that in the report and they came back and said, "Yeah, you're right. It really it's not a huge problem in Yemen." So the notion of us even thinking about limiting something, why would we do that? It
doesn't solve anything. There is no problem. Our faders is so small. This sounds like, you know, killing a fly with a howitzer, >> you know, because >> it wouldn't take long for a company to acquire five or 10 overnight. >> And that's how I look at it.
>> Today, it's not a problem. Sorry to interrupt, but I I think we need to just take a look at all these provisions and and have cies out and I think there should be some public input, Madam Chair. >> Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. >> So, Fmouth didn't have a sunset clause. So, we're in a better position than some
of these other towns which are are really scrambling a bit, right? >> Well, I think we wanted to make sure that the use was allowed and that there were provisions to protect the neighborhoods um so that we didn't run the risk of not being able to have short-term rentals in Yarmouth and lose
all of the excise tax because of that case law that had been going on. I don't know what other communities were doing in the interim just letting it happen because I, you know, it didn't not happen. Um but yeah, so so we kind of did that
faster I think than than other people with regard to putting something in there allowing it. But now the question is is do we want to take it out of the bylaw the zoning bylaw and put it into a general bylaw. >> So are we interested in looking at something like limiting this? And I I
think it is like you you're saying Ken, the industry is changing and Peter's like >> rapidly. Peter provided a bunch of information about how Yarmouth is actually being actively marketed >> uh for to purchase for for short-term rental um business. So, I think it's a
common >> uh and maybe we want to get ahead of it. I just don't know whether these numbers are the right numbers and I'm not sure how >> how you guys feel about it. >> You know, a lot of this comes back to I I keep saying it. Yarmouth still has the lowest median house price, you know, on Cape Cod. you know, wherever we are now,
I don't know, four, I'd be grabbing a number 450, 470 or something median. >> So, Falmouth is well above that, you know, which makes us maybe more attractive to an investor by the time you look at the return that they can get more quickly on
a $500,000 ranch somewhere. Someone's going to say, "Where can you find a $500,000 ranch?" Yeah, there's not many. But, >> yeah. So I in talking with Kathy today, I thought that the Felmouth one because it's relatively new and it's very long
and they had a whole committee doing it which always makes documents longer um having been a lifelong bureaucrat. Uh uh there are elements of this that I thought might enhance ours and I'd be interested in hearing from other board
members about some things. Just reading this was interesting and and informative because there are some elements here, some language, some um I you know parts of it again it hasn't been approved by the attorney general but and they've
they've done a lot of homework obviously they've done a lot of work looking at this and I I think we should take advantage of that to the degree that they probably had a bunch of really smart people looking at this. Sounds like they had some lawyers involved. Um,
and so I I'd like to just open it up to discussion as to were there any elements of this that any of you saw that might be attractive to making our um particular bylaw um um a better one. Um
the question about whether it should be general or zoning um we need to wait, but either way we'll try to make it the best bylaw that we can. Um, so I' I'd like to just open it up to that kind of discussion for any elements that any of
you found um uh kind of not absent in ours, but maybe stated in a different way. >> Um, so Kathy, you said there was just two other things. >> Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. On the last on the last page, I mean, they got a little bit more specific on what they identified as
a nuisance. I don't know whether you wanted to elaborate on that at all, but they also set a maximum number of people who could be on the property at any one time. So, if you have four bedrooms, you can have eight occupants that are sleeping there overnight, but you can't have more than twice that or 16 people on the
property at any one time, >> which again, hard to enforce, but it also gives a good um you know, nope, sorry. You you have you're only allowed to have 16 people here and you have a good enforcement tool to the police department if they have to go in a noise complaint.
>> Right, >> Kathy? Where is that? >> It's on the last page under C at the top. CG and E. >> Yeah. Where's the word? 60. >> 60. No, it said twice the occupancy limit.
>> Oh, I see. I got it. They did it by phone. Okay. >> So, um, who would like to start? >> I'll start and claim ignorance. I have not had a chance to. I read it once and really skimmed it. So, I I commit to you I will read it again with a clearer eye
and a more critical eye and bring some thoughts back. How soon do you need these comments, Kath? Well, I mean, if if you want to I mean, you have an opportunity to just keep discussing it. We can continue to discuss at the next meeting without me having to draft anything. Um or if you want to provide some ideas to me, I can
start trying to draft a draft two and kind of >> because it's a work in progress. >> All right. So, what what I'll do is I'll read it. I'll come up with some comments. I'll get them to Kathy. She can circulate them to the board members so that by the time we meet again, they'll have some idea of what my comments are. Does that work?
>> Yeah, that's fine. Let's put those in the packet. So everyone can say we all do that because we may all have different ideas but I don't want to dump you with a million comments but I'll be I'm in the same boat that Susan's in. I read it and just was a quick scan said
yep they certainly put a lot of language in here and I do think there's some stuff on this that's we should take a good hard look at for our bylaw. I really do. I do think there's stuff in here also has been stated that's a little over the top. >> Yeah. Um, so I I'm in the same boat. Susan is would like to
>> digest it a little more, put some comments and Okay. >> and have it on agenda for our next meeting. >> Um, >> works for me. >> Mr. Pendleton. >> Yeah. I just my thought as I read this that they took a shotgun approach to try to cover as much that, you know, they use buck shot to see if they could hit everything.
>> And I'm wondering if they tried they hit too much, >> you know, and and I think there's a lot of good in here, >> but being a newbie here, I'm still trying to figure out the language. Kathy, the one question I have, >> oops, I'm sorry, Tom. The one question I
do have is it says number 16, effective date, this provision bylaw shall take effect Jim 1, 2027. When was this voted on? Their fall town meeting or >> no annual meeting. >> It was an annual town meeting. So, how could we backdated then at the >> 27 27?
>> Oh, 20. Yeah, Joy. >> All right, let me retract that statement. It has It hasn't happened yet. >> It's blurred. It's very blurred. I'm with you. too. >> Hey, thank you. >> How what are your feelings? >> I um I was just com going to comment on
that one. Uh the number of people at any one time. Um I have lots of relatives around and most of the gatherings are in properties that are owned so they wouldn't apply. But over the years I we rented and we would always have one
gathering for all my relatives and that was 40 people because I have a big family. So I would have been breaking that double and I think uh you know I think that a lot of you know we would come as a family of four so that means we weren't supposed to have more than
eight people so I think that's a little restrictive the the numbers as >> two times the occupancy. >> Yeah. >> Was this your own home? >> No, I'm saying we we used >> you would rent uh Okay. Yeah. And uh now one time we agreed to to rent someplace
to have the family Christmas party because my brother-in-law was in very serious cancer treatment and they couldn't have people in their house, which is where we usually had it. So I worked with a realtor to find a house next to a parking lot. You know, things like that that I knew we were going to
have the 40 or so people over. But I just think 40 people isn't an unusual family party number in this town. And so that would be kind of a >> but I don't think that that I mean we specifically say we don't want large events. That's not what short-term rentals are meant to be for here. No
large scale events including but not limited to weddings, corporate events, class, family reunions, and photo shoots. >> Yeah. >> I'm just saying that to some families like mine, that's not a family reunion. That's just >> it's family. >> It's family. >> It's dinner. >> And that might be But as I said, most of
these happen in homes that are owned. but it just could happen. And you know, I was in in a couple of cases doing it with in a rental home. So, that just might be a little restrictive. And uh the other thing I thought of in that section about nuisance is that we might
want to include a not a notation that the town has quiet hours and that those have to be >> good idea >> honored and you know, so I had a little thoughts on things like that. So, I agree. We can try and >> we can reference that bylaw. Yeah, that
that's actually on the health page, too. To kind of emphasize to people, >> we might want to consider just doing like a onepage thing >> that you get with the certificate and you have to post it. So, a the owner knows because they got the rental certificate and you have to post it at
the at the rental unit. Just a one pager. No parking on the street. No, you know, >> why was no packing trash pickup? >> Right. Right. I know that. Um I think Plymouth does that. Be says like be a good neighbor or something.
>> I know for a fact in the Outer Banks and we go once a year they post it in every rental property. You know what the requirements are. The rental agent has to post that. You have to put trash out in this bin at this time. >> You cannot have more cars than
>> whatever it is per unit. And and it's spelled right out on a sheet. when you check in. >> Okay. >> You get it. >> You get it. >> Mr. Slobec, anything? >> Yeah, I would agree. And I think there are probably some other towns, other short-term bylaws we could probably look
at too at the same time. So, um, this might be a little bit, you know, extending our sunset clause because we're going to get to see how some of these other towns weathered the first year or two with buckshot bylaw, you know,
>> see how it went. I don't know. >> Yeah. I mean, Madam Chair, I'll just jump in here and kind of >> my thoughts to conclude was >> Provincetown did a really nice job with their bylaw. One part that I don't agree with Province Town is they did put a cap as far as how many short-term rentals
there can be in Ptown and especially in a specific area, which I do understand a little bit of that. It's a very compressed town, but I thought they wrote a wellthoughtout and I think that's something that we should take a look at. And I think this is very well thought out, too, but is a there's a lot
to it. Promise Town is not nearly as restrictive in in some of the other bullet point items. So, >> and in the Donahghue report that they provided for Provincetown, most of that is included in that report, right? I think
>> what's included in their >> like what the what they're what the bylaw is in Ptown for this >> in in our by >> No, no, in the Ptown bylaw, the work that Donnie Hugh did that we've gotten copies of. I'm trying to think if there
were specifics in there that we could refer to. Um I think it's they probably use that to develop their um regulations. So I can look and see what they've done and we can include that in the next packet. I would really um request that everybody kind of keep a little
>> running packet of all of this information. you know, literally all the regulatory stuff, the seasonal communities, and then as well as um the short-term rentals so that >> printing >> because we're going to be looking at it for the next several months, right? >> It'd be good to just everyone can bring I'm developing my own little pile so
that we can have it. I also have a couple extra copies of the final short-term rental if anybody's interested um in a copy. >> I do have just sitting there thinking about it. I do have one last comment. We don't want to make it so restrictive that we drive the short-term rental in the town of Yammer back underground.
>> And yes, >> I mean, right now, I think the town's doing a very got good job trying to manage it. You know, the state's done a good job putting in place, you know, tax regulations for it and all that. I don't want to drive this industry back underground where it was at one point.
And, you know, not just in this town, everywhere. Um, right now it seems to be in a pretty good spot as far as the regulatory side from the town standpoint. Um, I just think we just need to tweak a few things. I I do have a couple of specific
comments and it just relates to the purpose that I I when I kind of matched them up, I think we could strengthen the purpose by and Kathy and I talked about this to actually cite the fact that we want to prevent corporate commercialization.
Um and the second one that I saw was to be make it very clear that we want to protect year-round housing. Um >> you put that into purpose >> into purpose. So those were a couple of things that I picked up where I thought
their language um and if you if you want to plagiarize Kathy go right ahead. Um uh but I thought those two might be two additions to purpose that uh might be might strengthen it um a little bit. Um and and
>> excuse me >> linking that back to the addition that Kathy had the red line under ineligible units. I mean, that's why we we're going to restrict VCOD and road and HMO uh D1 so that those properties stay as long
term as you know long-term rentals. We don't want them to become open for uh uh uh short-term rentals. Um >> so, and there there were other ones. I I I I I
like the idea of an operator, but I I don't know if um what's the name of the company, Peter? You've mentioned the Rand. No, >> who is it? >> Delmare. >> Oh, Delmare. >> So, are would you consider them an operator? >> Oh, absolutely.
>> Okay. >> Well, they do own some of their own properties. >> Yeah, they own some Peter. >> Um so, >> they know how to manage it. >> They do a great job of managing it. They really do. >> So it's it's actually a good thing. >> Yeah. >> Um so from my mind, you know, an
operator like that might be I don't know how you distinguish one from another, but that could be helpful. >> Um I don't know. I mean, you you've you delved into this a little bit before. >> I mean, it's it's helpful because I I I think from what I hear, they they do a pretty good job of managing everything,
every aspect of a rental property, and they take care of everything, which is nice. They certainly want to do that for their for their business. But at the same time, they make it easy for you to make a phone call and to put your house as a rental >> and in instead of selling it to a family,
>> you know, so they companies like that make it very easy to transition a year around house into a seasonal >> seasonal. Yeah. >> I will say this one the same. >> Pakasa is the same. >> And those are the two ones I see on mostly on the case. >> They're the two big ones. I think
Delmare really does a, as Peter said, does a really great job making it easy. They have a whole maintenance division. They have a trash pickup division all within the structure of Delmare. I mean, they have a a garbage truck that goes around that's owned and operated by
Delmare to remove the trash. It's not hiring one of the local trash companies. They take care of it, but it's part of the service fee. So, they're making it >> on a lot of different ends. >> Oh, interesting. You know, people will pay for that that b that you know that basket of services. They will definitely
pay for that and not have to do it themselves. >> Oh, absolutely. Oh, without question. >> So convenience. >> Take it easy on them. They're going to do it. >> Convenience. Yeah. It's just a great idea. >> I mean, they do it to the sink. You know, you can rent linen from them and have it delivered to the the unit that
you're renting. So, you have clean, fresh linen that's yours. Um and and the only other thing I just you know want to get a sense of the board was Kathy did on that last page of the Falmouth one the um uh nuisance
um and the occupancy uh people present um should we have that in the second draft so we can focus on it as to whether or not that's something that's um that we that we want to you know
discuss more. I'd like to get as much into the second draft. So that's there and it's you know it's front and center for us to to look at. >> Doesn't mean anything. We can take it out >> but I mean I think I heard nuisance
>> um and Dearra you talked about the uh people present. >> It's a nuisance so we might as well address it. Well >> we we have in front of us the the back and forth with Mr. people present. >> Yeah, >> definitely.
>> Was there somewhere in Falmouth that the uh renter had to be 21 or older? That might really help the college group uh issue. >> He he had mentioned limiting it by only renting to people of a certain age, like rental cars.
>> I I don't know if you want to get in. >> Yeah, I don't know if that's I don't know if you can legally do that either. >> Yeah, the problem. Okay. How can they do it with cars >> and not how how would they do it with cars and not with houses? Is there a >> legally legally they can't as long as you have a valid driver's license? What
they do is not that they don't rent them. They say they don't, but if you push it, they just charge you an exorbitant fee that insurance >> that you could never afford to rent it. >> If you're 18 years old, you want to rent a car, it's going to cost you 500 bucks a day, >> you know.
>> Okay. Um, so any any further um comments on on the next steps for Kathy? I just wanted to have some so when do you think people other people will get comments to me? >> Yep. >> Um because then maybe you know if
they're consistent I can try and like if everyone's saying the same thing add some stuff in. common common issues >> when um I don't know by next Wednesday >> it's doable >> day after the Wednesday after Memorial Day next Wednesday.
>> Yeah. The 27th >> and I do think that you know the we just got them today the the series of emails from Mr. Pa and Mark and the board of health I think was very informative as well. So, please take a look at those.
Uh, you may not have had a chance to read through the through those, but that's a good chain of kind of chain of custody as to a perfect example of where it's been abused. >> Um, and the owner came right up and and uh uh acknowledged that he's going to
get on top of it. >> Yeah. >> Kathy, the police have to go to a house and they find that it's a short-term rental and there are problems, but there wasn't a neighbor complaint. Is that still lodged as a neighbor complaint or even though I mean so >> why would they go then?
>> Um >> yeah they showed up and there was >> I mean that happened on that happened on my street. >> If they're drive if they're doing their general patrols and they come across like a rowdy party at 12:00 I don't I'm assuming that they might if they're in
violation of the noise ordinance might knock on their door. So, it may not be a short-term rental. >> It may not be a short >> as a short-term rental complaint >> because I there's there's a lot there's probably a lot of complaints that don't get reported. I mean, we're there's mentioned in here you say that there's not a lot of complaints overall, but
there are a lot that probably are not called on. >> I think the most egregious ones end up getting called on. So, I think this seems like an egregious one >> based on on the scenario. So, >> yeah, I think Peter is right. I think if there are complaints, they might just go
next door and talk to the person and not call the police or not register it. They might just say, >> "Yeah, >> it's a little loud or too many cars and it gets solved at the community level." >> Okay.
>> Uh Okay. So, uh comments to Kathy Bite, uh >> 27th, >> next Wednesday. >> So, that's what you'll do on your Memorial Day weekend. >> Yes. Looking forward to it. looking forward to it. >> As soon as we got to talk,
limited social exposure, if you can imagine. >> Uh, next on our agenda is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts bond bills and the FY27 appropriation budget review and discussion of the environmental bond bill, the economic bond bill, the Mass
Winds Act, and the FY27 appropriations bill that contains outside sections relating to zoning. Kathy has dug into this um and I'll I'll I'll just share with you an initial reaction.
Um if the state wants to become the planning board for every town, >> go for it. Uh it's not going to happen. But we I mean I when the first affordable housing act came through and certain provisions
there were not accepted, all of a sudden they started to creep in to other unrelated completely unrelated um pieces of legislation where an amendment in the economic bond bill is citing chapter 4A.
Um the environmental bond bill all of a sudden we have a special section relating to 4A. Um, and and we we I mean I'll speak for myself, there is no transparency on on Beacon Hill. Um, and I I'm I'm disappointed in
our state representatives, one of whom, um, doesn't appear. Uh, uh, but there's been no outreach to any any of the towns, uh, where local control is really important.
Um, so I'll finish my venting there. Uh, but Kathy has tried her best to give us the sense of the d quite frankly what I think the dangerous road the state is leading down um in terms of controlling what we would like to see happen in our
communities. >> So Kathy, you want to run us through this? This is a lot um but maybe we could do a a quick summary and we're not taking any action on this. We're not going to write any letters when it's already in the pipeline. There's not much we can do. It's a
>> learning exercise at this point, >> I guess. Yeah, it's good to know, you know, because it's going to end up being something that we might need to change zoning for uh in order to accommodate it. um the envir in the environmental bond bill. Um it had already got all the way to the Senate and then they made a
an amendment from the floor at the Senate where they basically tied discretionary and competitive grant programs um to certain things and you meaning you got preference if you um things like as of right zoning capacity for multif family housing that provides
opportunity to build housing in appropriate areas. The elimination of parking minimums. They never want to have a parking minimum anymore for residential use and the elimination of restrictive lot size. I don't know what that means. Requirements. And then wastewater and wetland standards that do
not exceed state health or environmental standards. So if you have a community where you've really gone a little bit above and beyond to try and protect your u wetlands and your environment, then you would not be not getting the preference for it. And that's why um the Cape and I the Cape
Coden Islands Water Protection Fund uh wrote that letter that's attached in here really saying this came out of left field. There's a lot of communities on the Cape who have these regulations to protect our very fragile environment and now instead of helping us to do that with things like water infrastructure and wastewater infrastructure, you're
actually penalizing us uh for that. They they were emphasizing obviously the um um wetland and environmental. they didn't really talk about the um the fact that you might need to change zoning in a way that might not be palatable to our community also to get preference uh in
that. So, I don't know whether anything is going to happen with that, but that's kind of uh where that stands. And it was very it was actually very disturbing that >> Oh, yeah. >> very could potentially be very detrimental to to the town. >> And we just finished our hazard mitigation plan based on the rules and
regulations that the state, you know, the not the rules and regulations, but all of the things we're trying to do to protect our wetlands. >> Right. >> Right. Um, and now they're just, you know, one side of the one side of Beacon Hill is saying, "Oh, you don't need to
worry about it." And the other side is saying you need to do all of these things and make sure that your hazard mitigation plan addresses them. what they what they should be doing is changing the mounding aotment for
effluent discharge so that we can discharge our our effluent because we have such an unusual peak uh as a tourist location. So increasing it instead of by one tenth of an inch but by an inch for a couple months in the summer is not going to have an environmental impact.
>> Um but that would actually >> costing us millions of dollars. >> Yeah. That would actually help communities. That's what they should >> hugely. >> Yeah. Well, this is sort of a one-sizefits-all. They never took into account the Cape is a once you cross the bridge, you really have a almost a subculture because water is everything
to us. >> If we don't have water, we've got nothing. And that's from drinking to swimming. I mean, water is everything to us. And anything we do to jeopardize that is detrimental, >> not just to Yamoth, but everyone on the Cape. I'd also think this would greatly
a reflect places like Cape Anne and some other seaside offshore communities that are, you know, right on the water wetlands, right? I mean, >> they must be in somewhat of an an uproar too. >> But how do you find out about these things? You have to be like paying attention to all of these things all of
the time to even know. >> And it wasn't just like it wasn't in the bill. They did it from the floor. So, the the version that went to the House has it, but it's just like you got to pay attention every step of the way. Well, you know, our elected officials should be, you know, more on top of this. I I
>> I would think for that one because that would have a serious impact >> definitely >> to the all Cape communities really because I can't believe we all don't have a little bit. >> So, who' you say should be more on top of it? >> Our elected officials. >> Oh, yeah. Well, who is that? You know, we don't even have a state rep right now.
>> Yeah, that's right. But, you know, the fact that Julian Seir, we know, has been a proponent of a lot of these housing changes. Um, he was copied on the water protection funds note. >> Um, and
I don't know how he can be representing the Cape and not being worried about wetlands. I just don't understand that. >> Totally agree with you. >> I don't understand it. And a lot of these special housing projects too are actually >> oh well if you do that maybe you don't
have to meet all the standards. >> Yes. >> So there's there's that. You know the housing at all costs is kind of concerning. But again getting back to the wastewater we can't add more housing >> if we don't have the ability to discharge our >> effort. has the the housing issue
statewide has got just I think outsized influence on virtually anything that happens. Um there are other issues as important as housing. Environment being one because once you lose the environment you've lost you've lost you know you can't you can't go back and
fix it. You can fix housing but you can't fix the environment if it's that badly damaged. So the the next thing was the um economic bond bill, mass winds act and this is um chapter 48 never really talks
about site plan review and so they always wanted to somehow add it in and define the process uh in chapter 48 and this is they kind of they kind of did it. It's not necessarily a bad thing to do that. Um I just don't know the difference now between what is site plan
review that we do as a um staff team members. It sounds like we would still that's possible to continue to do that, but then we would have to um clock in our decision. You know, it's it gets a little funky on how to do it
versus um obviously we do site plan review for VCOD projects, but it's very clear on things that you can be looking at. It's really more um very difficult to deny site plan review, isn't it's usually for obviously some it's always for something where the use is allowed. Um, so this would be a case where I just
wanted to bring it to your attention because this is coming down the line when we start looking at our design standards, the design review process, our site plan review process. That's all something that we'll have need to take into consideration what what actually gets passed in the U economic bond bill.
Um, they also allow for modifying 48 to allow for opt-in zoning changes that kind of focus on commercial conversions, kind of like what we did for many years with the motel that we kind of ended up getting rid of. Um, but that's opt in. And so I'm less worried about that. That's not something that So a lot of
that stuff that's in your attachments there, a lot of that's related to the adaptive reuse in that portion of it. They're adding a new section on that. Um and then the last >> and maybe that's more, you know, cities like Worcester and Boston where they're converting office, you know, vacant
office buildings. Um I can see where that might be helpful to them because that conversion those conversions are happening. >> I'm just not sure why you couldn't do that through zoning on your own. 48 allows it as opt-in. Why can't you just create your own? I I don't know why it needed to be put into 48.
>> Is that language adaptive reuse? >> Adaptive reuse. >> Adaptive adoptive >> uh reuse. Is is that language already existing in 4A? >> No. No. They've included the definitions. There's a whole new section of 3C on section 3C.
>> Um there's like site planners use a whole new section of 7A that would end up getting added in. Um, so I think is this kind of what ends up happening is we usually end up getting some type of guidance from town council at some point once these things settle down about things. Um, so anything we do obviously
we're going to have to rely quite a bit on town council to make sure that we're staying on the right and narrow path. Um and then the last thing had to do with the FY budget process and certain outside sections which are really policy related legislative changes uh that get
added and tacked on to the annual appropriation. Uh in there they had a couple uh they had four different housing production ones. Um and I don't think there's significant >> Could you just tell me where are you? >> Oh, I'm sorry. On page two at the bottom of the memo. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. So, um, they're just saying things like they're just changing the timelines of a lot of things because they want to give people once you get a permit, they want to give you as as much time as possible. Um, so instead of something that would have been, you know, 12, you have to do something within 12 months after the issuance of the permit, now
it's not more than 24 months after the issuance of the last permit necessary for construction. So, how you determine that, what that's going to be, and people doing due diligence, I don't know. It's just extending permits for a much longer period of time. um keeping track of it might be a little
bit interesting as well. And then they also you know for an abandoning abandoning a non-conforming use or structure usually usually that was abandoned or wasn't usually it was abandoned after two years and now they extended it to four years. I don't think that's a particularly big deal. Uh and then housing production uh production
goal number four is really um changing changes section 10 uh which is regard to the to variances and it changes the timeline for variances. typically was one year, now it's two years. And that excludes the time to preser pursue other entitlements necessary to construct the project or awaiting the determination of
appeal of an appeal. The determination of appeal was always in there, but this this um again more language about excludes time for you to do some other stuff uh in between, but the real thing is they're changing the language um related to the variance criteria. and they start talking about um
special finding that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or bylaw will result in a practical difficulty. >> What's that mean? >> That's new words. um in making its determination of practical difficulty. The permitting granting authority shall weigh the benefits of the appellant or
petitioner and to the public's interest including the interest in supporting the production of housing against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhoods and may also consider and this may part is the stuff that is already kind of in there. Whether the practical difficulty relates
to soil, shape or topography, whether the little enforcement wouldo impose financial hardship, whether the benefit sought by the appellent or petitioner can be achieved by some other method feasible by the appellant or petitioner to achieve. That's new. I don't know what that exactly is. >> So cumbersome >> and then and whether the practical
difficulty was selfcreated. So this is quite a bit of a change. The inter the interpretation I get is they're trying to make variances easier. >> Um by by changing this language. I don't know where this language >> it certainly makes the process a lot more cumbersome.
>> It's just now the ZBA when they're looking at variances, you know, they would be looking at this criteria, not what's you know, we'd have to change our bylaw and make sure that this gets put in there if this if this passes. Um and then you can before with variances,
you could get a six-month extension. saying you can get an extension to two years, which is good because sometimes things happen. >> They're very good on their >> I notice on the in the paragraph underneath that it says they eliminated the last paragraph of section 10. Do we know what that is?
>> Um it relates to condition safeguards and limitations. says, "The permit granting authority may impose conditions, safeguards, and limitations both of time and of use, including the continued existence of any particular structures, but excluding any condition, safeguards,
or limitation based upon the continued ownership of the land or structures to which the variance pertains by the applicant, petitioner, or any owner." Um, >> so why did they limit that? Why did they take that out? I think they're taking it out because
they want right now the variance excluding any condition that makes it run with the owner of the land. I think with a special permit you can give a special permit like they gave the special permit just to John Tali. It doesn't run with his property, right? >> But I think with the variance it makes it sound like it's for the land or
structure. It's not conditioned to that particular owner. So they're kind of taking that out. I don't know why it didn't make any particular sense, but um it's really hard to follow the um the edits. You know, the third line. What
third line? You're printing this out on the from your website. What's the third? >> It looks like it it sounds like it was eliminating a safeguard, >> which is a safeguard to the property owner. Well, it also makes it sound like
you're eliminating the ability to impose conditions, safeguards, and limitations, >> right? >> It almost sounds like you're you're telling the town to get out of the way of people and let them do >> so safeguard we would inherently have. Is that how you're reading it, Tom? That's safe. Yeah. So, we don't want to
do that. Give up a safe that we have. >> Maybe if if if um if we have a copy of that, >> would it be easy to get a copy of that section 10? It's in the packages. >> Where is Where is it? >> The very end. Okay.
>> All that stuff at the end. >> It's in there. >> It's the last page. >> Okay, good. >> It's the last paragraph. >> It's great. Bedtime read. >> Yeah. And I also included section six where they made some other changes with regard to that. >> And then they just changed some minor
things about electronic notification which is awesome. That sounds great. >> All right. So stay tuned. >> Okay. Is >> there a time factor here? Do we have to have
something done on this by a particular time? >> This is information only. >> Okay. >> Yeah. No, we're Yeah, >> this is information only. >> Uh next item on our agenda, our seasonal communities designation. Uh review and discussion on additional information that Kathy received related to seasonal
communities designation and zoning requirements. Kathy received a email from Philip Daring from the housing and livable communities uh department. Kathy, you want to run brief overview of that? >> I think our our main concern was obviously can we prohibit movable tiny
homes and he's basically says yes, regulating means you can prohibit them. So, we would just continue prohibiting them because we don't allow them now. Um, but I think the ma the main the couple main changes are with regard to the undersized lots. Um, that they don't
require I always envision these being undersized lots that were vacant and somebody wanted to develop them and all of a sudden they can now develop it because you maybe they didn't have enough frontage or something to use our existing bylaw. But it sounds like anybody they're saying it doesn't say vacancy so it could be a currently
developed lot where somebody might want to demolish it or something. The only advantage to doing this has to do with the setbacks. um because it's basically the setbacks limits on on underutilized lots is one foot per thousand square foot of the lot with a 15 foot maximum and it also
allows a minimum uh you have to have a minimum 20 foot frontage. So if you had a 40 foot frontage or something maybe you didn't have a buildable lot but but now you would but this also might apply to someone who wants to take a tiny little ranch and build something bigger and have more setbacks. I'm not sure people would be interested in doing that
because you then would be need to be make it attainable housing and having a year round housing restriction on it. So I don't think that this is something that's going to be significant but it's hard it's hard to know. Uh and then the other thing had to do with okay if
we are creating this be needing to be attainable housing who's responsible for making sure that the person in there is meeting the criteria for attainable housing and when it gets sold that is or rented out to somebody who's doing that and they're basically saying that would be you or your design that you're paying
I'm assuming to to do it. Um, I did have a brief conversation with Mary Wagan about it. And with regard to like getting a tenant or something, they're doing the ready renters list anyway for people 80%. We would just add another criteria of people between 80 and 250 and just develop a second list. So, that
didn't sound too bad, but verifying, you know, whether you're selling a property at an attainable um uh sale price or that you're renting it at the appropriate attainable rental rate. Um, it sounds like they're anticipating that the communities would be responsible for
doing that. Again, I don't know how many of these attainable housings would be created because they're kind of tied to the >> income. >> Well, they're tied to income, but they're also tied to the um unders underutilized lots. So, >> those both criteria have to exist income plus the size of the lot to to meet the
definition of attainable housing. Correct. That's how I was reading it. If if basically they're saying if you have an under underutilized lot that meets this criteria, you can build on it by right, but you need to make it an attainable housing up to 250 or whatever
other AMI we decide on. >> So you're restricted to who you can rent it to. >> So you're restricted to who you can rent it to or or what your sale price could be. It's just another form of affordability, >> right? >> It's just a higher rate than what it was before. So that could be more work for
>> Mary. >> Uh so I mean um the select board is going to be looking for some input from you guys >> on this. You know they are um before it goes to um I think it's going to be on the uh special time meeting uh in the
fall. Uh and they had talked about when we had met with our short-term rentals about maybe having a housing for forum later in the summer after we guys we've had a chance to look you know what changes we might be interested in short-term rentals kind of how we feel about seasonal communities. So that's something that um
once we once we know what we want to say um we can meet with them >> once we understand it. >> Yeah. I don't know if we'll ever understand it. >> Well, it's really impact analysis. What what is the impact of this going on? >> I don't know. Yeah, >> I I guess the the key thing I think would be
>> if if I owned a property and I could develop it under the current zoning bylaw without any restrictions on attainability, that's your first spot. And it sounds like you can continue to do that. That this is just you have to add this in as an option. Doesn't mean that people are forced to do it. >> Um,
>> and what would be the benefit of doing it? >> The only benefit of doing it is if like you had a 10,000 foot lot and it only had 40 feet of frontage. So, it was literally an unbuildable lot. Now, you might be able to build on it. >> Um, >> but you're limited to who you can rent it to. By
>> you're limited to who you could rent it to or who can buy it, or if you're developing it yourself, I'm assuming you'd have to meet the criteria, right? >> Uh, as well. Um, >> and the setbacks, like you say, that's the other difference is the setbacks. They're much closer.
>> You know, they're maximum 15 feet all the way around. >> Yeah. But the minimum was a foot per thousand, >> right? >> That's crazy, >> right? >> One foot setback. >> Yeah. >> One foot per thousand square foot of the lot. >> So it would be 10 foot for a 10,000
square foot. But no, even if you have a 20,000 square foot lot, it's it can't be more than 15. >> Dennis passed this. I think Dennis passed >> did pass it. >> Accept it. >> Dennis has a lot. You know, you go into the Dennisport neighborhoods, there's a lot of, you know, houses that have two
lots and 10,000 and 6,000. They put their septic on the 6,000 source. They have quite a few lots like that. >> I think at town meeting also joined seasonal communities. I thought >> I don't know who's done the zoning though.
>> I thought at their annual town meeting where the >> Oh, they may have, but I don't know whether did they do the zoning at the same time? >> Oh, I don't know. It might have just been an adoption to become a seasonal community. I don't know. >> With the with the um
the tiny homes thing too with the not the trailer and the they adopted the whole ball of wax. >> That's the zoning. You don't have to do the zoning until 20 within 24 months. >> Seasonal community. >> When you accept the designation, you're you're immediately eligible for the
money, >> right? while you're working on it. I think let some other people write some >> on a fund that they're not even sure they're going to fund next year, >> right? >> And it's not even big to begin with. >> You had asked if it was a >> a required appropriation and it's not.
>> No, it's discretionary. >> Discretionary >> dangling the apple. So Kathy, in terms of our file folders that we're going to keep, um, our seasonal communities one, you've already given us the PowerPoint presentation, I
think, where you attended with the other planners. >> We have that. >> You have the regulations. >> We have the regulations. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, those two fairly large documents. >> Yeah, they look like that's the regulations. >> Okay.
>> And if you need more copies, I'm happy to do it. Can I get a copy? >> Okay. Um, so this is going to be on our agenda probably for a while. >> I I'd like to think that we can come to some conclusions relatively quickly.
>> Okay. So, we're going to see this m we'll see this at our next meeting. >> Yeah. I don't I I'm not seeing anything that would say if the PL if the select board really feels like the benefits of joining seasonal communities are are strongound. >> Well, I don't I don't see anything in
here. My my my fear was always the movable tiny home, right? >> I don't think there's a lot of these underutilized lots that would end up people would be developing under this criteria because we allow it by right. If you can meet it by right on our other um
>> under a regular order regular ordinance. Why wouldn't you want to do that? Then there's no restrictions on attainability or year round housing. >> Okay. >> Can we have the assessor print us a list or summary of how many undevelopable lots he has, Phil cards, vacant
undevelopable? Is there is there a way to gauge the impact? Maybe >> what I the only thing I was thinking of doing is we got a new GIS guy, Ed Zoo, who's like amazing. Um, but I didn't know what question to necessarily ask him because they allow this is for all
lots in in any zoning district that allows a single family home. So, literally it's every zoning district we have except for the B3 and the adult entertainment district. Um, so we could say like like we did with originally when we were did our um ADU bylaw. We
were like, what are the 10,000 square foot lots and the 15,000 square? we could see if he can't identify um the lots that are 10,000 square undeveloped 10,000 square foot lots in those areas. They'd be higher than 10,000 10,000 and
higher. So you might end up getting some larger lots, but you can kind of see what what they are. Or we could say we'd only want them to be 10,000 to 15,000. What you know what information are you trying to get at? Undeveloped lots that could be a single family home period
that are 10,000 square feet and greater. you expressed concern that about this part of it and I was wondering if you had numbers to sort of back up your concern to say oh this could be >> hundreds >> I don't I don't think so but I had been thinking about having Ed do something
about at least to identify how many undeveloped lots are there 10,000 square foot or greater that could be have a single family home on it so in every zoning district but be three I didn't need to give them clear parameters on what I'm looking for. >> Right.
>> Um, >> so you can't this uh a lot under 10,000 square feet doesn't qualify. Yes. >> No. >> It's got to be a minimum of 10. >> Yep. >> Well, it's it's 25% of your lowest or 10,000 square, whichever is higher. So,
it would be 10,000. >> So, we can find that out. The vacant lots are that are residential. Yeah. So you you'll you'll pursue something with him. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I don't know when he'll be able to get it, but yeah. >> Uh Madakis utilization committee project
updates. Kathy again fourth item on our fifth item on our agenda. So the um madakis utilization committee completed phase five and presented to to the select board um
this and I'm just going to kind of briefly go through the three concept designs that they um that they came up with. Um some of the things that are important to note is they did do a um the consultant did do a very detailed analysis I'm not sure how much you guys know of detailed analysis of the
existing structure and including the gym and the auditorium and basically said it would cost a ridiculous amount of money in order to make this um convert it to anything or even to um salvage the gym and the auditorium would be like 25 million or something like that. Um so
early on they decided to eliminate the um the building itself which allowed us a lot of different opportunities. The land use teams were really kind of concentrating on some type of recreation. Obviously, we all know about the sports complex with housing uh and as well as some type of um environmental
uh or open space. So some of the key takeaways in addition to the concept plans were obviously waste water needs to come. We need to have municipal sewer here. We need to put into place um very specific requirements with regard to things that will protect the um the
environment and and our uh water supply system. Obviously sewers is a huge one, but also fertilizer applications, the type of and having enhanced storm water systems and that type of thing. They also wanted to be sure that there's sustainability and solar added into any new development because they're taking
away uh the two other things that got taken away was the roof mounted solar on Madakis. Obviously, we're demolishing it. Uh I'm not even sure if that's hooked up and what the status is of that, but the ground mounted one would also uh need to be um removed with the recommendation of maybe there's other town land in some other place that can
be done. But when you're redeveloping this, we also want to be sure that they're looking at um some type of solar uh on the roof mounts to the buildings. Also taking into consideration the recreation department has done a lot of programming there and investigating ways that they might be
able to continue with their programming, talking to DY as well as part of the sports complex of being public private partnership and making sure that there's some way that we can get some type of community access um to some indoor um facility like a gym or that for
community use. Um and then the next thing would be after we do all of this is to actually do the financial feasibility. These were ideas that came out. We came up with three different concepts, but now we really need to vet them. Is the market really there? What type of sports facility do you really need? Uh what this is showing you here,
this is alternative number A is on the north side where where the school is right here would have. We're showing four multi-use fields. They're large enough to be used for multiple different types of sports, but maybe it's baseball fields or or something completely different. We also tried to show a much larger um sports complex of like 120,000
square foot. A lot of them were like through the benchmarking could be 80,000 square feet. They're adding like 60 units of housing in more of like a little apartment complex with town houses. And then these were two um individual subdivisions with six unit uh units each. One of them might be
something like a habitat affordable and the other might be something that we're looking at with regard to employee housing. That was the other thing that they had been talking about. Um unit uh alternative B kind of leaves the school here because it's it's the big unknown on the property. Puts the housing more
in the rear along with some streetscaping um or street fronting uh lots along Chity Lane and then actually has the um the sports complex on the south side. This is kind of a situation where you could once you demolish the building start the sports complex now.
So it's about phasing. The other one with alternative A, you're not going to be able to do the sports complex on the north side until you know what's going on with schools. Um so this is an opportunity to maybe put in some housing and put in some sports complex while this kind of gets figured out a little bit. And then the last one really
includes the school being gone, but leaving some more vacant space in the front here and also maybe expanding more of the sports complex. maybe they do want to have ball fields. We won't know until the next phases are done, phases six and seven where we're looking at that. We're also going to continue to be working with BSE Group to do some
different um vetting, doing a traffic mitigation, actually uh surveying all of the wetlands out there and that type of thing. Um so that's kind of where we stand right now and we should have contracts um signed for that grant u the next phases
by the end of the month and that's going to take maybe 12 to 18 months to complete that phase. Kathy, what what I listened to that presentation that night at border selectment. What is going to be the assumption about the school? Because that seems to be very very important on how they develop
um any plan is the disposition the are they are the consultants going to be told assume the school stays there, assume the school is going to be demolished. How how is that going to be treated in the in the ongoing consulting reports? because that has a huge impact on
actually what happens there. What instructions are they are they going to be given? >> That's something to be determined. But I think the key here is like an alternative. They're not the number of housing units don't vary significantly between the different options and the size of the sports complex doesn't vary
significantly between the options. So it's a case of this would kind of be the use and that's the analysis that they would be doing. Um, >> so are they assuming if the school comes down, it's either going to be more sports or it's going to be more housing because that's a huge piece of property.
>> We don't to be determined. Maybe it's nothing for a while. Maybe we wait and see if there's a different, you know, big idea that comes along uh in the future. One of the things that um obviously is concerning is the fact that this is right next to it's in the zone
two and it's right next to wellhead protection land. Mhm. >> So here we are as the town developing highly something that you know we have been gone out of our way to try and protect. So how it's developed and the requirements to develop it are going to
be very very important to protect the drinking water. >> Um because if we're not doing that right then we have a problem. Like you say you can't fix the environment. You can't fix your you can fix your water but that's very very expensive by having PAS treatment and that type of thing. >> Is that near the well that's shut down?
>> Yeah. Is it 10 and 11 wells? They're off forest road, >> right? >> Yeah. Those are the ones where they're building the POS treatment, >> right? And the ones off camp. So, >> I mean, the study is 12 to 18 months
out. I would think the school would have to know what they're doing in less than two years, >> whether they're staying here or whether >> I believe the school's doing their own parallel study to what the best plan of use for that school is, whether it's to rebuild on Station Avenue or
>> rebuild right in the same spot. >> But, you know, what is determined right now is that, you know, Margaret needs to needs to run a bulldozer through it. You know, I say they should start one up and keep going and go right through Madakis. Well, the the key is is I mean kids are
going to school here >> and you know, are you going to have move them to somewhere temporary to open this up or are you just going to see what you can do to keep them here while they're rebuilding something somewhere else? I don't know. So, this this area could be um you know, as a some type of school
use for you know, several years from now. >> That really impacts on the development point. >> Yes. because it's such a huge piece of the it's just such a huge piece of the site. >> I think they did a really nice job though laying out all the different options. >> I mean, even if the school stayed,
>> I think there's no real significance in loss of housing >> and the fields the way they reconfigured, I think they did a nice job with it. >> Have they considered building a school somewhere on that site on another location and then raising the school and putting the fields, you know, putting
the >> fields after the new school? >> Yeah. I mean, That's a That's a That'd have to be a problem. Where are the kids going to go to school, >> right? >> If it's station half, I mean, I can't imagine what that is like. >> They're going to have to do another
lane. They have to at that point. >> Yeah. Turning lanes. >> So, they haven't looked at maybe letting them build a new school on that site and then taking back the school. I mean, it's just >> We had talked about that initially and maybe having a separate area and this is where you would build a school while this one's staying in
place. Um, but there was concerns from the town administrator that it was taking up too much of the property and limiting it. That this is the area that the school needs and they'd have to work within that kind of box that we gave them there. I don't know whether they would be doing something over here while they're reconstructing the building at
the same time. Maybe the kids are temporarily in trailers if they're rebuilding on this particular site. It's not ideal. It's not ideal. >> That front I can't see it that close, Kath. That front red circle there up on Fig and Scroll. Is that a vernal pool? Is that >> the vernal pool's back here?
>> I knew that there's a pool back there. Why is that spot undevelopable? >> It's a wetland. It's a wetland here. And this is showing you the 3550 and the 100 foot buffer. It's just kind of showing you that's a regulatory area where you would need to get some >> wet for like two weeks a year.
>> Well, it needs again it need no one's gone out and looked at it. This is all from mass is all desktop mass d wetlands. Um but this yeah this this is definitely vernal pool Britney back and did that in April to confirm that. So so
that has a lot more that's why you got this this other line here. >> That's the buffer. >> Yeah. So so okay. Uh next up uh meeting minutes. Uh may I have a motion to approve the April
15, 2026 minutes? >> So moved. Second. >> Any discussion? All in favor? >> I. >> May I have a motion to approve the April 28th, 2026 meeting? >> So move. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Any discussion? All in favor? >> Uh Kathy, you sent us ZBA stuff. Um anything else on that that we need to >> The calendar. You typically send us their calendar. >> Yeah. >> I didn't that I had mentioned was that
the Harbor Suites is going to be looking >> and that's coming up this week, right? >> I think next >> next next >> Thursday. Yeah, >> it's 50%. >> 51. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um any committee updates from members?
>> Um yeah, I'll jump in, Madam Chair, and just give a quick rack update. Um the encouraging part of it is that a fair amount or most of the work along Route 28 has been completed. Um there's a section of course you had mentioned the Hunan up north the um the road going
down to Seagull and just past that there's still digit still working in that areas. I think everybody knows >> um they did and were granted an extension by the state to work on 28 until the third week of June. >> Um I'm not sure the exact date. I think
it's June 21st, but once school gets done, they're done on 28. Um, I don't know if anyone's driven down Socialore Drive, but you can finally drive on Social Shore Drive without losing your fillings. They've actually did a halfway decent job repaving the road for the
summer for our summer tourists. And um, it looks in pretty good shape, though. They're off of Southshore Drive. They are working at all the pump stations, the one on social drive, the one by the pancake man, the one by the new park um
and gearing up to start back up in the fall heading towards the Hyannis line. Uh where they're going to start yet is at the lowest points and I don't want I'm not 100% sure where those are. Um they are going to be working
on um Winsow Greg down through Joshua Baker and down through the cranberry bog to bring over to the um the treatment plant facility. And the exciting part is they are fully out of the ground now with the treatment plant.
>> Um they're starting to build containment wells and all sorts of stuff. And at some point this coming up, we're going to have a tour of the area. So, I'm excited to see that. So, making huge progress and um I'm glad to see that paving's gotten done in some areas to
make it a little a little smoother to get around town. >> Can I ask Ken a question? >> Of course. >> Ken, I there was I don't know whether this is urban rumor or just fantasy, but I was told that there was a there was correspondence from the state to the
town about the project with a $35 million price tag. something about the water going to the golf courses. >> Is that >> I I don't know the number that's somewhat I think somebody's throwing numbers in there that are not 100% accurate. Um, there is going to have to,
as Kathy touched on, there there is going to have to be water going towards Bayberry Golf Course, right? >> Because there's, as Kathy pointed out, there's a mounding issue, especially in July and August with too much water in the area of Buck Island where the
initial plans were to take all the water and so they got diverted, >> right? >> So, there's engineering, which we approved at town meeting to get the engineering done. The price tag's not determined yet. So, whoever is telling you a price tag, >> tell them they're wrong because it hasn't been determined yet.
>> Okay. But it is there is going to be a price tag. >> There is going to be a price tag that was not part of >> Okay. >> the initial phases because they never figured they'd have to do this. >> So, they're going to be running a parallel pipe down Buck Island up West
Jamorth Road into Bay Golf Course. Um, and the driving range area is going to take most of it right there. >> The exciting part is whatever water that they do put up at Bayberry, Bayberry has gotten permission from the state to use
that gray water to completely irrigate. >> Oh, yeah. I think it's an awesome idea. >> It's a wonderful idea. I know. >> It's a great idea. >> You know, you'd mentioned uh Tom McMill's name earlier. He was certainly looking to do that and I I think that's exciting that they're doing that. >> Yeah, I think that's a great idea.
Adaptive reuse is >> adaptive reuse. There you go. >> Or as I would say, adaptive. >> Uh any who else? Any committee of Slovak? Peter >> uh design review committee. We saw a
plan for um the stop and shop on station a next to liquor store. There's there's a endcap. There's a space there or a pad site that was never developed. So, Town Fair Tire has a 6,000 square foot give or take plan to put in Town Fair
Tire. >> Sorry, >> stop and shop on station F. >> Yeah. >> To the right of the end of the plaza there. >> Store is the far right. Yeah. >> If you look to the right next to it, there's it's just a grass area. >> They never put a building. They never put an additional
>> Are they leaving here or this is addition to the addition? Okay. >> So, that was just design review. They have site plan and everything else, but I don't doesn't look like there's going to be any trouble for them. >> That's great. >> They need to go to the ZBA related to
their particular use in the zone, too. Just the way they're called. They don't do any uh oil changes or any of these types of things. So, I think they'll be able to get to get through that, but they do need to get that relief.
>> They say there's only a seven per hour trip max generation which is >> in your dream in the middle of a blizzard. >> You go to if you go to the one in Hyannis, there's usually more than six or seven people. >> Yeah, >> it's always >> and that's a difficult one to get in and
out of, >> right? >> So station is going to get >> drain all those people. I think that's the purpose. >> Who else? >> Drive site. >> Drive-in site. >> Packers River phenomenal success. Thank
you, Kathy. Um, the reviews obviously everyone, if you haven't been, go because it is worth the trip. >> Oh, it was great that time. Yeah, it was great that time. >> And I I I love to hear people comment about the lighting because I call her Kathy Williams lighting because she fought so hard to get some decent
lighting on the site. Uh, so the reviews generally have been really very positive. People are very pleased. Uh, as someone said, we finally have something that people will stop and look at instead of driving through Yamoth. There's something to stop and look at. So that's been a really It took a long
time. Uh but the the final product has just been phenomenally wellreceived. >> It's excellent. >> Stunning. >> It is. It is amazing. It's really great. >> Dra uh we did have a housing meeting and
basically went over some of the uh developments that we've talked about here. the uh the Habitat for Humanity is moving along and the um uh was I think the 703 we talked about some more and uh
a lot of discussion of the MUK project. The housing authority is still working to come up with another RFP for the Forest Road area and um that's really about all that that's new.
Mr. Pendleton, >> no. Library lost the >> Hold on. >> Hold on. >> Moving on. >> Does town meeting go away now? >> No. So, >> just a brief I mean I I went to town uh select board meeting this morning. Tried
to figure out if there was a way we could make this as painless as possible. And I we got some we got some stuff that we think we can do just walk in and get it get in and out. So we're not reliving the issue for anything like that. But the according to the law, you have to
have that because it was petitioned, >> right? >> Okay. >> So you can't prevent it, but you can immediate the issue. >> It'll be a quick open and close. >> That's what they're hoping. >> Well, that's No, that's what it's going
to be. >> Uh Kathy, I have one question. Um the affordable housing trust the 25,000. >> Um how did that go? >> Yeah, no problem. >> It's so so we have that. >> Yeah. >> Remind me again that's to help us with the followup.
>> This to help us with our design standards and the BCOD. Um we need more money. There's a possibility of getting a grant, but the grants are they come with their own rules um and timelines. Um, but there's also the potential of
getting some money from tourism revenue preservation funds for >> good. Well, they're their their timeline for applications is coming up >> in the fall, right? >> I think it's earlier than I I think you can ask at any time. I'm not sure. They just had CEDC just had their first
meeting on Monday. >> Well, so the committee is that's been formulated. They have >> five members and um they're looking for two more members. >> Okay. >> Will's on there. >> Yep. Yep. >> Okay.
>> Um any other staff updates from you, Kath? >> The the only thing that's um kind of applies to upcoming meetings is um remember way back when we had a scenic road application for Old Main Street to remove trees related to the sewer project. >> Oh yeah.
>> And that we were supposed to within two years get a replanting plan. Mhm. >> So, engineering and the um the tree warden have been are working on that. What they're trying to do is incorporate uh what are called tree wells or tree
trenches um and to address drainage also to help uh foster the development and maintenance of the trees. The water would go in there and they would have more access to water as well as more place for their roots. So, they're kind of in trying to not just plant a tree and hope it hope it actually uh works,
but they're actually uh having um specific engineered designs in order to promote that. And they're proposing like 22 trees and we wanted them to just do 10. So, um, one of the things that we had talked about at the time was people were kind of upset and that once we came
up with the replanting plan, the planning board would host a meeting where we would invite the old main street residents and they could come in and they would give a, you know, give a presentation, they could talk about, you know, their concerns. So, we're kind of looking um to do that maybe on our June
17th meeting >> and hopefully the engineering's consultant and the tree warden and everyone will be there to present it. Uh and for our next meeting, June 3rd, more of this fun stuff we did tonight.
Uh, no, no regulatory stuff though as as you as far as you know. >> Nope. Not nothing I have right now. >> Okay, >> Madam Chair, just one thing real quick that I forgot to mention on the uh RACK committee as we're actually looking to work to actually have the meetings in
this room to be televised to actually have it be more open. So public there's been requests actually by the business community to have the the room the meetings more public. I mean, everyone's invited. They're the first Monday of the month. >> Um, but to have them on TV so people can
get a better handle on what's going on. That's a great idea. >> So, we're trying to work a slot that works for for this room. >> Board of Health has >> Yeah. >> Yeah. They have it on Monday. So, >> Old Kings Highway doesn't start till 7:15 though, so maybe you can do >> The meetings are typically one hour in
length, so it may work. So, >> I I forgot to ask one question. Rack question. I I think it's a rat question. the parking lot at Olympia. >> What what what was that destruction and reconstruction? >> That's actually has nothing to do with
>> it's part of the best it's the bridge bridge and that and the four corners, >> right? The whole redevelopment of four corners, the bass bridge, the new water man, and the new gas main that has nothing to do with rack, the sewage pipe. >> Here you go. >> Lot at the corner there.
>> And I mean, they've been working on it, you know. I live right there in that hole. Then what? >> If the if the hole is already filled in with like six looks like sewer cylinders. >> The sewer cylinders. >> Well, I'm calling them a >> maybe drainage.
>> They were as you drive by the sand. They would they were clearing the sand today to smooth it. And I'm looking and I can see what I'll call like a sewer cap. >> Um >> it's all >> there like there were three rows of three or two rows of three. It's a leeching field for all new drainage
that's going to be all part of the whole four corners redevelopment. >> Okay. >> And then are utilities going underground there? >> Let's hope. >> No. >> No. They've done a lot of it. >> No. No. Okay.
>> List of things. Remember we were supposed to be doing a review of the zoning and ideas to upgrade. That should be >> concretely should be underground. No question. It should be underground. >> Okay. So that has nothing to do with with >> nothing to do >> part of that project dot project.
>> I don't think >> that's going to be going on for quite some time. >> It's very complicated. >> Yeah. The the beep beep beep beep wakes me up at 7 a.m. every morning. >> Really? >> Well, the background trucks are there. >> Well, resident >> totally different, >> but still it makes s long term. It's
such a good investment. >> Yeah, they look I think they looked at it. Rich Bilski um obviously on the drive and sight utilization committee, but he obviously works for SOT and he tries to advocate for the town very strongly. He does a really good job and I know he looked into that and was
pushing for it and and ended up not obviously the bridge it's not overhead but >> you know when it comes on to land >> visually of course well anyway didn't happen >> storm related too. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean it's so much easier to have that stuff underground. May I
have a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> thank you all. >> Thank you. >> Recording stopped.