The Planning Board reached a long-awaited milestone this week, finalizing the 2025 Local Comprehensive Plan (LCP) after two years of development. The session included eleventh-hour additions to safeguard Yarmouth’s maritime economy following a request from the Fisherman's Alliance. Town Planner Kathy Williams told the board, Great work everybody, we're at the finish line. She explained that while most edits were grammatical, new action items were added to specifically protect and enhance commercial fishing, shellfishing, and aquaculture industries. The board also adjusted freshwater and saltwater policies to explicitly include commercial shellfishing alongside recreational activities. Vice Chair Will Rubenstein suggested expanding the partnership for these efforts, noting, I also think we should add the 'Friends of Bass River' as partners on that new action item, as they are out there propagating the river now.

The final review also addressed practical concerns regarding the plan’s accessibility. Chair Joanne Crowley admitted to the difficulty of reading some of the document's visual data, stating, I literally took out a magnifying glass for the Route 28 development map. To address this, Williams confirmed that while recreating maps from aerial backgrounds was not feasible due to time constraints, the digital version would allow for better legibility. Rubenstein emphasized the importance of a user-friendly digital experience, noting, I assume that in the digital version of the LCP, those maps will be clickable and enlargeable with links to zoom in. Motion Made by W. Rubenstein to recommend the article to adopt the 2025 Yarmouth Local Comprehensive Plan as presented at the October 15th Planning Board meeting. Motion Passed 5-0.

The debate shifted to residential aesthetics during a discussion on boat parking regulations for the upcoming Special Town Meeting. Despite feedback from several Select Board members suggesting the removal of "seasonality" requirements to ease the enforcement burden on the building department, the Planning Board stood firm on keeping the April-to-November restriction for boats that cannot be stored in side or rear yards. Member Susan Brita offered a pointed critique of the cumulative changes facing local streets, stating, Residential neighborhoods are under siege—childcare centers, adult daycare, lobsters, ADUs. At some point, when does a residential neighborhood stop being residential? She argued that stricter rules would likely find more favor with voters, adding, Let's leave seasonality in. Someone can offer an amendment to strip it on the floor of Town Meeting if they want.

Member Peter Slovak raised concerns about the long-term impact of year-round parking on town staff, noting, Regarding the enforcement burden, I think it goes the other way too. Once boats get abandoned or need confirmation of registration, the department will be just as busy. Rubenstein agreed that the seasonality clause should remain to protect the article's chances of passage, expressing a desire to listen to community concerns in real-time. Member Deirdre Gaquin added, I agree. We should leave it in to increase the likelihood of passing. To ensure residents are aware of the new rules, Crowley suggested including the regulations in future boat excise tax bills. Motion Made by S. Brita to recommend Zoning Article 2, Boat Parking, as presented in Draft Number 3, dated September 18th, 2025. Motion Passed 5-0.

The board also reviewed new state regulations for "seasonal communities." While Yarmouth’s 32% seasonal housing stock currently sits just below the 35% threshold for automatic designation, the board expressed significant reservations about the requirements, which include mandatory zoning for tiny homes. Williams noted the definitions for residents, such as "artists," were loosely defined and potentially difficult to reconcile with fair housing laws. Brita remained unconvinced of the benefit to the town, stating, I saw no benefit for the Town of Yarmouth in this. It triples the opportunity for density... My initial cut is: thanks, but no thanks. Crowley echoed this skepticism, describing the regulations as a piece of candy with a nut in the middle designed to force density through specialized definitions. The board reached a consensus not to provide formal comments to the state at this time.

Finally, the board received a significant update on the former Mattacheese-MacArthur school site project. Williams reported that the "Muck Committee" has recommended demolishing the school wings while considering the preservation of the gym and auditorium if town recreation is included in site plans. The project has gained momentum through a $200,000 Mass Development grant for market and traffic studies. The committee also voted to require housing in all future conceptual plans for the site but rejected moving municipal services like Town Hall to the location. Rubenstein highlighted the infrastructure necessity for any large-scale redevelopment, asking, Was sewer mentioned? Because we can't do this without sewer. Williams confirmed that both housing and the proposed regional sports complex would be dependent on the town's ongoing sewer expansion to protect local wells.