The committee began by addressing the Affordable Homes Act, a comprehensive bill affecting chapters 40A and 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws. The act includes substantial zoning changes, most notably the designation of seasonal communities. Yarmouth’s housing stock, approximately 27% of which is used seasonally, raised questions about whether the town would be automatically designated as a seasonal community. It was clarified that Yarmouth will not be automatically designated; instead, the designation depends on specific calculations of seasonal housing stock.

To maintain the seasonal community status, Yarmouth must adopt certain zoning ordinances, including provisions for using undersized lots for attainable year-round housing. Attainable housing is defined for households earning between 100% and 200% of the area median income. The committee discussed modifying an existing bylaw that currently allows development on undersized lots for households earning 80% or below the area median income to align with the new act. Additionally, the act mandates that tiny houses, defined as being 400 square feet or less, must be allowed, and the implications of permitting modular units were examined.

A critical component of the discussion involved the new regulations regarding accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which will take effect 180 days post-enactment. ADUs are now allowed by right in Massachusetts, removing Yarmouth’s previous requirement for special permits. These units cannot be solely used for short-term rentals and must provide year-round housing. The committee debated the impacts of lifting the owner occupancy requirement for ADUs, which could lead to duplex-like arrangements in single-family neighborhoods. Concerns were raised about potential changes to neighborhood character and the increased density and transient populations that might result.

Another topic was the impact of small lot sizes in Yarmouth on the feasibility of ADUs. Participants noted that many neighborhoods consist of relatively small properties, and the existing infrastructure, including limited parking, poses challenges. One participant highlighted the difficulty of adding ADUs by stating, “I’ve met with people who wanted to put in an accessory apartment… they didn’t know how they would fit in two parking spots.”

The conversation also turned to wastewater management, emphasizing that any addition of bedrooms must comply with Yarmouth’s strict flow neutral regulations. This means that any increase in residential units must be offset by a decrease in flow elsewhere. A participant elaborated, stating, “I think you’re allowed a certain number of bedrooms… if you put in a whole new bedroom… that might not be allowed.” This regulatory complexity could hinder the construction of additional units.

A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussing new funding opportunities for housing initiatives. It was noted that “$2 billion for repair, rehabilitation, and modernization of the state’s public housing portfolio” is available, which could provide essential resources for local housing authorities. The committee acknowledged that navigating the new laws and securing funding will take time.

Accessibility compliance was another topic, with discussions on how housing developments must adhere to both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Massachusetts-specific accessibility regulations. With 42% of Yarmouth residents aged 65 or older, the demand for accessible housing is high. The committee discussed the potential need for elevators or accessible units in new developments, particularly in mixed-use projects with residential units above commercial spaces.

The meeting also featured discussions about a recent project to convert a rental property to be fully handicapped accessible, including features like an induction stove and compliant dish pans. Concerns about the demand for such units were raised, questioning whether the lack of occupants was due to insufficient need or misconceptions about accessibility.

The committee reviewed a Community Preservation Committee application seeking $622,000 in community preservation funds for a $1.7 million project addressing the inadequate supply of safe and affordable housing for low- to moderate-income households. The application emphasized that local financial commitments attract state and federal funding, facilitating additional resources.

The allocation of 30 free hours of planning assistance from Barrett Planning for three key projects was another point of discussion. These projects include assistance with a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application, acquiring designation as a seasonal community, and support for the local comprehensive plan chapter. The importance of submitting requests promptly to ensure effective scheduling was emphasized.

The discussion also touched on the Cape View Way project in Bourne, which is 50% complete, with the number of units reduced from 54 to 42 due to community pushback regarding space for fire trucks and parking. Despite the reduction, the sentiment expressed was that “42 is better than zero,” highlighting the collective effort to push the project through despite challenges.

The meeting concluded with preparations for a public meeting of the Affordable Housing Trust and discussions on local affordable housing tax exemption strategies from Harwich and Provincetown. The committee found Provincetown’s approach intriguing, though concerns over the sustainability of funding in subsequent years were noted.