The most salient portion of the meeting revolved around the three proposed alternatives for the marina’s adaptation to the rising threats of climate change. These alternatives, named “Protect,” “Elevate,” and “Accommodate,” each offer unique solutions to bolster the marina’s defenses against the anticipated increases in sea level rise and storm surges. The “Protect” alternative proposes the deployment of a flood barrier and sheet pile bulkhead to shield the existing site.

The consultants underscored the project’s goals, which are to provide flooding protection, maintain public access, and ensure the marina remains accessible for emergency response. They highlighted the historical significance of Packet Landing Marina and the necessity of maintaining its functionality for recreational boaters, commercial fishermen, and emergency services. Moreover, the consultants laid out the process for evaluating and selecting one of these alternatives for implementation, emphasizing the important role of community feedback in this decision-making process.

In the subsequent discussion, the board engaged with the evaluation matrix used to assess the alternatives in relation to the project’s objectives, implementation requirements, and potential environmental impacts. The matrix illuminated that each alternative could be implemented in phases, with considerations given to permits required, as well as to construction and maintenance costs. The environmental aspects, particularly concerning coastal resources and storm water impacts, were also taken into account.

The Yarmouth Planning Board’s meeting further addressed the urgency of completing a final report by June 30, 2024, and the collection of public feedback via a QR code open for input until June 24th. The need for town meeting approval for the next project phase was discussed, alongside the exploration of potential funding sources, including a CZM grant, which constitutes public money from the state of Massachusetts. The successful acquisition of grant funding thus far was noted as a positive step forward.

An additional concern raised was the potential impact of the bridge reconstruction project on the Packet Landing project’s timeline. Meeting attendees were assured that both projects would be coordinated to mitigate any conflicts. The board also opened the floor to questions, feedback, and comments from attendees, both in-person and online.