Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMixed Use Development Feasibility Study Union Studios 06.30.25(401) 272-4724 | unionstudioarch.com June 30, 2025 Yarmouth, Massachusetts Mixed-use Development Feasibility Study FINAL REPORT PAGE 2 JUNE 30, 2025 Yarmouth Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study 2520 | YMU PROJECT OVERVIEW AND SCHEDULE ProcessOverview Project Kickoff and Site Visit w/Town Staff Preliminary Discussion w/Planning Board Review Draft Schemes & Recommendations w/Town Staff Review Revised Schemes & Recommendations w/Planning Board Fiscal Feasibility Panel Discussion Final Presentation w/Planning Board Building on the Town of Yarmouth’s comprehensive planning process, this initiative focused on creating tangible design concepts for three hypothetical sites with varying development intensities. The project goals included identifying preferred conceptual mixed-use development programs, preparing buildout analysis under land use regulations, and facilitating feasibility feedback. Based on feedback from the benchmarking results and design concepts, Horsley Witten Group outlined potential zoning options for future considerations (Appendix C). This study was funded through a Community Planning Grant from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities. April 29, 2025 May 7, 2025 May 27, 2025 June 4, 2025 June 17, 2025 June 25, 2025 Illustrative Sites 2 Acre Site •Corner Lot – Commercial Frontages •Aligned Intersection •Backs to Residential •VC -4 District •Multiple Mixed-Use Structures •50% Commercial/50% Residential 3 Acre Site •Corner Lot – Mixed Frontages •Offset Intersection •Backs to Residential •VC -1 District •Commercial Structure(s) in Front, Residential Structure(s) in Back •25% Commercial/75% Residential 1 Acre Site •Interior Lot – Commercial Frontage •No Intersection •Backs to Woods/Wetlands •VC -3 District •Single Mixed-Use Structure •33% Commercial/67% Residential PAGE 3 JUNE 30, 2025 Yarmouth Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study 2520 | YMU ILLUSTRATIVE SITES OVERVIEW PAGE 4 JUNE 30, 2025 Yarmouth Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study 2520 | YMU DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Variables Design Considerations • Commercial uses - lots of potential options that aren’t definitive for this exercise, they have a big impact on parking, assumed an average of 1 space per 500sf (2 spaces per 1,000sf) • Retail Trade 1 space/700sf minimum 1 space/350sf maximum • Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 1 space/700sf minimum 1 space/200sf maximum • Business Services 1 space/1000sf minimum 1 space/300sf maximum • Professional Services 1 space/500sf minimum 1 space/250sf maximum • Residential unit sizes - aren’t definitive for this exercise, assumed an average of 1,000 gross sf per unit • Residential parking - current regulations suggest minimum on 1 space per unit and a maximum of 1.5 spaces per multifamily unit, for this exercise assumed an average of 1.25 spaces per unit • Parking for alternate case studies assumed an average of 2 spaces per unit to evaluate based on Town feedback of recent development applications • Shared parking - allowed per the regulations but not considered here as uses aren’t definitive PAGE 5 JUNE 30, 2025 Yarmouth Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study 2520 | YMU CASE STUDY: 1 ACRE SITE ILLUSTRATIVE RENDERING PAGE 6 JUNE 30, 2025 Yarmouth Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study 2520 | YMU 0 40’80’120’160’200’ SCALE: 1”=80’-0” CASE STUDY: 1 ACRE SITE Mixed-Use Bldg A 3-story Commercial 8,000 sf Residential 16 Units Mixed-Use Bldg A 2 to 2.5-story Commercial 8,000 sf Residential 10 Units Parking 36 Spaces Parking 36 Spaces CASE STUDY: 1 ACRE SITE 33% COMMERCIAL/ 67% RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ALLOWED: 16 DU/AC DENSITY SHOWN: 16 DU/AC Commercial 8,000sf Commercial Parking 16 Spaces (2/1,000sf) Residential 16 Units (1,000sf/du) Residential Parking 20 Spaces (1.25/du) ALT CASE STUDY: 1 ACRE SITE 44% COMMERCIAL/ 56% RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ALLOWED: 16 DU/AC DENSITY SHOWN: 10 DU/AC Commercial 8,000sf Commercial Parking 16 Spaces (2/1,000sf) Residential 10 Units (1,000sf/du) Residential Parking 20 Spaces (2/du) PAGE 7 JUNE 30, 2025 Yarmouth Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study 2520 | YMU CASE STUDY: 2 ACRE SITE ILLUSTRATIVE RENDERING PAGE 8 JUNE 30, 2025 Yarmouth Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study 2520 | YMU 0 40’80’120’160’200’ SCALE: 1”=80’-0” CASE STUDY: 2 ACRE SITE ALT CASE STUDY: 2 ACRE SITE 33% COMMERCIAL/ 67% RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ALLOWED: 16 DU/AC DENSITY SHOWN: 14 DU/AC Commercial 14,000 sf Commercial Parking 28 Spaces (2/1,000 sf) Residential 28 Units (1,000 sf/du) Residential Parking 56 Spaces (2/du) Mixed-Use Bldg A 3-story Commercial 4,000 sf Residential 8 Units Mixed-Use Bldg B 3-story Commercial 10,000 sf Residential 20 Units Mixed-Use Bldg C 2-story Commercial 4,000 sf Residential 4 Units CASE STUDY: 2 ACRE SITE 36% COMMERCIAL/ 64% RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ALLOWED: 16 DU/AC DENSITY SHOWN: 16 DU/AC Commercial 18,000sf Commercial Parking 36 Spaces (2/1,000sf) Residential 32 Units (1,000sf/du) Residential Parking 40 Spaces (1.25/du) Parking 76 Spaces Mixed-use Bldg A 3-story Commercial 4,000 sf Residential 8 Units Mixed-Use Bldg B 3-story Commercial 10,000 sf Residential 20 Units Parking 84 Spaces PAGE 9 JUNE 30, 2025 Yarmouth Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study 2520 | YMU CASE STUDY: 3 ACRE SITE ILLUSTRATIVE RENDERING PAGE 10 JUNE 30, 2025 Yarmouth Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study 2520 | YMU 0 40’80’120’160’200’ SCALE: 1”=80’-0” CASE STUDY: 3 ACRE SITE Mixed-Use Bldg A 3-story Commercial 6,000 sf Residential 12 Units Mixed-Use Bldg A 3-story Commercial 6,000 sf Residential 12 Units Mixed-Use Bldg B 3-story Commercial 3,500 sf Residential 7 Units Mixed-Use Bldg B 3-story Commercial 3,500 sf Residential 7 Units Mixed-Use Bldg C 3-story Commercial 3,500 sf Residential 7 Units Mixed-Use Bldg C 3-story Commercial 3,500 sf Residential 7 Units Residential Bldg A 2-story Residential 8 Units Residential Bldg A 2-story Residential 8 Units Residential Bldg B 2-story Residential 8 Units Residential Bldg B 2-story Residential 8 Units Residential Bldg C 2-story Residential 4 Units Residential Bldg D 2-story Residential 6 Units Parking 91 Spaces Parking 110 Spaces CASE STUDY: 3 ACRE SITE 20% COMMERCIAL/ 80% RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ALLOWED: 16 DU/AC DENSITY SHOWN: 17.3 DU/AC Commercial 13,000sf Commercial Parking 26 Spaces (2/1,000sf) Residential 52 Units (1,000sf/du) Residential Parking 65 Spaces (1.25/du) ALT CASE STUDY: 3 ACRE SITE 24% COMMERCIAL/ 76% RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ALLOWED: 16 DU/AC DENSITY SHOWN: 14 DU/AC Commercial 13,000sf Commercial Parking 26 Spaces (2/1,000sf) Residential 42 Units (1,000sf/du) Residential Parking 84 Spaces (2/du) PAGE 11 JUNE 30, 2025 Yarmouth Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study 2520 | YMU CODE CONSIDERATIONS UNIT SIZES: EXISTING VCOD UNIT SIZES: BENCHMARKING STUDY STUDIO 400 SF MIN STUDIO 400 - 550 SF 475 AVG. SF ONE-BEDROOM 700 SF MIN ONE-BEDROOM 507 - 1000 SF 755 AVG. SF TWO-BEDROOM 900 SF MIN TWO-BEDROOM 655 - 1285 SF 1120 AVG. SF THREE OR MORE 1,200 SF MIN THREE OR MORE 1050 - 1100 SF 1080 AVG. SF Housing Unit Size Code Considerations PAGE 12 JUNE 30, 2025 Yarmouth Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study 2520 | YMU CODE CONSIDERATIONS Building Height Code Considerations • 3 stories not to exceed 35 feet, or 4 stories not to exceed 48 feet as measured from the existing average natural grade at the street side of foundation to the top of the highest portion of the roof of a structure. • Parking below a building is included in building height, but does not count as a story. Consider increasing height or amending the height definition to allow for more flexibility in ceiling heights, roof pitches, grade conditions, etc., particularly in mixed-use buildings. Consider additional provisions and design standards on buildings and density for lots in flood zones. PAGE 13 JUNE 30, 2025 Yarmouth Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study 2520 | YMU CODE CONSIDERATIONS 2 - 2.5 STORIES: 29’-6” TO 37’-6”3 STORIES: 33’ TO 52’-8”4 STORIES: 61’-6” Building Height Examples from Benchmarking Survey PAGE 14 JUNE 30, 2025 Yarmouth Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study 2520 | YMU CODE CONSIDERATIONS Dimensional Standards Code Considerations • Typical dimensional requirements are similar and often the same across all village centers. • Side Yard Setbacks: 0 ft or 15 ft min. • Per Note H: 0 ft is only permitted if an agreement can be made with the abutting property owner • Where the side or rear yard setback is applied to a structure adjacent to a residential district, the setback shall be in accordance with the value in the table or equal to the height of the structure, whichever is greater. • Building setbacks are also regulated per the Table of Max. Building Height, where permitted 4-story buildings w/max. 48 ft height are required to be setback at least 50 ft from all lot lines. • Residential Buffer: 20’ Residential landscaped buffer with 6’ opaque screening is required for side and rear setbacks for lots abutting a residential district. Consider simplifying setback requirements to define the character of the village center regardless of building height, with the exception of the 4-story buildings. Consider redefining other dimensional requirements, such as building heights, lot size and frontage minimums, density, etc., to help further define each village character. Consider reducing/redefining the residential buffer, as a 10’ landscape buffer for parking is required per the Design Standards, and it leaves 14’ of potentially under-utilized landscaping area. PAGE 15 JUNE 30, 2025 Yarmouth Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study 2520 | YMU FISCAL FEASIBILITY PANEL Topics/Questions Fiscal Feasibility Panel Discussion Capital and Financing What are the advantages and disadvantages of financing for mixed-use projects? Are mixed-use buildings harder to finance, if so, why? Housing Market Considerations What is the market potential for year-round housing in Yarmouth by age and income sector? Commercial Market Considerations What is the market potential for year-round commercial by sector? Is there any unmet commercial demand? Land Constraints/Limitations Are there site or location limitations to mixed-use developments on Route 28? Permitting and Development Review Processes How can Yarmouth better encourage mixed-use developments? What viable techniques could be used to avoid parking as a large percentage of a site? What other regulations impact mixed-use projects? Necessary Development Incentives What incentives could the Town provide to encourage mixed-use projects? Are there private investment strategies available? Other Challenges How can Yarmouth encourage you to develop a mixed-use project on Route 28? Is it easier to develop mixed-use elsewhere, is so why? The following is a synopsis of the topics/questions that served as the basis for our panel discussion with local developers and members of the business community. See Appendix A for a full list of questions shared with them. PAGE 16 JUNE 30, 2025 Yarmouth Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study 2520 | YMU FISCAL FEASIBILITY PANEL Major Takeaways - Financing and the Market Fiscal Feasibility Panel Discussion • Mixed-use buildings can be an advantage when there are existing businesses to leverage. However, there is a limit to the amount of retail and commercial the market will support. No longer a “build it and they will come” market. • Mixed-use provides an owner the ability to invest in residential above for employees and other tenants. • VCOD Zoning is in areas that are already developed which leads to higher initial cost to buy the property and therefore more expensive to redevelop. • Financing residential projects has become extremely difficult because costs are so high. • Most agreed senior housing and high-end residential have the highest potential. • Highlighted that young professionals struggle to find housing that is permanent and affordable and are therefore leaving the Cape. They could be a good sector to target for mixed-use housing. • Lower cost of rent in Yarmouth compared to other markets doesn’t match the higher cost to build. • A further challenge is a lot people in the service industry in Yarmouth cannot afford the higher rents that are needed to make a project work. • Due to high costs, more units per project are needed to make it financially viable (approx. 25+). See Appendix B for a further summary of comments received during the panel discussion. PAGE 17 JUNE 30, 2025 Yarmouth Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study 2520 | YMU FISCAL FEASIBILITY PANEL Major Takeaways - Zoning and Permitting Processes and Development Incentives Fiscal Feasibility Panel Discussion • Zoning and Permitting Processes: • Site and design standards add costs to construction that banks don’t finance. • Affordability requirements draw down on net revenue. • Modify zoning requirements to include more by-right uses, increased height, higher density, and no minimum unit sizes. Current requirements result in less units and use options which can make a project unfeasible. • Simplify the permitting process and make it more predictable. There are too many overlapping stakeholders, committees, and steps to get a project approved. • The Town should clarify the timeline on completion of the sewer project to help developers plan projects. Some noted with the right number of units, current sewer costs can be distributed at a lower cost. • Current parking requirements (1.5 spaces/unit max) were not seen as an issue as long as there are not a lot of family size units. • Incentives: • Town grants (preferred) and tax incentives can be used to encourage mixed-use projects. State grants may also be an option for the Town to pursue. • Development incentives are an investment by the Town which comes back via growth in tax revenue. • The Town could create guidelines to demonstrate the type(s) of development and steps to approval. Permitting Use Table (General) Review of VCOD Zoning Provisions 1. Site Plan Review is by-right, maintain this messaging. 2. Switch SPGA to the Planning Board for the VCOD. Review Special Permits and Site Plan Review in tandem. 1. The table has over 50 notes, suggesting a more comprehensive review/overhaul to the table would be beneficial. 2. Consider expanding the housing typologies included in the list (e.g., townhome, triplex, quadplex, top-of-the-shop, cottage, etc.). 3. Consider re-visiting the discussion of employee housing given the current housing/workforce crisis. These restrictions could be relaxed. PAGE 18 JUNE 30, 2025 Yarmouth Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study 2520 | YMU REVIEW OF VCOD ZONING PROVISIONS Below is a summary of Horsley Witten Group’s VCOD zoning provisions review, see Appendix C for the full memorandum. Use Table (VCOD) Intensity of Use Review of VCOD Zoning Provisions 1. The Use Table has just over 130 uses identified. Thirty-eight of those uses had different allowances across the four subdistricts. 2. Of the 38 total uses that had some level of disagreement: a. There were only 12 differences between the VC1 and VC2 allowances. b. There were only 11 differences between the VC3 and VC4 allowances. 3. HW believes the Town could eliminate these differences in the Use Table across all subdistricts. 4. HW recommends allowing duplexes. 1. Regulate the height of buildings based on story alone and remove the maximum height expressed as feet. 2. Consider significantly smaller lots to help with pathways to ownership, easier financing, natural affordability, and general flexibility. 3. Reduce frontage (similar to lot size) 4. Small “surgical” changes to setbacks PAGE 19 JUNE 30, 2025 Yarmouth Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study 2520 | YMU REVIEW OF VCOD ZONING PROVISIONS Intensity of Use (continued) Mixed Use Requirements Comparing Subdistricts Review of VCOD Zoning Provisions 1. Remove impervious cover limitations. Impacts from impervious cover are managed with landscaping and stormwater controls. 2. Remove density caps. Density will be firmly regulated by both the minimum parking requirements and the market-driven demand for parking. HW provided several specific recommendations. Most notable is to remove the requirement that residential encompass between 40% and 85% of the gross floor area. HW examined several factors and suggests the Town could combine the four subdistricts into one. • Use allowances – Minor differences (previously discussed) • Setbacks – Minor differences • Building Height – No differences • Inclusionary Housing – Specific difference in VC2 that may no longer be relevant. • Residential Density – Strongly suggest removing this. • Design standards – Only real differences are light posts and fencing. PAGE 20 JUNE 30, 2025 Yarmouth Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study 2520 | YMU REVIEW OF VCOD ZONING PROVISIONS Parking and Loading VCOD Design Standards Review of VCOD Zoning Provisions 1. Increase multi-family parking maximum to two spaces/unit. 2. Do not increase the minimum parking requirements. 3. Consider significantly softening the loading requirements. 4. Parking stall standards – Minimally, reduce stall width requirement from 10 feet to 9 feet. 1. The Yarmouth Design Standards have not been updated in over a decade. Consider a full “refresher.” 2. Consider pulling the VCOD into this new document. 3. Include research and interviews with developers to identify which of the standards are hardest to achieve, and which are the most expensive. PAGE 21 JUNE 30, 2025 Yarmouth Mixed-Use Development Feasibility Study 2520 | YMU REVIEW OF VCOD ZONING PROVISIONS 22 YARMOUTH MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY | UNION AppEndIx A Mixed-Use Developments on Route 28, Yarmouth MA - Questionnaire 1. Capital and Financing: • What are the advantages and disadvantages of financing for mixed use projects? o Are mixed-use buildings harder to finance, if so why? o Is it easier having commercial in its own building, if so why? o What size or scale project would be most financially successful along Route 28? (i.e., # of residential units and/or % commercial) o Are rental units or homeownership (condos) more advantageous financially? 2. Market Considerations for Housing: • Yarmouth needs year-round housing to sustain our local populations. What is the market potential for year-round housing by age and income sector? o Seniors o High-End o Young Professionals o Market Rate o Families o Mixed Rate o Workforce o Affordable 3. Market Considerations for Commercial: • Yarmouth needs year-round commercial businesses to sustain services for our community and promote our economy. What is the market potential for year-round commercial by type? o Retail o Personal Services (laundromat/hair salon/nails) o Restaurants/Bars o Gen. Services (banks/real estate/insurance) o Amusements/Entertainment o Offices (medical/legal/accounting/engineers) • Any unmet commercial demand? 4. Land Constraints/Limitations: • Are there site or location limitations to mixed-use developments on Route 28? (i.e., lot size, shape, environmental resources, traffic, streetscape, bike/ped access, etc.) 5. Permitting and Development Review Processes: • Our local Zoning provides opportunities for mixed-use in a village pedestrian-oriented approach along Route 28. How can Yarmouth’s Zoning better encourage mixed-use developments? (i.e., more by-right options, increasing height/stories, higher residential density, no set unit sizes, lower % commercial, simplify the process, etc.) • Parking often takes up a large portion of a site, what viable techniques could be used to overcome this constraint? (i.e., shared parking, public parking, parking below the building, etc.) • What other development regulations impact mixed-use projects? (i.e. building/fire codes, Cape Cod Commission Development of Regional Impact Review, etc.) 6. Necessary Development Incentives: • What incentives could the Town provide to encourage Mixed-Use Developments? (i.e., zoning changes, Tax Incentive Financing (TIF), etc.) • What other type of private investment strategies and programs are available for mixed-use development which may not typically be used by the public sector? 7. Other Challenges: • How can Yarmouth encourage you to develop a mixed-use project on Route 28? • Is it easier to develop mixed-use elsewhere, if so why? 23 YARMOUTH MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY | UNION AppEndIx B Five developers and members of the business community discussed questions around the fiscal feasibility of mixed-use developments in Yarmouth. The following is a summary of comments based on the categories from the Town questionnaire (Appendix A). Capital and Financing: •Struggle with residential financing. Costs are out of control and make it a challenge to develop. • Banks go by appraisals when financing and the appraisals are behind in showing the price increases. • Mixed-use has a financial advantage, the bank likes it because there is “skin in the game”. • Mixed-use gives an owner the ability to invest in the level above to house employees or other tenants. •Overabundance of brick and mortar now. Mixed-use development is not like before, no more “build it and they will come”. • Cost to build is extremely high, needs to be a certain number of units or the math doesn’t line up. •25 units or more to have more cost control. • Most of the zoning is in areas that are already developed. A property with a decent building will have a higher price and will be more expensive to develop. • Do we do more redevelopment than new construction? Has its own issues - has different setbacks, etc. •How do we get more residential units? Really not a demand for office. Market Considerations for Housing: •Trending more toward seniors - location is key and generally won’t want to be over mixed-use. •Average age is 55 and trending that way for the next decade. • High-end housing • Workforce housing is seasonal and there is a huge demand for that. • Young professionals market is tough because they don’t have the employers. • Young professionals can’t find permanent, year-round housing and they are leaving the Cape. This group would be willing to live in mixed-use development if affordable. • Mixed-use is good for a younger demographic. • Cost of rent is not high enough in Yarmouth yet, but is getting higher. Off Cape towns with rail bring in higher rent. • A lot of people in Yarmouth are in the service industry and they can’t pay the rents that they need to make the project work. •Potential for businesses to remain open year-round if there is year-round housing for employees. •Study recently done showed more demand for 2 bed vs. 3 bed, studio, and 1 bed. Limited options for studio and 1 bed on the Cape. Market Considerations for Commercial: •Decreasing demand for commercial. Don’t think it will be retail or office, there might be some new area they haven’t thought about yet. •Sewer should loosen up stuff •Services industries should be allowed •Welcome manufacturing COMMENTS FROM FISCAL FEASIBILITY DISCUSSION PANEL 24 YARMOUTH MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY | UNION AppEndIx B Land Constraints/Limitations: •Prefer to have more parking accessible to retail. Need to have a reason to get in the car if that’s not an option. •People are waiting to see what happens with the sewer. •Can the Town clarify a timeline on the sewer? Current uncertainty is holding property owners back. •If you can put enough units in the project, septic does not break the bank. •Available parcels are small, combining lots can provide more flexibility for parking. •Town should get perspectives from engineers as well. Permitting and Development Review Process: •Overlapping committees and regulation adds to the cost of getting something done. •Have to cut the steps to development, too many stakeholders to get things done. •Affordable requirements draw down on the net revenue. •Aesthetic costs due to design standards cannot be financed and the project can’t pencil out. Banks are agnostic to aesthetics when seeking financing. •Site development requirements are more costly on the Cape. •Maybe just more by-right options, not to the extreme of Barnstable. •Increase height •Parking at 1.5 is fine. Family size units, which are often required in the permitting process, may need more. •Always demand for more parking such as transitional spaces for guests. •Can the town produce some bullet point guidelines for what they want to see and what will be required? •Micro units would rent. It’s up to the individual to decide. Necessary Development Incentives: •As new development happens, the Town can target older buildings and incentivize tenants to move into the new buildings to allow for redevelopment and keep the ball rolling. The Town has to incentivize those business that have been around longer and no longer have a mortgage. •Town grants are preferred, tax incentives would be the next best option. •Predictability is the bottom line, if the Town can’t be predictable, developers go elsewhere. •Residents are often concerned about needing new schools and fire stations, generally new development just brings in money. •Expand growth incentive zone •In Dennis, MA under Local Initiative programs, the Town is at the table instead of steam rolling. •Development and increased population brings in tax revenue, the Town is investing in a return. •Can the Town get state grants? Other Challenges/Comments: •The Town gets in their own way of getting what it says it wants to get done. •Developers would go to Hyannis, with no caps on the units/acre, before they go to Yarmouth. •Would be great for a group of companies to work with the Town committees to address some of the challenges. •In favor of the new zoning, but can it be done? •Publicize lessons learned •Keep conservations going between stakeholders and leaders on both sides. •Interested in collaboration and cooperation with the Town. •Maybe not about who else is successful and their policies, create our own path forward for sensible de-regulation. •Yarmouth can be the shining town the shows Cape Cod the way. 25 YARMOUTH MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY | UNION AppEndIx C MM ee mm oo rraa nn dd uu mm TToo:: Kathleen Williams, Town Planner FFrroomm:: Horsley Witten Group, Inc. DDaattee:: June 23, 2025 RRee:: Review of VCOD Zoning Provisions BBaacckkggrroouunndd The Horsley Witten Group, Inc. (HW) worked with the Town of Yarmouth in 2012 to develop zoning for the study area, creating the Village Center Overlay District (VCOD). When HW entered the process, the Town (Planning Board and staff) had built a high level of energy on this issue and had already done considerable thinking about what this district (with four subdistricts) would look like and how the regulations might operate. HW was hired to help the Town think through the details, guiding the Planning Board through key policy decisions and then drafting the regulatory language that reflected these decisions. As just over 10 years have passed since the VCOD was adopted, Yarmouth is taking time to step back and assess how these regulatory reforms have performed. Have they produced the intended results? What has worked and where are there problems? What can we do to improve the performance of the district? The planning work spearheaded by the Planning Board and Town Planner is supported by two other consulting firms with complementary focus areas: BSC Group provided research to “benchmark” mixed-use projects to help Yarmouth better understand how other communities were achieving similar goals. They also provided an overview of the VCOD zoning and the two other optional overlay districts along Route 28, the Revitalization Overlay Architectural District (ROAD) and the Hotel/Motel Overlay District 1 (HMOD1). Many of their observations on the VCOD are echoed in this memorandum. Union Studio Architecture and Community Design (Union) used the existing zoning to develop conceptual plans for different sized parcels. These sketches were used to identify where specific standards may cause unintentional barriers to designing high-quality projects. HW served as a subcontractor to Union, developing our own audit of the VCOD bylaw in this memorandum. 26 YARMOUTH MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY | UNION AppEndIx C VCOD Zoning Audit June 23, 2025 Page 2 of 13 MMaannaaggiinngg CCllaassssiicc TTeennssiioonnss BBuuiilltt IInnttoo VViillllaaggee ZZoonniinngg TThhee ggooaall ooff ““ppeeddeessttrriiaann ffrriieennddllyy”” vveerrssuuss tthhee rreeaalliittyy ooff aauuttoo--ddeeppeennddeennccyy.. The Route 28 corridor in Yarmouth has been, for many decades, an auto-dependent environment. This means that it is difficult, and even sometimes dangerous, to pass through the area or access residences and businesses there without using a car. This type of environment is common across the country and planners, designers, business owners, and advocates have been working to change the way these areas operate. However, when it comes time to amend the zoning to match the idea of walkable communities envisioned for these areas, we realize this is not so simple and an incremental, long-term perspective may be required. An auto-dependent environment like the VCOD does not transform into a vibrant, walkable, mixed-use neighborhood overnight. This transformation will likely take decades and require a mix of public infrastructure improvements, regulatory reform, and private investment. PPrroovviiddiinngg fflleexxiibbiilliittyy vveerrssuuss bbeeiinngg cclleeaarr aabboouutt wwhhaatt yyoouu wwaanntt.. The desire for flexibility is often an outspoken goal of village zoning reform. At the same time, there is also often a desire to make sure development fits a particular style, shape, and set of uses. These competing goals can create tension when crafting zoning language and, more importantly, lead to distinct permit processes. The layman’s term “flexibility” translates to “discretion” in a permitting process, which in Massachusetts generally invokes a Special Permit. At the risk of oversimplifying, reviewing an application under a Special Permit allows the permitting authority to exercise more discretion during the review process, potentially providing more flexibility for everyone involved and also avoiding the more onerous variance process. For example, there may be a Special Permit offered to reduce a setback, increase building height, or eliminate the need for loading bays. That type of flexibility is seen as a potential benefit. However, from the developer’s perspective, there are several potential disadvantages to be considered including: •While discretion may lead to an advantageous outcome for the developer, it could also lead to a non-advantageous one, unnecessarily limiting project scale or imposing conditions that are onerous. •The special permit process timeline is unpredictable, and it may be difficult for a developer to coordinate financing deadlines, the design team, construction planning, and other development complexities without a clear sense of when (or if) approval will come. •Because of the built-in discretion with Special Permits—the ability to make decisions “on the fly” during permit review—public notification and public hearings are required by law. This ensures there is an opportunity for people living near the site to hear and 27 YARMOUTH MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY | UNION AppEndIx C VCOD Zoning Audit June 23, 2025 Page 3 of 13 comment on the proposal. The logic is sound from the perspective of neighborhood interests, but the process also introduces another layer of uncertainty for the applicant. Developers do not know what to expect and are keenly aware that the fate of their investment may rest in the tenor of public discourse. •Lastly, even if an applicant receives permit approval, the appeals process associated with a Special Permit is more onerous and, again, introduces uncertainties for the timeline and potential added costs. Recognizing these challenges for developers and recognizing the clear goal of creating mixed-use development, many communities (Yarmouth included) have attempted to provide a by-right path to approval for these more complicated projects. The term “by-right” essentially means that, if the developer meets the standards of the law, approval must be provided. The fear that emerges quickly when considering by-right permitting is, “If we’re providing a clear path to approval, and if we’ll be obligated to approve, how can we be sure we get what we want?” Many communities answer this question with two approaches. The first is to use layers of by- right review with tools like Design Review and Site Plan Review. These processes do add some time and complexity to the process but, at the end of the day, they are more predictable than a Special Permit and developers can ultimately identify on the calendar when they will have a decision. The second approach is where many communities unintentionally create problems. In an effort to ensure they “know what they’re getting,” municipalities may adopt highly complex zoning provisions that, at a minimum, practically eliminate flexibility. In worse cases, they are very difficult for both the developer to understand and for the municipality to administer. This situation paradoxically ends up creating more uncertainty in the permitting process despite the best intentions. LLeettttiinngg ggoo ooff uunnnneecceessssaarryy ccoonnttrroollss Because there is a seemingly endless list of issues to consider when developing mixed-use zoning, municipalities pursuing a by-right approach can feel obligated to regulate as many as they can identify. This might be done to allay the concerns of board members or the public, or in anticipation of issues that may arise at Town Meeting. There is sometimes a tension between “best practice” and “what we think will get approved.” These are challenging moments when drafting zoning at the local level and it is important to “step back” and consider where there are other forces and interests that may shape key development decisions in positive ways. Perhaps most compelling are the financial interests of banks and investors who will not hesitate to step away from a project if, for example, they feel the parking strategy or residential unit sizes are not adequate. In a second example, the expertise of the designers should be valued to the 28 YARMOUTH MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY | UNION AppEndIx C VCOD Zoning Audit June 23, 2025 Page 4 of 13 extent they stake their reputation (and professional liability) on the quality of their designs. Decisions about ceiling heights, parking space dimensions, and other minutia may best be left to the professionals working to design a quality product. A third example is when some individual issues are better left to different permits. For example, the Building Code will govern the inside of the building, and the Fire Chief can approve circulation issues through Site Plan Review. AA DDeettaaiilleedd RReevviieeww ooff tthhee VVCCOODD aanndd AAssssoocciiaatteedd BByyllaaww PPrroovviissiioonnss The following text provides a detailed review of the VCOD provisions and, where applicable, recommendations for adjustments and reform. HW acknowledges that many of these issues were identified by both BSC and Union as part of their independent reviews of the text and Bylaw as a whole. PPeerrmmiittttiinngg HW makes the following observations and recommendations related to permitting: Site Plan Review and Special Permits HW notes that, listening to discussions in Yarmouth, there seems to be an implicit distinction between the term “by-right” and “Site Plan Review” applications, with the former referring to applications that are approved by the Building Commissioner without any review from the Planning Board or other bodies. While review from the Building Commissioner and Site Plan Review are different in procedure, it is important to note they are both essentially “by-right” development. It is a common misconception that Site Plan Review operates much like a Special Permit, particularly the idea that Site Plan Review is a discretionary review fraught with uncertainty and subject to lengthy lists of conditions related to an approval. Properly (and legally) applied, Site Plan Review is a form of by-right development. In a Site Plan Review application, if the applicant meets the standards of the Zoning Bylaw, the Town must approve. Further, case law over the years has put significant limitations on the types of approval conditions that can be attached to Site Plan Review approvals. While this issue may be understood by staff and the Planning Board, it is important to clearly communicate to the public the by-right nature of this permit mechanism. Even though the Bylaw language makes this clear, developers who may not have a deep understanding of zoning law in Massachusetts may not recognize that Site Plan Review, while not as simple as a Building Commissioner review, provides a much higher level of certainty than a discretionary Special Permit process. It is also worth noting that the 65-day VCOD Site Plan Review process should be regarded by developers as very predictable and reasonable. 29 YARMOUTH MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY | UNION AppEndIx C VCOD Zoning Audit June 23, 2025 Page 5 of 13 Regarding the Special Permit Granting Authority, this was something the Town considered, but ultimately did not want to take on in the 2012 version of the VCOD. Statute allows a Special Permit to be granted by the Zoning Board, the Planning Board, or the Select Board. Historically, Yarmouth has leaned heavily on the Zoning Board for Special Permit review. Given the passage of time and the considerable feedback on the VCOD bylaw, HW recommends this issue be revisited. Where a Special Permit may be required, the Planning Board should be able to review that request in tandem with Site Plan Review (not sequentially). The Town could make this change solely for the VCOD as a “first case” and then consider whether the approach could be advantageous elsewhere. UUssee TTaabbllee General Observations 1.The current table has over 50 notes, suggesting a more comprehensive review/overhaul to the table would benefit the Town. Some notes may be unavoidable and beneficial, but many may be removed if changes to the use list were made or definitions were clarified. 2.HW recommends allowing two-family homes in the VCOD. 3.Changes to the residential uses could include expanding the typologies included in the list (e.g., townhome, triplex, quadplex, top-of-the-shop, cottage, etc.). 4.Consider re-visiting the discussion of employee housing given the current housing/workforce crisis. These restrictions could be relaxed. Observations Specific to the VCOD 1.HW provides the following summary of differences in use allowances across the VCOD subdistricts. Detailed observations (use by use) were delivered to the Town in spreadsheet format. a.The Use Table has just over 130 uses identified. Thirty-eight of those uses had different allowances, in some form, across the four subdistricts. b.Of the 38 total uses that had some level of disagreement: i.There were only 12 differences between the VC1 and VC2 allowances. ii.There were only 11 differences between the VC3 and VC4 allowances. 2.The nature of these different allowances is granular in nature and should be reviewed line by line. In some cases, there are accommodations for pre-existing uses, in other cases, some uses seemed better suited for waterfront parcels, and in other cases there was just a feeling that a Special Permit was more appropriate than by-right. Regardless of the reasoning, HW believes the Town could eliminate these differences in the Use Table across all subdistricts without too much difficulty. However, HW also recommends the Town consider a full overhaul to the Use Table, which is a more difficult task. 30 YARMOUTH MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY | UNION AppEndIx C VCOD Zoning Audit June 23, 2025 Page 6 of 13 IInntteennssiittyy ooff UUssee Intensity of Use standards address height, density, and other similar items. HW makes the following observations: Building Height. HW recommends regulating the height of buildings based on story alone and removing the maximum height expressed as feet. The current standards (feet) are too low to accommodate high quality design. Beyond that, this issue is an example of where other forces will ensure there is no egregious proposal with a building far too tall. Most notably, applicants will not want to build something exceedingly tall simply because of project expense. Further, the design guidelines help to articulate the scale of buildings that are most appropriate. Providing architects with the flexibility to provide a roof form that truly matches the building design is more important than establishing a firm numeric cap in vertical feet. HW notes that, regardless of the issue of numeric height limitations, the height restrictions are the same across the four subdistricts. This suggests that building height is not a significant barrier to consolidating subdistricts. Lot Size. Recent work in other communities led by design/development firm Kronberg Associates 1 examines housing affordability, particularly for small-scale infill development, with considerable detail. This work demonstrates that many small “missing middle” housing models are more affordable for consumers and more financially viable for developers if they are offered in a fee-simple single lot configuration. This would be in contrast with condominium-style units (e.g., typical cottage court housing) or standard multi-family rental units.2 Yarmouth can consider dramatically reducing the minimum lot size (e.g., 3,000 – 5,000 SF) for certain housing typologies or innovative housing models (e.g., cottage configurations). Note that two-family homes require twice the minimum lot size under Section 203.5 Table of Dimensional Requirements (note C). If the Town chooses to allow two-family homes per HW’s recommendation, this should simply ensure this does not apply to the VCOD. Frontage. HW recommends removing or dramatically reducing this standard. If changes are considered for minimum lot size (see above), the changes to frontage requirements should be consistent with that reduction. Ultimately, a frontage requirement that minimally allows for safe vehicular access would provide the greatest flexibility. 1 https://www.kronbergua.com/housing-choices 2 Cottage style and multi-family developments are still viable and should be offered as a potential option within zoning. The fee-simple approach on very small lots simply provides an often-over-looked option that can be very attractive to both the developer and future homeowner. 31 YARMOUTH MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY | UNION AppEndIx C VCOD Zoning Audit June 23, 2025 Page 7 of 13 Setbacks. Similar to the Use Table, the difference in setbacks across the four subdistricts does not appear to be so different that they could not be revised and consolidated into a single overlay district. Additional changes could include simplifying some of the language that addresses unique conditions. For example: 1.Note “F” requires front setbacks on a public way other than Route 28 to comply with the underlying district. While the intent of this may have been to maintain the existing fabric of the street, this standard may limit important design flexibility. 2.Note “I” might also be improved with some clarification. For example, some adjacent lots in residential areas may not be buildable (e.g., wetland) or may be owned by the Town of Yarmouth. Increasing setbacks in these situations could consume valuable real estate with no protective benefits. Impervious Cover. HW recommends this standard be removed. Clearly, impervious cover is an important consideration for environmental purposes, but in a mixed-use environment, standards for landscaping and stormwater management should govern this issue. This provides more flexibility for the engineers and landscape architects to design solutions rather than relying on a blunt maximum coverage. Residential Density. HW recommends removing this standard from the VCOD. Density will be firmly regulated by both the regulated minimum parking requirements and the market-driven demand for parking. The visualizations provided by Union demonstrate how parking drives the eventual site density. Our general advice related to density for suburban communities attempting village-style development is, “let developers propose as many units as they can park.” HW also recommends removing the minimum square footage for unit size and the limits on the number of studios. MMiixxeedd UUssee RReeqquuiirreemmeennttss This topic, setting numeric thresholds for residential and non-residential use, was discussed and debated extensively when the VCOD was first drafted. The intent of Section 414.5.1.1 is to ensure that uses are actually mixed, reinforcing the planning principles that aim for vibrant, human-scale, walkable communities (a.k.a. “placemaking”). The thresholds/standards include: a.The residential component of any Mixed Use development shall encompass between 40% and 85% of the Gross Floor Area of the development. b.In VC1, 3 and 4, the ground floor of the building(s) facing Route 28 shall contain non- residential uses. For mixed use developments with minimal commercial use, some non-transient residential use (dwelling units) may be allowed on the ground floor of 32 YARMOUTH MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY | UNION AppEndIx C VCOD Zoning Audit June 23, 2025 Page 8 of 13 buildings that front on Route 28, if approved through the VCOD Site Plan Review process. c.In VC1, 3 and 4 non-transient residential use (dwelling units) shall be allowed on the ground floor of properties that have their frontage on a public way, other than Route 28, that existed prior to October 22, 2012. d.No commercial uses shall be allowed above a Residential Dwelling Unit. The thresholds were chosen by considering what would be appropriate for two-story structures (e.g., 40% residential) and three-story structures (e.g., 85% residential). HW suggests these requirements could be relaxed simply by removing subsection “a” but keeping subsection “b” (applied uniformly across the VCOD). Subsection “c” might be revised by deleting the requirement that the public way existed prior to October 22, 2012. HW also recommends subsection “d” be re-examined to ensure no unintended consequences. For example, are there any allowable uses (or potentially allowable in the future) like transient rental or home-based business that would be precluded. CCoommppaarriinngg SSuubbddiissttrriiccttss The question has been raised, “Can we consider some level of consolidation in the four subdistricts?”. In examining the four subdistricts, HW notes the following: Background. The original discussions of this area in the late 2000s and early 2010s very closely considered four distinct planning areas, which eventually became the four subdistricts. These discussions considered the predominant uses at the time along with what the different opportunities might be along this stretch of Route 28. Opportunities were identified based on what sorts of uses would be better suited to areas with waterfront, areas with single family homes, areas with larger or smaller parcels, and specific interests in Yarmouth at the time (e.g., waterparks). The different but complementary visions for these subdistricts are articulated in the Zoning Bylaw: •Village Center 1… to encourage development and redevelopment that will enhance the character of Parker’s River, promote public recreational activities and create a mix of uses in a village setting that encourages pedestrian activity. •Village Center 2… to encourage development and redevelopment that focuses on residential uses with a mix of compatible, smaller commercial uses that will encourage people to live, work and shop in the district to promote a walk-able, livable neighborhood. •Village Center 3… to create opportunities for economic development that will provide year-round family-oriented activities that are appealing to residents and visitors, and create jobs for local residents. 33 YARMOUTH MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY | UNION AppEndIx C VCOD Zoning Audit June 23, 2025 Page 9 of 13 •Village Center 4… to encourage opportunities for economic development and redevelopment that focuses primarily on commercial uses that support year-round residents and provide year-round companion commercial businesses and accommodations to enhance the family-oriented activities area of VC3. Family-Oriented Activities. The language for “family-oriented activities” was used in large part to set the stage for a potential waterpark proposal. While this recreational use may still be desirable, there are other ways to use the zoning to narrow its potential location without establishing a separate subdistrict. These may include things like parcel size, access, circulation, or other performance criteria. As the drafting of the VCOD provisions emerged from this original vision (i.e., as this “played out”), it is now clear that zoning provisions, on their own, would not be the primary driver for differentiating these four areas. Put more simply, the zoning provisions from one district to another are not dramatically different, as described in the following points. Use Table. See previous discussion of the Use Table above. Building Height. Regardless of the recommended changes to maximum building height (above), HW notes the maximum height is the same across the four districts. There is no difference in the vision from one subdistrict to another based on height Setbacks. Setbacks are most distinct in VC2 but are not dramatically different. Setbacks are nearly identical in the other three subdistricts. There are tailored setbacks for the Parker River area and for buildings along Route 28, as well as provisions related to floodplain areas. These do not need to be tied to an individual subdistrict. Inclusionary Housing. There are detailed provisions specific to VC2 related to inclusionary housing and the Town should revisit whether these are still required given the time limitations incorporated into these provisions. Residential Density. Maximum residential housing densities are identical for the VC1, VC3, and VC4. VC2 has a higher density allowance for “residential only” development. As stated previously in this document, HW recommends these caps be removed, as density will be effectively regulated by allowable height, site design, and parking requirements. If Yarmouth chooses to continue with a residential density cap, HW would suggest a uniform limit of 25 units/acre across the entirety of the VCOD. Design Standards. Several design standards suggest a desired difference in character between the VC1/VC2 area, and the VC3/VC4 area. Design details for fencing and the height of light poles 34 YARMOUTH MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY | UNION AppEndIx C VCOD Zoning Audit June 23, 2025 Page 10 of 13 suggest there was a desire to have a “softer” presentation of these details in VC1/VC2. HW believes these standards could be unified without any loss to the quality of applications. In summary, HW believes the Town should consider combining the four subdistricts in the VCOD into a single overlay district. Special provisions (e.g., Parker River setbacks, etc.) could remain in the language if the Town still considers this desirable. PPaarrkkiinngg aanndd LLooaaddiinngg Residential Parking Local discussions regarding the performance of the VCOD zoning mention parking as an obstacle to permit approval. Specifically, the parking maximums have reportedly made it difficult to permit certain residential uses and some developers want to be able to provide up to two spaces per residential unit. Current parking requirements for residential use in the four VCOD districts are as follows: UUssee MMiinniimmuumm ((ssppaacceess//uunniitt)) MMaaxxiimmuumm ((ssppaacceess//uunniitt)) A1 Single-family dwelling 1 2 A2 Two-family dwelling 1 2 A4 Cluster/Planned Residential development 1 2 A5 Boarding or Lodging house 1 1.2 A6 Guesthouse, Inn, or Bed & Breakfast Inn 1 1.2 A7 Hotel or motel 1 1.2 A11 Employee Housing at non Motels/Hotels 1 1.5 A12 Multi-family 1 1.5 There are provisions to reduce parking requirements for a mix of uses; however, reductions for residential parking under these provisions are not offered in the bylaw. HW recommends the minimum parking standards remain at the level in the above table. The Town can determine which parking maximums need to be raised based on experience since the adoption of the VCOD. HW does not recommend going beyond a maximum of two spaces per unit in any case. It is worth noting that, at two spaces per unit, a parking area for 40 units of housing (with driving lanes) would cover close to an acre of developable real estate. Non-Regulatory Ideas With the upcoming investments in sewer infrastructure and plans for bike lanes, critical infrastructure pieces will help set the stage for this transformation in the VCOD. From an 35 YARMOUTH MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY | UNION AppEndIx C VCOD Zoning Audit June 23, 2025 Page 11 of 13 infrastructure perspective it is worth noting the Town could benefit from purchasing land to provide public parking. This amenity would potentially allow developers of nearby sites to reduce their on-site parking, opening up precious real estate for increased intensity of village-scale development and enhancing walkability. Over time, as the VCOD matures, a public parking lot could evolve into a small parking deck, or a multi-use space for parking and events (e.g., farmers’ market and craft fairs), or they could be sold to a developer when the time is right to repurpose the land. Those would likely be decisions for future generations. Another item to consider is whether Yarmouth would want to allow developers to enforce parking agreements that would allow for residential parking to be shared with non-residential uses. For example, some percentage of spaces could be dedicated to residential use at certain times of the day through the use of signs and privately issued parking stickers. Some residents may find this to be an acceptable arrangement, providing an opportunity to maximize the use of a certain number of spaces. Even if this is a small number on a particular site, every square foot that can be effectively used for building space adds to the goals of the VCOD and the financial viability of the project. Loading The current loading provisions are strongly worded and HW recommends, as a best practice, softening this language. Many of the best village centers throughout New England and beyond have no dedicated loading spaces. Delivery operations employ a variety of tactics to deal with these situations including “right selection” of vehicle (i.e., size of the truck/van) and, when possible, delivering off hours. In worst case scenarios, delivery vehicles may temporarily obstruct the normal flow of traffic in parking areas along property frontage. These minor inconveniences are widely accepted as a reasonable tradeoff for supporting a vibrant mixed-use district. Parking Lot Design Standards HW feels these standards are generally sound and, since this is an overlay district, the way these standards are clearly “severed” from Section 301 is probably the best approach. However, the Town could consider whether the parking stall dimensional table is needed. At a minimum, should consider reducing the parking stall width from ten feet to the more standard nine feet. VVCCOODD DDeessiiggnn SSttaannddaarrddss At the time the VCOD was drafted, the issue of using design standards was discussed at length. This is an example of an issue described earlier in the memorandum where the tension of “providing flexibility versus being clear about what you want” frames the discussion. Yarmouth uses the Yarmouth Architectural and Site Design Standards (hereafter referred to as “Yarmouth Design Standards”) to inform Planning Board or Design Review Board review of applications in 36 YARMOUTH MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY | UNION AppEndIx C VCOD Zoning Audit June 23, 2025 Page 12 of 13 the HMOD, ROAD, and other areas as identified in the Zoning Bylaw. With the VCOD, the Town decided to incorporate design standards directly into the overlay language because: •Some of the issues identified for design review were considered unique to the VCOD and it would have been hard to weave them into the Yarmouth Design Standards. •Having them in the bylaw was considered “stronger” from an enforcement and compliance perspective. HW notes the following as part of this audit: •The content between the Yarmouth Design Guidelines and the VCOD is generally consistent when the two documents address the same issues. In several instances, the language of the VCOD may be more clearly written or prescriptive. •Site circulation standards provided in the VCOD overlay district language are not addressed in the Yarmouth Design Guidelines. •Language in the Yarmouth Design Standards states, “The Planning Board's Standards are intended to act as minimum acceptable standards for all projects and compliance is mandatory.” This level of authority placed in the Yarmouth Design Standards is important when considering potential reorganization. For example, this language suggests the Yarmouth Design Standards have the same “teeth” as language within the Zoning Bylaw. •Anecdotal reports from some developers suggest the use of design standards can make projects too challenging from a financial perspective. Recently, construction costs have truly soared, becoming a much more limiting piece of the development equation than just over a decade ago. •Design review, generally speaking, is considered an important tool in the Town, one that is not likely to be removed or significantly weakened. With these observations in mind, HW recommends the Town should consider revising the Yarmouth Design Standards in a manner that absorbs the VCOD. The VCOD design standards could then be eliminated from the Zoning Bylaw, or at least significantly diminished. This would potentially achieve several benefits: •The Yarmouth Design Standards have not been updated in over a decade. While much of the material is still very instructive and relevant, refreshing the document would benefit the community and developers. •Pulling the VCOD into this document can reduce confusion resulting from having two separate documents addressing many of the same issues. 37 YARMOUTH MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY | UNION AppEndIx C VCOD Zoning Audit June 23, 2025 Page 13 of 13 •The process of revising these standards could include research and interviews with developers to identify which of the standards are hardest to achieve, and which are the most expensive.