Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRequest to Withdraw Received 11.13.25NSG Mattacheeset Village, LLC November 13, 2025 Yarmouth Zoning Board of Appeals c/o Mr. Sean Igoe, Chair Town Hall 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth, MA 02664 I' RECEIVED 4 NOV 13 2025 YARMCKJTH BOARD of APPEALS Re: Notice of Withdrawal - Comprehensive Permit Application for 897 Route 28 (Mattacheeset Village) Dear Chairman Igoe and Members of the Board: Please accept this letter as formal notice that NSG Mattacheeset Village, LLC is withdrawing Its Comprehensive Permit application for the proposed Mattacheeset Village development at 897 Route 28, submitted under M.G.L. c. 40B. After evaluating the circumstances surrounding the review process, the applicant has elected to discontinue pursuit of a Comprehensive Permit and will instead prepare a revised proposal under the existing Village Center-3 (VC-3) zoning framework. We appreciate the time and attention the Board has dedicated to the application to date. No further action on the Comprehensive Permit is required, and the file may be closed. Sincerely, Z zzz- Stephen J. Cleary NSG Mattacheeset Village, LLC 897 Route 28, South Yarmouth, MA 02664 NSG Mattacheeset Village, LLC November 13, 2025 Mr. Michael Busby MassHousing One Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108 Re: Withdrawal of Project Eligibility Letter (PEL) — Mattacheeset Village, 897 Route 28, South Yarmouth, MA Dear Mr. Busby: On behalf of NSG Mattacheeset Village, LLC, this letter serves as formal notice that the applicant is withdrawing the Project Eligibility Letter (PEL) issued for the Mattacheeset Village Comprehensive Permit project at 897 Route 28, South Yarmouth. After significant effort to advance the proposal under M.G.L. c. 40B, it has become clear that the Town of Yarmouth's internal process—particularty the direct involvement of the Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board in attempting to influence the Zoning Board of Appeals' independent, quasi-judicial responsibilities —has made continuation of the 40B process impractical and unproductive. As you know, the ZBA is the sole permitting authority under Chapter 408, and its decisions must be based strictly on evidence and statutory criteria. Unfortunately, the sustained insertion of non -statutory considerations and external pressure has undermined the integrity and feasibility of the comprehensive permit review. Given this environment, the development team has determined that the most appropriate course of action is to withdraw the PEL and pursue a new design under the Village Center-3 (VC-3) zoning district, whose more flexible dimensional and use standards provide a clearer, more predictable path to delivering needed housing on this site. We believe this design approach will better align with local regulatory processes and avoid continued procedural interference that is incompatible with the comprehensive permit framework. We appreciate your and MassHousing's support throughout the PEL phase and value the professional review and guidance that your team provided. Please let us know if any additional administrative steps are required to close out the file. 897 Route 28, South Yarmouth, MA 02664 NSG Mattacheeset Village, LLC Thank you for everything Mike, Sincerely, Stephen J. Cleary NSG Mattacheeset Village, LLC 897 Route 28, South Yarmouth, MA 02664 The Nantucket Sound Group, Inc. MEMORANDUM To: Tracy Post, Chair, Yarmouth Select Board From: Stephen J. Cleary, Nantucket Sound Group, Inc. Date: November 12, 2025 Subject: Applicant Rebuttal - For the Record Re: Select Board Letter Dated 10/7/2025, forwarded to Applicant 11/10/2025 Mattacheeset Village Comprehensive Permit I NSG Mattacheeset Village, LLC This memorandum is submitted for the public record to correct the substantial errors of law, fact, and process contained in the Yarmouth Select Board's letter of October 7, 2025 concerning the Mattacheeset Village Comprehensive Permit at 897 Route 28. The comments made by the Select Board reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, the Town's own Green Community and Stretch Energy Code commitments, its VC-3 zoning framework, and the state -funded Route 28 planning studies that explicitly support the project now before the ZBA. Chapter 40B Jurisdiction and Misstatements of Law Once a Project Eligibility Letter has been issued, Chapter 40B consolidates all local approvals into a single Comprehensive Permit under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Select Board, Planning Board, and design -review bodies have no independent permitting authority. Under M.G.L. c. 40B 5>i 20-23 and 760 CMR 56, a denial or condition may be imposed only if a local concern relating to health, safety, or the environment outweighs the regional need for affordable housing and is supported by substantial evidence. Aesthetic preferences are not recognized grounds for denial. The Housing Appeals Committee has repeatedly reaffirmed this principle in Jepson v. Ipswich ZBA (2016), Holliston v. HAC (2011), and Dennis Housing Corp. v. Dennis ZBA (2003). By attempting to reopen site design and architectural questions that lie outside its statutory scope, the Select Board misrepresents both the law and its own limited role. Failure to Acknowledge Green Community and Stretch Energy Code Obligations Since 2018 Yarmouth has been a designated Green Community under the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources program. That designation requires adoption and enforcement of the Massachusetts Stretch Energy Code, which mandates solar -ready, high -efficiency construction for new multifamily housing. Flat roofs directly support this 897 Route 28, South Yarmouth, MA 02664 compliance by allowing full photovoltaic coverage, simplified structural design, and all - electric HVAC distribution. The Select Board's insistence on "Cape -style" pitched roofs and ornamental trim would reduce photovoltaic capacity by 20-30 percent, increase embodied energy, and conflict with both Yarmouth's Green Community commitment and the state's Clean Energy and Climate Plan (2030 / 2050). The Board's comments reveal not a design concern but a disregard for legally binding state energy policy. Misreading of VC-3 Zoning and By -Right Redevelopment The subject property lies within the VC-3 Village Center Overlay District, whose stated purpose is to encourage compact, pedestrian -oriented redevelopment along existing commercial corridors. VC-3 allows multifamily housing as of right within mixed -use frameworks and expressly promotes infill on underutilized sites. The Mattacheeset Village proposal-27 units on 1.09 acres, or approximately 25 dwelling units per acre —advances that goal. The Town's own planning studies identifythe former laundromat parcel as a "greyfield" suitable for residential reuse. The Select Board's claim that this density is "too high" ignores the bylaw's intent and undermines the very zoning framework the Town adopted to stimulate Route 28 reinvestment. In fact the Mattacheeset Village density is no greater than the density permitted at the recently built, affordable housing development, Yarmouth Garden's. Disregard for Town -Commissioned EOHLC-Funded Studies The Town of Yarmouth accepted more than $125,000 in state planning grants through the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) to study redevelopment along Route 28. Both resulting reports contradict the Select Board's assertions: Union Studios Mixed -Use Feasibility Study (June 2025, $75,000 grant) — Recommends eliminating the 16 du/ac density cap and reducing commercial requirements, stating: "l-acre VC-3 parcels cannot feasibly support required commercial components under current market conditions... projects of 25 units or more are necessary to achieve economic feasibility." • BSC Group Route 28 Benchmarking & Regulatory Review (June 2025, $50,000 grant) — Finds that mandatory commercial percentages and fixed density caps are "primary barriers to redevelopment," and recommends "allowing market -based densities guided by site constraints rather than quotas." The Select Board's opposition letter never mentions these studies, despite the Town itself commissioning them, accepting funding from the state and presenting them publicly. Their omission demonstrates that the Board's position is not evidence -based. Contradiction of the Town's July 5 and August 1, 2023 Letters to MassHousing The public record already includes two key pieces of correspondence that completely undermine the Select Board's present claims. July 5, 2023 Letter from the Applicant to MassHousing (Cleary 4 Busby): "At the request of Assistant Town Administrator William Scott, the site plan has been modified to reposition residential buildings, demolish an existing, structurally sound 3,800 square foot commercial building, then include a new small commercial component along Route 28 consistent with the Town's VC-3 goals." This confirms that the Town itself prompted the plan adjustments now being mischaracterized as unilateral changes. August 12023 Letter from the Yarmouth Select Board to MassHousing: "The Board recognizes that these plans remain preliminary and that once the matter reaches the Zoning Board of Appeals, that jurisdiction will prevail in the official review." "Given the site's substantially constrained nature, the Town urges utmost care in considering any mixed -use component so as not to create adverse impacts on future residents." Those direct quotations show that the Town acknowledged both the preliminary nature of the design and the exclusive jurisdiction of the ZBA under 40B, and even expressed concern about adding commercial space. The Select Board's new attempt to demand a "design review" a "proper permitting process" (non-40B) or enforce mixed -use, contradicts its own written position to MassHousing. Exclusionary Design Bias in Local Review The Board's repeated insistence that the project must adopt a "Cape -style" pitched -roof vocabulary and avoid an "urban appearance" raises legitimate fair -housing concerns. Under the Federal Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. N 3601-3619) and Massachusetts Fair Housing Law (M.G.L. c.151 B), municipalities may not employ aesthetic standards that have the effect of restricting or discouraging housing types associated with protected classes or affordable households. Such stylistic mandates have been recognized by the Housing Appeals Committee as subjective and exclusionary, notably in Jepson v. Ipswich ZBA (2016) and Holliston v. HAC (2011). When a community insists that multifamily buildings must imitate single-family homes to be acceptable, it perpetuates visual and economic homogeneity inconsistent with the Commonwealth's Fair Housing Plan and EOHLC Design Equity Guidance. Chapter 40B exists precisely to remove these exclusionary barriers —both regulatory and aesthetic — and to ensure that housing design serves function, efficiency, and inclusion rather than nostalgia. Conclusion The record demonstrates that: Mattacheeset Village fully aligns with the Commonwealth's housing, energy, and climate objectives and fulfills the Town's adopted redevelopment strategy for Route 28. The project merits approval on its legal and factual record, not on uninformed or extra -jurisdictional opinion.