Yarmouth housing committee narrows plan for Mattakee site, targets HPP goals and mixed uses

YARMOUTH, Mass. — Members of the Town of Yarmouth Community Housing Committee and representatives from the Affordable Housing Trust agreed on a conceptual approach on Oct. 12 to redevelop the Mattakee school site that foregrounds housing variety, potential carve-outs for supportive and municipal housing, and complementary community uses.

Alexis Lanzillotta, of Barrett Planning Group, told the committee the firm prepared three illustrative scenarios — a residential-focused option, a mixed residential model with carve-outs for specialized housing (for example, veteran supportive housing), and a mixed residential-plus-community-uses model — and that the scenarios were intended only as a discussion starting point. “You're not limited to that,” Lanzillotta said, urging members to treat the scenarios as flexible sketches rather than final proposals.

Why it matters: the group's moderate scenario tracks the town's Housing Production Plan (HPP) annual goal — roughly 62 state-certified, Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI)-eligible units — while an elevated scenario would roughly double that number and could position Yarmouth for a two-year HPP certification. Achieving those targets affects how the town meets Chapter 40B safe-harbor provisions and informs which state funding sources may be available.

Most important details

- Targets and building mix: Committee discussion treated 62 SHI-eligible units as the reasonable moderate target (the HPP one-year goal) and described an elevated target in the neighborhood of 120—135 units if site layout, parking and sewer are feasible. Members emphasized a mix of building types (apartments, townhouses, clustered single-family/Habitat-type ownership units and smaller ownership lots) to respond to diverse local needs.

- Specialized carve-outs: The group discussed reserving small acreage for veteran supportive housing (Soldier On had earlier indicated about 25 units could be feasible) and the potential to partner with the Yarmouth Housing Authority on rental housing. Committee members noted such carve-outs could fit within a larger mixed plan rather than require a single-use approach.

- Community uses and re-use: Several speakers urged reuse of the existing gym and auditorium as community or recreation space and discussed a 'village center' concept (small shops or offices with housing above) in the same area.

- Utilities, environmental constraints and parking: Lanzillotta flagged well protection and Title 5 septic limits: the moderate scenario translated into about 95 bedrooms, close to the 90-bedroom threshold often used for septic feasibility discussions. Committee members favored bringing sewer to the site where possible. The planner, Kathy Williams, recommended planning for about 1.5 parking spaces per housing unit as a working guideline and said the group was comfortable with allowing up to three stories in the rear portions of the site to increase density while preserving buffers.

- Solar and site readiness: Participants noted the site currently hosts a large solar array under lease (contract and ownership with a third party and CVEC referenced), and speakers said relocating or renegotiating the lease will be part of site-readiness work; meeting remarks put the solar lease roughly eight years from its end, and members suggested state/site-readiness grants could help cover relocation costs.

What the committee directed and next steps

Committee members said they believed there was enough consensus to ask staff and Barrett Planning Group to draft a two-page memo summarizing a recommended scenario (the group's preferred approach combines elements of scenarios 2 and 3: mixed residential plus specialized housing and community uses). That memo will be shared with the broader Mattakee (MUC) process and the town-appointed consultant. Staff and consultants will: refine acreage estimates (the presenters flagged about 35 disturbed acres on the parcel and roughly 6 acres of existing building/parking area that could accommodate higher-density housing), test layouts with parking and stormwater assumptions, and pursue potential funding sources and site-readiness grants.

Committee concerns and disagreements

Speakers repeatedly emphasized protecting nearby wells and preserving undisturbed woodland as buffers; some members expressed opposition to moving the Forest Road Housing Authority RFP onto the Mattakee site and cautioned that local-preference rules do not create permanent priority for occupants who later move away. Sharon (member) and others urged exploring town-owned, municipal-employee housing options (clustered single-family or town-owned rentals) as a partly locally funded approach; the committee agreed those options would likely require different financing and trade-offs compared with state-funded affordable housing.

Formal action

The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn that was moved and seconded and approved by voice. No formal votes on site concepts or RFP language were taken; the committee asked staff to prepare the two-page memo for the MUC and to return with refined conceptual layouts for further review.

Ending

Staff will circulate the draft two-page summary for committee review and the committee asked Barrett Planning Group and town staff to test elevated-unit layouts, sewer and parking assumptions before a subsequent meeting. The memo will be posted to the Muck project page and provided to other town committees in advance of the next scheduled meeting.