The Harwich Planning Board issued a unanimous recommendation against a citizen petition that sought to ban multifamily dwellings across the town’s rural, low, and medium-density residential districts. The proposal, presented as Article 56 by lead petitioner Robert Hundmark, ignited a sharp debate over the balance between preserving village character and addressing the regional housing crisis. Hundmark argued that current regulations are an open invitation for developers to plop 40-foot tall buildings into historic areas, specifically citing recent activity on Smith Street. These developments aren't meeting the need for low-income housing; they are just cashing in for developers, Hundmark told the board. It's cashing in at the expense of residential neighborhoods.

The board’s decision followed testimony from residents concerned that an outright prohibition would trigger more aggressive state-level interventions. Resident Brian Svin warned that removing multifamily options would constrain local supply and invite developers to bypass town control through 40B comprehensive permits. Svin noted that multifamily is an efficient way to produce units for moderate-income households, and suggested that the town should manage density through dimensional controls rather than total bans. Member Mary Maslowski emphasized the need for a measured approach, stating, This is complex. It's the board's responsibility to make sense of this and ensure regulations meet the guidance of the local comprehensive plan. We want to do it right so we don't create unintended consequences. Motion Made by E. Brutti to adopt the petitioned article at Annual Town Meeting. Motion Failed (0-5).

While the board resisted the multifamily ban, it moved to tighten control over building scales by advancing Article 55, which reduces maximum building height in residential districts from 40 feet and three-and-a-half stories to 30 feet and two-and-a-half stories. Director of Planning Christine Flynn explained the change aims to better fit community character, though resident Barbara Nickerson questioned the practical impact on sites where buildings must be raised to meet flood plane requirements. If you have a multifamily and you go shorter, does that mean they just go wider? Nickerson asked. Svin, speaking as part of the working group that drafted the article, described the height reduction as low-hanging fruit for protecting neighborhoods. Motion Made by E. Brutti to approve Article 55 at Town Meeting. Motion Passed (5-0).

The board also grappled with the ongoing evolution of Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations. Despite a push to align town bylaws with new state laws that allow ADUs up to 1,000 square feet by right, the board opted to postpone Articles 53 and 54 indefinitely following clarity concerns from the Select Board. Member Harry Munns expressed frustration with the delay, noting that state law already supersedes local rules. It escapes me why we would retain language that doesn't comply with state regulations, Munns said. It reduces the potential for litigation to be in alignment. Flynn clarified that property owners can still move forward with ADUs under the state’s 1,000-square-foot threshold regardless of the town’s temporary pause on updating its own language. Motion Made by E. Brutti to postpone indefinitely. Motion Passed (4-1) with H. Munns opposed.

In other business, the board facilitated progress for the Bentley Road subdivision. Robert Hundmark, representing Great White Realty Group LLC, requested a partial covenant release for lots two through five. To secure the completion of road and utility work, the town will retain a covenant on lot four. While the applicant estimated the remaining work at roughly $99,700, the town’s engineering consultant, VHB, calculated the cost at $145,000. Flynn noted that the $135,000 assessed value of lot four, combined with pending legal bonds, provided sufficient security for the town. Motion Made by E. Brutti to accept the partial covenant release for the Bentley Road subdivision, retaining lot four. Motion Passed (5-0).

Finally, the board heard a presentation from Patrick Otton regarding a citizen petition to designate several local roads as scenic roads under state law. Otton pointed out that while Chatham has 39 such designations and Brewster has 19, Harwich currently has none. This asks the town to follow state law and designate roads as scenic roads, which protects trees and stone walls in the right of way, Otton said. While the board took no formal position on the petition following advice from Town Counsel, member Allan Peterson and the rest of the board participated in the unanimous procedural votes to move the remaining zoning articles, including streamlined permitting for non-conforming structures and basement renovations, toward the Annual Town Meeting warrant.