Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Home Based Retail Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA rejects repetitive petition to overturn building inspector’s order on retail lobster sales at private residence
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals found the petition to overturn a building inspector’s enforcement order about retail lobster sales at a West Yarmouth residence to be repetitive and barred by the two-year restriction following a prior unfavorable decision; the board voted to deny the petition.
The Yarmouth Zoning Board of Appeals on April 10 refused to proceed with a petition asking the board to overturn the building commissioner’s enforcement order that retail sales of lobsters at a private residence on Iroquois Boulevard are not permitted.
The board concluded the petition is repetitive and falls within a two-year bar after a final unfavorable decision on the same matter. Chair Sean Igoe and all board members agreed they had upheld the building commissioner and denied a variance on the issue at an earlier hearing (October of the prior year), and therefore the board would not relitigate the same question within two years unless specific, material changes in conditions were shown.
Attorney Jonathan Poloni represented the petitioner John Tolley and argued the current filing differs because it asks the board to consider whether the use is a protected, preexisting use or a permitted accessory use in the residential district — questions counsel said were not fully developed in the earlier hearing. The chair responded that the board had already upheld the building commissioner’s determination and that the current filing appeared to repeat the prior petition without timely appeal. After discussion, the board voted unanimously to deny the petition as repetitive and not to hear the merits.
The building department had issued a violation letter dated March 7, 2025 directing the property owner to abate retail lobster sales from the residence; the letter referenced prior ZBA decision 05/1934 and the board’s October hearing. The chair told counsel that the applicant may seek relief in Superior Court if he believes the board erred and that a court could remand the matter to the ZBA.
The board’s determination concluded the ZBA will not accept the petition for hearing because it is within two years of a final unfavorable decision on substantially the same issues; the petitioner was advised of the option to appeal to court.
