Yarmouth Board of Appeals approves Inn’s room increase, permits screened porch; continues ice‑machine case, several petitions withdrawn

YARMOUTH, Mass. — The Town of Yarmouth Board of Appeals on Jan. 9 modified a 2006 special‑permit decision to let the Inn at Cape Cod LLC increase the number of guest rooms from nine to 12, approved a screened porch at 90 Seaview Ave., continued a high‑profile ice‑machine variance to Feb. 27 and recorded several withdrawals or continuances of pending petitions.

The actions affect a mix of small businesses and homeowners on Route 28, Yarmouth Port and West Yarmouth and hinge on local zoning rules and separate health and building approvals.

The board’s decision on the Inn at Cape Cod came after the applicant described 18 years of restoration work and an updated septic system. Michael Castles, owner of Inn at Cape Cod LLC, said the third‑floor rooms were original to the property and the work “will not entail any change to the exterior of the building.” The board modified decision No. 4063 (08/16/2006) to increase allowable rooms from nine to 12, conditioned on Board of Health and building‑department approvals and granting a waiver for a certified site plot plan older than two years. The motion carried unanimously (5–0).

Why it matters: The inn’s owner told the board he has already spent about $120,000 on the most recent work, upgraded the septic system to handle the additional rooms and organized parking so the town’s standards will be met. The board recorded that the applicant demonstrated the criteria in the zoning bylaw and that granting the modification would not create undue nuisance, hazard or congestion.

On Seaview Avenue, Sand Dollar Customs, LLC (petition 5148) won approval for a screened porch addition limited to non–year‑round use with no heat. Walter Warren, co‑owner of Sand Dollar Customs, presented a certified plot plan at the continued hearing; the board added an explicit condition that the enclosure is a screened porch with no heat and not to be converted to year‑round living space. That motion passed unanimously.

Votes at a glance

- Petition 5152 — Inn at Cape Cod LLC (4 Summer St., Yarmouth Port): Motion to modify Special Permit/Decision No. 4063 (08/16/2006) to increase guest rooms from nine to 12; conditioned on Board of Health and building‑department approvals; waiver granted for a certified plot plan older than two years. Vote: 5–0 in favor.

- Petition 5148 — Sand Dollar Customs, LLC (90 Seaview Ave.): Approve special permit as submitted with condition that the addition is a screened porch, not year‑round, and no heat; certified plot plan to be submitted. Vote: unanimous.

- Petition 5153 — Arthur and Luke Carlton (511 Route 28, Luke’s Liquors): Requested variance to allow an ice vending machine more than 6 feet from principal building (section 303.5(0.8) cited). The board polled members and the poll result failed to reach the four‑fifths threshold required for a variance (three in favor, two opposed); the applicant requested a continuance to Feb. 27 to explore alternate placements. Motion to continue passed.

- Petition 5151 — Christopher and Linda Roberts (12 Town Brook Road): Request for accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above proposed garage (section 407 cited). The board advised the applicants they currently lack an authorized primary dwelling on the lot and that the 2021 special permit for the primary structure likely lapsed or needs modification; the applicants chose to withdraw the ADU petition without prejudice. Motion to withdraw without prejudice carried unanimously.

- Petition 5144 — Lopolato (continued matter): Board granted a continuance to Feb. 13. Vote: unanimous.

- Petition 5154 — Gate Masonry and Landscaping (1 Windswept Path): Variance request for in‑ground pool (14×26) to be sited inside the required setback. Several abutters spoke in opposition citing proximity to their yards, water table and septic setbacks; the applicant withdrew the petition without prejudice. Motion carried unanimously.

Key discussion points and context

Accessory apartment at 12 Town Brook Road: Don Bracken, a surveyor and engineer representing Christopher and Linda Roberts, described a proposed 630‑square‑foot one‑bedroom apartment above a three‑car garage and said the proposed structures meet dimensional zoning setbacks and lot‑coverage limits. Linda Roberts said she and her husband plan to make the property their primary residence “in the next two to three years” and had hoped to rent the apartment until they move full time. Board members focused on process: a prior special permit from 2021 for a single‑story, two‑bedroom ranch, an issued building permit and a foundation placement. The board repeatedly emphasized that an ADU cannot be approved where there is not a lawful primary residence on the lot and that affidavits confirming primary‑residence use and a landscape plan are required. The applicants withdrew the petition without prejudice.

Ice‑machine variance at 511 Route 28 (Luke’s Liquors): Attorney Andrew Singer and applicant A.J. Luke presented a site redesign that would remove asphalt, add landscaping and reconfigure traffic flow. Singer said the proposed ice‑machine location could not comply with the six‑foot rule in the sign code because of existing driveways and a fire lane that provide access to the rear of the property and neighboring parcels. He described the proposal as a trade‑off: lose some front parking, gain green space and improve circulation. Board members raised concerns about congestion at a busy stretch of Route 28, machine size (the applicant said the machine holds roughly 6,000 pounds of ice), and signage/wayfinding for customers. The board polled members and did not reach the necessary supermajority for a variance; the applicant asked for and received a continuance to Feb. 27 to pursue alternate placement and to determine whether any added dimensional relief would be needed.

Pool at 1 Windswept Path: Owner Vachrich Siodarian said the 14×26 in‑ground pool would be for family use; neighbors spoke in opposition. Thomas Manning, the immediate abutter on the side in question, told the board the lot had already been substantially enlarged and that “any hardship that you might think exists there was created. It was not preexisting.” Neighbors raised concerns about the pool’s distance from the septic system and high water table, night lighting and noise, and loss of tree cover. After discussion the applicant elected to withdraw the petition without prejudice.

Procedural notes and next steps

- For actions that require separate approvals, the board conditioned approvals on receipt of written confirmations from the Board of Health and the building department where noted.

- Continued items: petition 5144 (to Feb. 13) and petition 5153 (to Feb. 27). Petitioners were reminded of filing deadlines and re‑advertising requirements if their applications are amended.

- Withdrawn without prejudice: petition 5151 (Roberts ADU) and petition 5154 (pool). Withdrawal without prejudice allows the applicants to refile at a future meeting.

- Decisions will be drafted and filed with the town clerk; the 20‑day appeal period applies to modified or new special permits.

Ending

The board completed its other routine business and votes to adjourned. Petitioners and their agents were advised to coordinate with Dolores in the building office for submission of required plans, affidavits and recording instructions.