[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6229671,"mediaKeyId","3457660-8b686c84a7d98fc2480bf2cf79072c61","parentId",3457660,"title","ZBA upholds building commissioner; will not order removal of 40 Crosby Street osprey pole","audioSeconds",465,"startMs",3893000,"endMs",4358000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3457660-8b686c84a7d98fc2480bf2cf79072c61&start=3893&end=4358","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3457660-8b686c84a7d98fc2480bf2cf79072c61/thumbnail_3893000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6229671/Massachusetts/ZBA-upholds-building-commissioner-will-not-order-removal-of-40-Crosby-Street-osprey-pole","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6229671-94486aee12afd9420edbf4892abbd91f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770457870&Signature=dlIynJFLFO0KEQG0PsOUeLbomky7GJzYCEoCAyL9rq8YNyyCamH52wcV2hmyQu-Cdjblp2e5RhRaVDawhFIrKk1IWEzvsKhIeWtq1Z6n8XoWYscUwIKUQDPY22CGXu-3p061lhLLV89FQyoEGEU0x7u23QGKErsdEKDrxFTCAom~95qtVK5MZAi0ptK3XNfzLFoS2UlP0UgkaUDQiUKE7huXrnaJ5R1tMYrF~ar~VjviMBhYdaIkZ6mjsVzCwD0V3fLy~GPau9mCJoPKrlr3Y4QON7iXrHssvh7ZHO4Z9pXRLG4P7~L0FFm-qrcBa3~sXyjNWO~g85e5rI94ZAsOwA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town of Yarmouth, Massachusetts","date","2025-05-23T02:55:13Z","article","The Yarmouth Zoning Board of Appeals on May 22 voted to uphold the building commissioner’s determination not to enforce zoning removal against a utility pole and osprey‑nest platform at 40 Crosby Street Extension, rejecting a neighbor’s appeal that the pole is an unsafe, unpermitted structure.

Petitioner Maria Marasco, trustee of the Rosemarie Marasco Living Trust, asked the board to direct the building commissioner to treat a 40‑ to 50‑foot wooden pole with added platforms, electrical wiring and surveillance equipment as a regulated structure requiring permits, a fall‑zone setback or removal. Marasco said the pole “weighs 1 ton or more” and is within roughly 10–20 feet of her property line; she told the board she fears collapse and cited accumulated bird droppings on her beach as a health hazard.

Town staff and counsel reviewed the petition before the hearing and advised the board that the language in the zoning bylaw excludes poles from the list of “customary yard accessories” only insofar as it lists fences, poles and posts separately; a separate paragraph that governs fall zones and communication towers (cited as 408.7.8 in the staff memo) applies to communications towers specifically and does not by its terms cover a private utility pole used for an osprey platform. The building commissioner’s memo concluded the zoning bylaw’s tower provisions address communication towers and not utility poles, and therefore the commissioner could not enforce removal under those cited sections.

At the hearing Marasco argued the use of the pole — its height, attached equipment and placement near property lines — changes its character from a “customary yard accessory” into a regulated structure and asked the board to require review, relocation or removal. She said the pole had cracked and fallen in the past in the same area and that the current pole’s platforms create a substantial fall zone over adjoining property. “This is a 40 to 50 foot above ground 1‑ton utility pole or piling with extensions, electricity, surveillance equipment and a platform,” Marasco said in the hearing record.

Neighbors and property owners in the area told the board they support leaving the platform in place and value the osprey nesting activity. Conservation staff previously reviewed the platform as part of a mitigation plan, and records in the file show prior conservation and Board of Health contacts; the board noted those administrative history items during deliberations.

After discussion the ZBA voted to uphold the building commissioner’s decision not to act on the enforcement request. Board members said the petition raised questions best addressed by the Building Department and legal counsel and that the current bylaw language and prior staff advice limited the board’s ability to compel removal under the sections cited by the petitioner. The motion to uphold the building commissioner carried by roll call; the petitioner was informed of the 20‑day appeal period that begins when the board’s decision is filed with the town clerk.

The board did not order an independent structural or safety study; a number of residents at the hearing urged further review of potential public‑safety liability if the pole were to fail, but the ZBA’s decision was narrowly framed as an administrative determination about the building commissioner’s scope to act under the zoning bylaw.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Town of Yarmouth: Zoning Board of Appeals 5-22-2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Yarmouth Zoning Board of Appeals on May 22 declined to overturn the building commissioner’s decision after a neighbor petitioned to force enforcement against a 40–50 foot utility pole used as an osprey nesting platform; the board found the pole falls under exemptions in the town bylaw and upheld the building commissioner’s decision 4–0.","taxTitle","Town of Yarmouth, Barnstable County, Massachusetts","taxId",68581,"location","Massachusetts","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6229676,"Yarmouth ZBA approves Harborside Suites for 35% J‑1 seasonal worker housing at Route 28 motel",229,4885000,5114000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3457660-8b686c84a7d98fc2480bf2cf79072c61&start=4885&end=5114","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3457660-8b686c84a7d98fc2480bf2cf79072c61/thumbnail_4885000.jpg","/articles/6229676/Massachusetts/Yarmouth-ZBA-approves-Harborside-Suites-for-35-J1-seasonal-worker-housing-at-Route-28-motel","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6229676-714afd74c24c2d2cb200c3f69d9dfa15/orig.mp4?Expires=1770457870&Signature=GGSBeL~U9NGmvnvmH5Cm7Wc9dAPfNEuSfOt3TgXSWisTKLFJnEGUKot01ARn88wU353C9uRiP5zyDgusxlgj99x1JasDqw524ejNC~qJWrw78lDHi7dUFoajQc4XZ~YkFokK~xrPbx7jhyN-1B4G73RxW87pgmyoi2-yyl4Jvy03qfG~KW4tMrCACAFHvJsVPdK6rgEGqGg1csnnR43m5KIRQPY8l~Olm4ME34ucaRBZNATGQLysiZHCQ8JPu41x2vGO-rVg5JO9AMzMZGC2PmyBy0gnet8J3ShDcMurGnhQeKAFGngBesSmz-3LIEvI3zWZwt98bqp3P5095ocqNg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Yarmouth Zoning Board of Appeals on May 22 granted Harborside Suites, at 953 Route 28, a special permit to expand seasonal employee housing so that up to 35% of the motel’s rooms may be used to house J‑1 visa seasonal employees.

Attorney Gary Blank, representing Harborside Suites, told the board the motel currently is permitted to house seven rooms for seasonal workers (15% of 46 rooms) and requested permission to increase that number by nine rooms so that 16 rooms — all interior corridor rooms — would be dedicated to J‑1 housing. He said the change would not alter the building or parking and that on‑site managers and surveillance cameras will remain in place.

Why it matters: Local business owners told the board they face a seasonal labor shortage and rely on J‑1 visa students for summer staffing. Board members framed the request as a targeted, time‑limited use of an existing lodging property that could reduce pressure on the town’s housing supply while remaining subject to Building Department and Board of Health oversight.

The applicant provided lists of J‑1 occupants: 20 confirmed and 22 pending, for a potential total of 42 individuals. Hotel management said rooms will house three to four occupants depending on bed configuration; a communal kitchen unit will be assigned for cooking and shared meal preparation, and each room will contain a microwave and refrigerator. The development team also committed to weekly inspections, a code-of-conduct for occupants (including no overnight guests and quiet hours after 10 p.m.), and on‑site managers Jenny and Ram Ramkishan who live on the property.

Attorney Blank described the motel’s location on Route 28 as compatible with similar lodging, retail and restaurants and said the increased allocation would serve local employers including Lima Cafe, Blue Water Resort, Hearth and Kettle, Skippy’s, Pancake Man, the Lobster Boat and Star Market. Blank told the board there would be no physical changes to the property, no new parking demands beyond current use, and a town inspection was scheduled.

Board members who questioned the applicant asked about transportation and occupancy. Counsel and an operations manager said many seasonal employees use bicycles or walking trips to nearby employers; if necessary employees have smartphones and use rideservices. The applicant agreed to submit the on‑site proctors’ contact information to police and the building department and to ensure the Board of Health determines maximum occupancy per unit.

After deliberation the board voted unanimously to approve the special permit under the provisions referenced in the application (section 404.502/404.503 and related standards). The chair noted the decision is subject to the customary 20‑day appeal period following filing with the town clerk and asked the applicant to record the permit with the Registry of Deeds.","The board unanimously granted a special permit to increase Harborside Suites' allowance for J‑1 seasonal employee housing from 15% (7 rooms) to 35% (16 rooms of a 46‑room motel), citing local employer need and conditions including on‑site management and health‑department occupancy limits.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6229682,"Yarmouth ZBA allows dormer work to be finished at 40 Lorena Road but requires cleanup of unpermitted changes",485,40000,525000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3457660-8b686c84a7d98fc2480bf2cf79072c61&start=40&end=525","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3457660-8b686c84a7d98fc2480bf2cf79072c61/thumbnail_40000.jpg","/articles/6229682/Massachusetts/Yarmouth-ZBA-allows-dormer-work-to-be-finished-at-40-Lorena-Road-but-requires-cleanup-of-unpermitted-changes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6229682-b32a37dc869cedcee908e86fba3b231a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770457870&Signature=lcEqj5CmBYclORbhNIDQtQjppSUSb7aZ15gPuMMtuQv~1gND-HfxrNkMLM7U0td7qsWDceElDG3r5CgaQilcLJHLlDUGgWWv2Ie79w6pnqnzHAhlvdVET573bzqIU8eC~LA9T3B3K9JDA9DIFTzfIpWN13q5zFJnmwiH9oo6nr~z7i2xNuJCzDQIHi5ahO6TnVoY39O-1rZsElkUO2qY5ahP8U4TiGslhW4CCynOWGCZP~qYCIOcsLAJXNij3SUDW6tTsgrZvYO7zuapzjXOtDdH-dpW3OmfZIe1zHpvfh~9APsA7hRtAGxQEEgrsGMo8uSr6pQSvE3t2huw7p0tCg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Yarmouth Zoning Board of Appeals on May 22 approved a special permit allowing the owners of 40 Lorena Road in West Yarmouth to finish a partially built dormer and close the structure against the weather, but the board imposed conditions requiring the owners to remove finished kitchen cabinets and a basement bathroom and to bring multiple other unpermitted changes into compliance.

The board’s decision follows a site-visit memorandum from the municipal inspections director and building commissioner, Mark Grylls, which reported that the property had multiple unpermitted alterations, including three new dormers, an enlarged rear deck, a replaced shed encroaching on setbacks and a finished basement that “does not appear to meet the definition of a dwelling unit.” The board voted 5–0 to approve the permit with conditions after receiving the petitioner’s commitment to address the building department’s concerns.

Why it matters: The petition combined a request to legalize a new dormer and roof deck with a long list of unauthorised changes discovered by town inspectors. The board framed its approval narrowly — permitting the immediate dormer work to be finished to prevent weather damage while requiring the owners to mitigate and, where necessary, remove or re-permit interior and exterior work done without prior approvals.

Board members and the building department flagged multiple issues in the record: the lot measures about 6,500 square feet, the house’s footprint and numerous additions leave little yard space, and a shed and several decks are reportedly too close to sidelines and a leaching field. Grylls’ memorandum, read into the record by the chair, said in part: “Basement finished, including a half bath, does not appear to meet the definition of a dwelling unit. No permits on file. 3 dormers constructed… No permits on file… All unpermitted work will require proper applications, both electrical and building, as well as demolition sufficient enough to prove work done to all relevant codes.”

Dr. Marilyn Brown, who identified herself as a co-owner, told the board the dormer was partially built during the past winter while the owners were out of town and that their contractor abandoned the job after a stop-work order. “We apologize that you have to deal with this unpermitted work,” she said, and asked the board for permission to finish the exposed dormer to protect the house from an ongoing storm.

Several board members said they were sympathetic to the structural and weatherproofing concerns but troubled by the extent of past unpermitted work. “There’s just too much going on in this house,” one member summarized during deliberations, noting multiple changes done without permits and the small lot size.

To reach a compromise, the board conditioned its approval on the petitioners’ agreement that the basement would not remain finished living space: the decision requires removal of the basement kitchen cabinets and the basement bathroom (owners may leave finished flooring and walls), and it makes continued occupancy and any future conversion contingent on compliance with building-code inspections and any required permits from the Board of Health. The board also noted that other elements not before it that exceed setbacks — notably the shed — will require separate petitions or remediation under the building department’s review.

The petitioners agreed to the conditions and to work with the building department to bring the rest of the property into compliance. The board’s decision passed by roll call: all five members present voted “Aye.” The petitioner withdrew a parallel variance request without prejudice; that withdrawal passed unanimously as well. The chair advised the petitioners that the special-permit decision is subject to a 20‑day appeal period after filing with the town clerk and that the permit must be recorded at the Registry of Deeds.

The board’s written decision will specify the conditions and the timing for filing, inspections and any follow-up petitions for structures (sheds/decks) that require separate relief.","At its May 22 meeting the Yarmouth Zoning Board of Appeals approved a special permit allowing the owners of 40 Lorena Road to finish an exposed dormer, but only after they remove certain finished basement elements and bring other unpermitted work into compliance; the vote was unanimous.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

ZBA upholds building commissioner; will not order removal of 40 Crosby Street osprey pole

Yarmouth ZBA approves Harborside Suites for 35% J‑1 seasonal worker housing at Route 28 motel

Yarmouth ZBA allows dormer work to be finished at 40 Lorena Road but requires cleanup of unpermitted changes