We all ready to go? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Uh, my name is Sean Igo. I'm chairman of the Yama Zoning Board of Appeals. We will now convene the February 28th, 2026 meeting of the Yama Zoning Board of Appeals. This is a
hybrid meeting and is being recorded. We will begin by taking a roll call for quorum. Mr. Nez, >> I am here. >> Mr. Scandlin, >> here. >> Mr. Panabiano >> here
>> and I am here as well. With a quorum present, I will now call a meeting to order. The first matter on our agenda is petition 5216 Sandbar Management Incorporated. Property is located at 452 Route 28 West
Jarmath. It's in a B2 and HMOD1 district. The applicant seeks a special permit per section 404 sub paragraph 5.2 and section 404 sub paragraph 5.3
to provide seasonal employee housing in 100% of the rooms at the Town and Country Family Resort Motel. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Uh for the record, >> identify yourself for the record, please. >> Yes. For the record, my name is Andrew
Singer, attorney in Dennisport here on behalf of the applicant. Um, Mr. Morramama was also uh stuck down in Florida and he was going to try to get online, Mr. Chairman, in case you two aren't in the same room. I'm not sure where you both are in Florida. Um, but I
I don't see his name, so it's possible he is um he wasn't able to get on. However, the >> That's fine. You can proceed without him. >> Thank you. Um we have been before you for this annual permit uh several years in a row now. Um because it is an annual permit, we have to at this point still
come back to you. We are requesting a special permit to uh have 100% of the 143 rooms at the town and country be employee housing. Once again, uh this housing services not just Mr. Morama's Wicked Waves Water Park, but it's also
servicing Red Jacket, Duncan, Shaws, Pancake Man, Aiden, Lobster Boat, Skippers, and Seafood Sams. Basically, employee housing is is accommodated, you know, on this property on um on the seasonal basis. The reason why we need the special
permit from you is because we are asking for more than 15% of the rooms to be employee housing. 15% is allowed by right. Obviously, 100% is more than 15%. We are it is a special permit use uh when you go over 15% under the zoning
bylaw. So we have submitted uh materials to you as we have in the past uh hopefully demonstrating that the proposal will not create an undue nuisance hazard or condition um and there'll be no substantial harm to the town. We are proposing the exact same
conditions as in years past, the same code of conduct. We have complied with all of the conditions in your past permits. Um, I could go into more, but I think uh I'd be happy to answer questions and if I said I happy to give more information and answers if you'd
like and we appreciate your time and hope that you will once again grant this special permit. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Attorney Singer. Uh, Mr. Nez, do you have any questions for the petition? >> No, just clarification. Um, the this is
a request just for another one-year extension. Correct. If you would grant it to me for more, I would welcome it. Uh we have had discussion with the board in the past. I believe Sean, um I'll go to you because I think we were having this conversation a couple years ago. I I don't know if the building
commissioner feels that the bylaw doesn't allow you to do it for more than one year at the moment. Um but if the bylaw's changed, are you willing to grant it? We would like not to have to come back every year. >> I I understand that. I I think that um as kind of the regulatory body of such a
you know stretch by the accordance with the bylaw I felt more I would I would feel more comfortable with the one-year not to drag it out necessarily for the petitioner but just to keep control and I think that's probably what the building commissioners >> and that's what we've been doing we come
back around this time January February every year we have at least the last four years or so >> I also noticed you spelled out in your memorandum memorandum the um the amount of police complaints and considering the numbers of people and volatility I I I
don't think that's outrageous but do you care to comment on that? >> The uh so one of the conditions that you have had in your decision each year is that we do that we provide you we get a copy of the uh police reports and so of the calls uh you know more than half of
them what jump out to me are um almost half were just routine police service calls. they just go in. It wasn't because they were called. They're just doing service checks. And then another seven of them there was unfortunately a domestic dispute that I don't think involved the property but somehow got
called at the property. I was looking at the reports. So um you know there were uh some noise complaints and a few other you know every now every year someone loses a pro loses a wallet or something happens. Um but it's been um I think as you said for for the number of people
who are there Mr. Morama does a very good job at management. He has worked with his neighbors. He works with his residents and he works closely with the police department. So that >> the tenants to have them know the rules too. >> The tenants know the rule and and as I put in the memo, we have that very detailed code of conduct which discusses
that as well. >> Good. >> That's all I have. Mr. Chair, >> thank you. >> Okay, Mr. Scandlin, do you have questions for the petitioner? >> Yeah. Um, of those rooms, are they uh single occupancy, double occupancy? >> Two and three. >> Two and three. So there's some rooms
with two, some pe some with three people in them >> as it may change. The max is three. >> Okay. >> Yes. And I'm not going to say there might not be one at times. I don't know how it fluctuates over the summer, but >> yeah. Um uh have any of the uh occupants
uh been uh disciplined at work or they lose their job uh during the year so that they're uh would that affect their ability to stay at the property? >> It would. I can't I can't tell you what may have happened in the past, but I can
tell you that in the code of conduct um number, it's in the page two of our memo. Uh under the code of conduct, for a first violation, there's a warning. For a second violation, there is a um fine. And if there's a third violation, employees removed from the property. >> Okay. Have there been any uh employees
removed from the property the past year? >> I'm going to I'm looking someone else. Do you know Sorry, without Joe Pat can help answer. >> Um, we removed one individual from the property last year. Um, there was an
issue at work. Uh, the issue carried on to uh housing >> and um the issue was inappropriate and as a result he was removed immediately. >> Okay. >> No further action, no further issues. That was it. >> And that person's not coming back, right?
>> Is that person is not coming back? >> Yeah. And uh do you know of any other incidents at other employers >> that would cause the uh occupants not to be uh have a job at the at the employer? >> Nothing at this time. Um but if we do
have we've had incidents in the past, we had some noise incidents in the past. And so what we do with those is we actually will call the other employer. And it's amazing how quickly um those noise complaints resolve once they find out their employer has called.
>> Yeah. Okay. All right. I have no further questions. Thank you. >> You thank you. Uh Mr. Pan Biano questions. >> Yeah. I don't see it in the uh Attorney Singer, I don't see it in the record um for the dispatch log or the police call
history for the 15 uh noise complaints. Do you have an estimation what time those are were made or if any of them were made after uh 7 p.m. >> have it doesn't show. >> I'm going to turn back to Mr. Malone if he knows. I do not know.
>> Sorry. 10 p.m. after 10 p.m. Sorry. >> I'm gonna I asked Mr. Malone to come back up. I'm not sure the answer myself. The the reason that I asked just to verify, we do have in our uh permit uh that there's an enforcement of quiet
hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. And if there's noise complaints after 10 p.m., which we know are going to happen and that's that's understandable just to be cognizant of it. Um you know to make sure that enforcement since it's a condition of the special permit is applied.
>> Sure. So what we do in in those situations or to to work on that. So there are definitely noise complaints after 10 p.m. a lot of times that relates to people who may not work at the park or work for us. They'd work somewhere else and so they might not get home until midnight or 1 in the morning.
So they come home, they're winding down, they want to have something to eat. The person next door may go into work at 6:00 a.m. And so we do have some of those complaints. But what we do have is we have a uh we have a full-time security person and that person uh walks the property from 10 at night until
roughly 2 in the morning. And so when we get those complaints, we try to squatchch them internally as quickly as we can. Um but sometimes, right, people will just immediately call the police. But we we are cognizant of that and we're taking the appropriate steps to handle those issues. >> All right. I appreciate that. I just
wanted to hear that. Thanks. And uh I have no questions for the petitioner. Do we have anybody in the audience that wishes to speak in favor of this petition? If so, please come to the microphone. >> Anybody?
>> Uh no, Mr. Chairman. >> If there's anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this petition, please come to the microphone. And there's no one, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Uh, Attorney Singer, I don't believe we
have any correspondence. Do we, Dolores? >> Uh, no, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Uh, Attorney Singer, is there anything else that you'd like to add at this time? >> No, thank you. >> Okay. Then we're going to close the hearing to the public, begin board deliberations. Uh, would anyone like to
begin a discussion or is anybody prepared to make a motion? I'd make a motion that we approve the application for special permit for the one year with the same conditions that we've always had. >> I'll second that. >> All right. So, we have a motion made by
Anthony, seconded by uh who was that? Dick attemp. >> It was me. >> Okay. Um do we have any discussion on the motion? The only thing I would add is I I think uh councel pointed out that they meet the criteria of the bylaw. We've been doing this for a while.
They've been very good about it. Mr. Moama is a uh a very good landlord. He's got a very good reputation around town and he provides very very necessary housing to employees of the town and I
think without this particular hotel that there would be a number of businesses that would be in trouble staffing themselves. >> I I agree with that, Mr. Chairman. And that was one of the things I was going to comment on as well, that in addition to providing housing for his own employees, he's a valued asset to the
other businesses that use that facility for their employees. And and I think that's really an important thing to keep the the uh economy humming in the summer. >> Yes, sir. I agree. And uh I mean the one-year reviews, I mean, I do agree
they they're in the bylaw. They're required. I think it is necessary that we do have this one-year review so we can make sure that everything, you know, stays in line and is being complied with. And uh fortunately uh we really we had no issues. Everything has gone
fairly smooth. Um as council indicated, you do have a few hiccups from time to time, but unfortunately that almost can be expected with that many people together in one area. Uh so if there is nothing else um moving the question Mr.
Panabiano how do you vote? >> I >> Mr. Scanland >> hi. >> Mr. Nees >> hi. >> And I'm an I as well that passes four in favor none against. Um attorney Singer you understand there's a 20-day appeal
period. Uh I don't have to explain that to you. must elapse. Once that uh has gone past, you can uh do you get another special permit for us or is this just a review? >> No, this is this requires a decision each year. It's a new decision with a
new um which I'm happy to prepare a draft as I have in the past and then it will have to be recorded. >> Okay. So, if you could just do that and send it over to us for our review and we'll get you straightened out. And uh we appreciate you coming in and thank you for your time. Thank you all very
much. Appreciate it. Thank you. >> Okay. The next matter in our agenda is petition 5217 Sand Dollar Customs LLC. Property location at 90C view a unit 8H in South Yarmouth. It's in an R25 zoning
district. The applicant seeks a special permit per 104.3.2 to paragraph 4 to expand a pre-existing non-conforming use and replace a 200 square f foot deck with a 236 square ft
screened porch at the back of the unit. Mr. Boba with us. >> Hey, Mr. Igel. How are you? >> I'm well. Could you identify yourself for the record? >> Uh, yeah. I'm Steve Abbola, one of the co-owners of Sand Dollar Customs,
representing the owners at 90C View. Um, what we're basically looking to do is a reconfiguration of the direction of the existing deck and then create a screen porch um similar to the one that we did last year
on the other side of the development. That's about it. >> Okay, Mr. Neats have any questions for the petitioner? >> I think since there is some precedent from the previous decision in the same complex, it would be be difficult to
turn down as long as everybody understands that it's it's to be a screen porch and not to be a a year round enclosed room that's added on to to the square footage of the of the unit. And I think that's probably what the uh management of the board of
trustees or the condominium association would like to see happen as well. So, uh, I noticed that they they have given their stamp of approval to the addition of the porch and, uh, I think we should, too. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you,
>> Mr. Scandlin. Any questions for the petitioner? >> Um, yeah. Why is it uh why is the porch, I understand, being reoriented, right? I mean, the existing one goes straight out from the house. >> Just the deck. >> Oh, the deck. I'm sorry.
Yeah, I think that I think that was more something that the owner wanted to reorient. And if you look at the existing conditions versus the proposed conditions, it fits on the building much better. It actually increases the setback and all of that as well.
>> Yeah. Because now you're not as close to to the line. >> Correct. >> Yeah. And so why is it being expanded over the uh the current square footage? So the community there um is you know
made up of multiple seasonal units. So there's a certain density that's allowed a certain amount of square footage allowed per unit. So he was allowed basically he had about 36 square feet additional that he could
he could do. So he maximized his his option. I I don't understand. How is he getting it has an extra 36 ft? >> Uh that's that's a good question. I'm not I'm not an engineer. So that's uh
you know that was all put together through the civil engineering. >> Uh I know BSC had done a comprehensive um plan on that overall development maybe three four years ago >> and u we've done work in other
developments that are similar to that. Yeah. >> And there ends up being generally some additional square footage that can be developed. >> And so everybody kind of gets a little slice of the pie, so to speak, >> or every unit in the development has
>> correct. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> And so he has an extra 36 feet. >> That's that's what he's apparently that's what he's allowed. Yes. Thank you. >> I still don't get it.
>> Well, I think I think the way they they developed this was each unit they take the square footage of the unit and then there's um >> exclusive use area that they've included. >> Yeah. >> And so if they wish to expand, there's a formula that they use to allow them to
expand. So if one guy's 100 square feet and he can expand another 20 and the other guy's 150, then he can expand 30. >> Those aren't exact, but that's just an example. >> All right. >> And I believe that's the way they laid that out. >> Would that be asked that some time ago
and then they came back and actually did it for us. >> Would that be through the condo ducks, Sean? >> It would be. Yes. There should be a certain percentage >> that each unit owner has and then that would be should be spelled
out as to what the maximum amount they would be allowed. But in terms of what we're looking at, we look at things like the set back from that back line and things of that nature. >> Yeah. >> And we do take these on a case on a
casebyase basis. All right. I have nothing. >> Anything else, Tim? >> No, thank you. >> Okay, Anthony, >> I have nothing. >> Okay. Uh, I don't have any questions
either. I did look at it. Um, it is consistent with the one that we allowed directly across the >> circle, >> the yard on the other side. I forget what that number was. Perhaps Steve, you know that one, but uh you may have done
that one. I think you did. >> Building three. >> U is that three. Okay. Um yes, it's just it's just adding on screen porch. It gives them a little bit more room. Um and again, while we do look at it on a
casebyase basis, we found the other one was reasonable. I think this one is basically the same size. So I I I do find this to be reasonable as well. Um, any further questions from the board?
Is there anyone in our audience that wishes to speak in favor of this petition? If so, please come to the microphone. >> There's no one, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Uh, anyone wishes to speak in opposition to this petition, please come to the microphone.
>> And no one, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. We have anybody online that has their hand raised? >> Uh, no, sir. >> Okay. All right. Is there anything else you'd like to add, Steve? >> Uh, no, sir. >> Okay. Uh, so we'll close the hearing to
the public and begin board deliberation. Anybody uh wish to begin a discussion or to make a motion? >> I'll do I'll do both. Uh, just looked at our prior decisions. It's it's the identical size of porches that we've
allowed. Um, so I do the 19 by1 11. So I'm I'd like to be consistent. So I'm prepared to make a motion that we approve as written with the same conditions that we have in the prior um that it's not heated and it's um not
used for habitable living spaces. >> Okay. Screened in porch. >> Screened in porch. Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Anybody like to second that motion? >> I'll second. >> Okay. That's that Dick. Is that you again? >> Yes. Yep. >> Okay. So, we got a motion made by
Anthony, seconded by Dick. Any further discussion? >> Hearing none, we're going to take a roll call. Mr. Ne. >> Hi, >> Mr. Scandlin. >> Hi, >> Mr. Panabiano.
>> I >> and I'm an I as well. That passes four in favor, none against. Steve, as you are probably aware, because you've been here quite a few times, there is a 20-day appeal period, once the decision is clocked with the town clerk, after
that time elapses, you can Dolores will contact you. You can come pick up your special permit, uh, you need to take it over to the registry of deeds and record it and just bring a copy back for our records. >> Have any questions?
>> Nope, I'm good. >> Okay, very good. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thanks. Have a good evening. You too. >> Okay. You too. >> Take the rest of the day off. >> All right. The next petition is petition 5218 viewpoint sign and awning. The property
location is 932 and 940 Route 28 South Yarmouth. The applicant seeks a variance of section 303.5.2 with a height of three signs and/or a variance from section 303.5.2 to modify an existing third attached
sign. The applicant requests a waiver from the requirement for a certified site plot plan less than two years old. >> Good evening. Evening. >> Good evening. Could you identify yourself for the record, please? >> Uh Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Jason Pillo. I'm here with
Viewpoint Sign and Awning. Um, also here with me tonight is Dan Bonino representing the owner of the uh of the restaurant. Um, so what we're here tonight to do is uh we're want to refresh and revitalize this restaurant that's been part of the community for a long time. Um there uh the currently
this this restaurant has um illuminated awnings on three sides totaling 427 square feet. Um there's 250 square foot signs on the on the building on the front elevation and then the side elevation that also uh faces the parking
lot. And the plan is to replace all that with um a 42.16 square foot sign on the front and a 24.73 foot sign on the side and then just reface the circular sign on the front that is nine square feet. So,
basically, we're removing 527 square feet of illuminated signage and replacing it with 75.89 square feet. Um, the reason why we're here is because the two wall signs that we're proposing, actually all three of them are over the two foot uh height
allowance. Um, one of them is uh 30 in high, the other is 20 26 inches high, and then of course the circle is 36 inches high. Um, but we do conform to the bylaw as far as total square footage allowed and the amount of signage
allowed on each elevation. So, really we're just here because we're asking for a third sign and we're asking for the signs to be over the two foot height. And um, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer. >> Mr. Pan and Biano, do you have any
questions? I do not the the proposed plans spell it out pretty clearly. So >> um well I guess my question is is um what is the need for the signs to exceed the
the limits in the uh the individual limits in terms of two feet high? >> The um these signs as far as when we're talking about the channel letter signs, which are the the the two main signs we're asking for, these signs are mounted on backer panels, um, in order
to, you know, fit properly on the building. And as far as just trying to get these letters and these logos to be legible from the road, the building is set back a little bit. Um, that's why these panels are are sized, you know,
at, like I said, at 26 in and 30 30 inches. The lettering is actually soon going to be smaller than that. It's just that that background panel is a little bit larger so that it can encompass the the lettering and the signs. Um and then the other that third sign, that circular sign that's already there and we're
we're trying to just bring that sign into, you know, basically legalize that sign. That sign the permit for that sign we couldn't find even though it's been there for a long time. >> Um so that one, you know, we're just trying to keep it the same size it is now, which is three feet. We're basically just sliding the face out, putting in a new face. So even though
we're over uh uh slightly on these signs, it it we feel like these are appropriately sized so that they'll be legible and uh clearly visible to the public. >> Yeah. Is there a technical reason why the signs could not fit within the confines or climates of the bylaw?
>> Um I guess technically um no, it would just be you know we it would just be um a visibility issue. Um, and like I said, we are making a drastic reduction in the square footage of signage that's there
now as to what we're proposing. >> Was the Do you know if the prior signs went through the same variance procedure and what the results were of that? >> They It looks like they've been up for a long time. They were legally permitted, but I believe the bylaw had has changed
since those were originally per because I did sit down with the building commissioner. We went over all this. All right. Thank you, >> Mr. Neats. Do you have any questions? >> I do. Um, how separate are these two entities, the
tenants? Is is D'Angelo owned by Papagenos? Are there is the same ownership? Are they going to be the same cashiers for both operations or are they separate? >> I'm glad that Dan's here to answer that question.
>> Yeah, sure. Great. Excuse me. >> Hi, I'm Paul Bonvino. I'm the construction project manager for New England Authentic Eats, which is the parent company for Papaginos and D'Angelos. >> Okay. So, they're both they were both under the same corporate umbrella.
>> Correct. They're both owned by New England Authentic Eats, and the plan is to just join or meld together the uh the menus of the two companies. Uh, so it's the same counter, it's the same cashiers, it's the same menu board. It's just adding those menu items into the
existing menu. >> Similar to um Kentucky Fried Chicken and Taco Bell or whatever it is in Hyannas. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Um, >> it's that simple. I think given the fact that you know I think a lot of the public is used to having these two
separate entities to have them each uh to have them together in one building I think is um a great idea. I think there are a lot of people that are cheering about D'Angelos's coming back to Yarmouth after many many years of
successful operations. So I think I think it's a good move and I think it gives I think gives me a little bit more latitude to be a little bit more generous since there are while not two separate entities there are two >> um different brands in the same building
>> that's the best way of saying >> and both need some signage. So correct >> I I think I'm more inclined to uh to grant on that basis uh at least as a rationale in my own head. >> If if I may if I could help answer one of your previous questions. >> Sure.
>> About the technicality of the sign and the size. >> Yeah. >> Because we're joining the two brands together, it now requires more space to add two signs versus one sign. >> Yeah. >> So trying to squeeze those two signs into the same footprint is very difficult to do
>> and to have each visible. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Now, did I understand it, Jay, from what you said before that the proposed signs are actually going to be less square footage than the existing signs? >> That's correct. Yes. The existing signs are 50 square feet each. >> Yeah.
>> And neither of these are that size. >> All right. So, um so the sign uh on the um on like uh what is it? the south side and then you have the the the west side
>> and so so the the larger one is 42.16 square feet and then the the smaller one is 24.73. >> Okay. So you're what 60 70 square ft total. >> That's correct. Great. Yes, that's correct.
>> If I could, Mr. Chairman, I had one other question about the longevity of >> of Papaginos in South Yarmouth. Do you have any idea how long they've been here? Is it 40 years? I know it opened in the 80s. >> I couldn't give you the exact >> year that it opened, but >> pretty close.
>> I know it was mid I think it was mid to late 80s if I'm not mistaken. >> I think so. >> Thank you. >> As you know, there was at the Angelos's down the street on Route 28. >> Yeah. So, that's why we're trying to bring that back. You know, we're excited to have both in one one uh under one
building as well. >> Great. I think it's a great idea. >> Thank you. >> I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Well, um, couple of things here. Um,
convince me why you need that circular sign on the front of the building when we're giving you relief for that sign that's you want to put up on the front. >> So, like I said, that sign, we couldn't find the permit for it. So because it's
there, uh we we kept it as part of this proposal to to uh just reface that sign. Um I think that sign's more just for um like the the like pedestrian traffic,
you know, not not really for vehicular traffic. So for people that are inside the the uh parking lot, you know, they see that sign because it's close to the entrance. It also kind of marks the entrance as well. So, I mean, I think those are would be
the the main reasons to allow that third sign. >> Okay. But you could live without it, correct? >> Yeah. >> Now, on the other side, it's on the other side on the side of the building inside that gable. I believe the bylaw
requires that to be inside those rakeboards, doesn't it? >> Well, I can speak to that. Um, originally when we filed this application, the local building inspector cited that that the sign can't extend above the roof line, but then the building commissioner looked at this and
said that because that's a lower subroof that that would not apply. And he he said that we would not need relief for that. Um, >> so you don't need relief for that then. Is that what you're saying? You're not asking for relief for that sign? >> We're not really asking for for relief for that for the fact that it sticks up
above that sub roof line. But you are asking for a leaf for that sign. >> Yes. Just because it that sign is 26 in high where um >> 24 would be the max. >> Yeah, that one I do have a bit of a
problem with. It looks very out of place right there. Doesn't look like it belongs on the building. >> If you if you brought that down so that it was below that roof line, would that be all right? >> Yeah. So, >> how can you do that? >> Yeah, because the awning won't be there
anymore because right now it's basically lined up where the top of the awning was. So, we could just >> Okay. So, you're not going to keep that awning. So, let's talk about that because that's what I'm looking at. >> Yeah, these awnings are going. That's Yeah, that's part of >> Okay, then I Do you have something to show us that shows the finished product?
Because I'm looking at that with that red on there and I like the looks of that. Yeah, if you look at our drawings, I believe it's page um I think it's like page like two and four shows a mockup of what the building will look like once um the awnings are gone and these new signs
are up. >> I may not have >> it is page four of the uh of the sign. Um >> I I don't I'm online. Everything that was published is this what was published
online as well? >> Yeah, it's uh >> where the system it's under the sign graphics >> because that's where he's saying >> let me take a look >> under the sign.
But that's where the the sign's got to come down because the awning coming down. >> So, are you planning any awnings at all? >> No. >> All right. I still don't have that on mine, but we can talk our way through this one. Um,
so this is just going to be white clapboards, and that's going to be sitting up there. Yes. >> Okay. Then you can drop that other one down so it's down below the uh the roof line. Correct. And inside the
uh the rake boards. >> Yes. >> And you'll put it at a spot that balances out so it doesn't look odd that it's too high or too low. You'll put it in the middle somewhere. >> Absolutely. Yeah. We want it to look the best it can it can look. Yeah. For sure.
>> Well, I I do think it's an improvement. It cleans up the building. It does look nice. Uh I'm I'm not convinced that you need the round sign. >> I think it helps with pedestrians, Mr. Chairman. And there are a lot of
pedestrians in that area. um they're attracted, of course, by the um the sports world's uh activities, but also there's a there's a bus stop out in front and there's a a kiosk for an ATM machine in the parking lot. So, I I I
think at eye level and it certainly def delineates where the uh where the entrances are and I think that's that's helpful because you pull up to a building >> more of a directional sign. Yeah, I think you know it's it's you know you pull up to a building that you're not familiar with and you don't know where
the door is because it kind of the glass kind of blends in with the windows. So >> yeah, but to your point though, Dick, that's not really where the Is that where the door is? >> Yeah, right here. >> Yeah, in the front. >> Yeah, it's right next to the door. >> All right, I'm Never mind.
>> It's It's also right. The circular sign is pre-existing just changing the lettering. >> Yeah. No, I understand. The only thing we want to be cognizant of is we do have a sign code that we try to adhere to.
All right. Um, so sometimes we get ourselves in trouble when we agree to one person giving granting variances for multiple signs and then the next guy comes in and we say no to him. So, we got to be
careful. But um I do kind of like the argument that it's somewhat directional and directional signs are different. >> Y >> now this one does exceed >> I think the size of a directional sign but I don't have that in front of me. Um however
um if you can uh drop that one on the side below the the roof line and you bring it down in the gable. I I do think it's a clean look. It's a it's a modern look. We're all very very interested and
uh invested in the redevelopment of Route 28 in Yarmouth. So, I do think this is a uh a very good improvement. Um so, I think I could support it. Anyone else have any questions?
Do we have anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in favor of this petition? Uh, no, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Do we have anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to this petition? >> No, Mr. Chairman.
>> And do we have anyone on the line? >> Uh, no, sir. >> Okay. Uh, sir, is there anything that you'd like to add at this time? >> No. >> Okay. Then we're going to close the hearing to the public, open it up for board uh deliberation, discussion. Uh,
anyone like to begin a discussion or is anyone prepared to uh make a motion? >> I I just commenting I I think this is a you know a long-standing uh restaurant in town has many fans, but I
think I think the bringing back the D'Angelo brand is is a big plus too for a lot of people that that miss that. Um, and I I I I think it's it's clean looking and I think it's and as I said before, I think the the fact that we're
we're under two banners gives us me a little bit more latitude for the ex, you know, strict enforcement of the bylaw the way it stands. Uh, and and it is a significant reduction from the signage that's already there. So, I think it's a win-win.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ne. Anyone else? Okay. Anyone prepared to make a motion? >> I'll move the petition as presented. >> Okay. Anyone uh second that motion?
>> Uh I I would move with a condition that that because as presented that sign is not >> Okay, you're right. I I agree. just to make sure that Sean's recommendation or request that the sign comes down. >> So, we'll put that condition that it
comes down below the uh >> roof line >> below the uh rake boards there on the gable. >> I think the petitioner would probably prefer to do that anyway. It's going to look a lot better. Look odd up there. >> Yeah. >> But he understands he has to do that. Correct. >> Yes.
>> Petitioner. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Is that a yes? >> It's a yes. Sorry. Okay. >> All right. So, we'll just make that a condition. Is the motion maker uh agreeable to that condition? >> Yep.
>> I'll second it then. >> Okay. We have a second to the motion. Any further discussion >> hearing? None. All uh we're going to do a roll call. Mr. Neats. >> Hi, >> Mr. Scandlin. >> Hi,
>> Mr. Panabiano. >> Hi. And I'm an I as well. That passes four in favor, none against. Um, as you may have heard, it once the decision is clocked with the town clerk, 20 days
must elapse. Once that happens, Dolores, our administrative assistant, will contact you and you can come pick up your variance. Please take it over to the registry of deeds and record it and bring a copy back for our records. >> Do you have any questions? >> Nope. Thank you very much. I appreciate
it. >> All right. Thank you very much. Best of luck. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Okay. >> Good luck. >> Right. We have another agenda item. >> You're right. How'd you know? That's what I used to >> I know a lot of people
left. >> Yeah. >> A lot of them. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. Gentlemen, we just have one more agenda item. Hang on. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Okay. We have one other matter on our agenda. Uh we have it as a determination
request number 3646. Let me just bring this up here. Know we have council online. Uh this is a request by Mil Pond Village comprehensive permit. a request for an
insubstantial change. I believe that we have attorney Babrows E on Zoom with us. Am I correct? >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. You are correct. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Been a long time since I've seen it. Looking at the dates in my
memo, it's 11 years ago. So, >> well, and hopefully it will fly for Mr. Bonby on a in a smooth way forward from this. He's also um available to speak if we need him and I told Dolores the same.
>> So what we we've solved the problem of the cloud on the development rights here. Um I don't want to take any credit Mr. Bonvy's title lawyer Sean Egan a conclusion here that works for Mr.
Bonvy and for Mass Housing and we hope for the association as well. Um, I'll just give you a very brief summary of my letter that was uh sent earlier this month with the framed insubstantial change request. It seems that back in 2001,
condition 21 of the original comprehensive permit required commencement of construction within 24 months. And it had some superfluous language in there. And the it was essentially that the construction had to commence and continue without
unreasonable delay thereafter. I say superfluous because nothing in the HAC regulations then or now requires the construction to be completed by a deadline. In fact, I've worked on uh several comprehensive permits on behalf
of municipalities that I had one recently in Franklin started off on island A in a wetlands and 15 years later they came back to finish island B connecting them with a causeway. Um that's pretty common. It's not It's not
all that common, but it happens more often than you'd think. So that's the confounding language here and continues without unreasonable delay thereafter. It's been 11 years since Milpond Village at least uh was under construction. As we all know, 60 homes were built, 60
homes are occupied. The ultimate project is 136 units. The poor people who have put up with this delay for many years are paying for the package treatment plant which is sized for 136 units and
only 60 people are paying for it. So this is an opportunity to remove the offensive language and allow Mr. Bonvy to have clean title to the development rights. This will make uh the bank happy
if he has to go to a bank. It'll also uh be covered by his title insurance so that there won't be there there will no longer be an impediment to the development rights if this superfluous six words is deleted from the modified
permit that we obtained in 2015. I've offered a couple of reasons for this. One is um one is that the language as I said exceeds the language in the HAC regulations. Back in uh 2001 when the
permit was issued there was a three-year commencement of construction requirement that still exists and 60 units meet that standard and we don't need to worry about commencement at all. Number two, we could make a case and I did speak with Mark Grills about
this a month month and a half ago that the delay was not unreasonable. Who who can commence construction if they don't have uh clear development rights? But I'd rather not go down that route. It's subjective standard rather than an objective standard. Mark uh said that he
would be open to an argument. Uh but as the conversation with him continued on the telephone, he said, "Well, of course I'm going to have to ask town council about it." Jay Talerman I spoke shortly thereafter that we take this approach that we come
in to seek an insubstantial change uh rather than pursue the unreasonable delay a reasonable delay argument. And then last argument with all that in mind is that uh this is clearly an insubstantial change. The HAC
regulations do have examples of substantial versus insubstantial. I've listed them on page three of my memo. But most importantly, new 760 CMR 56.05 12C now states that extension of a
permit shall not by itself constitute a substantial change. So it would constitute an insubstantial change and we ask for your uh endorsement of this concept. I would prepare with your permission a very brief paragraph saying
that the lang the language and continues without unreasonable delay thereafter is stricken from the permit as the fourth modification if you will and Mr. Bonvy will go about the business of building 76 units.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. So everybody understands what we're doing here. All we're ask all the petitioner is asking for is to take the language out and continues without unreasonable delay thereafter. Uh and they want us to determine that that's an insubstantial
change. Um when I first received the letter from attorney Babroski uh I sought an opinion from our town council who thought uh it was an insubstantial change. Thought it was benign and therefore that was his opinion. I must
say that I agree. Um, it's almost unfortunate. Well, I'm not quite sure how that got in there. I am dating myself because I was involved not in the actual decision at the time, but I did sit in originally when the
original developers came in to do this project, uh, which was quite a long year, long time. I guess it was 2001. Um, having said that, does anybody have any questions for the petitioner? Mr. I have none to the petitioner. I just
wanted to clarify with you, Mr. Chairman, that the town council seems to think that that this is um insubstantial. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes, we did. I I I had Dolores send a uh
send an email over to uh Jay Talman and he responded and that was his opinion. >> Okay. >> And I would agree with that. Tim. >> Um well, my own view is that
even though that language is not uh mandated by the regulations, neither does the regulations prohibit it. And I guess my question is is it must have been put in there for some reason back in 2001.
And uh even though it's not required by the regulations, it was still agreed to by the town and by the developer. Uh so and I think one of the reasons I'm just speculating, but one of the reasons could have been that they wanted the the
prompt and uh expeditious construction uh to to move forward and not to drag out over years. And I think you know their misgivings probably have have come true that drawn out you know for a number of years for for whatever reason
this cloud on on the development rights whatever the reason is it's still you know extended so um to me I it seems to me that there was an agreement back then and back and again in 2015 when it was reissued that the the the uh
construction would continue without undue delay and I don't uh I can understand why you know the developer would like to take it out, but I'm just concerned that the original uh thinking on the part of the town and the board at
that time that uh put that language in there and not be overlooked. >> Well, I my memory I'm sure um is not perfect, but we had a number
of hearings regarding the original developers. There's a number of guys who came in. They were a group of builders locally and when they came in with their plan, they were going to do this and they were going to do that. And I think there was a little bit of skepticism
about how quickly this thing was going to move along. And I think that's how that language got into it originally. >> It it was more focused towards who was coming in at the time. And those guys actually ended up going bankrupt.
>> Yeah. >> So I think there was some concern that they were going to do some and and then it was going to stop for a while and then they were going to sell a few and you know we were giving them a lot of development rights and whether we were going to be sitting there with a lot of vacant land or not. So I I think that's
was the reason that that got in there. But in terms of the overall project, whether that's a substantial or insubstantial change, that's the question we need to focus on tonight. >> Well, yeah. And to me, I think that it
was a a material term of that original permit >> that that at that point. Do >> you have anything base that statement on? >> Excuse me. >> Do you have anything to base that statement you just made on? because it's in the
>> you heard my explanation. I was there. I'm just wondering when you said that. >> Yeah. >> You Well, let me ask you the question this way. Are you finding this a substantial or insubstantial change? >> To me, I would say it's substantial change because of the changing that uh
without unreasonable delay thereafter. imposing a time limit uh you know and uh a fairly flexible but nonetheless uh some uh form of time limit on the period of the construction.
>> This has been taken over by a new developer. You would realize that right? >> Yes. >> Okay. And he's >> but they're stepping into the shoes of the old developer. >> Pardon me. >> They're stepping into the shoes of the old developer. I mean, you know, they're
using this permit from the from 2001 to 2015. >> Mr. Chairman, may I >> go ahead? Yes, please. >> I mean, the the fact of the matter is is that if you look at page three of my memo, the regulations that I included
and quoted are very clear about what constitutes a substantial change. An increase in 10% of the height of the buildings, 10% of the number of units, reduction in size. more than 10% of the number of units proposed change in building type change from one housing form of tenure to another.
>> We're not anywhere near that. And if you look at the insubstantial changes >> that more in tune with what we're doing here, >> so it's it's not a question of whether the term was in the original permit any changes in the original permit contained in the original permit,
>> including the substantial changes that I just listed. Um what we have is really an impediment to going forward that can be easily removed by the removal of >> how is it an impediment going to going forward? If you deem it to be a
substantial change, it's a 30-day notice for a public hearing and we've got to advertise it again. Yeah. And we've got to come back for the public hearing and then I've got to sit and wait for the decision to be written. And if I disagree with the decision, I'll have to go to Boston. And Boston's already said
extension of a permit shall not by itself constitute a substantial change pursuant to 760 CMR 56.074. So I already know what the answer is going to be there >> right I mean to I understand you know
there would be additional work to be undertaken as a result of finding whether it's substantial or insubstantial but given the fact that this commenced in 2001 and it's been you know pending since 2015 you know those those uh time frames do
do not seem substantial and in fact and terms of whether it's not uh mentioned in in the regulations. We already covered that it's not uh that language is not mandated or contemplated
in the regulations but neither is it prohibited and that's the reason why it's not referenced in the regulations. >> I don't disagree with that uh Mr. Scandlin but regardless of whether it's prohibited or allowed by the regulations
it's the the completion of construction is typically something reserved for the subsidizing agency, the developer, and the developer. If the lender isn't seeing the project go forward, the lender's going to take action. And I think in this incredibly perilous time
we live in, whether it's or political, um these these projects don't need the additional pressure of a completion deadline. >> Mr. Chairman, I had just a thought um that was mentioned in passing, but I
think uh the the the further delay of this project um is a significant hardship for the 60 property owners in that development currently that are that are paying for a sewage treatment plant that was
originally designed to be the cost of which would be shared by 136 uh unit owners in in the complex. So, it is a significant issue for them and I think it's a it's a significant
detriment um to their ability to to to settle and get out of there too if they if they chose to do it. So, I I do have some some concern for those people. And if we can do it by saying it's insubstantial uh when it looks like it's going to
happen anyway and this just draws it out further um would would make me and I'm surprised to say this because I was against this project when it started as Sherburn Villages back in the earlier years um before 2001 but um I I I think
it we're in it and um we need to have some concern for the people who bought into the project that subsidizing this sewage treatment plant that was mandated to begin with. >> And that's one of the concerns, you know, I'm sharing is that, you know, when this goes forward that it, you
know, move forward and be completed expeditiously. >> I think so. Yeah. >> Yeah. I think we're, you know, we all want the same thing. >> Yeah, I think so. >> Well, the question here tonight Tim is if we don't vote unanimously,
I don't believe that we're he's going to get what he wants. >> Uh this is a comprehensive permit. You're a five member board. I need three votes. >> Oh, you need three votes? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. I wasn't sure about that. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I appreciate that. Anthony,
your thoughts? >> Um I appreciate the thought process of three different attorneys who are smarter than me on on here to, you know, Sean, Mark, and our town council that think it's uh not a
substantial change. So, I'm I'm happy to move forward with it. Okay. All right. Attorney Barbroski, is there anything like you'd like to add further at this time? >> No, thank you. I would anticipate that
Mr. Banby will want to record a fourth uh just a a paragraph really that says the offensive language I don't mean offensive in any other way than the superfluous is removed and a permit
otherwise remains in full force and effect as changed through the third modification period. >> Okay. All right. Uh, is there anyone in the audience that I I don't think we have anybody in the audience, do we? >> Uh, no, sir, Mr. Chairman.
>> No. Okay. And we don't have anyone else online. >> Uh, there is no one wait. There's a John. >> Well, we have Mr. Bonvy online, but we're not going to call upon him unless there's something that he wants to add.
But I think his council's done a fairly good job. Yeah, that that's true, sir, but there is an attendee named John Le Prey with the hand raised. I don't know if he's part of the team or not. >> Uh yeah. Uh am I on muting now? >> Uh you're on, sir. >> Yes. Could you identify yourself,
please, sir? >> Yeah. Uh John Lee, I am uh the treasurer on the mil just cut out of this. The board has discussed this. We think it's it's exactly the right option. So, we're the whole board is in
agreement that that we'd like to move forward with this. >> And I'm sorry you cut out, sir. Could you just uh identify yourself one more time? Thank you. >> Yeah. My name is John Lressie. I am on the board of Mil uh Mil Pond Village and uh I am on the treasurer in fact uh and
we as a board have have spoke about this and are are in full agreement with this uh process and we'd like to go move forward with we recommend that we move forward with it. >> Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you very much. >> Uh Sean, could I just ask you a question? The the email that you
received from the town council, did they give a reason why he thought that the this was insubstantial or he just more or less uh was agreeing with uh uh the applicant here, Mr. Babrows. >> He just we asked him what he thought. We
we wanted an opinion on that and he just came back and gave us that opinion. >> Yeah. All right. Um I I think you know again I stated my position initially I think that there
was a a substantial change but based on uh the information that the town council has opined that it is not substantial I can u I can uh go along with it as being in insubstantial.
>> Okay. All right. Very good. All right. If there's nothing further, then I'm going to uh I'm going to ask you if someone would like to make a motion. >> I'll I'll move. >> Tim, you want to make a motion? >> Yeah, I'll move that uh that the request
uh by Mr. Berrowski on behalf of his clients that the uh change uh in the comprehensive permit be is be considered insubstantial. Okay. Do we have a second to that motion? >> I'll second it, Mr. Chairman.
>> Okay. Any further discussion on the motion? >> Hearing none, Mr. Panabiano. >> I, >> Mr. Scandlin. >> I, >> Mr. Ne. >> I. >> And I'm an I as well. That passes four
in favor. None against. Attorney Babrowski. Um, I can expect a decision by you. Could you forward that over to Dolores? And uh >> I I will do so, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to get it over to Dolores tomorrow. I
hope your uh snow melts as fast as it's melting up here. >> And so do we. >> And please uh give our regard. We know we see Mr. Bond's online. It's always a pleasure to see him. And uh please tell him we said hello if you can hear us. Hello, Mr. Bond. And wish you the best.
>> We'll we'll do. And thank you all. Good evening. Thank you very much everybody. Okay. >> All right. Dolores, do we have any further business? >> Uh, no, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Do we have a motion to adjourn? >> So moved. >> Second.
>> All right. To all those in favor? I >> Okay, we are adjourned. Thank you everybody. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Come home soon.