Yeah, >> I didn't hear the >> recording in progress. >> Here we go. >> Okay, we ready to go? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay, >> let me just get right here. One second.
>> Good evening everyone. Welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Yama Zoning Board of Appeals. Today's date is July 23rd, 2026. I'm the chairman of My name is Sean Igo. I'm the chairman of this board. Uh this is a hybrid meeting and we're being
recorded. So we're going to begin by establishing a quorum and doing a roll call. Anthony >> here. >> Barbara >> here. >> Tim >> here. >> Dick >> here. >> And I'm here as well. Having established a quorum, we will now begin the meeting.
Uh the first matter on our agenda is petition 5242 PLJ Carpentry Incorporated. The property location is 424 Four Seasons Drive South Yarmouth, Mass. It's in an R40 zoning district and the applicant seeks a
variance from section 203.5 for rear setback relief to construct a 16x6 gazebo over an existing hot tub. Uh, could the petitioner please come to the tables up front?
[clears throat] >> Good night. My name is Anthony. The proposal. >> Good evening, sir. Yes. Could you identify yourself for the record, please? >> Yes. Anthony from PLJ Carpentry. I'm a project consultant. >> So, >> okay. >> And you have uh permission from the
owner to present this petition tonight? >> The owner's with me. Oh, Bob. Oh, [clears throat] okay. The owner's with you. Okay. Come right up, please. >> All right. And could you identify yourself, please? >> Yes. My name is Robert Bombck, the owner of 424 Seasons Drive.
>> Okay. Very good. All right. We see what you have here. Why don't you tell us a little bit about what you want to do here tonight? >> So, currently the project was a bigger gazebo. It was a 24 by6 but unfortunately because of the setbacks it
wasn't we wasn't able to proceed. >> So then we shrked it down for 16 by6 to meet the setbacks. >> Mhm. >> And we needed to make a new certified plot plan too because the current one that was submitted wasn't updated. >> Yeah.
>> So now we >> So we made a new certified plot plan. >> Mhm. And the the gazebo, it's 9 ft tall, has a roof on it, just so you
>> not just a perle, it's a gazebo. >> And I think >> Okay. >> And now it's on the requirements setbacks. >> I have the >> It appears that you do need some relief from your rear setback. Isn't that correct? Your your your proposal is
going to be 16 foot n off the rear lot line and you need 20 at a minimum. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> 3T. >> I think you're sideline. You're okay. >> Yeah, we need three feet. >> Okay. Okay. Yeah, it looks like about three feet there on that. Just a little
bit more than three feet. Okay. All right. And we have uh we have some drawings, some ren renderings here of what you want to um construct. Um is there anything else you'd like to add at this time?
>> Um I submitted the structural plans. I don't know if you Oh, got it. >> So, >> yeah, I believe we have that. >> Yeah, >> that's that's all. >> Okay. Okay. Um All right. All right. Is there anything else you'd like to add at
this time? >> No, it's done. >> Okay. All right. We're going to go to the board for some questions. Anthony, do you have any questions for the petitioner? >> I don't. This is pretty straightforward what they're asking for. >> Okay. All right. Barbara, do you have
any questions for the petitioner? >> Um, I'm just wondering there's a there's I see a on this drawing there's a shed back in in behind this structure. A shed >> since it's a shed. Yeah, >> I have a shower and a shed is
>> Oh, okay. >> Oh, well, there's a shed on the opposite side of >> the shed's over. >> Oh, on the opposite. >> If that's what you're seeing my septic on the outside of the fence. >> It's labeled. >> Oh, okay. No, I'm looking at this one. >> Yeah.
>> Does it look like a small shed? >> Shed, right? >> Shed like a small shed right behind it. >> It's with the shower. >> Oh, there's a shower in there. Okay. I was going to suggest pushing the thing back. >> Right. >> Okay. We can't do that. Okay. That's all I have. >> Okay. >> It's like three feet.
>> Yeah. It's very small. >> It's very small. It's like three feet. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Little shower shed. >> All right. >> Tim, do you have any questions? >> Uh yeah. You said uh 9 ft height. >> 9 ft height.
>> Yeah. And and so that's from the the bottom of the grade to the top of the structure. >> No. to the top of the structure will be 12. It's the to the bean of the structure 9 ft >> and then more 3 ft for the structure. >> Okay. So 12 ft over 12t. >> Yeah. Overall.
>> All right. And um what is the uh property behind you on that other property line? It's all like Well, >> I don't know the personally that owns it, but the person to the right, if you
look in the back of me, he owns that land. It's a culde-sac behind me as well. >> Yeah. >> And that's all just um there's nothing behind it, but he does own that. So, >> it's just all growth. I just Yeah, >> someone does own that behind there,
>> right? But so there's no house or anything. That's all all vegetation. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay, >> it's it's all I just heard this is Anthony. Um it's all one lot 351 High Bank. Um to the back if you're going
directly behind uh the applicant's property and to the right, it's all one property, but it's it's pretty I've driven by and looked over it. It's it's pretty well growth and fenced in back there. >> Mhm. and all all the uh the structures are,
you know, outside the scope of 42 seasons direct kind of a budding line. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Anthony. >> All right. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Dick, do you have any questions?
>> Uh, [clears throat and cough] no. No. Excuse me. Excuse me. Um, [clears throat] not really. just that uh I'm not sure about meeting the criteria for the variance. Uh I have no problem with the actual
proposal itself. It seems pretty minimal and not encroaching on anybody and apparently there's no neighbors here. So, uh but we have a little issue about the variance issue.
Well, the legislature has now um enacted a a new criteria. >> Um I think we have those in our packet. >> Yeah. >> Um the only one who doesn't have it in their packet, I hate to admit, would be me.
>> So I don't have I don't have that in front of me. So I'm going to look uh I'm going to look to >> Sean. I would note that the application was dated June 29th and that the law was passed uh July 9th. So that the
application preceded the law. >> Um yeah, I'm not quite sure though if the application I I hear what you're saying, but and I will
look to the board. I I that you raise an interesting question as to whether we should apply the old law given when they were filed or should we apply the new law when they were actually heard. Um >> yeah,
>> uh I'll tell you what, why don't we discuss the new law because this is the first time we've heard this >> and uh >> why don't we see if we can get there um applying the new law. We could talk
about the old law. Um, but in terms of uh I don't have any questions just uh for the record. Um I did look at it out there yesterday. I would note that there is nothing in the
backyard and I think you know given the fact that they're just looking for three feet. Um, I think it's rather dimminimous and I don't think it's going to have any type of an impact uh to any of the neighbors around it. As
I recall reading the new criteria, I think we balance the the practicality of where it would be against the potential impact that it might have on the public or the surrounding neighborhood or at least in a butter. Uh, I think that's
one of the criteria. I'm just obviously kind of paraphrasing, but um why don't we discuss this new criteria? Anthony, do you have the new criteria in front of you? >> Yeah, I'm pulling it up now.
>> Yeah. What it says, Sean, is uh >> Okay, go ahead. what rather than requiring applicants that demonstrate substantial hardship, the new law replaces that hardship test with a more flexible practical difficulty test. So
in evaluating the variance request, the local permit granting authorities would balance both the benefits the applicant and the public against any detriment to the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood. And we can consider several other factors including whether
the practical difficulty relates to the site conditions, whether strict application of the zoning bylaw would create a financial hardship, whether feasible alternatives exist, and whether the hardship was self-created.
>> Okay. Well, um, is the hardship self-created? Um, I'm not sure, but we can start there. I'm not sure. I mean, obviously
the the hot tub is there, I believe. Um, >> I don't think they actually need permission for the hot tub to be there, just the structure over it. um you know whether that's you know
self-imposed or not I I don't know whether they foraw that they were going to do that when they put it in and whether there's a practical alternative to place that on the lot of course >> the tub might be within the setback it's the gazebo over it that's now creating
the setback issue >> yeah I'm not sure where that's true I'm just looking at the gazebo I'm not really sure about how much it encompasses the actual hot tub. I don't think I >> Let's ask the contractor here. >> The hot tub it's 8 by8. So it's going to
be >> Okay. Yeah. >> So it's >> So you got a few feet all the way around. Okay. >> So >> So your hot tub is really that's within your setbacks. It's only this structure that you want to put over it. >> Correct.
>> And so um let's let's talk about that second part there. Uh what is it the practical say that again uh Tim >> practical difficulty standard. >> Okay. >> So we balance the benefits to both the
applicant and the public against [clears throat] any detriment to the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood. Well, I personally don't see any detriment to the health, safety, or
welfare to the neighborhood by allowing this given the fact that it backs up to really nobody and no one's going to be affected by it. I don't think an butter on either side would be. There seems to be quite a bit of separation. That's my own opinion. Um,
I I mean it it certainly would be a financial hardship if he wanted to put that over his hot tub and we forced him to move the hot tub in order to conform. So, I I think he probably would meet the criteria there. Um,
and and what are the other ones? And I'm going to let everybody else chime in. I'm just kind of >> walking this through because this is the first time we've had to deal with this. >> So that's that's the major uh description of the the the new law. And
the revised statute also allows the boards to consider other factors including whether the practical difficulty relates to the site conditions, whether strict application of the zoning law would create a financial hardship, whether feasible
alternatives exists, and whether the hardship was self-created. >> So those are additional factors we can consider. >> Okay. Okay. the the way I read it is that we don't have unlike
um ahead before to a certain extent we had we had to meet every criteria this is now a permissive way of reading it that we may do so consider these things but they don't have to meet >> every single criteria but
>> okay >> specifically I think in this case they they meet them anyway it creates a financial hardship that there's no feasible alternative And I don't think the hardship was created. I think they they bought it in 2025, so it wasn't their it wasn't their
doing. >> Mhm. I agree. I agree. How's everybody else feel about that uh rationale by Anthony? Dick, what are your thoughts? >> Yeah, I'm going to >> Okay.
And how about you, Barbara? What do you think? Um, I can I can agree with Anony's reasoning on it. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Tim, how about you? Your thoughts? You >> um Well, so if I understand, the gazebo hasn't been constructed yet, right?
>> No, no, no. >> That's correct. >> It's been ordered. It's a pre-made fab. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean, uh, to my mind, Sean, is um, you know, that they're asking for three feet of, uh, variance from the setback. It's not going to have any effect on the
neighbors. It's not going to have a determinable effect on the neighborhood. Um, uh, no health or safety issues. Uh, so you know, I would, uh, view the the
request favorably. >> Okay. Okay. >> All right. And is, is the rest of the board in agreement with Tim and Anthony? I would agree with Tim >> Dick.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah, I would too. I think that I think what Anthony pointed out and what Tim suggested I I think uh is pretty much my feeling as well. Um again, it's the first time we've we've dealt with it,
but in terms of whether I would approve it or not, I would look favorably upon it. And I do think that uh the petitioner does meet the criteria of the bylaw and I would uh recommend the board support it.
Do we have anybody in the audience that wishes to speak in favor of this petition? >> Seeing none do we have anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to this petition? Seeing none, do we have
anybody with their hands raised? Uh Dolores, >> there is no one online, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. All right. Uh I'll go back to the petitioner. Is there anything that you would like to add before we close it to the hearing and begin board deliberations?
Hearing none. Okay. I'll presume petitioners have nothing more to add. That's okay. You don't have to. I was just asking. Okay. All right. Um things you look like they're going your way, so there's probably no reason for you to add [laughter] my
quit while you're ahead. Yeah. [clears throat] >> Um >> so would anyone like to begin a discussion or is anybody prepared to make a motion? I'll make a mo a motion that we approve
as applied with the o onus perhaps on you chairman to add some additional language with the new bylaw just that they they meet the new terms because I know it's unique to us now.
>> Yep. Yep. We we will add that that you know they they meet the criteria of the of the newly adopted bylaw and it being an emergency preamble. It's effective immediately once the governor signs it.
>> Um okay. So that's your motion. you. So, essentially, you are making a motion to approve the petition as requested and we will um make note of the new bylaw,
the new variance criteria. >> So, moved. >> Okay. Do we have a second to that motion? >> Second. >> Seconded by Tim. Do we have any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, we'll take a roll call.
Anthony >> I. >> Barbara. >> Hi, >> Tim. >> Hi, >> Dick. >> Hi. >> And I'm an I as well. That passes five in favor, none opposed. Um,
what will happen now is the decision will be drafted and once it's filed with the town clerk, 20 days must elapse. That's a technical appeal period. Uh after that time goes by, Dolores will contact you and you can come in and pick
up a copy of your variance. You must take it over to the Bible registry of deeds and record it and return a copy to us for our records. Do you have any further questions? >> No. Thank you. >> Okay. Well, thank you very much and good
luck with your project. >> Thank you, sir. >> Okay. Have a good night now. >> You too. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. >> Thank you. Okay, we have minutes to approve uh Dolores. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman, from July 9th. >> Oh, you don't understand.
>> I'm sorry. I'm in a I'm in an automobile right now. I apologize. It's got some Bluetooth going on here. I Please bear with me. I need a motion to approve the minutes of July 9th, 2026. >> So moved. >> Second. >> I'll second it.
>> Okay, we have a motion made by Tim. Seconded by Anthony. >> Sure. >> I think Barbara beat me to it technically. >> Barbara. Okay. Motion made by Tim, seconded by Barbara to approve the minutes. >> Uh, all those in favor. We'll do a roll on this one. Anthony
>> I. >> Barbara. >> I. >> Tim. >> I. >> Dick. >> I. >> And I'm an I as well. Lays pass five and favor and none opposed. Do we have any further business uh tonight, Dolores? >> We do not, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Can I have anybody prepared to
make a motion to adjurnn? >> I'll move to adjourn. >> Motion made by Dick. We have a second. >> We all second. >> We all second. Okay. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> I. I.