The staircase plan, designed to address the steep elevation of Holmes’ property, had already received approval from the Yarmouth Conservation Commission. Tardiff emphasized this point, arguing that the elevated design would preserve vegetation and prevent erosion, which are critical for maintaining ecological integrity. He noted that the property’s unique “pork chop lot” configuration further justified the need for a variance. However, abutters raised strong objections, citing potential intrusions into their privacy and impacts on property value. Timothy Walsh, a direct neighbor, voiced concerns about the staircase’s proximity to his home, which he claimed could lead to security issues and a loss of privacy.

Walsh’s apprehensions were compounded by the possibility of increased foot traffic, especially if the property were used for summer rentals or Airbnb purposes. He presented photographs to the board to illustrate the proximity of the proposed structure to his living space. Another abutter, Trish Egan, expressed surprise over the staircase’s advancement, having understood from prior discussions with Holmes that the plan was no longer active. Egan challenged the necessity and accuracy of the submitted drawings, particularly disputing a pathway shown leading to her property.

The board deliberated on these concerns, weighing them against the benefits of improved access for the elderly Holmes, who is nearly 100 years old. An attorney for Holmes defended the proposal, pointing out that Walsh’s own property had previously benefited from variances for construction that encroached on setbacks. Despite this defense, board members struggled to reconcile the competing interests, with some leaning towards denying the variance due to the potential negative impact on neighbors.

Ultimately, the board’s attorney suggested that the petitioner might withdraw the request without prejudice, allowing for future resubmission. Frustrated with the board’s stance, the petitioner chose this option, and a unanimous vote allowed the withdrawal. This decision concluded the contentious variance request and left the community divided over the resolution.

In addition to the staircase debate, the board addressed another variance petition by Michelle Jean Baptiste, who sought approval to sell holiday greenery and crafts on a lot without an existing building. Baptiste aimed to operate a seasonal market with local artists participating on weekends. However, the proposal encountered resistance due to bylaw stipulations requiring a building on the site for such operations. Concerns were raised about the market’s resemblance to a flea market, potential traffic issues, and its impact on existing businesses. The absence of electricity and sanitary facilities further complicated the proposal.

Despite expressing support for Baptiste’s business intentions, the board emphasized the need to comply with local bylaws. The petitioner was advised to withdraw the request to avoid a two-year reapplication restriction, should the variance be denied. Baptiste complied, expressing her understanding of the board’s position and her desire to create a positive community experience. The board unanimously accepted the withdrawal, reiterating their regret in being unable to grant the requested relief.