44:50The board’s unanimous decision to deny a special permit for Andrea Piva and Douglas Kasa’s daycare centered on the operation’s non-compliance with the condominium’s master deed, which prohibits business activities. Despite state licensing for up to eight children, the space’s limitations—approximately 700 to 800 square feet—were deemed inadequate for the daycare’s needs. Parking issues on a busy roadway and a lack of sufficient outdoor space were also highlighted as concerns. Piva claimed unawareness of the master deed’s restrictions, noting that her landlord had assured her of the operation’s legality. However, board members underscored that landlord assurances did not override the deed’s conditions. Public comments favored the daycare, emphasizing the need for affordable childcare in Yarmouth, but the board maintained that the operation contravened zoning regulations, leading to the denial of both the special permit and a variance request.

00:41Following the daycare discussion, the board addressed a petition from Spinners in South Yarmouth LLC for a special permit for seasonal employee housing at Parker’s River Resort. The property manager, Ray Doug Koig, sought to use all 24 motel units for housing employees from Chatham Bars Inn, rather than local Yarmouth businesses, due to difficulties in securing local housing requests. The board debated the petition’s alignment with zoning bylaws intended to support Yarmouth businesses. While Koig argued the arrangement was a temporary solution to generate revenue for planned renovations, concerns were raised about setting a precedent for non-local business occupancy. Ultimately, the board approved the special permit for one year, requiring adherence to conditions from past decisions.

47:24Another contentious issue involved a petition related to the retail sale of lobsters from a residential address. The applicant, John, sought to challenge a previous decision denying a variance for what was claimed to be a grandfathered use dating back to the 1950s. The board’s chair expressed skepticism about the petition’s merit, viewing it as a repetition of a prior request. The attorney representing John argued the board had not adequately addressed the grandfathering aspect. Despite these arguments, the board unanimously agreed that the petition was repetitive, advising the petitioner to seek recourse through the Superior Court if dissatisfied with the decision.