The Yarmouth Conservation Commission navigated a night of regulatory friction on December 4, ultimately prioritizing historical context and neighbor testimony over strict environmental guidelines in a contested 3-2 decision for 53 Aunt Dora’s Lane. The applicant, Dr. Sajan, sought variances for a pier structure that has existed for 30 years but recently underwent unpermitted float replacements. While the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) and town staff expressed concerns that the decking remains too low and the floats lack required depth, the commission was moved by a shellfish study showing no negative habitat impact since 1996. Neighbor and angler John Jonathan spoke in favor of the project, stating Dr. Sajan has substantially improved the waterfront by removing concrete and old debris... Requiring him to elevate this would be an aesthetic shock and harder to traverse. Member Elly Tierney agreed that common sense should prevail over blind adherence to rules, noting it looks better than it did. However, Chair David Bernstein and Member Patricia Mulhearn remained opposed, with Mulhearn arguing current regulations are what we've asked for from everyone else. I can't see how we could grant a variance on height. Motion Made by E. Tierney to approve the requested variances and issue an order of conditions incorporating DMF comments and requirements for one-inch spacing on decking. Motion Passed (3-2-0).

A separate redevelopment proposal at 6 Chilton Road faced a steeper climb as the board signaled a hard line against new encroachments within the 35-foot buffer zone. Representing the owner, Scoftnar of Grady Consulting argued that the project provided a net benefit through a 4:1 mitigation ratio of native plantings. We are sacrificing existing lawn for native plantings, Scoftnar told the board. Owner Joe Dibil added that they planned for composite treads and risers for the stairs. Member John Frost was unmoved by the mitigation offer, stating I would be for the elimination of anything new in the 35-foot buffer. This is a new project; you have to meet the new regulations. Member Bradford Bower echoed the sentiment, noting the biggest impacts are in our no-disturb zone. An initial attempt to approve the project with a reduced deck size failed to garner enough support. Motion Made by E. Tierney to approve with conditions that the applicant provide a deck cross-section and a plan showing the reduction in deck size to 20 feet. Motion Failed (2-3-0). The board then moved to keep the discussion alive. Motion Made by B. Bower to continue the hearing to December 18, 2025. Motion Passed (6-0-0).

Enforcement also took center stage regarding the Katros property, where the board weighed the survival of restoration plantings against a homeowner’s desire to avoid a permanent fence. Representative Karen reported that while over 90 percent of the trees and shrubs survived, the owner hoped to avoid the cost of replacing one dead dogwood and the installation of a required demarcation fence. He doesn't go back there, so he was hoping to not have to install those, Karen explained. The commission refused to budge on the barrier. Without the fence, the area was already encroached upon, so this is a measure to make sure that doesn't happen again, said Chair Bernstein. Vice Chair Paul Huggins added that during a site visit, it was obvious that they had gone beyond that area and that the single rail fence appears to be really needed to keep that delineation. Motion Made by J. Frost to deny the request to not put up the fence and allow them to not replant the one tree. Motion Passed (6-0-0).

The commission also addressed several after-the-fact filings and infrastructure repairs. At 188 South Street, the board debated the merits of timber versus composite pilings for a dock replacement. Engineer Bob Perry suggested that in high-flushing areas like Bass River, timber treated with CCA is often preferable to composite options that may shed microplastics. Member Bower expressed a preference for not using CCA regardless of size unless cost was a prohibitive factor. Motion Made by E. Tierney for a Negative 2 determination incorporating and pending DMF comments. Motion Passed (6-0-0). Meanwhile, a deck expansion at 68 Link Lane prompted a site visit requirement after Member Tierney spotted an unpermitted outdoor shower. Yasmin, representing the homeowner, noted the deck was beneficial because before we didn't have a safety exit from the top floor, but Tierney insisted the shower either needs to be permitted or removed. Motion Made by E. Tierney for a Negative 2 and Negative 3 determination with special conditions for erosion and a site visit. Motion Passed (4-1-0) with Member Frost in opposition.

Finally, the board cleared the way for a seawall and float reconfiguration at 232 Blue Rock Road to clean up past sins of former owners, according to engineer Dan Ojala. Motion Made by E. Tierney to issue an order of conditions with special conditions for DMF requirements and erosion remedy. Motion Passed (5-0-1). The commission also authorized the removal of required drainage swales at 63 Thatcher Shore Road after Joe, the staff facilitator, noted that the town engineer saw no adverse effects from the lack of swales. Motion Made by J. Frost to approve the modification omitting the swales. Motion Passed (6-0-0).