A long-contested proposal for a wireless telecommunications tower at 1044 Route 28 finally cleared the Yarmouth Zoning Board of Appeals on February 12, following a court-ordered remand and significant design revisions. The project, brought by Blue Sky Towers 3 LLC, saw its height slashed and its footprint shifted to preserve local greenery, marking a major turning point in a litigation process that had previously stalled the infrastructure improvement.

Town Counsel Matt Preventure opened the hearing by clarifying the board’s role in the wake of district court litigation. Preventure noted that while the board had previously discussed the remand in private session, their duties during the public hearing remained unchanged. Your duties are exactly the same as if you were hearing this for the first time, Preventure advised the members.

Attorney Earl Duval, representing Blue Sky Towers, detailed the transition from an original 110-foot monopole to a 115-foot clock tower design, and finally to the current iteration. What is now being proposed is a 93-foot monopole style tower, Duval stated, noting that AT&T would occupy the 86-foot center line. Project Manager Sean Gormley explained that the tower would reach a total of 93 feet to accommodate separation space for town public safety equipment. To address environmental concerns, the compound was moved approximately 30 feet to preserve existing tree buffers and root systems.

Board members scrutinized the technical and aesthetic aspects of the tower. Chair Sean Igoe questioned the visual impact, asking if the pole could be painted white. Gormley cautioned against it, explaining that galvanized gray is more neutral and reflects sunlight better, noting that painted towers often stand out more against the sky. Member John Mantoni inquired about capacity, to which Gormley responded that while AT&T and T-Mobile are slated for the pole, it can accommodate a total of three carriers plus the town. Motion Made by A. Panebianco to approve the special permit with the conditions of a two-year landscape maintenance plan, a bond sufficient for deconstruction, a galvanized gray finish, a limit of three carriers, and an amended order of conditions from the Conservation Commission. Motion Passed (5-0-0). Vice Chair Dick Martin cast what he described as a reluctant I in the final tally.

The board also tackled a contentious rebuild at 6 Chilton Road, where Joseph and Deanna Dipio sought to replace a 1940s-era duplex with a flood-compliant single-family home. Attorney Paul Tardiff argued the change was a net positive for the neighborhood, stating, The change from a duplex to single-family will reduce traffic and parking demand. However, the project drew sharp criticism from neighbors concerned about the loss of coastal vistas. Margaret Mackey, who lives behind the property, told the board that the height will block the view she has had for 46 years. Another resident characterized the proposal as a big house on a small lot that would tower over every house in that general area.

Chair Igoe addressed the neighbors' concerns with the realities of local zoning bylaws and FEMA requirements. The house size is consistent with the houses around it, Igoe said. Unfortunately, a property owner is allowed to build up within the bylaw even if it obstructs a view. Tardiff added that the structure must be elevated to remain flood-compliant and noted that no one has a right to a view unless you have a view easement. Motion Made by J. Mantoni to approve the petition as requested. Motion Passed (5-0-0).

A request for a front setback variance at 27 Locust Street sparked a debate over the status of a narrow spur road near the property. Petitioner Gregor Metinker sought relief to construct a garage, explaining, We are waiting for this variance to go through before proceeding with septic upgrades. Vice Chair Martin expressed hesitation, noting that the road layout for that is within two feet of the proposed garage. I worry about precedent-setting things.

Alternate Anthony Panebianco supported the request, suggesting the property met the criteria for a variance due to its unique location. I think they meet the criteria for uniqueness, Panebianco said, describing the 15.8-foot side line as appropriate. Chair Igoe agreed, describing the adjacent way as a lane at best rather than a true roadway. Resident Jack King supported the project, stating it adds value to the neighborhood, while neighbor Mark Wormers requested that the private way remain clear for access. Motion Made by A. Panebianco to approve the request with the condition that the house remains limited to three bedrooms. Motion Passed (4-0-1), with D. Martin abstaining due to concerns over plan accuracy.

The board also approved a plan to combine two unimproved lots on Katherine Michael Road into a single buildable lot. Attorney Tardiff explained that the new 17,634-square-foot lot would be more consistent with the town’s goals than the high-density duplexes common in the Gardens area. Combining them into one lot for one house is more in keeping with the bylaw, Tardiff said. Neighbor Kathleen G. sought assurances that a large apartment building would not be constructed, while James Basy of the Gardens Association asked to be notified of final building plans. Vice Chair Martin voiced his support for the consolidation, noting, I think this is a proper and logical situation where relief should be granted. Motion Made by A. Panebianco to approve as requested. Motion Passed (5-0-0).

Finally, the board allowed a petition for a height increase at 147 Run Pond Road to be withdrawn. Attorney Paul Tardiff represented the petitioner, William Bravo, stating, I just would like to withdraw this application without prejudice at this time. Motion Made by D. Martin to allow the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice. Motion Passed (5-0-0). Following the formal hearings, Martin briefly revisited the Metinker decision, expressing concern that the lot size calculations might have included part of the road layout. I think there were a lot of mistakes, Martin said. Igoe noted that the building department would require the petitioners to return if the stamped plans were found to require further relief.