Government officials banned him from selling his freshly caught lobster and fish from his home—as he has for half a century

A Massachusetts lobsterman who says he has sold freshly caught lobster and fish from his home for roughly half a century suddenly found himself on the wrong side of local zoning rules, forcing him into a lengthy fight with town officials over a business that had been part of his family for generations.

Jon Tolley, a third-generation fisherman in West Yarmouth, said in a video from the Institute for Justice that he had been selling his catch from the same property since 1975, while his father had done the same for about 30 years before him.

Then, in 2024, the town told Tolley that he was operating an illegal retail business from his home.

“I thought it was a joke,” Tolley recalled.

For attorney Ari Bargil of the Institute for Justice, the dispute became an example of what he sees as a much wider problem: small businesses being forced to stop ordinary, long-running activities because of restrictive zoning rules that may have little connection to health or safety.

Tolley Says Fishing Is The Only Life He Has Known

Tolley said he has spent essentially his entire working life on the water.

“I’ve never did anything in my whole life besides being a fisherman,” he said.

He described the work as repetitive but rewarding, with days spent hauling traps, rebaiting them, removing lobsters and setting the gear again.

For Tolley, fishing also provides a kind of mental space that is difficult to find elsewhere.

“When you’re out there, it’s like you can just think about anything you want,” he said. “Your mind can wander, but you’re doing your job.”

His home-based sales developed naturally out of that work.

According to the Institute for Justice, Tolley had sold lobster and fish to thousands of customers over the decades, becoming a familiar local source of fresh seafood rather than operating something that suddenly appeared in the neighborhood.

That history is part of what made the town’s enforcement action so surprising to him.

A Citation Arrived After Decades Of Sales

Tolley said everything changed in 2024 when Yarmouth accused him of running a retail sales business in a residential area, something the town’s zoning rules prohibited.

He was issued a citation and threatened with additional penalties if he continued selling from the property.

Tolley said people who knew him were stunned.

“You kidding me, Jon?” he recalled people saying. “You’ve been selling them there for all these years. Now all of a sudden they’re going to say something?”

Bargil said the town was effectively treating Tolley’s seafood sales as an illegal retail use of his home.

The Institute for Justice took the position that the enforcement was not only unfair but legally questionable, arguing that older versions of the town’s rules had allowed this type of activity and that Tolley’s decades-old operation should have been protected as a preexisting use.

That was the organization’s argument, not a final court ruling, but it helped frame the dispute as more than a simple permitting problem.

The Zoning Board Said It Could Not Help Him

Tolley initially believed he could solve the problem by appearing before the zoning board.

At one meeting, a board member said the members were sympathetic to his situation but did not believe they had the authority to grant relief under the existing bylaw.

That meant Tolley could not simply walk into a meeting, explain that he had been doing the same thing for decades and receive permission to continue.

After another citation, the procedural problem became even more complicated.

The board indicated that because the matter involved what it considered a repetitive petition, Tolley might have to wait two years before seeking similar relief again unless a court ordered the issue sent back.

For someone trying to preserve a small seafood business, that kind of process can be crushing even before fines or legal costs enter the picture.

Bargil argued that this is exactly how zoning systems can discourage ordinary people from fighting back: the process becomes so slow, technical and expensive that many simply give up.

Institute For Justice Turned To Changing The Law

The Institute for Justice became involved, although Bargil said the organization arrived too late to bring the constitutional challenge it otherwise might have pursued on Tolley’s behalf.

Instead, the group shifted toward changing the local law.

Tolley said he realized he needed to move quickly if he wanted to keep selling seafood from his property.

“It’s my rights to do it,” he said, explaining that he concluded the zoning rules themselves had to change.

He went before the planning board, which he said supported him.

That board eventually proposed a new law that would create a path for Tolley to continue operating.

The fact that the town ultimately changed its rules is notable because it suggests local officials recognized there was at least a practical problem with forcing a decades-old business to disappear under the existing system.

It also raises a simple question: if the activity had gone on peacefully for generations, why did it suddenly become unacceptable only after a zoning complaint?

A Special Permit Still Cost Him $450

Even after the law changed, Tolley was not immediately free to go back to business as usual.

He still had to apply for a special permit.

That process cost him $450 and required another zoning board appearance.

Eventually, the town granted the permit, allowing Tolley to continue selling lobster from his property for as long as he wants.

The permission, however, applies specifically to that location.

Bargil said the outcome was better than permanently shutting down the business, but he argued that Tolley should never have had to go through such an ordeal in the first place.

The attorney framed the case as part of a broader national pattern in which home-based entrepreneurs, tradespeople and small-business owners encounter zoning rules written in ways that make ordinary commercial activity difficult or impossible.

Bargil Says Zoning Should Protect People, Not Destroy Livelihoods

Bargil argued that zoning laws should have a real connection to public health, safety or neighborhood welfare rather than simply prohibiting longstanding activities because they do not fit neatly into a particular classification.

He described Tolley’s seafood sales as a traditional and peaceful use of residential property.

The Institute for Justice also argued that Yarmouth’s enforcement may have raised equal-protection and constitutional concerns if similar businesses were allowed to operate while Tolley was singled out.

Again, those were the organization’s legal positions rather than findings reached by a court.

Still, Tolley’s case makes the larger policy question easy to understand.

There was no allegation in the video that he had harmed neighbors, created a dangerous condition or suddenly expanded into a disruptive commercial operation.

The town’s problem was essentially that his home sales fit the definition of retail activity in an area where retail activity was restricted.

That may be legally significant under zoning rules, but from an ordinary person’s perspective, it is easy to see why Tolley felt blindsided after doing the same thing for so long.

Tolley Says He Is Not Ready To Quit

The dispute ultimately ended with Tolley receiving the special permit he needed to continue selling from his property.

For him, that meant more than preserving a small source of income.

Fishing is the only career he says he has ever known, and he does not appear interested in giving it up.

“A fisherman never retires because when you retire, for some reason you die,” Tolley said.

“And I’m not ready to die yet. I’m only 67 years old.”

His fight with Yarmouth may have ended with permission to keep operating, but Bargil said the case shows how much persistence can be required simply to continue a modest business that existed long before anyone decided the zoning code had a problem with it.