The primary focus of the meeting was the debate over a petitioner’s request for a zoning variance to construct a single-family dwelling. The petitioner, represented by a member of the Schne Leone firm, outlined plans for the proposed construction, which included the establishment of a gravel road and drainage system. Emphasizing the substantial financial investment, the request was considered critical to progressing through the permitting process. Board members deliberated on whether the proposed 30,000 square feet of Upland area was adequate, comparing it to average lot sizes in the area. However, a neighboring property representative expressed concerns about the project’s potential effects on their property and suggested an alternative involving the extension of an existing gravel drive to minimize impact.

The board entertained this alternative, acknowledging that it would necessitate another variance. The planning board’s role in determining the road layout was discussed, as well as the requirement for further conservation approval. The Board of Selectmen’s decision on the variance was understood to hinge upon the consent of these relevant entities. Following an extensive discussion examining the environmental concerns, neighborhood impact, and wetlands, the board chose to request a continuance for one month to allow additional review and consideration of alternative plans, including a retreat lot and a diminished variance request.

The meeting also addressed a contentious appeal by Kathy and David M concerning a decision by the Building Commissioner related to a property and a business certificate. The debate revolved around potential zoning bylaw violations and the permissibility of commercial activities in a residential zoning district. Board members held differing views on whether there was sufficient evidence of violations, given the business operation’s nature and the presence of construction equipment on the property. The discussion was further complicated by the recusal of some board members due to personal relationships with the involved parties. The Board of Selectmen deferred this matter to the next meeting to continue the dialogue.

Another issue concerning property with an open construction permit led to a debate. Allegations about construction equipment being removed and then returned to the property on the same day were raised, with the company’s Facebook posts suggesting work at multiple locations. The property owner defended the equipment’s use for various projects, while the Building Commissioner, recounting the history of the business permit application, stated that complaints and photos were dismissed since the materials were for the construction project. The situation was described as low-key, and it was noted that similar equipment is common in the area. However, the validity of the complaints was contested, with the Building Commissioner and property owner offering contrasting perspectives on the equipment and material usage.

A discussion also ensued regarding a complaint against the building inspector, with board members divided in their support. Some members questioned the construction equipment’s use for business at a residential property. The evidence’s validity was challenged, with calls for more substantial proof before reaching a conclusion. Specific details about the equipment usage were scrutinized, and despite skepticism from one member who supported the building inspector, the board agreed to schedule a continuation of this matter in the next meeting on April 16th.