The central issue dominating the recent meeting was the proposed construction of a new house in a location with several nonconforming attributes, such as insufficient frontage and area. There was extensive deliberation on whether combining the three existing lots into one larger lot would negate the pre-existing nonconforming status. The applicant sought a special permit, arguing that the new house would be less nonconforming than the existing structures on the lot. The applicant’s representative stated that the proposed dwelling would not be any closer to the property boundaries than the current buildings and would not be modular in nature.

Construction logistics were discussed in detail, including the parking arrangement and access to the property via a right-of-way. Concerns were raised about potential obstruction of views and access to the lake with the board seeking clarification on the layout of the parking area and the use of the right-of-way for accessing the property. The applicant provided information on the elevation and height of the proposed house, asserting that the construction would not impede lake access or views from Cricket Lane.

Environmental considerations played a role in the discussion, with the board inquiring about soil testing and the type of foundation to be used due to concerns about water filling the foundation. The applicant addressed these issues, providing details about the construction process, including the placement of a holding tank and the septic system. Additionally, a conservation order had been approved, addressing concerns raised by neighbors via email about the potential environmental impact.

The meeting also featured a discussion about a conservation order and an email from a concerned neighbor. The applicant confirmed that the conservation order had been approved and addressed the concerns raised in the neighbor’s email.

The board faced the complex task of interpreting property deeds and legal rights concerning the use of passageways between different properties. A prescriptive easement and a gravel turnaround area were points of contention, with debate over whether these were within the rights of access to the water and if they could cause parking issues. Multiple property owners provided input, each with differing perspectives on the use of the passageways and the gravel turnaround area.

An individual from the public, not identified as a Zoning Board member, raised concerns about the location of the property and ongoing litigation regarding driveway access and easements. They presented a diagram and expressed worries about potential construction obstructing access and views, though the board clarified that the proposed construction would not block access or views.

The board also discussed three dilapidated buildings on the property, debating whether they could be rebuilt or removed under zoning regulations. The structures’ condition and lack of usability were of major concern. Members raised the question of whether the applicant had the right to change, extend, or alter the structures and how this might affect the surrounding area. The presence of cesspools and the preference for tight tanks as a more environmentally friendly option was also a topic of debate.

Ultimately, after considering the unique circumstances of the lot, which included topographical and dimensional hardships, the board approved a variance for the construction of a new home. The approval came with conditions related to the building plans and the non-conformities to be addressed.