The first major point of contention involved a property on Main Street. The applicant sought to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new one, adhering to bulk and dimensional requirements. The new structure proposed a building height of 28 feet 5 inches, a design change aimed to appear less “massive” than initially perceived. The representative for the applicant argued that the modifications were modest and necessary for the structure to blend with the neighborhood, stating, “The building is 28 feet 5 inches high,” to alleviate fears regarding its impact.

However, the board was divided. One resident expressed concern about the structure’s height and mass relative to the neighborhood, arguing it would be visually imposing. A board member echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the neighborhood’s visual character. They noted, “We’re not the Chatham board of forgiveness of construction errors,” highlighting a cautious approach. Other board members contended that the additional three square feet of coverage proposed was minimal and did not impact the neighborhood, with one remarking, “This is a small thing.”

The board ultimately voted almost unanimously to approve the application, with only one member dissenting due to principles of accountability for construction errors.

Next, the board addressed another application for a property on Chain Drive, submitted by Andrew Pinkowitz. The proposal included plans to change, alter, and expand a non-conforming dwelling with a partial second-floor addition and other modifications. The existing structure was described as non-conforming, situated 38.4 feet from the road and 24 feet from the Inland Conservancy District, with the proposed modification aiming for a new setback of 39.5 feet from the road.

The representative for the applicant, Bill Riley, introduced the project, highlighting the Pinkowitz family’s long-term plans to remain in the community. Architect Gordon Clark presented the design details. The proposed design included a new master suite above the garage, an open loft area, and a screened-in porch. Clark emphasized that the new addition would not alter the height of the structure, remaining well within local limitations, and sought to maintain the neighborhood’s aesthetic character.

Board members engaged in detailed deliberations, with one member describing the project as “a nice project” that would enhance the house’s visual appeal. Despite initial concerns about the existing lot coverage and the potential for increased non-conformity, the consensus was that the changes would fit well within the neighborhood’s context. The application was unanimously approved, with the board emphasizing conditions to minimize construction disruptions, such as restricting work to weekdays and prohibiting exterior construction between June 30 and Labor Day.

Another application discussed involved a property on Kema Road, where the applicant proposed altering and expanding a non-conforming dwelling by constructing a deck. The existing dwelling stood 15 feet from the coastal conservancy district, with the new deck proposed at only 6 feet from this district. John Scott, representing the applicant, explained that the proposal involved removing a barbecue deck and stairway to create a larger deck connecting the family room to the north side of the house. Scott assured the board that the new deck’s footprint would only increase by approximately 346 square feet and that the structural integrity of the supporting retaining wall was solid, although unverified by an engineering evaluation.

Board members raised questions about the deck’s support and the need for clarification from the Conservation Commission regarding site plans. Despite these concerns, the board concluded that the project would not detract from the neighborhood’s character, with no objections from neighbors. The application was approved unanimously.

Additionally, the board reviewed an application concerning 24 Avalon Point Road, where the applicant sought to reconstruct an elevated stairway and landings. Bill Riley represented the Avalon resident trust, explaining that the existing staircase was unsafe. The board supported the application unanimously, recognizing the importance of safety and environmental considerations.