The board’s primary focus was on Joseph M. Phillips’ petition concerning his property on Lindale Road, where Phillips sought a special permit or variance for side setback relief to construct a 27-foot by 10-foot addition to his home. The addition aimed to widen the kitchen and include a ramp for his child with disabilities. Phillips detailed that his family had owned the property since 1960, and he had purchased it in 2015.

The board members raised several concerns about the petition. One member questioned Phillips about consulting with the Conservation Commission, to which Phillips admitted he had not yet approached them. This led to suggestions that the board might wait for feedback from the Conservation Commission, particularly as the property could be subject to flood zone regulations. Another member pointed out that the current side setback of 18.5 feet would be reduced to about 9 feet with the addition, raising concerns about the implications of such a reduction. The board also discussed the building coverage on the lot, which stood at 14.1%, and the potential impact of further reducing the side setback.

A memo from Finn Kelly, the conservation agent, was referenced. The memo emphasized that the commission had not reviewed an application for the project, and a quick resolution could not be guaranteed. The board members agreed that they could not fully determine the petition’s outcome without the Conservation Commission’s assessment, necessary for ensuring compliance with environmental regulations.

Consensus formed among the board members on the need for the Conservation Commission’s review before making any decisions. The importance of adhering to environmental protections while evaluating Phillips’ request was highlighted, balancing the applicant’s needs with zoning laws and environmental considerations.

Another topic discussed was a petition from A&M Management Group LLC, represented by Alexander Neov, seeking relief for a property on Buttercup Lane. The petition involved constructing a prefabricated bulkhead for basement access and rebuilding a staircase that encroached on the setback. Neov mentioned that the existing staircase was in poor condition, and the proposed plans aimed to maintain a distance of approximately 13.3 feet from the property line.

Board members expressed concerns about the proximity of the proposed structures to the property line, echoing apprehensions from previous meetings. They highlighted the need for stipulations regarding the use of outdoor spaces and structures, particularly ensuring that any deck would not serve as an observation area. Clarifications were sought on the construction specifics, particularly the “elevated stairway with associated landings.” Neov explained that the intention was to keep the new structures in the existing locations to minimize environmental disruption.

He emphasized a preference for a smaller, less intrusive structure that would comply with setback requirements. Documentation regarding neighbor support was requested, leading Neov to submit an email from a neighbor approving the proposed changes.

The board decided to establish a continuance to allow the applicant time to address any outstanding requirements and return for further consideration. The date for the next meeting was set for October 24.

The meeting also included discussions about a property involving the replacement of stairs and a walkway. Concerns were raised about the proximity of the proposed stairs to neighboring properties, with the petitioner clarifying that the plans had been reviewed and approved by the Conservation Commission, provided certain conditions were met. The existing stairs were to be replaced without introducing new structures.

Members referred to an order of conditions stating that the proposed work had initially been denied due to failure to meet municipal standards. Questions about the dock’s location and the necessity of a grading permit were discussed, with the Conservation Commission’s review deemed thorough. The board expressed support for the petition, citing that it met the criteria under the bylaw and would positively impact the property.