The most pressing topic was the variance request for a property at zero Bert Street. The lot, inherited by Mr. Baker and his two sisters, has a convoluted history, dating back to the early 1960s and involving multiple subdivisions. Mr. Baker aims to construct a single-family home, but the property’s dimensions do not meet the required frontage and area standards, being only 50 feet wide and 400 feet long.

The board examined a plan submitted by RIM Engineering, dated July 31, which showed the proposed house at the rear of the property. Variances were necessary due to the lot’s non-compliance with frontage and area requirements. During the discussion, a board member identified as Brian raised questions about the applicability of zoning bylaws, particularly section 175 1.6, which pertains to non-conforming single and two-family residential structures. This section seemed to apply only to existing structures, causing confusion since the lot is vacant. The conversation shifted to section 175 1.5, which addresses non-conforming uses and whether the board could grant a variance for a vacant and undersized parcel.

The board deliberated on the necessary findings to grant the variance, considering the hardship faced by the owners due to the lot’s size. They discussed the unique characteristics of the property and its potential impact on the neighborhood. The absence of opposing voices from the public reinforced the board’s inclination to approve the variance, recognizing that Mr. Baker did not intend to circumvent zoning laws but sought to address a unique situation.

The next significant issue involved a property on Barrow Street, where Progress Contracting Corporation requested a variance to add an extension to an existing small house on a narrow, non-conforming lot. The board reviewed the proposal, which detailed that the extension would maintain specific distances from the property lines.

The board queried the location of the septic system, situated at the back of the property, limiting expansion options. They discussed the implications of the extension concerning existing zoning ordinances, particularly those related to non-conforming structures. After confirming no additional public comments, the board moved to approve the variance under the relevant zoning ordinance, with all members voting in favor.

Another noteworthy discussion focused on the comprehensive permit for Island Brook on East Main Street. Representatives had submitted plans but required more time to finalize details and submit them for peer review. The board acknowledged the need for further preparation before proceeding and expressed understanding of the required timeline for proper review and coordination.

The final significant topic involved the property at nine Paton Road, where Attorney Lonza represented Mark L in determining the buildability of certain lots. The Town Council had concluded that the four lots in question had merged into one, resulting in insufficient area for building without variances. Lonza argued that the lots, historically held as one before zoning laws, should qualify as separate under current regulations. The board engaged in a dialogue about the nature of ownership and whether the lots should be treated as merged or separate.

Public comments were also considered, with residents from the neighborhood expressing concerns about the potential density and impact on the area. The board acknowledged these concerns and decided to continue deliberation at the next scheduled meeting, allowing for further review of the dimensions and other pertinent details.