The most newsworthy event centered on the application by the Barrow family irrevocable trust, represented by Vanen Cleber and Brenda Barrow, regarding a property on Townsend Street. The Barrows sought relief from the one-year waiting period for occupancy of an accessory dwelling unit after the primary dwelling’s occupancy. The application detailed the property’s location, relevant zoning bylaws, and deed history. Cleber explained that they had recently completed building a new home on the property and required occupancy approval before moving in.

The board members asked questions about the potential impacts on public health, property values, and neighborhood aesthetics. Cleber confirmed the new house had passed final inspection and that the existing structure was in decent condition, suitable for potential workers rather than using trailers. Questions also arose about the ownership and trust status of the property, which had been owned by the Barrow family since 2012. The trust was established nine months prior to manage the property.

An inquiry was made into whether a hearing with the Fitchburg zoning board was necessary since the property straddled two towns. The applicant clarified that a hearing was not required as both buildings were located in Lunenburg, and the abutters had been notified. A motion was proposed to grant the special permit to allow occupancy of the new dwelling and utilize the accessory dwelling unit. The motion was unanimously approved, with contingencies related to compliance with local regulations and the process for appealing the decision.

The second significant topic involved Justin Taugh’s application for a new home construction on Sunset Lane. The discussion revolved around the intention to rebuild the home within the footprint of the previous structure, with slight modifications to the design. The Board of Health had reviewed the proposal and provided comments, indicating no objections as long as certain conditions were met, including adherence to sewage flow regulations and Title 5 requirements. This conversation focused primarily on procedural compliance and ensuring that the proposed plans aligned with established regulations.

The meeting then tackled the case of an applicant who had demolished a property and was seeking approval to rebuild. This topic revealed complexities surrounding the rebuilding process, specifically about setbacks and existing conditions. Previous cases had seen applicants come forward seeking to meet zoning requirements after demolitions, and the current situation was no different. The applicant clarified that they intended to rebuild the home within the same footprint as the original structure but with a slight increase in square footage. However, further discussions revealed that the actual footprint would be smaller due to the removal of an area previously attached to a deck.

The applicant admitted to removing the foundation without proper inspection, stating, “I screwed up and removed the foundation for as inspected; it wasn’t sound.” This led to a heated discussion about the legality of the actions taken by the applicant, particularly the loss of grandfathered rights associated with the property. Concerns were raised regarding the septic system and its capacity to handle a three-bedroom house versus the proposed structures. The applicant clarified that the septic system had been installed before their ownership and was capable of handling four bedrooms but only approved for three.

Public comments were invited, and Steve Val from Haley Ward, who had previously worked on the property, confirmed that they had staked the property location to ensure compliance with approved plans. The discussion included an acknowledgment that the plans needed to comply with all previous approvals and that any changes would require reevaluation. The board ultimately concluded that as long as the applicant could substantiate the foundation’s location and meet the aforementioned conditions, they would be in a position to grant the requested special permit for the dimensional variations. A motion was made to approve the permit contingent upon compliance with the Board of Health, submission of revised engineering plans, and confirmation that the new structure would occupy the same location as the previous one with the same variances as previously granted. The motion was seconded and subsequently approved.

The meeting also covered procedural requirements for permits relating to the Board of Health, which would need to sign off on floor plans, both for the house and garage. There was a discussion about the current fee structure for zoning board applications and a proposal to shift the responsibility for providing abutter envelopes with prepaid postage to the applicant. The board also considered using tablets or electronic means to reduce paper usage.