The most pressing discussion revolved around a variance request for zero Burt Street. Attorney Rich appeared on behalf of his client, Mr. Baker, seeking relief for a lot deemed non-buildable under current zoning laws. Board member Brian Spangler emphasized the need to clarify legal and historical aspects before proceeding, comparing the Burt Street application to a previously denied application at zero Oak Street. The Oak Street case involved a subdivided parcel that became non-conforming due to zoning changes, raising questions about whether the current owners created their own hardship.

Mr. Rich argued that the hardship was not self-imposed, referencing a past case on Tipping Place where a variance was granted under similar circumstances. He explained that the original owners of the Burt Street lot had subdivided the land among their children, resulting in the current non-buildable status. Mr. Spangler highlighted the importance of understanding the zoning bylaw, specifically section 175-6.3, which addresses non-conforming adjoining lots held in single ownership before zoning laws were adopted.

The board grappled with whether to grant the variance, considering potential legal challenges if denied. Some members suggested that the heirs might not be held responsible for their parents’ subdivision decisions, raising the possibility of requiring testimonies from the heirs about their knowledge of the property’s buildability. The debate underscored the need for fairness and consistency in the board’s decisions, with some members expressing discomfort with denying the variance based solely on the actions of previous owners.

The discussion extended to the historical context of zoning regulations, with members speculating that the lot size requirements at the time of the subdivision may have been different. One member questioned the fairness of placing the burden of past decisions on the current applicants, emphasizing the importance of maintaining zoning integrity to manage density. The board considered postponing the vote to gather more information about historical zoning changes and to consult with Town Council for legal clarity.

In another significant agenda item, the board discussed the Island Brook 40B application for zero East Main Street. Attorney Christopher Agustino updated the board on Gallagher Engineering’s incomplete submission of revised plans to Graves Engineering for peer review, delaying the process. The expected submission date was noted as the week of September 23, with peer review comments anticipated by October 14.

The Patent Road application also sparked debate. Attorney Mark Lanza, representing Paul Freeman and Freeman J Properties, sought to obtain two buildable lots from previously merged adjacent lots. Lanza argued that the lots were owned through different legal entities, thus preventing a merger. However, Town Council raised concerns about the legal implications of the LLC structure, emphasizing the need for proper state documentation. The board deliberated on whether the ownership structure should be treated as distinct legal entities, with Lanza asserting that the 50/50 ownership split within the LLC required consensus for decisions, preserving the lots’ status as separate entities.

Public opposition to the Patent Road development was strong, with residents voicing concerns about increased density and the potential impact on the neighborhood. One resident, Constantino from 5 Mayer Road, stressed that combining the lots for two houses contradicted existing zoning laws and would detract from the neighborhood’s character. Another resident, Richard Plum from Mayflower Road, criticized the board for potentially allowing further clustering of homes, arguing that the zoning law’s intent should be upheld to prevent additional density.

The board acknowledged the residents’ concerns but highlighted the legal framework guiding their decisions. A motion was made to vote on whether the building inspector’s decision was erroneous.

As the meeting approached its conclusion, discussions included updates about the new town hall, nearing completion with a tentative public access date. Additionally, board member Brian Spangler announced plans to move to another town, affecting his eligibility to serve on the board. The board addressed procedural matters related to legal document notifications and service, emphasizing the need for proper protocols.