One of the most discussed applications was for Canon Hill Investment Properties, which involved constructing a non-conforming deck on a property on Witer Road. The proposal sought a special permit to build the deck closer to the coastal Conservancy District than regulations typically allow. The current dwelling was already non-conforming, situated 27 feet from the Conservancy District, with the proposed deck planned to be 32 feet away, although a 50-foot setback is required.

William F. Riley, representing the homeowners, clarified that the need for the deck arose from a misunderstanding regarding window installations. Initially, sliding windows were planned, but folding doors were installed instead, necessitating the deck for them to open outward. Riley assured the board that the deck would not increase building coverage or disturb the land, as it would be supported by cantilevers. The Conservation Commission had no objections, given the lack of land disturbance.

Board members raised questions about the necessity and impact of the deck. One member queried whether there might be too many decks on the property. Riley responded that the homeowners utilized their outdoor space. Throughout deliberations, board members expressed confidence that the proposal would not negatively affect the neighborhood. It was noted that cantilevering the deck minimized ground impact. The board unanimously approved the application, mandating that all construction activities remain on-site.

Another application discussed involved Elizabeth Kane Tate’s property on Depot Road. Represented by Larry Broody, the proposal sought to enlarge a non-conforming dwelling by adding a mudroom on the first floor and a master bedroom on the second floor. Despite the dwelling’s existing non-conformity—being 14.8 feet from the easterly abutter where 15 feet is required—the proposed addition adhered to all dimensional requirements. The application required a special permit due to the increase in building coverage from 11.2% to 12.3%.

Broody described the addition as harmonizing with the existing structure, highlighting plans to reshingled and replace windows to maintain aesthetic consistency. The project also included converting an existing bedroom into a sitting room, thereby retaining the three-bedroom layout. Correspondence from abutters John Dunham and Peter Dout expressed support, citing potential neighborhood enhancement and property value increase.

The board engaged with Broody on construction logistics, seeking reassurance about the containment of construction vehicles on-site. With no opposition and all questions addressed, the board proceeded to approve the application unanimously, underlining the project’s compliance with the necessary criteria.

Additional applications included John Goen’s request to create habitable space above a garage on Echol Lane and proposals for properties on Juniper Lane West and North Skyline Drive. Goen’s application involved converting the space into an office without altering the exterior, emphasizing minimal neighborhood disruption. The board received public support and unanimously approved this application after confirming the absence of plumbing inside the structure.

For the 37 Juniper Lane West property, the board reviewed an application to alter and expand a non-conforming dwelling by adding a structure and deck, which kept within setback requirements. The board unanimously approved the proposal, citing that it met the criteria for a special permit without being detrimental to the neighborhood. Meanwhile, the application for a property on North Skyline Drive involved enlarging a conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot, with proposed building coverage slightly below the maximum limit. Despite initial concerns about the five-bedroom allowance, the board approved the application.