The board’s attention was initially captured by a proposal for a 61-square-foot addition to a property on Harvard Road, referred to as the “car matter.” The applicant’s attorney detailed the necessity of the addition, aimed at enhancing the functionality of the kitchen space. However, the proposal uncovered a labyrinth of pre-existing non-conformities on the property, including discrepancies in square footage calculations and concerns over height and lot coverage compliance. Board members questioned the measurements, particularly the inclusion of attic and basement spaces in the total square footage, which exceeded current zoning limits. The attorney clarified that changes in local ordinances had altered these calculations, complicating the approval process.

The discussion revealed that a pool, installed around 2011 or 2012, further breached existing setback requirements, adding layers of complexity to the compliance issues. The board sought clarity on these existing conditions, emphasizing the importance of obtaining accurate and historical data to address potential violations effectively. The applicant’s attorney acknowledged the historical context, noting that the applicant had owned the home for approximately 16 years without prior exterior modifications.

Board members deliberated whether to separate the approval of the modest addition from the unresolved lot coverage concerns. There was a consensus that while the addition itself seemed reasonable, the broader implications of existing compliance issues could not be overlooked. This led to discussions about requiring the applicant to provide proof of permits for existing structures, particularly the pool, and the possibility of installing a drywell for water retention to mitigate stormwater runoff.

Further complicating the board’s agenda was an extensive renovation proposal for a property near the waterfront, which involved modernizing an existing home described as a bi-level or split-level design. The proposed changes, including expanding bedroom space and reconstructing the deck area, triggered several variances due to increases in the floor area ratio. The board examined the implications on setbacks and the potential aesthetic impact on the neighborhood, especially from a public park perspective.

The conversation underscored the challenges of reconciling existing conditions with proposed changes, as the applicant aimed to maintain the 1970s bilevel style while addressing modern needs. Environmental considerations, such as the proximity to the river and the property’s slope, were crucial discussion points, with suggestions for integrating water mitigation systems into the design. The board emphasized compliance with environmental standards.

In addition to these main issues, the board also reviewed an application involving a non-conforming accessory dwelling unit, which had been subject to previous zoning board discussions dating back to 1989. Concerns arose about the proposed design changes potentially transforming the unit into a full residence, which could alter the neighborhood’s character. Public feedback was sought, with mixed opinions about the visual impact and appropriateness of the changes. The board decided to defer a final decision to a future meeting, allowing for further deliberation and public input.