The board’s decision to deny the design waiver for a property on Austin Avenue stemmed from the applicant’s failure to meet the required 200 feet of linear frontage, which limited the possibility of adding a second driveway. The applicant had proposed the additional driveway to facilitate converting a single-family home into a two-family unit, emphasizing safety and convenience in inclement weather. The proposed design included a driveway width of 25 to 30 feet, allowing multiple vehicles to park one behind the other, with stone from the curb to the house to help manage snow removal and keep cars off the road. Despite these arguments, board members expressed concern about the visual impact on the property’s curb appeal and questioned the necessity of the second driveway.

During the public portion of the discussion, no residents spoke in favor of or against the proposal. However, after the board’s decision, an individual voiced disagreement, highlighting existing parking issues on the road and advocating for additional parking to alleviate congestion. Despite these concerns, the board maintained their decision to deny the design waiver.

In another significant matter, the board deliberated on a variance application concerning a rear yard deck on Shirley Boulevard. The applicant sought approval to replace an existing deck that had been constructed without a permit. The deck was reported to be in poor condition and had existed for at least 15 years, complicating the situation as there were no town records of the original construction. The applicant proposed rebuilding the deck on the same footprint, arguing that moving the stairs to comply with setback requirements would create economic hardship due to necessary modifications to the house.

Board members scrutinized the lack of proper documentation and the applicant’s prior knowledge of the absence of permits. Some members questioned whether the deck could be repositioned to meet zoning criteria, while the applicant maintained that the deck’s long-standing presence and the absence of records placed the burden of proof on the town. Ultimately, the board denied the variance, urging the applicant to correct the non-compliant structure.

The meeting also addressed a variance for a shed on Rosewood Drive, where the applicant sought relief for a structure installed 14 inches from the property line, contrary to the required 3 feet. The applicant explained that a dispute with a neighbor, who had initially assisted with the installation, led to the complaint. Despite the applicant’s assurances about runoff management, the board thoroughly examined the responsibility of the hired contractor regarding the permit and installation.

During the public portion of this discussion, no audience members voiced opinions. The board then debated the feasibility of moving the shed, with the applicant highlighting the financial and logistical challenges of relocation. After clarifying the voting process, the board approved the variance, allowing the shed to remain in its current position.

The meeting concluded with procedural matters, including a proposal to amend the board’s rules and regulations. These changes aimed to incorporate a salute to the flag, ensure the swearing-in of professionals, and establish a public comments section.