The primary topic of concern was Jesse Hull’s proposal to replace his deteriorating 20 by 20-foot garage with a larger structure. Hull argued that the current garage was inadequate for his family’s needs, particularly due to maneuvering challenges with two vehicles and a child’s car seat. However, the proposed dimensions of the new garage, particularly its width of 26 feet and a setback of only 3.5 feet from the property line, sparked debate among board members.

A board member suggested that reducing the garage width to 24 feet would increase the setback to 5.5 feet, aligning with previous board decisions and providing sufficient space for maintenance tasks. The importance of adhering to community standards for property maintenance and use was emphasized, with the member stating, “2.5 feet is just frightfully close and worrisome,” highlighting concerns about future maintenance access, especially if property ownership changes.

The issue of water runoff from the proposed structure was also a critical point of discussion. Hull planned to raise the garage’s grade to address drainage problems, as the current setup allowed water to flow into the garage, leading to ice formation in winter. Neighbors Mark and Jim Brown supported Hull’s project but echoed concerns about potential water runoff implications due to the proximity to a wetland area.

Further complicating the discussion was the board’s ongoing debate about the necessity versus the desire for garages in New England. The member pointedly remarked that variances are significant requests and should not be granted lightly, emphasizing the need for compelling reasons to deviate from zoning bylaws. The board member noted, “we’re not supposed to do that lightly,” underscoring the gravity of altering established regulations.

The conversation also touched on the possibility of adding plumbing to the garage’s second floor, which could lead to it being classified as a new bedroom by the Board of Health. This potential classification might require additional permits, complicating the approval process.

The board members deliberated on the potential to adjust the garage’s dimensions to better comply with zoning laws, such as shifting the structure back from the street or reducing its size. A consensus emerged that a 24-foot width would be sufficient, with a member assuring Hull that “24 ft is ample room for 9 ft doors” and reinforcing that the request for a 2.5-foot setback was untenable.

The meeting faced procedural challenges due to a lack of quorum, with the chair absent following surgery and another member on vacation in Florida. The absence of key members hindered the board’s ability to vote on the variance request, leading to a motion to continue the hearing to a future date, specifically March 20th. This delay allows Hull time to consult with his contractor and consider the board’s recommendations.