The primary agenda item involved a special permit application from Mr. Vega, who sought permission to demolish and rebuild a dilapidated structure on his property. Represented by contractor Philip Cronin, Mr. Vega’s application aimed to address significant structural damage found during initial renovations, including a foundation in disrepair. The proposed new construction was planned to have a similar footprint to the existing building, occupying approximately 23.34% of the total lot area, which was just under the threshold that would require a variance.

One board member raised questions about whether the changes would increase the non-conformity of the property, while another questioned the necessity of a special permit given the protections for non-conforming residences under state law. Mr. Vega argued that his project was being affected by misinterpretations of case law and emphasized that he intended to comply with zoning laws.

The Building Commissioner, acting as the local enforcement officer, provided insights into the decision-making process. He explained that he and another inspector, Paul Armstrong, had reviewed the application and concluded it did not meet the minimum requirements of the zoning bylaws due to a slight increase in the floor plan and the addition of a deck. The Commissioner acknowledged that while the bylaws might not fully align with state laws, they were obliged to adhere to them until changes could be made at a town meeting.

One participant recounted a past case where permit approval was contested. The Building Commissioner agreed, noting that the current bylaws limited the board’s ability to make clear determinations on what constituted an acceptable change in non-conformity.

As the board debated, a motion was made to close the public hearing on the special permit application, followed by a motion to approve the permit for the construction on Shore Drive. Despite some reservations about the process, the motion to approve was supported.

The meeting also addressed procedural matters, including the approval of minutes from a previous session. Minor corrections were noted, and the need for more participation in the board was emphasized, pointing to ongoing vacancies for alternate positions.