At the forefront was the petition concerning Mary Jane and Tom Burke’s residence on Parson Drive. The Burkes sought to renovate their long-time residence to better accommodate their family. Complicating the process was the acting building inspector’s classification of the modifications as creating an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). This determination required the renovations to be fully separated from the main residence, which was not the case as the space could not be locked off.

A legal representative for the Burkes contested the building inspector’s interpretation, arguing that the plans did not constitute an ADU. They emphasized that the renovations aimed to foster a multigenerational living arrangement, consistent with Massachusetts law and U.S. Supreme Court precedents like Moore v. East Cleveland, which supports such living configurations within single-family zoning areas.

The board took a cautious approach, noting this was the first appeal of a building inspector’s decision they had dealt with in some time. The absence of a written determination from the inspector made assessing the rationale challenging. Ultimately, the board decided to continue the matter to ensure a review and accommodate all members, some of whom were absent, with the next discussion scheduled for April 15.

Clayton Curtis, a neighbor of the Burkes, expressed concern over the ongoing construction and its disruptive nature. He questioned the legitimacy of the work and the appeal against the building inspector’s decision. Anton Antonov, another neighbor, commented on the lack of observable use of the Burkes’ side door, disputing any zoning violations. Tom Burke acknowledged the disruption and emphasized the renovations were to enhance family living conditions.

Another discussion centered on Rodrigo Pas’s petition for a dimensional special permit on New Ocean Street. Pas intended to remodel his property by extending an existing structure to create a mudroom and modify the kitchen layout. The board scrutinized the non-compliance with setback regulations, as the new addition encroached into the required setback by approximately 2.5 feet.

Pas defended the project, highlighting that the extension did not move closer to the property line than the existing structure. He argued that the changes would improve privacy for his and neighboring properties. However, Steve Gadman, a neighbor, voiced his opposition, emphasizing the extension’s intrusive nature and its impact on his property’s spatial dynamics.

The board deliberated on granting the dimensional special permit, noting it would be permissible if the encroachment did not exceed 20% of the required setback. They weighed the petition’s potential impact on the neighborhood, considering both Pas’s intentions and Gadman’s concerns before making a decision.

Further discussion involved a zoning relief case for a property development issue. The petitioner faced challenges related to compliance with local bylaws and the need for a dimensional special permit or variance due to existing non-conformities. The board examined potential drainage issues from a proposed sloped roof and the implications of design changes on neighboring properties.