The meeting began with a continuation of the contentious case involving Jonathan Bachi’s property on Pine Street. The central issue here was the property’s failure to comply with conditions of a special permit, specifically regarding the construction of a parking lot that did not match the approved plans. Attorney Christine Tree, representing Bachi, urged the council to vote to end the extended discussions. She emphasized the progress made and presented updates, including two contractor letters regarding safety issues. Despite skepticism from a board member about the documentation’s credibility, Tree asserted, “I don’t do that and I don’t submit documents like that to professional boards,” in defense of the submissions’ integrity.

The council’s discussion largely centered on the proposed adjustments to the parking lot, which included plans to add an eighth space. However, concerns were raised about the feasibility of emergency vehicle access, particularly for fire trucks, given the tight space constraints. The need for comments from the Building Commissioner and Fire Department was highlighted to ensure that the updated plans adhered to safety regulations.

The council also explored broader implications of the parking issues, including the possibility of utilizing a nearby property to create additional parking spaces. However, concerns were raised about the 1,100-foot distance from these potential spaces to the residential units, which could inconvenience residents, especially during adverse weather conditions. The council discussed options such as reconfiguring existing spaces and removing a garage in poor condition to accommodate more vehicles. There was an emphasis on the importance of maintaining clear, safe paths for residents, with suggestions to obtain easements for parking on the second property, drawing on past successful implementations.

In a separate case, the council addressed a variance request for constructing secondary egresses on a two-family home. The owner presented plans illustrating the modifications, which included positioning the egress in the back left corner of the property to tackle topographical challenges. The design featured a flat landing for the second floor with a direct exit, minimizing emergency navigation complexity. The board members expressed agreement on the necessity and practicality of the proposed egresses for safety, with one member noting, “the less stairs they have to converse, the better they are.” The lack of opposition from abutters further facilitated the council’s approval of the variance.

Next, the council deliberated on a rear setback variance for a new single-family home on Road, presented by engineer Trevor Fletcher. This case had undergone extensive review due to the site’s proximity to a conservation-mandated no-build zone. The proposed L-shaped house design required dimensional relief to comply with zoning setbacks and maintain functionality. The council discussed concerns about the no-build zone, but Fletcher clarified that patios and driveways typically did not violate these restrictions. An abutter to the property confirmed no opposition to the construction, emphasizing his concern for maintaining the wetlands’ integrity. The council approved the variance request.