The central topic of the meeting was the approval of variances for the properties located at 11 and 15 Sunset Boulevard. These properties faced challenges due to their existing non-conforming statuses and lack of legal frontage, a common issue within the unique landscape of Plum Island. The board’s discussion revolved around the potential impacts of the proposed lot line changes, which were intended to legally recognize and balance the existing conditions of the properties.

The applicant’s representative, Mr. Fandetti, presented revised plans that delineated two lots with approximately 14,435 square feet for 11 Sunset Boulevard and 17,680 square feet for 15 Sunset Boulevard. The proposed changes aimed to resolve previous concerns by promoting fairness in lot sizes and ensuring sufficient frontage for both properties along Sunset Boulevard. The board scrutinized the evidence presented, weighing it against Massachusetts law which stipulates strict criteria for variance approvals.

A significant portion of the debate centered on the legal status of an easement for 15 Sunset Boulevard, which used Dartmouth Way, identified as a paper road with no current improvements. The board discussed the implications of recognizing this access, noting that while it was physically present, it lacked formal documentation on legal records. This raised questions about whether the access should be legally recognized and if it constituted a legitimate hardship under zoning laws, which typically do not consider lack of frontage as qualifying for a variance.

The board also considered the historical access routes used by these properties and their continuous use over the past century. A member highlighted that without formal easements or frontage, granting a variance could set a problematic precedent. However, it was acknowledged that the unique topography and configuration of the properties could justify the requested variances under the specific circumstances.

After thorough deliberation, the board voted to approve the variances for both properties. The approval was based on the understanding that modifying the lot lines and recognizing existing access would improve the situation by providing legal access. This decision was reached with a view to resetting non-conforming conditions and facilitating future ownership and development without adverse effects on the public good.

Additionally, the meeting touched upon the ongoing issues with the property on Northern Boulevard, where the applicant requested a postponement of their hearing to April. This request was due to pending discussions with the conservation committee and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. The applicant had to address concerns related to dunes, wetlands, and planting schedules, further complicated by historical data including photographs from a 1950 hurricane.

In the closing stages of the meeting, the board addressed other community concerns such as damage to grass areas by trucks and the status of a pending financial matter.