The application by Steven Chame for a variance on Summer Avenue was a key focal point. Chame sought to extend a structure from the 1980s by adding a master bedroom and two-car garage, necessitating variances for front and side yard setbacks. He attributed the need for variances to the topographical challenges of his property, specifically a steep slope and existing ledge that hindered further setback compliance.

Board members interrogated the necessity and implications of the proposed variances. They explored alternatives, questioning whether the addition could be repositioned to minimize encroachment. Chame defended his proposal, emphasizing safety and accessibility needs and highlighting prior permits granted for similar non-conforming structures in the area. A board member expressed concerns about the potential increase in neighborhood density if variances were granted for both Chame’s property and a nearby property with a special permit.

Discussion revealed division among board members regarding the potential precedent of approving variances in such cases. The board considered the implications of allowing structures closer than typical zoning regulations permit, weighing the applicant’s hardship against neighborhood impact. Chame argued that the existing conditions created a necessity for the variance, while some board members remained skeptical.

The board also addressed a variance request for a deck associated with an above-ground pool, where definitions of attachment and structure classification under zoning bylaws were debated extensively. The variance pertained to a side yard setback where the pool’s proximity to the property line was in question. The applicant argued that the deck, intended for pool access, should not be subject to the same setback requirements as the pool itself.

Board members discussed the legal definitions within zoning bylaws, determining that if the pool was considered detached due to its distance from the house, the deck might not require a variance. This interpretation was contested, with members referencing zoning files that classify swimming pools as structures, thus subject to setback regulations.

Neighbor Jack Williams raised objections to the proposed construction on Summer Avenue, emphasizing the importance of preserving neighborhood aesthetics and a significant oak tree. Williams criticized the architectural design as incompatible with the Cape-style homes predominant in the area, advocating for alternatives that would mitigate neighborhood disruption.

This continuance allowed for further evaluation and potential plan modifications in collaboration with the applicant’s architect.

Additionally, the board reviewed letters and video testimonies from neighbors supporting the pool-related variance application. These endorsements were considered vital for the board’s understanding of community sentiment and were documented for the record.