The board’s deliberations began with a detailed examination of an application involving Gary and Miriam Waxman’s property on Corgi Street. The application, presented by Ron Gelzunus, sought approval for replacing an old shed and constructing an outdoor shower. The shed’s history, dimensions, and compliance with zoning laws were central to the debate. John Hbruner, an engineer, provided insights into the property’s past and current conditions, highlighting discrepancies between historical permits and the proposed shed dimensions. A key issue was whether the replacement shed constituted an expansion of a non-conforming use due to its size and placement. The board analyzed the shed’s dimensions, noting the necessity of a variance because of the non-conforming lot size of 5,965 square feet, which falls short of the required 6,250 square feet.

The discussion expanded to include the implications of adding an outdoor shower, which was viewed as a permissible accessory under local zoning ordinances. The legal opinion presented at the meeting clarified that while structural expansion was involved, it did not equate to an intensification of the existing non-conforming use. The debate was nuanced, with board members considering the legal definitions and implications of minor structural changes on non-conforming properties.

Attention then shifted to the proposal for Brian and Victoria O’Conor’s property on Lafayette Street. The applicants sought relief under the C1 and C2 criteria. The proposal involved variances for building setbacks and lot coverage, given the property’s undersized lot of 4,216 square feet. The board noted that the proposed changes would enhance the property’s curb appeal and align with the neighborhood’s historic character. The architect, Paul Farnon, emphasized that the design had secured conceptual approval from the Historic Preservation Commission.

The board discussed the potential impact of the proposed front porch, which would reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to 12.5 feet, potentially altering the streetscape aesthetic. Concerns were raised about the visual alignment with adjacent properties and the overall harmony of the neighborhood. Despite these concerns, the board found that the improvements were consistent with the zoning ordinance and would not detract from public good. The proposal was seen as a positive contribution to the community.