The primary focus of the meeting was the application from Custom Nest Builders Incorporated, which sought to demolish a fire-damaged dwelling and construct a new single-family home on a non-conforming property owned by Katherine Piper. The lot, which did not meet the required 5,000 square feet in area and other zoning stipulations, includes two parcels, lots 133 and 134, which needed to be combined to meet compliance requirements. Despite the proposal to treat the four lots as a single entity, the board was not convinced that the rebuild adhered to zoning laws.

Board members scrutinized the variance request, with discussions centering on the legalities of merging the lots and whether the previous structure’s destruction allowed for a straightforward rebuild without a variance. The “grandfather” clause for non-conforming lots was debated, as was whether the new foundation required a variance due to differences from the original structure.

The board also debated the implications of granting a variance given the lot’s constraints, history, and potential self-imposed nonconformity concerning lot area coverage. A member highlighted that a variance should only be granted when related to unusual topographical features or lot shape, emphasizing that size alone was not sufficient grounds for approval. This stance was supported by precedents within similar applications in the area, where no variance had been granted that exceeded allowable lot coverage in recent years.

Public input was solicited, with Eric Seome, who had a close relationship with the previous owner, voicing support for the new construction. Seome pointed out the overgrown state of the property and the community’s interest in seeing the site redeveloped to prevent further decay and potential safety hazards. He emphasized the neighborhood’s favorable stance towards rebuilding.

The intricacies of the zoning laws were further highlighted in the context of the property’s footprint and lot coverage. The proposed new home’s footprint was larger than the original, and with the inclusion of a driveway, the lot coverage would exceed permissible limits. While removing the driveway could bring the coverage below the threshold, the board remained focused on the overarching zoning constraints and their implications for the neighborhood.

Ultimately, the board’s decision to deny the variance was driven by their interpretation of zoning laws and the specifics of the lot’s conditions. The proposal was deemed not to meet the necessary criteria for a variance, as the undersized nature of the lot did not align with the legal framework’s expectations for unusual conditions justifying relief. This decision required the applicant to revisit their proposal and explore alternative solutions for the property development.