The discussion about the special permit request for a property on Cole Street was characterized by concerns over zoning compliance and community impact. Paul Seaberg represented the property owners seeking a special permit to add a two-story extension to their pre-existing non-conforming dwelling. The property’s lot is smaller than the 20,000 square feet required, standing at 5,000 square feet, with existing setbacks of 3.8 feet and 8.5 feet, both below the required minimums.

During deliberations, board members scrutinized the impervious surface ratio, which was critical given the lot’s small size. It was noted that the building coverage was 24.8%, just under the 25% threshold, but this did not account for the paved areas, potentially pushing the total impervious surface over the allowable limit. The board discussed potential solutions, such as changing the driveway material to crushed stone to reduce impervious coverage, to help the applicants avoid needing a variance. Public support and opposition were voiced, with neighbors both supporting the addition for personal reasons and raising concerns about neighborhood character and safety.

A neighbor, Nancy Kelly, highlighted the challenges of granting variances in a densely packed area, emphasizing safety concerns, particularly fire risks, associated with the close proximity of homes. While acknowledging the rights of homeowners, she underscored the potential cumulative effects of multiple variances. The board clarified that the proposal would be evaluated based on its impact on the neighborhood, with an emphasis on existing non-conformities.

Subsequently, the board discussed the Kushman Farms development proposal, which sought a comprehensive permit under Mass General Laws 40B. This project proposed constructing three apartment buildings, initially comprising 162 units, but later revised to 144 units across two buildings on approximately 11 acres. The proposal faced scrutiny over its potential impact on traffic patterns, environmental resources, and the surrounding community.

Traffic concerns dominated the conversation, with questions about access road impacts, particularly on Copper Beach Drive, and the effect on local businesses. An established easement was intended to alleviate some access issues, but concerns about traffic flow and pedestrian safety persisted. Public comments echoed these concerns, with residents like Paul Tannis and Keith Hansen highlighting potential traffic increases due to the development’s access road and its use as a shortcut for commuters.

Environmental considerations were another focus, particularly with the project’s proximity to wetland areas and potential flood risks. The applicants assured the board that the design did not infringe on wetlands and that they were in the process of filing with FEMA to address flood zone concerns. The board emphasized the need for comprehensive planning to address potential impacts on traffic, environmental resources, and resident needs, calling for peer reviews of stormwater management and traffic studies.

Additionally, there was a discussion about a mapping error regarding a non-existent river on the property, raising questions about the conservation commission’s jurisdiction and the zoning board’s authority to waive local wetlands bylaws under the 40B statute. The board determined they needed to fully understand the implications of any waivers before proceeding.

The meeting also touched on procedural aspects, such as the need for a supermajority for approvals and the importance of a review before making decisions. A request for an extension was discussed, with a consensus on allowing more time to ensure adherence to deadlines and thorough consideration of all aspects of the projects.