The board’s primary focus was on the administrative appeal by Farouk Kurani, who sought to overturn the denial of a separate driveway for a new ADU on Elorado Road. This marked the board’s first encounter with an application under the newly adopted ADU bylaw. Kurani argued that the denial was unreasonable, given the ample space on the property to accommodate a second driveway without impacting the front yard’s appearance. The board acknowledged the conflict between the town’s bylaw, which prohibits separate driveways for ADUs, and state guidelines that advocate for reasonable accommodation of such units.

Throughout the deliberations, board members grappled with the ambiguity in state law concerning curb cuts, which resulted in a debate over the reasonableness of the existing regulations. A member emphasized the state’s intent to foster low-income housing through ADUs. Another participant highlighted that the proposed driveway’s location on a corner lot would not create the cluttered appearance that the bylaw intended to prevent.

Despite these arguments, the board ultimately decided against approving the separate driveway, citing concerns about setting a precedent for future cases. A motion to overturn the building inspector’s decision failed by a narrow margin, with members expressing differing views on the necessity of adhering to the town’s existing regulations versus considering the specific circumstances of each application.

The board’s handling of the driveway request underscored a broader issue of reconciling local bylaws with state requirements. Members recognized the need to clarify the application of the ADU bylaw, particularly in light of the state’s influence.

In another significant agenda item, the board addressed a variance request for a property on Mil Road. The application involved a setback issue due to the property’s unusual shape, requiring a variance for an addition that was just two square feet from meeting the required dimensions. Despite the logistical challenges, the board approved the variance, recognizing the minimal impact on the neighborhood and the support from adjacent property owners.

The board also considered a proposal for a new preschool’s signage in a residential district. The plan included a six-foot illuminated monument sign, which raised concerns about light pollution and visibility. However, after careful review and public input, the board approved the variance, conditional on the inclusion of a dimmer to address potential brightness complaints.