One notable matter before the board involved the application by William Dyier for a new single-family home on Redwood Drive. The property, previously owned by the estate of Paul Clarity, was described as uninhabitable and in poor condition, with a structure dating back to 1930 that contained asbestos. Dyier’s proposal to demolish the existing building and construct a new home aimed to breathe new life into the property while adhering to all setback requirements.

A significant challenge in this proposal was the property’s non-conforming status due to its limited frontage of 34 feet, short of the required 50 feet. Although the property spans 16 acres, much of it is classified as wetland, complicating its use. The board acknowledged the property’s historical issues, including its access via a road established alongside a mobile home park in 1971. Despite these challenges, the board appeared supportive of Dyier’s plans, viewing them as an opportunity to improve the property while aligning with zoning laws.

During the meeting, the board emphasized the necessity for detailed documentation, particularly concerning the design and size of the new house. The discussion also highlighted the need for input from the conservation commission, with an order of conditions already secured for the removal of anything within 100 feet. Additionally, approval from the board of health for a four-bedroom septic system was mentioned.

The board’s deliberations culminated in a motion to approve the construction, contingent upon the new house maintaining the existing structure’s footprint. This motion was seconded and unanimously passed, with the board requesting the necessary plans for record-keeping.

In contrast, the application by Lawrence McDonald to construct an inground swimming pool at 71 and 71A Carver Street presented unresolved challenges. The proposed pool, measuring 23 feet by 37 feet, required variances for the front and side lot line setbacks. The applicant sought to reduce the front setback from 50 feet to 37 feet and the side setback from 10 feet to 5 feet, prompting concerns from the board about potential self-imposed hardships.

The discussion revealed issues stemming from road widening after the house’s construction, which reduced the required 50-foot buffer from the road. The board questioned the necessity of the requested variances, particularly the reduced side setback, and suggested repositioning the pool to meet the 10-foot requirement. A proposal to rotate the pool layout was discussed, potentially allowing it to be moved closer to the house and further from the property line.

The board stressed the importance of adhering to zoning bylaws and required a finalized drawing of the pool’s location before granting approval. They emphasized that approvals could not be based on verbal agreements, noting the importance of having all details clearly represented in a plan. The applicant’s surveyor reportedly hesitated to finalize plans without clarity from the board.

Acknowledging the small lot size’s limitations, the board expressed a willingness to consider the proposed adjustments to the setbacks if they ensured compliance with the bylaws. However, they insisted on maintaining the required 10-foot side setback. To accommodate the applicant’s timeline and impending cold weather, which could impact construction, the board agreed to continue the hearing, requesting revised plans that adhered to the discussed requirements.