The solar array application, presented by Brad Nichols, dominated discussions as board members grappled with the challenges posed by its proximity to property lines. The array, already installed without permits, was situated at zero feet from the rear property line, violating the required ten-foot setback. Nichols defended his decision by stating, “I was trying to utilize the hill so the angle is, you know, proper for the panels.” This justification did not mitigate concerns among board members about potential disputes over property boundaries. The board emphasized the importance of clear property rights.

The conversation became more complex as the applicant revealed uncertainties regarding the exact placement of a chain link fence that further complicated property line determinations. The board suggested that obtaining a new survey could clarify these ambiguities. The chair remarked, “If it’s off the property line, great. We can proceed. If it’s not, we have to figure out something else to do.” Ultimately, the board decided to carry the matter over to the December 18th meeting, allowing Nichols time to gather additional documentation.

In a separate case, the board approved a variance for Nicole Canisio to legitimize a shed that had been unknowingly installed without proper permits by a previous homeowner. Canisio explained that the shed, obstructed from street view by large trees, had been on the property since at least 2015. Board members agreed that the shed’s presence was unobtrusive and justified the variance request, acknowledging the applicant’s efforts to comply with zoning laws. The board voted unanimously in favor of the variance.

Another application involved a proposed pole barn on Gordon Road. The applicant sought to construct a 24 by 32-foot barn to store lawn maintenance equipment, citing the lack of alternative storage areas in their home. This application required variances due to the barn’s proximity to property lines and its height. The board scrutinized the potential impact on neighboring properties and the necessity of a rear lean-to, which would further encroach upon setback requirements. After debate, the applicant agreed to remove the rear lean-to from their plans, reducing the building’s footprint and facilitating the board’s approval, contingent on this adjustment.

The board also considered the application of Richard Liperillo, who sought to replace a deck on Buttonwood Drive that did not comply with setback regulations. Liperillo explained that the existing deck was a foot off the ground, contributing to rot issues due to its low height. The board acknowledged that privacy concerns typically associated with higher decks were not applicable, given its ground-level status. The board approved the application, recognizing the minor nature of the setback violation.