The board’s deliberations regarding the mobile home centered on its placement near a cemetery. The applicants, Leah and James LLC, represented by attorney Nancy McCann, sought a variance to position the mobile home one foot from the property line, contrary to the required 25-foot setback. The board had initially granted a variance allowing the mobile homes to be closer to side and rear lot lines than typically permitted, but the current placement had not adhered to this decision. The applicants proposed moving the mobile home one foot off the line to align with the board’s past decision, arguing that moving the home further would create unsafe conditions related to the drive aisle.

Board members expressed concerns about the series of missteps that led to the current situation, including unclear communication and inspection processes. Questions arose about the timeline of permits and approvals, particularly the role of inspections by board staff versus state-level oversight. The building inspector’s involvement was reportedly limited to examining the concrete pad, raising questions about how the placement deviated from approved plans.

Ultimately, the board leaned towards approving the variance to avoid displacing the elderly residents currently occupying the mobile home. This decision acknowledged the unique circumstances surrounding the cemetery and the logistical challenges of relocating the home. Board members emphasized the importance of maintaining the current arrangement, with one member noting that no harm was being done by keeping the existing setup.

Attention then shifted to a property on Andover Street, where ongoing zoning violations were discussed. The applicant, Guy Costanza, sought to expand a pre-existing non-conforming use for a landscape business but faced compliance issues, particularly concerning vehicle storage and the use of the site as a contractor’s yard. The board set a compliance deadline, stating that if vehicles were not removed by January 9, 2026, fines would be imposed. This deadline aimed to balance the operational needs of the tenants with the necessity of adhering to zoning laws.

The board debated the appropriate timeline for compliance, acknowledging the challenges tenants might face in vacating the property, especially given the seasonal nature of their operations. Despite these challenges, the board stressed the importance of resolving the non-compliance issues and ensuring the property’s use aligns with approved zoning regulations.

Public comments during this discussion highlighted concerns about unauthorized operations on cemetery land and noise complaints related to late-night activities. While zoning enforcement was emphasized, the board clarified that conservation issues might fall under different jurisdiction but assured that unauthorized actions would be addressed.

In addition to these topics, the meeting also covered a variance request for a new freestanding sign on Endicott Street. The applicant sought approval for a sign of 42 square feet and 15 feet high, citing errors in the new sign bylaw that necessitated a variance despite the sign’s smaller size compared to a previously approved but uninstalled sign. The board approved the variance, recognizing the need to address the bylaw errors at an upcoming special town meeting.