The meeting began with A discussion on an application from Natick, LLC, seeking confirmation of a legal pre-existing two-family dwelling on Park Avenue. Resident Paul Lawrence voiced concerns about the project, stating that the planned 9,000-square-foot building did not fit the neighborhood’s character. Despite assurances from the board that the focus was solely on confirming the dwelling’s legal use, Lawrence questioned the notification process, claiming he was the only resident informed. Amanda Loomis confirmed notifications were sent twice, leading the chair to acknowledge that while the process was deemed sufficient, Lawrence’s efforts in sharing information were appreciated.

Further complicating matters, Scott Carlson and David Brock, also residents of Park Avenue, raised questions about how they could address concerns regarding the project’s size. The board chair clarified that while the residents could express opinions, the board had no jurisdiction over building dimensions since the project complied with zoning bylaws. This highlighted the procedural constraints that limited residents’ influence over development projects.

In another significant agenda item, the board deliberated over a section six finding for Chris Cap’s proposal to redevelop a two-family dwelling on Moore Street. The applicant presented design revisions, including a reduction in height from 34 feet to 30 feet and removal of a third-floor walkup, addressing previous opposition. The board noted strong community support, with residents Jenna Levin and Morgan McDonald endorsing the project. The board praised the design improvements, particularly the reduction in impervious area, and approved the project, finding it not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure.

The board continued with a review of a variance request for a property on Hemlock Drive by Bruce and Eva Willens, which involved a side yard setback for an addition. The board emphasized the need for statutory findings, requiring the applicant to demonstrate unique circumstances related to the land. Discussions centered around structural and topographical challenges, including a swimming pool that limited expansion options. While some board members supported the project, others expressed reservations about creating a new non-conformity without clear hardship, leading to a recommendation for further adjustments before proceeding.

A board member identified changes in the dimensions of an existing house for a proposed project, prompting a discussion about potential errors in the application process. The applicant acknowledged not knowing how these changes occurred, leading to a decision to reschedule the hearing for January to allow time for clarification.