The proposal for a property on Little Beach Road, presented on behalf of Monmoy Rips LLC, involved demolishing an existing structure and constructing a new one within a coastal conservancy district. The applicant aimed to replace the existing non-conforming dwelling with a larger structure, while complying with FEMA regulations by elevating the building to mitigate flood risk. Despite these considerations, the proposal faced significant scrutiny due to its increased building coverage and proximity to water, raising questions about environmental impact and neighborhood character.

Board members expressed concerns about the project’s compliance with zoning criteria, particularly regarding its visual compatibility with neighboring properties. The proposed structure’s height and lateral expansion were central issues, with some members apprehensive about its potential detriment to the area. Despite arguments from the applicant’s representative that the redesign would not substantially affect the neighborhood and would improve stormwater management, the board highlighted the need to adhere to conservation and coastal resiliency objectives.

Public input further complicated the discussion, with residents voicing concerns about preserving the historic nature of the neighborhood and the environmental implications of building in a flood zone. Ultimately, the board decided to grant the applicant a continuance to allow for project redesign.

In another significant agenda item, the board addressed a variance request for an ADU on Shane Drive. The proposal, intended to create a guest house for the property owner’s mother, encountered difficulties due to local bylaw restrictions on dimensional variances for ADUs. The applicant argued for the necessity of the variance, emphasizing the community’s need for diverse housing options, particularly for older populations.

The board was divided on the issue, as members grappled with the complexities of existing zoning regulations and the potential for short-term rentals. Some members emphasized the importance of adhering to the intent of the bylaw, while others supported the variance as a reasonable accommodation for family needs. Concerns about future misuse of the property and short-term rental implications were addressed, with suggestions to impose conditions restricting rentals to maintain neighborhood character.

Despite these challenges, the board ultimately approved the variance request, recognizing the unique circumstances of the case and the applicant’s efforts to preserve a significant tree on the property.

The meeting also addressed other applications, including a proposal for a second-floor addition on Main Street and modifications to a special permit for a property on Inlet Road.