0:00At the heart of the meeting was a discussion about frontage requirements for a property on Bernard Street. The applicant, Carlos Costa, supported by engineer Kevin Silva, sought clarity on whether the existing conditions of a gravel road could satisfy the legal frontage requirements for the lot. The board wrestled with the implications of allowing construction on streets that are not fully developed. The conversation revealed differing opinions on whether to accept the current state of the road or require improvements to meet zoning standards.

The board deliberated over the necessity of consulting the zoning enforcement officer to determine if the gravel road constituted sufficient access. This consultation was deemed essential for progressing with Costa’s proposal. The board noted past legal precedents indicating that roads must be adequately constructed to establish legal frontage. The prospect of requiring a Form C subdivision application, typically used to ensure road construction standards, was also discussed, though opinions varied on its necessity for a single dwelling.

19:54A broader discussion ensued about the need for a definitive ruling from the building inspector. The board emphasized that their decision-making process hinged on receiving a formal opinion regarding the road’s compliance with zoning bylaws. The inspector’s assessment was seen as potentially pivotal in bypassing further deliberations.

The complexities of zoning laws and their interpretations were a recurring theme, as the board recognized the necessity of a formal meeting to address the intricate issues surrounding unconstructed streets. This was acknowledged as a priority, given the prevalence of such streets in the area and their impact on future development decisions.

38:22In addition to the frontage debate, the board addressed potential updates to the zoning map, reflecting changes approved in past town meetings. These changes included the creation of a floodplain overlay district to align with FEMA’s maps and adjustments to specific street zones. The board planned to hold a public hearing in April to finalize these updates, leveraging support from the National Buzzs Bay SUA program at no cost.

The board also discussed the removal of the accessory apartment bylaw, with changes set to be filed for transparency. A list of amendments was prepared, striking through references to the bylaw in question. This step was part of a broader effort to streamline and update local regulations.

The conversation turned to the solar bylaw amendment, with the board agreeing to solicit comments and suggestions to refine the proposal. The importance of consulting relevant departments, particularly the Conservation Commission, was emphasized. The board acknowledged the need to consider historical zoning control laws, dating back to the early 1960s, to understand their impact on current regulations.

A significant portion of the meeting focused on the challenges posed by paper streets, including the rights of adjacent residents and the legal processes required to abandon such streets. The board noted that the authority to delete a paper street rests with the Selectmen and involves multiple legal steps.

The board concluded that a discussion about paper streets and their implications on zoning was necessary. Members suggested compiling a list of hypothetical questions to guide future inquiries and consultations with Town Council.