The flag lot application, presented for the third time, proposes to create a demonstration house with a driveway and grading plan. Engineer Bucky Sparkle emphasized the changes from previous applications, noting a reduced project scale to accommodate a smaller family. The discussion centered on the preservation of a large white pine tree and the management of stormwater runoff, with assurances that the tree could be safeguarded through careful excavation and that driveway runoff would be directed to ditches on the property.

Public comments revealed deep community concern. Resident Mary Anderson questioned the timing and extent of work on the lot, while another neighbor, Mr. Wise, stressed the need for construction limitations, including height and square footage, and for the future purchaser to present plans at a public hearing. The importance of preserving the neighborhood character and addressing safety during construction was echoed in several comments, with particular emphasis on the implementation of privacy screens and the potential impact of water flow onto neighboring properties.

In response to these concerns, the applicant clarified that no work would commence prior to the property’s sale and that any changes by a new owner would necessitate a new public hearing. The applicant also referenced existing architectural and landscape plans that comply with town bylaws. Despite offering to discuss the possibility of subdividing the parcel to preserve open space, the board questioned the fairness of expecting neighbors to purchase parcels for protection.

The debate extended to the potential financial gain from selling the lot and the disruptive nature of a long driveway. The possibility of the single-family home being rented to unrelated students raised additional concerns about disruption to adjacent properties. The board deliberated on the lack of specific details about the proposed structure, including lighting and landscaping plans, and considered imposing conditions requiring the applicant to return with more plans.

Due to the depth of the issues raised, the board agreed to continue the hearing to a later date to allow further consideration of neighbors’ concerns and potential compromises. This decision acknowledged the members’ differing opinions on the flag lot creation and the need to address the neighborhood effects comprehensively.

The board also addressed a special permit request for converting a single-family dwelling into a non-owner-occupied duplex on North Whitney Street. Representatives Tom Rey and Tom Barry presented a project plan that included a site plan and addressed parking and stormwater management. Despite some letters of support, public comments predominantly expressed concerns about noise, safety, and the potential impact on the neighborhood’s character. A petition with 42 signatories opposed the project, citing increased traffic and noise concerns.

The board’s discussion considered the number of bedrooms in the proposed addition, the management plan for the property, parking space impact, and the potential for reverting the property to a single-family home in the future. Safety concerns dominated the public comments, with residents emphasizing the need for the town to protect the neighborhood from the negative impacts of the proposed non-owner occupied duplex.

The meeting concluded with the board scheduling June 27th for the continued public hearing on the flag lot proposal. An administrative meeting was also set for June 13th to elect officers and orient new members, followed by a unanimous vote to adjourn.