The meeting commenced with a public hearing for a variance application submitted by Susan Clark, concerning her property on School Street. Clark sought permission to build a larger deck on a pre-existing non-conforming structure, specifically at a distance of 7.6 feet from the rear lot line, where the zoning bylaw required a minimum of 25 feet. The proposed deck, measuring approximately 15.5 feet by 16 feet, aimed to replace a smaller existing deck of about 6 feet by 6 feet.

Kevin Conover, representing Clark, emphasized the unique characteristics of the property, highlighting that it is a corner lot with a house built in 1880. He noted that the current house is already situated 6 feet from the rear property line, thus establishing its non-conforming status. Clark expressed her desire for a larger deck to better enjoy her property, citing the inadequacy of the current structure.

Board members discussed the specifics of the existing deck’s proximity to the property line, with some uncertainty about the exact distance of the previous deck from the line. Conover explained that measurements were not completed before construction was halted. The proposed new deck would enhance Clark’s enjoyment of her outdoor space without increasing visibility from the street, thus providing more privacy without requiring a fence.

Opinions varied among the board members, with some noting that the proposal technically increased the non-conformity but did not encroach further into the setback area than the existing structure. The neighborhood’s prevalence of pre-existing non-conforming structures was also considered, with members finding the application consistent with the area’s residential use. The absence of objections from neighboring property owners, including an abutter named Michael Taylor, was noted.

Debate centered on whether granting the variance would detract from the public good or substantially deviate from the zoning bylaw. Another member raised the point that the application increased the non-conforming nature of the property linearly, yet the historical context and unique characteristics of the property supported the variance.

Ultimately, the board agreed that enforcing the zoning bylaw would impose substantial hardship on Clark, particularly in terms of her peaceful enjoyment of her property. They concluded that the proposed deck would have minimal impact on the surrounding area, leading to a consensus in favor of the application.

Following the deck discussion, the board moved on to another significant item: an application submitted by Deborah Rosson for a special permit and variance to construct a 20-foot by 20-foot attached carport on Calvin Street. The carport was to be attached to a pre-existing non-conforming structure, a house built in 1948, with the lot created in 1978. Rosson sought a variance to allow the carport to be located 3.4 feet from the side lot line, where 15 feet is required.

Rosson emphasized the need for the carport to provide shelter for vehicles during winter. An illustration of a similar carport on Calvin Street was shared to demonstrate the intended design. Concerns were raised about whether the proposed structure, not being excavated, would qualify as a permanent structure, with the building commissioner indicating it still required a permit due to its substantial nature.

The board deliberated on the potential for the carport to be converted into a full garage in the future, proposing a contingency to ensure it remains an open structure. The property’s configuration, adjacent to Fletcher’s Pond, and the need to keep the structure within zoning compliance were also discussed.

Supportive comments from several abutters, including individuals from 6, 2, and Calvin Street, highlighted the benefits of the carport, particularly for vehicle protection during winter and improved driveway visibility. A member stressed the carport’s safety-oriented design, aligning with the interests of New England residents.

The board reviewed the criteria for granting both the special permit and variance, considering the social, economic, and community needs served by the proposal. They acknowledged the property’s unique characteristics and the potential financial hardship on Rosson. The board agreed that the carport would not be detrimental to the public good or substantially derogate from the zoning bylaws.

A motion to grant the special permit for the carport passed unanimously, followed by unanimous support for the variance, with a caveat to ensure the carport remains an open structure.